Echoing charges made by conservation organizations, a new report from the Government Accountability Office finds that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) need to step up their actions in order to protect bees.

The report, released to the public on Friday, was based on assessments from October 2014 to February 2016.

The report found that the USDA, “which co-chairs the White House Pollinator Health Task Force with EPA, has not worked with its partners on the task force to coordinate a native bee monitoring plan,” and that its efforts to promote bee habitat conservation may be thwarted by gaps in research and evaluation.

The EPA, meanwhile, has suffered from challenges in data collection and reporting on bee kill incidents that may be linked to pesticides, while its risk assessment guidance “does not call for EPA to assess the risks that pesticide mixtures may pose to bees.”

Among the report’s recommendations are “that USDA coordinate with other agencies to develop a plan to monitor wild, native bees, and evaluate gaps in staff expertise in conservation practices, and that EPA identify the most common mixtures of pesticides used on crops.”

“Ultimately this report reiterates what we’ve known for a long time,” stated Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health director at the Center for Biological Diversity, “that the USDA and EPA are failing to do what it takes to protect our rapidly declining bee populations.”

“Despite their importance and evidence of dramatic declines, the USDA has failed to take measures to start protecting [native bees],” she continued. And “[f]or far too long, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the impacts of pesticide mixtures.”

In a related development, environmental group Friends of the Earth this week said in a statement:

“Recent allegations of the USDA’s censorship and suppression of scientific research on pesticides calls into question the agency’s ability to co-chair [the White House Pollinator Health Task Force] and develop a meaningful federal strategy that will truly protect bees, birds, monarchs, and other critical pollinators.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Protecting America’s Bees. Bee Depopulation linked to Pesticides. Failure of the US Government

On March 1, Home Secretary Theresa May published the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB), known by critics as the “snooper’s charter”.

It enshrines in law the previously hidden mass gathering of Internet data by the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) spying agency, as exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

The IPB is a far-reaching attack on privacy and democratic rights and greatly enhances the power of the growing surveillance state, as it brings the current diverse rules governing state surveillance into one piece of legislation.

In an unprecedented level of intrusion, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will have to keep records of the browsing history of everyone who accesses the Internet for a period of 12 months. State security forces will have the power to access this data unhindered, which would enable them to see every web site a person visited.

The introduction to the all-embracing bill states its purpose is to:

“Make provision about the interception of communications, equipment interference and the acquisition and retention of communications data, bulk personal datasets and other information; to make provision about the treatment of material held as a result of such interception, equipment interference or acquisition or retention; to establish the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and other Judicial Commissioners and make provision about them and other oversight arrangements; to make further provision about investigatory powers and national security …”

It will establish in law the activities of GCHQ, providing the spy agency with access to all the data travelling on Internet cables passing through UK territory, its bulk storage and analysis. GCHQ’s nefarious practices, in which vast amounts of data entering and leaving the UK are hoovered up and shared with the US National Security Agency, as revealed by Snowden, will now be given legal sanction.

The IPB grants GCHQ, the National Crime Agency and, for the first time, a number of major police forces, the power to hack into mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets and the licence to carry out non-targeted “mass hacking” of such devices.

The Home Office claim that the police power to hack individuals’ electronic devices dates back to the 1997 Police Act and would, in any case, only be used in “exceptional circumstances”. This is flatly contradicted by the head of the Metropolitan Police technical unit, Paul Hudson, who, in evidence to Parliament’s scrutiny committee, said such powers were used by police “in the majority of serious crime cases”. Hudson refused to provide any further information on his assertion in a public forum.

The Conservative government is allowing the unprecedented state surveillance of citizens on the basis that its snoopers need judicial legislation as well as the say-so of a government minister—the so-called “double lock” system. The double lock was trumpeted by the government as an assurance that the privacy of UK citizens would not be violated. This is a fraud.

In effect, the role of the judiciary will be to ensure there is a prima facia case for any hacking and establish that procedures have been followed. Their designated role under the IPB is to merely rubber stamp the minister’s decision, which will be paramount.

Moreover, access to web browsing records by the police and other security forces is totally exempt from the double lock and does not need to be authorised by a minister backed up by a judge.

The IPB also explicitly permits the use of spying techniques to bolster the country’s “economic well-being”, if this is linked to “national security” concerns. This could be widely interpreted to include many events, including industrial action taken by a group of workers.

The IPB has enormous legal implications, as it also undermines confidentiality between lawyers and their clients. Peter Carter QC, chair of the Bar Council Surveillance and Privacy Working Group, in a posting on the PoliticsHome web site on March 3 stated:

“The Bill undermines the right to a fair trial because barristers will no longer be able to reassure clients that their communications, which the public interest demands should be immune from state intrusion, are in fact private and confidential. It will, for example, allow authorities to listen in on clients and lawyers who are in the middle of a legal dispute against the Government”.

An attempt by the Tories to introduce the snooper’s charter under the previous Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition was blocked when the Liberal Democrats withdrew support. Immediately following the outcome of the May 2015 election, in which the Tories gained an absolute majority, Home Secretary Theresa May announced her intentions to reintroduce the bill and make it law by the end of 2016.

The government is keen to rush the IPB through Parliament, and hopes to utilise the campaign leading up to the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union on June 23, in order to minimise public scrutiny of its passage through Parliament.

This has led to criticism even from within the ranks of the Tory party. The Independent newspaper noted February 27,

“The former Tory leadership contender David Davis said there was ‘no doubt’ that the government wanted to rush the Bill through Parliament to avoid scrutiny. Government whips have told Labour that the Bill will be published on 1 March, with a second reading—giving MPs a line-by-line debate on the Bill scheduled for 14 March. The Bill will then go to committee stage from scrutiny on 22 March, with a final vote expected in Parliament by the end of April”.

An open letter, urging the government to delay the bill, published in the Conservative supporting Daily Telegraph, had over 100 signatories including Davis, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, as well as the directors of human rights organisations Amnesty UK and Liberty, and leading academics.

The letter does not oppose state spying on the population in principle, stating,

“Intelligence agencies and the police require strong surveillance powers. Their powers and responsibilities—as well as their limits—must be clear to be effective. All three parliamentary reports on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill concluded that it does not meet the requirements of clarity, consistency and coherence”.

The letter states that the “intention to pass the IPB this year is not in the nations interest” (emphasis added).

A draft version of the bill published in November last year was scrutinised by three parliamentary committees, as part of the pre-legislative process. Their concerns and recommendations over privacy implications were supposed to be addressed in the revised March 1 bill.

The most important of these, the Intelligence Services Committee (ISC), produced an 18-page report on the proposed bill. The ISC is tasked with overseeing the work of the intelligence services. It is composed of former ministers, appointed by the prime minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, currently Jeremy Corbyn. Its workings are kept secret, and the prime minister filters its reports to Parliament.

The ISC and the other committees, while critical of the wording and presentation of the IPB, fully support its intentions.

Online IT industry news web site The Register posted a commentary on this fraudulent “scrutiny” process last month, noting,

“The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has warned the Government that it needs to make ‘substantive amendments’ to its draft Investigatory Powers Bill, before proceeding to outline changes which don’t appear to be very ‘substantive’ at all”.

It described the ISC report as, “essentially a diligence exercise in legislative drafting” that was “largely targeted at the bill’s sloppy and rushed construction … rather than the powers contained therein”.

In response to the feeble treatment from the bodies ostensibly charged with scrutinising the bill, the Home Office did nothing more than add the single word, “privacy” to the title of Part 1 of the bill, and sent it back to be passed into legislation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Bill Hands Vast Surveillance Powers to Police and Intelligence Agencies

A second deadly terror attack rocked the Turkish capital Ankara on Sunday, claiming the lives of 37 people and wounding 125, less than a month after another bomb left 29 dead in the city; although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, the authorities say the identity of the group behind the attack could be announced within a day.

A car bomb tore through a crowded transport hub in the center of the Turkish capital, near Guven Park. The blast went off at 6:43 pm local time (16:43 GMT), hitting a bus carrying some 20 people.

Rescuers carry a victim on a stretcher at the scene of a blast in Ankara on March 13, 2016.

© AFP 2016/ Eerol Ucem Rescuers carry a victim on a stretcher at the scene of a blast in Ankara on March 13, 2016.

The blast, which could be heard several kilometers away, sent burning debris showering down over an area a few hundred meters from the Justice and Interior Ministries, a top courthouse, and the former office of the prime minister.

Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, two senior security officials told Reuters that the first findings suggested that the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) appeared to be responsible.

Members of emergency services work at the scene of an explosion in Ankara, Turkey, Sunday, March 13, 2016.

© AP Photo/

Members of emergency services work at the scene of an explosion in Ankara, Turkey, Sunday, March 13, 2016.

The agency quotes one of the security officials, without revealing his name, as suggesting that  the car used in the attack was a BMW driven from Viransehir, a town in the largely Kurdish southeast, which suggested that the PKK and the affiliated Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (TAK) appeared to be responsible.

Interior Minister Efkan Ala said the name of the group behind the attack would likely be announced on Monday after initial investigations were completed.

“Tonight, civilian citizens waiting at a bus stop were targeted in a terrorist attack with a bomb-laden car,” Ala told reporters on Sunday evening after a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the head of the intelligence agency and security chiefs.

“Significant findings have been made, but the organization behind this will be announced once the investigation has been finalized,” he said.

Social Media Ban

An Ankara court has decided to shut off access to social media, including Facebook and Twitter in Turkey. It has become a familiar pattern for courts to issue gag orders on the media following such attacks.

Last month Turkish authorities imposed a temporary media blackout on coverage of the deadly Ankara attack, which targeted a military bus as it waited at a traffic light; the explosion killed 29 people, most of them soldiers, near the military headquarters, parliament and other key government institutions.

The Third in a Row

TAK claimed responsibility for that car bombing, which went off on February 17.

Reuters quotes one of its sources as suggesting that the explosives were the same kind as those used on February 17 and the bomb had been reinforced with pellets and nails to cause maximum damage.

The Sunday attack is the third attack in a row in Ankara, however, this time a civilian target was selected: a public bus at a bus stop during a busy hour —despite being Sunday- at one of the most busy traffic junctions in the Turkish capital.

The first attack, which took place on October 10, 2015 and left 103 people dead, was blamed on Daesh (ISIL/ISIS). US Embassy Warning Reuters also reports that the Sunday bombing came two days after the US Embassy issued a warning that there was information regarding a potential attack on government buildings in the Bahcelievler area of Ankara, just a few km (miles) away from the blast site.

Suggested Motives

Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chair of Russia’s upper-house Committee on Security and Defense has suggested that the current attack is aimed at provoking Turkey to pursue a military invasion of Syria.

“The rationale of the organizers is quite evident. They apparently count on the attack in the center of the capital, not the first one, to explode the situation in the region; Turkey is literally being pushed to intervene militarily in Syria,” RIA Novosti quotes him as telling journalists.

Emergency workers work at the explosion site in Ankara, Turkey March 13, 2016.

© REUTERS/ Tumay Berkin

Emergency workers work at the explosion site in Ankara, Turkey March 13, 2016.

The senator also added that the Turks are now waiting for a tough response to the deadly attack from the country’s leadership.

“But I hope that it will be an adequate response. Each reckless step could undermine all the efforts of the international community to find a peaceful solution in Syria and then, I am afraid, it will be impossible to start everything again from the beginning,” he added.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ankara Rocked by Second Terror Attack. Ban on Social Media in Turkey including Facebook and Twitter

In December 2010 a close collaboration between Sweden and the CIA and FBI was exposed in the international media: an intelligence collaboration between Sweden and US agencies that was kept secret from the Swedish public, and even from the Swedish Parliament. [1] The Telegraph credited WikiLeaks for exposing the deal. [2] The revelations caused far more commotion internationally than in Sweden and, in any event, no government officials were ever held accountable for it. The Washington Post reported, quoting a Swedish Parliamentary investigation: “Although the Parliamentary investigator concluded that the Swedish security police deserved ‘extremely grave criticism’ for losing control of the operation and for being ‘remarkably submissive to the American officials,’ no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined.” [3]

This article explores to what exteCIA demanded that Sweden would expand cooperationnt intelligence collaboration between Swedish and US security agencies might have relevance to, or direct intervention in, the political case of Sweden vs Assange. [4]

Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), one of Sweden’s leading newspapers, has now revealed that a well-known journalist and ‘left activist’ – who, among other things, exerted considerable influence with Amnesty International Sweden – was a paid agent of Sweden’s Security Police (SÄPO). [5]

The government security agent, Martin Fredriksson, was mainly active during the years that former Foreign Minister Carl Bildt was dictating Sweden’s foreign policy, when the “Assange Affair” was widely publicized on the home page of Sweden’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to statements Fredriksson posted on Twitter, his “work” at SÄPO covered different periods between 2004 and 2010, the year Sweden opened its ‘investigation’ against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The Swedish media establishment awarded this SÄPO secret agent its highest investigative journalism prize, ‘Guldspaden’ (Golden Spade), in 2014. The rationale on which the award was given to Fredriksson referred precisely to the work he had implemented as a paid agent of Sweden’s Secret Police. [6] In the photo below, at the centre of the group, the ex-Security Police agent Martin Fredriksson.

guldspaden fredriksson 2014

The former SÄPO agent was significantly involved in the government’s efforts to ensure that the Swedish section of Amnesty International (for brevity, hereafter called Amnesty Sweden) would not advocate for the Swedish government to issue guarantees against the onward extradition of Julian Assange to the US, as called for by Amnesty International, Amnesty Sweden’s parent organization headquartered in London. [7]

In an email sent to Amnesty Sweden on 27 September 2012, Fredriksson asked a representative of Amnesty Sweden, Bobby Vellucci:

“Would Amnesty Sweden endorse the statement of Amnesty International on Assange? Meaning, that Sweden should issue guarantees that he shall not be extradited to the US? Should you not contact your mother organization (AI) and inform them that the Swedish legal system does not issue any promises or guarantees in advance, that the judiciary is independent of political decisions and that, practically, there are no legal possibilities to give Mr Assange any kind of amnesty towards the United States? …In my view, Assange first shall be handled for the crimes he is suspected of in Sweden, and according to the existing law.” [8]

The content, even the phrasing, of Fredriksson’s message to Amnesty Sweden is nearly identical to remarks made in an interview just weeks before by the Swedish Foreign Minister at the time, Carl Bildt. [9]

Amnesty Sweden complied immediately, and fully, with Fredriksson’s request. The following day (28 September) Bobby Vellucci declared in The Local:

“We do not consider it to be appropriate or possible to ask the Swedish government to give guarantees ensuring Assange is not extradited to the US.” And he added, “Amnesty’s primary focus is the Swedish preliminary investigation and that Julian Assange’s presence in Sweden would of course assist in the further investigation of the charges against him.” [10]

By using the word “charges” instead of “accusations”, Amnesty Sweden was further misleading the international public on the actual legal status of the Swedish case against Assange. [4]

It is important to clarify that the above statements by ex-SÄPO agent Fredriksson and Carl Bildt referring to the impossibility of issuing extradition guarantees are complete falsehoods. This was made clear in the filing submitted by Sweden’s Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev to the Supreme Court in March 2015. With regard to the actual facts on the prospective extradition of Assange to the US, see the evidence I recently posted in “Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the US“. [11]

Four years later, Amnesty Sweden’s stance on Julian Assange appears to be still under the influence of the Swedish government. In a recent statement to the Swedish news agency TT, the representative of Amnesty Sweden, Madelaine Seidlitz – commenting on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s ruling that he is arbitrarily detained – insisted on reaffirming the Swedish government’s narrative:

“…We also say that it is extremely important that the investigation has to be completed.” [12]

Amnesty Sweden on AssangeIn fact, lawyer Madelaine Seidlitz is the representative given as the contact person for Amnesty Sweden’s press statement arguing against Sweden giving Assange any guarantee against onward extradition, the content of which exactly conforms with former SÄPO agent Fredriksson’s request. The Amnesty Sweden statement [image at right] reads:

“It is neither appropriate nor possible to ask the Swedish government for the issuing of guarantees that Assange shall not be extradited to the US. Amnesty Sweden’s primary focus is the pre-trial investigation and that Julian Assange should be on site in Sweden…”

It’s worth noting that Amnesty Sweden’s statement has been modified several times since its original release and was eventually deleted entirely sometime around February 2016, but cached versions – such as the one reproduced in the image – still exist.

Considering the fact-based risk assessment of the likelihood of Julian Assange’s extradition to the US provided he is physically in custody on Swedish territory, [11] one plausible conclusion – now confirmed by the intervention of SÄPO’s former agent Martin Fredriksson – would be that Amnesty Sweden simply follows the Swedish government’s position, and indirectly, the US government’s design.

Amnesty Sweden – a persistent tendency to deviate from the stance of its parent organization, Amnesty International

After Svd’s expose, Researchgruppen – an organisation headed by Fredriksson that has done a lot of work for feminist media – distanced itself from its former CEO in a statement of 1 March 2016 (See translated excerpt of the statement in Notes & References).[13]

Amnesty Sweden, however, has not said a word.

It is high time for Amnesty International to intervene in this situation to maintain its prestige, both in Sweden and internationally. The Swedish section of Amnesty International has shown a persistent tendency to deviate from the stance of its parent organization – from which Amnesty Sweden derives both funding and prestige – on a variety of important geopolitical issues. That was the case, for instance, in Amnesty Sweden’s scandalous opposition to denouncing the arbitrary and inhuman detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli authorities. [14] Or when Amnesty Sweden’s executive board rejected human rights initiatives proposed at its AGM regarding Assange and Snowden following the persecution both have been subjected to by the US. [15]

Although Amnesty Sweden declares that, in principle, it is totally independent from the Swedish state, it receives government funding for the implementation of projects referred to as “training on Human Rights”. [16] [17] [18]

This is quite contrary to the stance we take in Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR). We believe that a sine qua non factor in a human rights organization’s credibility is total independence from government and corporate funding. [19]

Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli is chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights and Editor-in-Chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues, and other books and essays. Further information at The indicter’s Editorial Board. Reachabel via email at [email protected], [email protected]. Follow this author on Twitter: @Professorsblogg

Notes and References

[1] M Ferrada de Noli, “Who are behind the ‘Swedish prosecution’ of Assange, and Why?” The Professors’ Blog, 5 Nov 2014.

[2] From The Daily Telegraph, 15 Dec 2010:

daily-telegraph

[3] In Craig Whitlock’s article “New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action“, The Washington Post, 21 May 2005

[4] M Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues & Political Background”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014 & 2016. 342 pages, free download PDF.

[5] Sam Sundberg: “När verklighetens Salander sålde ut till Säpo.” Svenska dagbladet, 5 March 2016.

[6] Arbetaren, “Prisbelönad journalist avlönad av Säpo i åratal” [“Prize-winner journalist was during years paid by SÄPO“]. 2 March 2016.

[7] Amnesty International, headquarters based in London: “Sweden should issue assurance it won’t extradite Assange to USA”, 27 Sept 2012.

[8] Email translated from its publication in Flashback, a Swedish forum allocating a chapter on the Assange case; this is a thread exhibiting over seven million reader-visits (N= 7 089 375, retrieved 6 March 216). Martin Fredriksson acknowledged the authenticity of the email.message to Amnesty in a post on Twitter done by @Researchgruppen. The email exchange was first published in the abovementioned forum on the 28 Sept 2012. There it referred the source “http://www.martinfredriksson.net/wik…ange_vs_Sweden” – a link which now appears blind. Here below the screenshot (click on image to enlarge):

transcription of email exchange - posted by Nostradumbass 28 Sept 2012

[9] Carl Bildt, then Sweden’s foreign minister, declared in DN 19 August 2012:

– Rättssystemet i Sverige är oberoende. Jag kan inte göra några uttalanden som binder rättssystemet på något sätt. Då skulle jag bryta mot den svenska grundlagen.

Previously, Bild said during an interview in Belgrade:

Sweden has “independent judiciary, guaranteed by law,” and that “political authorities do not influence its work”

[10] Oliver Gee, “Assange ‘guarantees’ spark Amnesty spat”. The Local, 28 Sept 2012.

[11] M Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the U.S.” The Indicter, 20 Feb 2016.

[12] Amnesty Press, 2016, N° 1, page 28.

[13] Statement posted by Researchgruppen at research.nu, 1 March 2016. Excerpts:

“Following the statements and information Martin Fredriksson has given on his Twitter account on February 28, 2016,  Researchgruppen wishes to clarify the following: It came as a shock and complete surprise to us when Martin Fredriksson revealed that he was paid over several years by the Security Police…” “Researchgruppen’s position is that any journalism at all times must be free from official interference. Therefore, we are strongly critical of Martin Fredriksson’s actions, and that he concealed his cooperation with the Security Police for us and everyone else.”

Researchgruppen om Martin Fredriksson

[14] M Ferrada de Noli, Swedish Section of Amnesty International voted to reject human-right actions on cases Assange, Snowden and tortured Palestinian children. The Professors’ Blogg, 11 May 2014.

[15] Leif Elinder, A democratic Swedish “Amnesty International” should support whistleblowers. The Professors’ Blog, 8 May 2014.

[16] Ett ljus som har brunnit i 50 år. Amnesty Press, 1 June 2011

[17] Anna Widestam. Amnestyfonden. Amnesty Historia – fondens historia.

[18] Ulf B Andersson, Amnesty i Sverige : Är krisen i Amnesty över? Amnesty Press, 2 March 2013.

[19] SWEDHR: Foundation Manifest of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former Agent of Swedish Security Police Dictated Amnesty Sweden’s Stance against Julian Assange

Celebrations of the death of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria commander Abu Omar al-Shishani were premature, US media acknowledged late this week. The ISIS leader, whose death at the hands of a US airstrike was touted by US outlets and officials on Wednesday, is wounded but alive, according to reports Friday.

Assassinations and failed assassinations by the American military and intelligence bureaucracies are a daily reality of the “Global War on Terror.”

The attempted killing of Shishani, however, has a broader significance that sheds light on the war on terror and the massive lies which sustain it. The story of Shishani, a Georgian fighter born as Tarkhan Tayumurazovich Batirashvili in an ethnic Chechen community in Georgia’s Pankisi Valley, is significant for its exposure of the organic ties between US imperialism and its nominal enemies in ISIS, al Qaeda, and myriad similar groups.

Shishani began his career as a professional soldier in the Georgian national military, where he trained under the direct supervision of US Special Forces commandos.

During training Shishani gained a reputation as the “star pupil” of the US-managed warfare training.

“The only reason he didn’t go to Iraq to fight alongside America was that we needed his skills here in Georgia,” a Georgian military officer told McClatchy.

“We trained him well, and we had lots of help from America,” the officer said.

The future ISIS leader gave no sign of disloyalty to the US-dominated Georgian force. While fighting in the 2008 Georgia-Russian war, Shishani deployed ahead of the the front lines, calling in strikes against Russian columns from forward operating posts.

According to the Georgian military, Shishani’s official military career ended when he was discharged in 2010, because of his hospitalization for tuberculosis. Later the same year, he was arrested on charges of illegally stockpiling weapons, according to Georgian officials.

Shishani was subsequently released prior to completing his full sentence, fleeing Georgia in early 2012 for the battlefields of Syria.

According to the BBC, the US Special Forces’ top student rapidly became one of the “most influential” leaders within the Islamist militias fighting in Syria.

By late 2012, Shishani had taken command of Jaysh al-Muhajireen Brigade, a Chechen militia linked to the US-backed al Nusra Front, commanding the group as it waged joint operations with al Nusra around Aleppo.

In May 2013, ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appointed Shishani as commander of all ISIS operations in northern Syria, including forces deployed around Idlib, Aleppo, Latakia and Raqqa. In 2014, Shishani again moved up the ISIS chain of command, managing the creation of a financial architecture for new ISIS bases including in Minbij, Syria.

The Chechen militant’s lightning rise to the highest levels of the ISIS apparatus, just years after learning his trade under the supervision of elite US troops, provides a stark illustration of the undeniable links between the US military and intelligence apparatus and the very terrorist groups against which the Pentagon is supposedly waging war.

Shishani emerged out of military that is among the most heavily dependent on US aid worldwide. Georgia’s armed forces rely on US funds for nearly 50 percent of their annual budget, according to a new report by the Washington-based Security Assistance Monitor.

Like Shishani, the great majority of ISIS fighters are drawn from countries whose governments have close ties to the US and Western militaries, ISIS documents leaked this week show.

The ethnic and national composition of ISIS alone makes clear the group’s integration into the global military network of US imperialism. The vast majority of ISIS personnel have been drawn from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, and Tunisia. ISIS’ ranks are dominated by gunmen drawn from countries with ultra-reactionary regimes with close ties to Washington, the documents show.

The documents also give a glimpse of the inner workings of an Islamic State that, despite its bloody propaganda stunts, is essentially a professionalized military and political organization no different from other bourgeois armies and parties.

ISIS is systematically recruiting, vetting and monitoring members, and is especially interested to attract more educated and skilled elements. The ISIS documents show that applicants are even asked to submit recommendations from previous employers.

The group’s potential role as an instrument of the US military drive against Russia becomes ever more obvious. New ISIS affiliates are emerging in a host of countries with crucial importance to the US. The ISIS network is expanding along Russia’s southern frontier, with special focus on the most geopolitically explosive areas of the Caucasus and Central Asia.

At least 40 terrorist financial cells are already operating on Russian soil, supported by another 30 cells targeting Russia from abroad, Russian intelligence officials announced Friday. Russian intelligence agents identified more than 1,500 terrorists and 3,500 bank accounts linked to terror groups plotting attacks against Russia. A single French-based cell is managing more than 1,000 sleeper agents operating on Russian territory, the officials claimed.

On Tuesday, militants claiming to represent a newly formed “Caucasus Province” of the Islamic State released a video recording, threatening attacks against Russia and suggesting various tactics for use against Russian targets.

The tape begins with footage of a car bombing in southern Russia’s Dagestan province, where US intelligence has long sought to cultivate Islamist forces for operations aimed at destabilizing Russia.

The same pattern is evident within Russia’s other “soft underbelly” in Central Asia. Recent years have seen ISIS burst onto the political scene in Uzbekistan. Last spring, Tajikistan’s top counterterrorism officer, Gumurod Halimov, defected to the ISIS banner.

In April, Halimov disappeared suddenly from his command of the Tajik security apparatus, reappearing a month later as the star of an ISIS propaganda film. Posing in front of the black flag, Halimov denounced the US while boasting of his training by US commandos and Blackwater mercenaries.

Like Shishani, Halimov benefited from cutting-edge military training provided by the US government. Before defecting, Halimov completed no less than five training courses run by the US military, including repeated trips to the US for training.

Along with Georgia, Tajikistan is also among the most US-dependent militaries, receiving nearly 30 percent of its 2014 military budget from Washington, according to the Security Assistance Monitor study.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-trained Chechen ISIS Commander Abu Omar al-Shishani Survives US Assassination Strike

Yesterday, two more Syrian towns joined the ceasefire agreement, making for a total of 44 who have signed on. The number of armed groups who have signed the truce remains 42, but active negotiations are being held with three more. Consultations have been ongoing with Syrian opposition political parties, religious leaders, and public representatives in business and industry.

The Russian monitoring group registered 10 ceasefire violations, including attacks on the Syrian army in Damascus and on Kurdish militias by the so-called moderate Free Syrian Army. It was an average day. However, today saw a threefold increase in violations, with 29 registered, mostly in Latakia, using large-caliber machine guns and mortars. Turkey continues to shell Syrian territory. The Russian Center for Reconciliation, which was set up in Aleppo yesterday, also went into operation, monitoring the ceasefire and humanitarian situation there.

Meanwhile, a Syrian MiG-21 was shot down by a man-portable air defense system yesterday. There are conflicting reports about the fate of the pilots. One reportedly made it to safety, but the other died, either as a result of an unsuccessful emergency landing, or being shot and killed by jihadists in the vicinity. Jaish al-Nasr militants claimed responsibility for the attack. Today, al-Nusra killed about 10 people and injured 30 more in continuous attacks in Damascus and Idlib provinces.

On Wednesday, militias allied with the Syrian Army ambushed a convoy of terrorists in the Sweida province, confiscating the weapons they were attempting to transfer to terrorists in the Eastern al-Badiya desert. Among the weapons left behind after the battle were mortar shells, land mines, RPG shells, ammunition of machineguns and Israeli-made LAU missiles.

How do the terrorists in Syria get those Israeli-made weapons? FARS News Agency, via the Times of Israel, has the answer:

In a video uploaded to YouTube by the Executive Sharia Council in the Eastern Daraa region, a court established by al-Nusra in Southern Syria, Sharif As-Safouri, the commander of the FSA’s al-Haramein Battalion, admitted to having entered Israel five times to meet with Israeli officers who later provided him with Soviet anti-tank weapons and light arms, Times of Israel reported.

Safouri was abducted by the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front in the Quneitra area, near the Israeli border, on July 22.

“The [opposition] factions would receive support and send the injured in [to Israel] on condition that the Israeli fence area is secured. No person was allowed to come near the fence without prior coordination with Israel authorities,” Safouri said in the video.

While al-Nusra and the FSA have collaborated in the battlefield against Syria, friction has intensified as they began to implement their stringent version of Islam in the area, establishing local Sharia courts.

In the edited confession video, in which Safouri seems physically unharmed, he says that at first he met with an Israeli officer named Ashraf at the border and was given an Israeli cellular phone. He later met with another officer named Younis and with the two men’s commander, Abu Daoud. In total, Safouri said he entered Israel five times for meetings that took place in Tiberias.

Following the meetings, Israel began providing Safouri and his men with “basic medical support and clothes” as well as weapons, which included 30 Russian [rifles], 10 RPG launchers with 47 rockets, and 48,000 5.56 millimeter bullets.

Harrison Koehli hails from Edmonton, Alberta. A graduate of studies in music performance, Harrison is also an editor for Red Pill Press and has been interviewed on several North American radio shows in recognition of his contributions to advancing the study of ponerology. In addition to music and books, Harrison enjoys tobacco and bacon (often at the same time) and dislikes cell phones, vegetables, and fascists.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Ceasefire: Israel’s Collusion with the “Moderate Terrorists” Exposed…

Featured image: Technicians at Syria’s Hmeimim airport. [Dmitriy Vinogradov/RIA Novosti]

A new Syrian opposition group has been formed at a meeting at Russia’s Hmeimim base and it may come to Geneva, Russian Ambassador to the UN and other international organizations in Geneva Alexey Borovavkin told TASS on Monday.

“We are pleased to note that the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, and his office have welcomed the formation of a new moderate opposition group,” the diplomat said. “Staffan de Mistura has promised to negotiate the issue of inviting representatives of this group to the Geneva negotiations.”

According to Borodavkin, this group comprises oppositionists who live and work in Syria but who have not been included in the political structure that is currently in power.

“They have taken advantage of the cessation of hostilities regime and said that they support this regime, support the Russian-American statement on how this regime should be implemented, consolidated their political will, adopted a relevant statement and created a so-called secular opposition group in Hmeimim. It happened at the base of our Center for reconciliation,” the ambassador said.

According to Borodavkin, this new group could join the negotiations on Syrian settlement and could “make a positive and constructive contribution to making agreements on the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 in the part related to the political settlement of the Syrian crisis.”

TASS has learnt that this group comprises doctors, lawyers, engineers, journalist and public activist representing the Syrian organization National Action, the Front for Democratic Action in Syria, the Syrian National Youth Party and Syrian Fatherland Party, as well as the International Red Cross Committee and others. The oppositionists call themselves the Hmeimim group.

The ceasefire regime between the Syrian government forces and armed opposition groups came into force from 00:00 (01:00, Moscow time) on February 27. Ceasefire is not applicable to the terrorist groups Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as other formations recognized by the UN Security Council as terrorist.

An hour before the ceasefire came into force, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution in support of cessation of hostilities in Syria. The document was initiated by Russia and the United States and won support from all the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council. United Nations Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, told a briefing after the United Nations Security Council meeting that 97 armed groups in Syria had accepted the ceasefire terms.

According to the Russian military, the ceasefire regime in generally observed, but occasional violations of the regime have been recorded since the ceasefire regime came into force.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Group of Syrian Opposition Formed, Supported by Russia

Donald Trump: You’re all Violent Communists Now!

March 14th, 2016 by Michael T. Bucci

According to Donald Trump, as I understand it, Bernie Sanders is responsible for any violence that has or will occur at Trump rallies. Case closed? Bernie is a “Communist”; and his followers are “leftists” who “want to destroy this country!” Case closed?

If Sanders folk “don’t get it,” be forewarned: Trump is framing him and you!

To silver-hairs within the Trump legion who wear permanent frowns of repressed anger stoked by neo-conservative and “anti-government” propagandists on radio, cable news and the Internet, Bernie Sanders’ “socialism” – which arguably isn’t socialism – is now conflated with Communism – that “great evil empire” whose phantom Mr. Trump has resurrected to revive long-buried hates and fears within his aging McCarthyite and Cold War warriors.

To younger Trumpists, the words communism and socialism might seem empty of meaning, hence empty of potency. But does it matter? What matters is “USA! USA! USA!” – meaning “we’re Americans, you’re not!” In the late sixties, they would shout, “love it or leave it”. There were always “true Americans”, usually right-wingers, versus the rest.

The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union actually was a war between socialist and capitalist economic systems, and capitalism won. Cold War II today isn’t a war between systems because all three nations – U.S., Russia and China – adopt a variant of capitalism. It is a war for supremacy within global capitalism.

And it is global capitalism and its dislocating effects that have caused much of the discontent, anger and rage that now is exploited by Mr. Trump. It is important for both political parties to obscure this basis since both parties champion globalization but have failed to foresee its effects. I might add that both parties promote all current U.S. wars on behalf of economic goals; from the conquest of other nations’ resources; to control of global oil, gas and pipelines; or in maintaining the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency, American wars today are fought for capital domination.

In a Cass Sustein and Samantha Power (his wife) world of cognitive infiltration, war is “R2P” and “humanitarian intervention”, as most liberals and progressives now agree. As a consequence, debating “war” is taboo today.

Yet, the Pentagon will absorb more and more of Federal discretionary spending which many will unquestionably support as it depletes the very safety nets they depend upon. Many will support and go to war for USA! USA! USA! too. But how many would go to war just to enrich the defense industry, or to make the world safe for Goldman Sachs, Exxon-Mobile and Google? Mum is the word.

For the uneducated, uneducable or intellectually lazy, scapegoats are easier to blame than Wall Street or rich donors whose hands reach deeply into the pockets of the candidates. Immigrants are easier to blame than American mega-corporations that have outsourced American jobs since the 1980s. Socialists seeking a fair distribution of wealth are easier to blame than billionaires like Mr. Trump who represents and protects billionaires like himself and whose dynasties are underwritten and leveraged by Wall Street money. It is easier to obscure it all by speciously deflecting blame on scapegoats to gain the loyalty of victims before they grow smarter and turn against you.

Divert blame to powerless immigrants, ethnics or to so-called “socialists” like Sen. Sanders whose economic analysis and platform undermines the status quo financial power structure and who speaks most directly to the plight of the dispossessed and marginalized. Some people struggling with meager wages will vote against their own self-interest and support Mr. Trump – a candidate who has promised to lower their already low wages. In return they get to shout USA! USA! USA!

Our economic system has reached its contradictions and stretched the limits of profitability at the expense of the common good. It needs to usurp the economies of other countries to grow more profitable. It created the greatest gulf between rich and poor in recent history yet satiated. Like war, capitalism – the system itself – is never debated, only promoted.

Insofar as anti-Trump protestors at rallies, “just throw them out”, commanded Mr. Trump. “The left is against freedom of speech and assembly,” they are taking away his First Amendment rights. “Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!”

It was no surprise that three who top the national charts for spewing the most memorable vulgar and inflammatory rhetoric rushed to publicly support Mr. Trump: Sarah Palin, Gov. Christie and Gov. LePage.

Following scuffles at a Trump rally in Chicago on March 11, and hours after a man attempted to charge his stage in Ohio, a Twitter account “Lion’s Guard” announced the formation of a volunteer group to protect Trump supporters from “violent Far-Left agitators.” Will they become a “Protective Squadron” or Schutzstaffel?

Contrary to what some Trumpists allege, Hitler wasn’t a socialist because his movement was named “National Socialist German Workers Party”. “Socialist” is a term conservatives and the Right now disambiguously use to conflate Sen. Sanders’ democratic socialism with autocratic Nazism to confuse the uneducated.

Furthermore, the KKK isn’t “a leftist terrorism organization” that conservative CNN analyst Jeffrey Lord peddled in defending Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow the endorsement of far-right extremists.

Hitler was a fascist and fascism arises from the Right, not the Left, as every educated conservative and Rightist knows. But it is purposely inverted to build a platform of attack along with “liberal” and “leftist” vilifications to resurrect Cold War McCarthyism, red-baiting and domestic persecutions.

After years of tolerating right-wing propagandists spinning half truths, bogus history, conspiracy theories and plain hate, anger and racism, America now faces Mr. Trump who is nothing more or less than an extension of these extreme forces.

He is an outgrowth of a cancer that metastasized within the GOP over decades. It is more than a party that cripples government, shuts it down, and attracts the most regressive members of society. It is more than a “No” party. It is Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Rush Limbaud, Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and a staunch conservative-evangelical base whose war against progress has now been bested by Mr. Trump. The GOP and right-wing incubated him!

If the election in November is between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Trump, there will be no peace after victory. If Mrs. Clinton is victorious, conservatives and the right-wing will war against her stronger and more viciously than they did with President Obama.

If Mr. Trump wins, the very fabric of this country might be ripped apart, if it hadn’t already.

“It can’t happen here” wrote Sinclair Lewis in 1935.

In 2016, Trump could happen here.

Michael T. Bucci is a retired public relations executive now residing in New England. He has authored nine books on practical spirituality collectively titled The Cerithous Material.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald Trump: You’re all Violent Communists Now!

In what could be one of the worst failures of the Pentagon’s program to arm Syrian rebels, several bases with American weapons, armored vehicles and US-trained fighters were plundered by Al-Nusra Front. The jihadists and “moderate rebels” are blaming each other for the attack.

Division 13 of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which had received both US weapons and training, on Sunday said it was attacked by Al-Nusra Front militants – radical Islamist fighters affiliated with Al-Qaeda. The jihadists looted the FSA group’s depots in the town of Maarrat Al-Nuuman in Syria’s Idlib province.

Though it has widely been reported that weapons and dozens of Division 13 fighters have been captured, there are conflicting accounts of how much the jihadists could actually carry. Some media reports claimed that the haul included US-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles, firearms and ammunition, and unspecified armored vehicles, including a tank. The rebel group’s chief has denied they have lost anti-tank missiles, telling AFP that only “light weapons” have been taken.

Moreover, up to 40 Division 13 fighters have been taken hostage and four killed, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has said, though the remote “sources on the ground” routinely cited by the UK-based organization are often hard to verify.

Adding to the rebel group’s dismay, Al-Nusra was also the first to release an online statement – blaming Division 13 for provoking the attack. In turn, the rebels denied attacking Al-Nusra and accused them of an unexpected armed assault on a checkpoint, set up at the request of the local population.

The reason reportedly given by the US-backed group as to why they couldn’t have attacked the Islamists? Too weak for the job.

The feud between the militant factions, once close allies in fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces, has been brewing for some time, according to AP. Al-Nusra has recently suppressed demonstrations and arrested protesters in the city of Idlib, and reportedly replaced the tricolor of the Syrian rebels with the black Al-Qaeda flag there.

On Friday, in Maaret al-Numan, motorcyclists waving the black flag of Al-Nusra threatened to fire on a protest, shouting “Allahu akbar” or “God is greatest.”

Interestingly, Al-Nusra has a history of looting US-backed opposition forces: last summer, jihadists kidnapped members of the US-trained Division 30, while in September a whole stock of US-supplied weapons and hardware was captured.

The Pentagon’s failed rebel-training program was canceled in October, after dozens of US-trained rebels abandoned Division 30 and handed the weapons they had been supplied to Al-Nusra upon crossing from Turkey into Syria.

However, the head of US Central Command, General Lloyd Austin, proposed to restart training for Syria’s so-called “moderate” rebels.

A month later, the US State Department admitted that some of the “moderates” had been successfully recruited by Al-Nusra in Syria.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: US-Backed “Moderate Rebels” Attacked by “US-Backed” Al-Nusra Rebels

Although no organization that predictively polls the Democratic Presidential primaries has sampled the question (or its equivalent) “What is the most important reason why you prefer that candidate?” the assumption by political pundits has always been that, regarding Hillary Clinton voters, perhaps the most important reason for their choice of Clinton over Sanders is that she would be a stronger candidate against the Republican nominee in the general election than Bernie Sanders would be.

The widely presumed argument there is that Clinton “has more experience” and is more “mainstream” than Sanders, whom ‘too many people’ consider to be ‘outside the mainstream’ because he is ‘farther left’ than she, who is the more ‘centrist’ of the two Democratic candidates. 

By contrast, the exit polls  in the individual state primaries  consistently do  test for “Top Candidate Quality” explaining their vote; and, almost each time, “Honest” and “Cares” are very high for Sanders voters, while “Electability” and “Experience” are overwhelmingly high for Clinton voters. The exit polls are just about as definitive a confirmation as could possibly exist showing that Hillary Clinton is, to a large extent, preferred by her voters because they view her as being far more “electable” than is her opponent (Sanders). She is even more overwhelmingly viewed by them to be more ‘experienced’ than Sanders, and we’ll get to that later in this article.

However, whatever the argument is, that’s given for her to be stronger in the general election than he is (i.e., to be more ‘electable’), it’s a false argument, because its conclusion is demonstrably false: the data on that matter — the opposite-Party pairings in the predictive polls — are convincingly to the exact contrary: he’s far more electable than she is.

Look at the match-ups against Trump (and other potential Republican Presidential nominees), on the part of Clinton, and then in the same place the matchups on the part of Sanders (just click onto this link):

What has long been very clear there, for quite some time, is that in the general election, Sanders is overwhelmingly stronger against the Republican nominee (whomever that might turn out to be) than is Clinton.

In order to come to a less-shallow and more-truthful analysis of what explains the relative ability of each of the two Democratic contenders to defeat the Republican nominee, an examination of the perceived-honesty factor should play a large role. For example, in the shocking Michigan win by Sanders over Clinton, the answers on the “Top Candidate Quality” factor showed that Sanders was voted for by 78% who chose “honest” as the top trait, but only by 27% of those who selected “electability,” and by 18% of those who opted for “experience” as the top trait. He was also selected by 56% of those who chose “cares” as the top. Those are the only four factors asked in the exit polls, and they provide deep understanding of why  each candidate was winning or losing.

Other factors too might be significant, but, whatever the reasons for Sanders being the stronger of the two Democrats to win in the general election against the Republican nominee are, is not important in the present context, because the data consitently do show that the result  (whatever the reasons  for it) is that Sanders is the stronger general-election candidate against the Republican.

By the way, in the Hillary blowout win in South Carolina, Clinton was the candidate voted for by 51% of the voters who rated “honest” as the top quality, by 82% who rated “electability” top, by 94% who rated “experience” top, and by 68% who rated “cares” top. That’s why she received an unprecedented 74% to 26% blowout win against Sanders in that state.

In the general-election-tossup state of Virginia, exit polls showed that 78% of the voters who rated “honest” the “Top Candidate Quality” were Sanders voters, 86% of the voters who rated “electability” the “Top Candidate Quality” voted for Clinton, 95% who chose “experience” as the top, voted for Clinton — and, of these four traits, “experience” was overwhelmingly  the “Top Candidate Quality” for more voters than any of the other three, which is the main reason why Clinton won Virginia (i.e., because of her having been overwhelmingly viewed there to be the more ‘experienced’).

But the point is, yet again, that, in the general-election match-ups, Sanders really and authentically IS the more electable of the two Democrats to become the U.S. President. That’s just a fact, though consistently Clinton voters assume the exact opposite of the fact. Their assumption on that is plain false.

What, then, about “experience”? That’s not a factor which is decidable merely by means of numerical evidence. However, judgmental though it is, a stunningly strong case can be made that Sanders rates higher on “experience” than does Clinton, because she voted for the Iraq-invasion and she also has been extremely eager for other invasions such as in Lybia and Syria — all of which have been disasters. Specifically, her experience as Secretary of State was catastrophic. (Click on that for the evidence — which, of course, is non-numerical or “qualitative” regarding each one of her six catastrophes there.)

Furthermore, Sanders’s experience has been both lengthy and outstanding. (Unfortunately, he doesn’t talk much about it. He even didn’t talk much about his having been arrested in Chicago as a college student demonstrating peacefully for racial equality in the 1960s. Apparently, he doesn’t like to brag about his legislative achievements, nor even about his having a real record of fighting for racial equality, whereas Hillary has nothing but talk on racial equality and brags about whatever she possibly can, even if she needs to lie in order to do it.)

So, also on “experience,” Clinton’s voters assume to be true what’s actually false.

Finally, returning to our main topic, electability: there is also this: What Hillary did by destroying her federal records, her government emails on the private server she kept in her basement, was a federal crime, and she’s dependent upon Obama’s blocking the FBI from pursuing it in order for her to be able to make it all the way to electoral victory in November. So far as can reasonably be determined about Senator Sanders, there’s nothing criminally prosecutable in his record. So, his advantage in electability is  even higher than would appear merely by  today’s numbers.

The only reasonable conclusion, then, is this:

Overwhelmingly, her voters are ignorant, misinformed, deceived. They are suckers, the dupes of a practised liar. She is taking advantage of their gullibility. That’s the raw fact.

Perhaps they’ll be angry at me for reporting this fact to them; but, it’s the fact nonetheless, and the person they ought to be blaming for it is: Hillary Clinton. Not the messenger: not me. To get angry at the messenger is to choose  to remain  deceived.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Proof that Ignorance Drives Hillary Clinton’s Voters

Featured image: One of the most significant thinkers of the Islamic Golden Age, Avicenna, who is considered a national icon in Iran.

Since the West (the P5 +1) and Iran agreed to a nuclear deal, there has been criticisms from Israeli hardliners like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been relentless. Netanyahu called it a “very bad deal” fearing that Iran can develop a nuclear weapon capable of reaching Israel or even the U.S. despite the fact that they signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Time and time again, Iran has maintained that their agenda is for peaceful purposes. Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies had confirmed that Iran had “abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier” according to a 2012 New York Timesreport. Despite all of the negative publicity the Iran Nuclear Deal had received from both Western and Israeli hardliners, there is a positive aspect to Iran’s growing science and technological industry currently taking place.

The minister of science, research and technology since 2014, Dr. Mohammad Farhadi wrote an article for the Tehran Times on Iran’s science and technology industry and what it offers to the world:

“Iran is now a nation of 78 million people, with about 4.5 million university students, 2500 higher education institutions, 36 science and technology parks, 400 nongovernmental scientific associations, more than 800 research centers, and 1000 scientific journals. Our scientists publish about 30,000 international scientific papers annually, a growth of at least 20-fold since 1979. These achievements could not have been reached without the intensive participation of individual scientists and scientific societies and government support. This participation sprang from a model of development for post revolutionary Iran that respects the rights of all Iranians to have access to higher education. It is this philosophy that has helped the country weather internal and external disturbances. Sanctions on Iran, for example, pushed its science, industry, and service sectors to cooperate in new and fruitful ways and also forced scientists to work more creatively and promote a knowledge-based economy for the first time in Iran’s history. This environment further spurred science-driven political discourse in the country. A prominent example is the role of the scientific community in the recent negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. This could not have materialized without the participation of scientists to provide technical expertise and to clarify scientific language.”

Iran has 2,500 higher education institutions with 4.5 million university students with over 800 research centers and more than 30,000 international scientific journals places Iran as one of the world’s most important countries for scientific research and technology. There is also the fact that 70% of Iran’s science and engineering students are women who are also creating new startup companies. In an interesting article by Forbes magazine in 2015 titled ‘Set To Take Over Tech: 70% Of Iran’s Science and Engineering Students Are Women’ about the rise of women in Iran’s science and technology fields:

The common myth about women in Iran is that they are seen, but not heard, that they’re not permitted to drive, that they are second-class citizens, and that entrepreneurship and positions of power are out of reach. These notions are wrong. For years, women in Iran have owned and managed businesses, many of them in male dominant industries like oil and gas, construction, mining, and now tech. And now, with such a high number graduating with degrees in science and engineering, there’s a push to get women more involved in Iran’s blossoming startup scene

According to an article by www.iranreview.org back in 2010, Iran’s scientific advancements “have grown 11 times faster than any other country in the world.” The article titled ‘Iran’s Fast Scientific Advancements’ explains why a Montreal-based Science-Metrix, a company that evaluates the quantitative and qualitative measurements of science, technology and innovation has placed Iran as one of the world’s leading countries with the fastest growth rates in science:

“In the report, Science-Metrix says the number of scientific publications listed in the Web of Science database shows that the standard growth in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Turkey, is nearly four times faster than the world average.

“Iran is showing fastest worldwide growth in science,” said Eric Archambault, who authored the report. “Asia is catching up even more rapidly than previously thought, Europe is holding its position more than most would expect, and the Middle East is a region to watch,” he added

Archambault went on to say that Iran’s imposed sanctions by Washington have led to scientific advancements in aerospace engineering, medical development and nuclear science:

Despite more than thirty years of Western-imposed sanctions, Iran has made great strides in different sectors, including aerospace, nuclear science, medical development, as well as stem cell and cloning research.

Among the country’s most recent accomplishments, which has garnered international acclaim, was the February 2 launch of Kavoshgar 3 (Explorer 3) satellite carrier into space with living organisms — a rat, two turtles and worms — onboard”

Archambaut spoke about the advancements in animal cloning in Iran (which I disagree with no matter what country it’s taking place in), nuclear chemistry, medical science and agriculture development. What is interesting is what Iran has to offer in terms of research including “archaeology, desert studies, ecological studies, and study of the fauna and flora of the Irano-Turanian region”. Iran has hosted numerous International Science Festivals including the International Kharami Festival which presents the basic sciences and the The Annual Razi Medical Sciences Research Festival which exhibits original new research in various scientific fields. Iran also has invited prominent figures in science including Nobel Prize recipients in science such as F. Sherwood Rowland, Kurt Wüthrich and the author of ‘A Brief History of Time’ and the Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge, Stephen Hawkings. Several Iranian Universities has hosted prominent scientists for public lectures from all over the world.

Dr. Farhadi’s article also mentioned Iran’s history from the 13th Century where hundreds of scientists from many parts of the world collaborated and established the Maragheh Observatory which:

“can be vivid guides for science diplomacy in all areas of science, research, and technology. Iran plans to have big science projects, such as the Iranian National Observatory, which will bridge Iranian scientists with the international science community.”

The Maragheh Observatory was built under the leadership of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi who was an astronomer, biologist, mathematician, philosopher, physician and physicist which is located in the heights west of Maragheh, East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. Iran has also contributed to Astronomy in the early 10th Century where Astronomer Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi who was the first to record another galaxy outside of our own galaxy calling the Andromeda galaxy the “little cloud.” These are some of the examples of how Iran has contributed to scientific knowledge throughout its history.

There are endless possibilities

“We invite scientists from all over the world to initiate a collaborative program with our scientists. Iran is ready” wrote Farhadi. What if the Western powers (U.S -NATO) were to stop its wars over natural resources with weapons of mass destruction in order to control the world and focus on productive scientific discoveries that can help advance humanity? The world would definitely be a better place.

The recent discovery of a new planet by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 2014 confirmed a new planet called the Kepler-186f:

“NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered the first Earth-size planet orbiting a star in the “habitable zone” — the range of distance from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that planets the size of earth exist in the habitable zone of stars other than our sun”

Just imagine if all countries from every region on earth including Iran contributed their knowledge and expertise to launch a mission to Kepler-186f and find out if there are any forms of life on that newly discovered planet. Can it ever happen? The late American comedian Bill Hicks spoke about changing the world for a “better ride”:

“The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it’s real because that’s how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it’s very brightly colored, and it’s very loud, and it’s fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, “Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?” And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, “Hey, don’t worry; don’t be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.” And we … kill those people. “Shut him up! I’ve got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real.” It’s just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn’t matter, because it’s just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here’s what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace”

If all nations were to respect each other’s sovereignty, its cultures and traditions, we all would be able to explore the universe and beyond, cure diseases instead of inventing them or even find new methods to create energy and the list goes on. It does seem like a distant dream since the West and its allies (or Vassal States) are determined to dominate the Middle East and other regions in the world including space. Perhaps it is just a ride as Bill Hicks said. It’s a shame that humanity has taken this route instead of thinking about the big picture, but then again, for Dr. Farhadi, a dream to unite the world for the sake of science may be just a dream after all.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran’s Scientific Diplomacy: Can the World Unite to Explore the Universe for the Sake of Science or is it Just a Dream?

The last formal act of European disintegration was the last negotiation between 28 European leaders and the Prime Minister of Turkey. The deal, against all international treaties, is a total capitulation to European values.

Europe will give Turkey 6 billion dollars, and in exchange Turkey will keep refugees from coming to Europe.

Or better, will screen everybody, and send to Europe only the Syrians who are eligible for political asylum.

This is just a way to avoid a common position on the refugees. In fact, besides keeping people out, as the President of the EU, Donald Tusk, has explicitly warned “ keep out, you are not welcome”, there is no European policy on this issue at all.

The 28 did approve by majority a plan of resettlement for 60 000 refugees (a drop in the more than a million stranded in Europe).

After seven months, a grand total of 600 refuges have been settled. And some countries, like Hungary and the Czech Republic, have announced a referendum on the issue of accepting refugees. Clearly an illegal move, as the decisions of the Council of Ministers, once democratically taken, are binding for all members.

Europe’s Horses of the Apocalypse

But Europe is facing three internal horses of the apocalypse, and a fourth external one, which is even more ominous. All this is coming together, and all the odds are against the dream of an integrated Europe.

The first is the divide between Eastern and Western Europe, which comes just after the North-South divide. The North-South divide was over the austerity that Germany and other protestant countries wanted to impose over the catholic and orthodox south. The chosen battleground was Greece, and the South lost.

A very inflexible German Minister of Finance, Schauble, even went so far as to veto any program for growth at the last G20, and has just declared that Greece, flooded with refugees, “should not get distracted from its task of reforming its economy”.

Germany has been blocking any program of fiscal solidarity that could have meant a German contribution. Nothing has changed on this issue. The only exception will be for costs related to defense and security, following the terrorist attacks in Paris. But this divide has been totally superseded by the divide East- West.

The tide of migrants has made evident something that everybody has long and conveniently ignored: Eastern Europe joined European institutions to receive benefits, not obligations. They consider that Western Europe must give them the means to eliminate the economic and social gap, created by the Iron Curtain. And if Soviet domination has disappeared, it is due to the United States, and not Europe.

Suddenly, Europe is asking to take refugees escaping from conflicts in which they are not directly involved like Syria and Libya, which are basically west European affairs?

Eastern Europe Veering toward Nationalism and Xenophobia

What nobody wanted to see is that Eastern Europe is veering toward nationalism and xenophobia, or against the founding values of European integration.

First we had the Hungarian government declaring its opposition to the democratic values of Europe. Then we had Poland, the single largest beneficiary of European funds in history, voting for an anti-European and authoritarian party, against homosexual and antichristian values of Europe.

And all over Eastern Europe, we have a clear tide of revolt against the supposed European values: solidarity, democracy, participation, social inclusion. Nato is the point of reference, as it is an American led alliance against an expansionist Russia.

Nobody appears to give a thought to the absurdity of inviting Montenegro to the alliance, with its army of 3 000 soldiers. And in every single election in the last few years, the right wing parties have been consolidating. Last week a pro Nazi party obtained 14 seats in the Slovak elections.

But the decline of democracy is the second horse of the apocalypse riding European skies. In Germany this month it is possible that the Anti-europe party, ADF, will see a strong presence in the three regions where elections are being held, and in direct threat to the Socialist Party.

There is no single European country (with few exceptions like Spain, where the PP can encompass all right wing positions), where right wing and xenophobic parties have not grown since the 2009 crisis, and often are the tipping point in national parliaments.

With coming elections, a tidal shift will happen all over Europe. The shift will be to the right, even in countries that have been examples of tolerance and inclusion, like the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.

Europe, Just a Collection of 28 Countries

Europe is now just a collection of 28 countries, each one with its own national agenda as a priority. Individually, they have resorted to a number of illegal measures, like building walls and barbed wire containment, without any European coordination.

Austria has gone so far as to see if it can resurrect the old Austro-Hungarian empire, calling for an alliance between its old member countries, and the Balkans, with the exception of Greece, this last being currently and de facto the most involved in the subject of migration.

The sad episode of refugees trying to cross the border with Macedonia border, only to be repelled by a volley of tear gas grenades, was viewed with relief in Austria. And while individually every country tried to duck the issue of refugees, collectively they have made a deal with Turkey which has itself been condemned by the United Nations, and any number of legal experts.

This deal occurred just a few days after Prime Minister Erdogan, sensing that Europe would have as priority her own comfort, would ignore his last attempt to take full control of Turkey, by taking over the largest daily newspaper, Zaman. He already controls the judiciary, the legislature, and the central bank, in a economy that is clearly run by his cronies.

Yet Europe has accepted to reopen the process of admission of Turkey to the EU, a country which was formerly considered too removed from European values, and that was before Erdogan’s rise to authoritarianism.

The third horse is clear to everybody. Europe has bent its rules to accommodate the UK’s David Cameron’s request to be an exception, in order to convince British citizens to remain in Europe.

It is far from clear if that manoeuvre will succeed. And Cameron has declared that he will no longer recognize the European Court of Justice. He does not recognize either Europe as competent to assign refugees to the UK.

But if the referendum on keeping the UK in Europe should fail, this would be total loss of legitimacy for Bruxelles, and the concessions to Great Britain would open a massive precedent that other members might be tempted to follow.

In all this there is an external threat, the forth horse of the apocalypse, which is over European heads. And is Europe in the world. In 1900, Europe constituted 24 percent of the global population. At the end of this century, it will make up only 4 percent.

This is accompanied of course by a decrease of European relevance in the world. In the United States of America, that has led to the unprecedented phenomenon of Donald Trump. Here, to the growth of right wing parties and movements.

A Better Yesterday?

The winning argument is about a better yesterday…Let us go back to the time when we were powerful and rich…let us eliminate all those treaties which have reduced my power as a nation, and made me dependent on external banks, bureaucrats and values…Trump? Not at all, the Prime Minister of Poland…

The world, and especially Europe, is entering into a period of economic stagnation. That means that there is little to redistribute, and this is the basis of social democracy. Crisis plays into the hands of the right, as history tells us.

The idea of an integrated Europe, with a strong social component, was somehow a progressive idea. Nationalism and xenophobia are returning.

Let us thank the neoliberal vision of markets as the most important actors in society, the imposition of austerity and an end to solidarity as the new trends emerging from rich European countries.

Roberto Savio is the founder and former Director-General of international news agency Inter Press Service (IPS). In recent years he has also founded Other News, a service providing ‘information that markets eliminate’. Roberto Savio: [email protected]. http://www.robertosavio.info.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Can Europe Survive? The EU’s Horses of the Apocalypse

Dear Mr. President,

After a historic visit to Cuba, later this month on March 24, you plan to be in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on the 40th anniversary of a vicious military coup that resulted in the secret kidnapping, torture, and murder of more than 20,000 people, including leftist guerrillas, nonviolent dissidents, and even many uninvolved citizens caught in the web of terror.

In an October 1987 article in The Nation, I broke the story about how the murderous generals and their neo-Nazi minions received a “green light” for their clandestine repression from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Although buttressed by other sources, the Nation story was largely based on a memorandum of conversation I received from Patricia Derian, the wonderfully feisty activist and Mississippi civil-rights hero.

Appointed by President Jimmy Carter as the first assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs, Patt played a key role in bringing to life Carter’s desperately needed post-Vietnam and post-Watergate Human Rights Revolution.

The “memcom” Derian gave me was based on her 1977 conversation in the Buenos Aires Embassy with then–Ambassador Robert Hill, a conservative five-time GOP ambassadorial appointee. It was Hill who had bravely waged a behind-the-scenes struggle against Kissinger’s secret stamp of approval for those who had earlier staged the coup, refusing to back off when Kissinger’s aides warned Hill he might be fired even as he sought to save lives in Argentina.

“It sickened me,” Patt told me in the home she shared in Alexandria, Virginia, with fellow Mississippi human-rights crusader Hodding Carter III, her husband and Jimmy Carter’s State Department spokesman, “that with an imperial wave of his hand, an American could sentence people to death on the basis of a cheap whim. As time went on, I saw Kissinger’s footprints in a lot of countries. It was the repression of a democratic ideal.”

Of course, the public record is now littered with even more Kissinger detritus from around the world.

 A drawing from the original publication of “Kissinger and The ‘Dirty War’” (Rico Lins)

A drawing from the original publication of “Kissinger and The ‘Dirty War’” (Rico Lins)

Not only was there the overthrow of a left-wing, democratically elected government in Chile by Kissinger ally Augusto Pinochet, plunging one of the hemisphere’s oldest democracies into terror; the Chilean’s only mistake, his Argentine “dirty war” counterparts said privately, was that the trans-Andes self-proclaimed “Captain General” had too publicly murdered his opposition.

Kissinger’s legacy includes selling out our Kurdish allies to the shah of Iran; giving Indonesia’s generals a “green light” to invade East Timor, where they murdered tens of thousands of people, and telling President Richard Nixon that helping Soviet Jews emigrate to escape oppression by a totalitarian government was “not an objective of American foreign policy.” The list goes on…

Even though President Carter and Patt Derian had put Argentina’s regime at the top of their list of human-rights violators, trying to stanch the bloodshed, Kissinger returned to Argentina in 1978 as the generals’ “guest of honor” at World Cup soccer games, some of them not far from some of the hundreds of death camps holding los desaparecidos (the missing).

Argentine President Jorge Rafael Videla meeting with Henry Kissinger and President Jimmy Carter in 1977

In 1982, Argentina’s military learned, at the hands of the British during the Falklands/Malvinas war, that while it was easy to torture and kill Catholic nuns, it could not defeat a conventional armed force. In 1983, a real Argentine hero, Raúl Alfonsín, was elected president, offering the world a post-Nuremberg model as he put the dirty “warriors” on trial in civilian court.

While seeking to tame the military through the rule of law, Alfonsín found that he could not do the same when dealing with the gross indebtedness to US banks (including one—Chase Manhattan—that was run by Kissinger’s patrons, the Rockefellers) that the police-state regime had bequeathed to him and others it had once ruled with an iron fist. In 1989, as Kissinger watched from the sidelines, Alfonsín was forced out of office early.

However, the former secretary returned to Buenos Aires that same year, this time as the “guest of honor” at the inauguration of Carlos Menem, already known to be a highly corrupt Peronist and someone who promptly went on to pardon the same military dirty “warriors” hailed by Kissinger before they were jailed by Alfonsín. (Menem himself later was indicted for covering up the identity of the real murderers in the 1994 AMIA Jewish community center bombing that resulted in the deaths of 85 innocent people.)

Mr. President, last year Bill Clinton apologized to Mexico for a backfired US “war” on drugs that has fueled spiraling violence there. Despite US Ambassador Noah Mamet now saying that your trip to Buenos Aires is not related to the coup anniversary, human-rights groups in Argentina have called on you to apologize for US support for the dirty “war.”

The inspiring and (hopefully) ultimately definitive work of Carter, Derian, Hill, and others in fighting the tragic and still fresh Kissinger legacy suggests that, in asking for forgiveness for the American role, even in this bitter election year, you would send a great and meaningful bipartisan message of US support for human rights.

Very respectfully,

Martin Edwin Andersen

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latin America’s “Dirty War”: How Much Did the US Know About the Kidnapping, Torture, and Murder of Over 20,000 People in Argentina?

“Wars are horrible. The only good thing about wars is that they help reduce the world population.”

These are the words flung in my face not too long ago, by a person I thought was close to me. I was in shock and asked what do you mean?

“Well, don’t you think the world is over-populated?”

– I couldn’t believe that these were the thoughts of somebody I had respected. They may well be the thoughts of common people in my close vicinity. By opening my eyes to a dimension I ignored until then – the secret thoughts and dreams of people, maybe of the masses began revealing themselves; thoughts that are expressed only in an ambiance of familiarity, or perhaps when ‘under the influence’, when often the inner-most truths come to the fore.

Over-population is a western ego-centric phantasy. Western Comfort is afraid of having to share some of their excesses with the poor under-humans of so-called developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America – the slowly emerging Continents that have been raped for hundreds of years by precisely the same western colonialists which today claim over-population and wage war around the world in a new form of colonialism.

According to FAO – the UN’s World Food Organization – the globe’s current agricultural potential could feed at least 12 billion people, if only the food would not be subject to speculation and would be properly distributed. But it isn’t. Food crop speculators in the US and in Europe, command the price – they literally control who may live and who must die – by famine.

According to the World Bank, 80% of the food-price hike induced famine of 2008 / 2009 that precipitated the death of 2 million people in Asia and Africa was the result of food speculation. Three weeks ago, the Swiss Government recommended its electorate to reject a Swiss socialist-led people’s initiative against food speculation. Their main arguments were denial that food speculation caused famine; and “if we forbid food speculation, the speculators will leave Switzerland and make their profit elsewhere”. With the prevailing neoliberal thinking: Profit über Alles, ethics has no place. The Swiss populace indeed complied and rejected the initiative with a margin of almost 2:3. The financial centers of Switzerland in Zurich and Geneva control some of the largest food speculators in the world. The nefarious speculative business practices of Place Finance Suisse are alive and well.

Thoughts and clandestine desires of population reduction and faraway wars are most likely the unconscious results of decades of horrendous western propaganda seeking in one way or another popular consensus that wars are necessary, wars are normal, wars is what people had since ‘the beginning’. What beginning? – Most certainly the beginning of the atrociously violent and greed driven Judo-Christian era, some six thousand years ago.

Wars are the quintessence of our western existence, the final quest for power over the universe. And wars are essential for the survival of our western growth-based economic system. Wars create needs for more wars and armed conflicts – wars propel a vicious spiral of conflict dependency. We have in our western economies created a war dependency that is so crass that for example the US economy (sic) could no longer subsist without wars. Wars kill and destroy; and reconstruction creates growth. Mass killing helps diminishing the world’s population, a key objective of the elite’s cream of the crop, like the Rockefellers, founders of semi-occult organizations like the Bilderberg Society.

The justification for continuous conflicts and killing is precisely what the western media are propagating day-in-day-out – terror that has to be fought by wars. If there is not enough terror to rationalize a war, terror has to be manufactured – by false flags. The west has perfected the science of constructing false flags – so credibly that the masses are screaming for more police and military protection; so credibly that the masses want more wars in far-away overseas places, more wars for their protection, for the protection of their comfort; so credibly that western societies gladly give away their civil rights for more police and military protection. As an example, following the January and November 2015 ‘terror attacks’ in Paris, President Hollande is attempting to put a State of Emergency permanently into the French Constitution. So far it has been blocked by Parliament.

The propaganda now, as well as then, spreads fear. When man is fearful, he is most vulnerable and can easily be manipulated.

Picking up on Christopher Black’s excellent analysis on western preparations for attacking Russia – i.e. starting WWIII – which he calls “Operation Barbarossa 2: The Baltic Gambit” (published by NEO and Global Research), here are some complementing thoughts on how this Operation resembles the original  “Operation Barbarossa” – code name for Hitler’s attack on Russia during WWII. (see maps below)

Today, similarities between what Chris Black calls Barbarossa 2 and the original Barbarossa abound. Starting with Corporate Big Business (CBB) and Wall Street (WS) supporting the fascist drive for world power, to the propaganda and lie campaign of six mega- Zionist-Anglo-Saxon media corporations, to the funding of the war operations itself.

WWII has killed more than 50 million people, about half of whom were Russians – funded by the FED via WS and the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland in German; the book on which this German newspaper article is based, “Bankgeschäfte mit dem Feind – Die Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich im Zweiten Weltkrieg” (1997), by Gian Trepp, describes the transactions in details – but, surprisingly it is no longer available, and it has apparently never been translated into English. – However, “The Tower of Basel”  complements and corroborates Gian Trepp’s account quite well).

Both of WWs I and II – and God forbid, WWIII, were and would be directed towards the east. The first target being Russia. China is already in the mire of attack and conquer of these class one elitists. The CBB elite are steering the Pentagon and by extension Washington’s NATO vassals. This cream of the crop pretending to run the world is hiding behind such nefarious organizations like the Bilderberg Society, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Chatham House, the World Economic Forum – and more.

The Clintons, Kerrys, Obamas, Hollandes, Camerons of this world, as well as the heads of the Washington Consensus instigators, the FED, World Bank, IMF; of the so-called European Central Bank, joined by the CEOs of WS, the military industrial complex, the medias of mass communication, the pharma – to name just a few – are members of most of these semi-secretive inter-laced organizations.

Many of these leaders are Zionists or supporters of world Zionism. They are all joined at the top, through one of the opaquest and most sinister pacts: The Freemasons, symbolized by the triangle with the watchful eye in the upper center, as depicted on the dollar bill. They are the creators of the FED and our western fraudulent casino monetary system.  They are already ruling the world. Their grip is tightening every day to the point of no return, if We, the People, let it be.

Here we come to the analogies between WWII and the preparations for WWIII. In the 1930’s and throughout WWII, IBM, then one of the largest US corporations, collaborated closely with Hitler, helping him organizing the Holocaust by accounting, registering and finally transporting Jews to their death camps of Auschwitz and others, through the first punch-card computers

(http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation-Expanded/dp/0914153277/).

Hitler awarded to IBM founder Thomas Watson the Merit Cross (Germany’s second-highest honor).

Other collaborators included Ford and General Motors, DuPont, the chemical giant, as well as the Randolph Hearst media empire, to name just a few, who admired the Führer for his disciplinary leadership. They turned a blind eye to the Nazi atrocities when profitable business loomed. Corporate America provided the arsenal for Hitler’s Nazism.

Today, similar to then, corporate America, corporate Europe, and corporate western media, hand-in-hand, promote and support a fascist approach to denigrate and squash independent and non-aligned Russia, then China – all with the PNAC’s (Plan for a New American Century) objective of Full Spectrum Dominance of all the world’s resources and all the world’s people.

One of the most recent physical onslaughts began with the by now well-documented western instigated Nazi coup against the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, Mr. Viktor Yanukovych, replacing him by a fascist government, in the bloody Kiev Maidan coup of February 2014 – and blaming Russia for the ensuing ‘civil war’; actually it is a NATO supported massacre in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass area, killing at least 40,000 people mostly civilians and causing some 2 million refugees. The objective of this murderous western initiative is two-fold: moving NATO closer to Moscow – and privatizing the rich agricultural and mineral lands of Ukraine by wester capital.

Image Left: Neo-Nazi Terrorism in Ukraine

Who is funding ‘Barbarossa 2’ – the US / NATO war adventure in preparation of WWIII?

The cost is difficult to assess but could easily reach a trillion dollars, or above. This is where the FED and the ECB may come in – and the similarity with Operation Barbarossa, where the FED via WS and the BIS funded Hitler’s Holocaust and war on Russia. Could this be the reason for ECB’s tolerance vis-à-vis some Eurozone countries’ – France and Italy, probably Poland and others – in the last couple of years producing more Euros than ECB rules would allow? This ‘new’ money, generated at the tune of at least 500 billion euros (in excess of the allowed Eurozone quotas) buys government bonds, thus, financing government debt.

With what we now know on how WWII was funded, would it surprise if the FED / WS-run ECB (remember, Mario Draghi is a former Goldman Sachs exec) would follow instructions from Washington to turn a blind eye to the Eurozone’s debt-ratio limitations, to produce, as does the FED with dollars, worthless euros to fund a future WWIII? – This would be merely copying the formula of the FED / WS / BIS funding of WWII. The Empire of Chaos is as always dancing on two weddings: funding a new war with Russia through debt imposed by Washington on its EU vassal allies, sanctioning Russia through the same EU vassals, which willingly accept the nefarious economic consequences for themselves, while the war machine of the exceptional nation of the US of A will reap the benefits of her arms industry; and while Obama did not prevent US business representatives to attend Russia’s International Business Forum last June in St. Petersburg.

When do “We the People” open our eyes to these flagrant human atrocities and deceits of an ever manipulating elite?

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Operation Barbarossa 2’: “Overpopulation” and the Funding of World War III

Current events in Syria and the broader Middle East have brought forth the idea of “militarized” refugees.  This is not a new concept but its present incarnation comes most clearly from General Breedlove – a misnomer if there ever was one – who said,

These indiscriminate weapons used by both Bashar al-Assad, and the non-precision use of weapons by the Russian forces — I can’t find any other reason for them other than to cause refugees to be on the move and make them someone else’s problem …Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve,”  [1]

This whole statement is essentially a lie. The military weapons being used by al-Assad may be imprecise, but the targeting by Russian forces has displayed accurate and effective attacks against ISIS and al-Qaeda associated terrorists.   It is certainly not within their plans to create a wave of refugees as that could have considerable blowback (I’ll revisit this idea later) towards Russia in both the European and the Caucasus regions.

Defining “militarized” refugees

The main point however is the weaponizing – referred to by others in politics and the press as militarizing – of the refugees.  This carries two aspects: first that the refugees themselves are the weapon, as indicated by Breedlove, in order to “overwhelm” social and economic structures of the EU; second, that some of the refugees are trained and armed for terrorist attacks.

It could well be true that there are militarized refugees in the EU arriving from the Middle East, but the source is certainly not the Syrian government nor the Russian military.  If there is a source one only need examine the actions of Turkey over the past several months to realize that Turkey is the initiative behind the migration.  For Turkey it is an effort to blackmail the EU and NATO into supporting Turkey’s goals in the Middle East which is essentially to establish a new mini-Caliphate supported by ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Concept in history

The militarized refugee concept is not a new historical construct.  An online search will bring the reference up in mostly academic papers in all areas of recent conflict from Rwanda to Yugoslavia and over to Vietnam.   These papers also carry the same two ideas about refugees:  one, that the refugees themselves are the weapon; and that refugees are militarized once they are in a foreign country.

Both these ideas have elements of truth to them, but only elements.  For the latter point, it is mainly an academic-social construct.  For the former point – that is Breedlove’s – it is pure propaganda over an opportunistic Turkish government’s not so well planned idea.

There is one area that I could not find a reference about any militarized refugees even though that area is by the above definitions the most singular powerful example of militarized refugees being used to “overwhelm…structures and break…resolve.”

Israel – primarily militarized refugees

Reading the history of Jewish migration and refugees entering into Palestine is a prime example of militarized refugees being used to control a region, its resources, and its population.   This is true for both aspects relative to Jewish refugees.  They were seen as weapons of control simply by their existence in Palestine.  More overwhelmingly, the immigrants were weaponized both before and after arrival in Palestine.

It started at the political level, mainly in the UK.  The British imperial interests recognized the value of the Middle East oil reserves as an energy source for the Royal Navy.  This coincided with its colonial India interests and thus in maintaining a peaceful transit route through the Suez Canal.   The British government makes reference to a Jewish state as an “outpost” of western control in the region, couched in the usual imperial terms of civilization and freedom.  The declarations within the Balfour letter, while not a legal nor international document, helped create the support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

At first the historical record is mostly passive, with occasional riots and attacks as the Jewish immigrants set about to control as much land and as much political space as they could.  At this point the main military action descended from the British forces.  Before WW II in the late 1930s a large rebellion by the Palestinians was put down by British military forces, aided by Jewish partisans.

As momentum gathered towards WW II, the Irgun (formed in 1931), the Haganah (1921), and the even more militant Stern Gang (1940) undertook many “militarized” actions.  Much of that was directed at the British who at the time considered the groups to be terrorists.  Thus, even before WW II, the situation in Palestine consisted of highly militarized refugees attempting to “overwhelm…structures and break…resolve.”

Postwar militarization 

WW II of course significantly changed the momentum of the creation of Israel.  In postwar  Europe there were masses of refugees and displaced persons, many of whom were Jewish survivors of Nazi attempts to eliminate them.

They were militarized to a great degree by the politics of the day, as the U.S., Canada, and other untouched countries severely limited immigration of Jewish refugees.  This is in part due to the influence of Jewish pressure on various governments to encourage the Jewish refugees to go to Israel.

The U.S. became the world superpower and its Jewish lobby supported the creation of Israel for the same reasons as the UK:  to create an outpost of “civilization” in the Middle East, an outpost that would continue to control the region’s resources and people.   It was also to serve as a bulwark against the burgeoning Cold War and the imagined threat from the Soviet Union.

In the above sense, the refugees themselves were a military weapon.  More importantly and often left out of the narrative is the nature of the actual militarization by armed force of the Jewish national interest.

Militarized Judaism

The Haganah, Irgun, and Stern Gang were militarily trained units already operating within Palestine (paramilitaries).  They had superior organization and superior weaponry to anything the Palestinians had.  After the war they morphed into the Israeli Defense Forces (1948) a conscript army to which all Israeli citizens (excepting some religious sects) had to join.  Adding to this military superiority were the large number of seasoned and well trained personnel returning from action in WW II.

The Jewish narrative of a small population being overwhelmed by a superior Arab force is simply a myth as per more recent research into the IDF archives.   The Jewish forces were numerically superior after the war, with most references giving them a three to one advantage over the Arab forces.  The yishuv had already created its own small armaments industry, had taken over the structure and supplies left by the British, and were continually importing military equipment and supplies from Europe.

Even before the war of independence, some of these forces had started the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.  After the war officially began and the other Arab countries entered the war, the ethnic cleansing continued unabated and the Arab forces were in most cases readily defeated.

Israel today – a militarized success

From that time forward Israel has always used the fear narrative to rationalize its ever increasing militarization and control of the region.  It has had the continued support of the U.S. and more recently the EU along with the UK for its role as an outpost of western control of the region.   But Israel has gone well beyond that and acts simply in what it perceives to be its own best interests, or at least the best interests of the ruling elite.

Today Israel stands as the the third most powerful nuclear state in the world with most recent estimates running consistently as high as 300 weapons (tieing for third spot with France).  It operates outside the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and has not formally announced its arsenal.  Its schools, politics, and industry are highly intertwined with the military.

Israel receives massive ‘aid’ from the U.S. much of it for military technology and weapons.  At the same time Israel has become the sixth largest arms exporter in the world, dealing with friend and foe alike.  It also deals with ‘security’ apparatus ranging from drones through to crowd control technology all well tested in Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel is obviously very secure militarily, in spite of its ongoing ‘fear’ manipulation concerning  Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program.  Israel exists, it will continue to exist against any and all threats…

…except perhaps for its own internal contradictions and the demographic threat that it has always perceived as its biggest worry.  For the latter reason it is adamantly opposed to any right of return by the refugees.  And as demonstrated by their own success with “militarized” refugees, it is a valid concern for the maintenance of the Jewish state as an ethnic entity.

Blowback

Because of Israel’s success, and the ongoing pursuit of global dominance by the U.S./NATO/EU partnership, there have been millions of displaced persons and refugees in the Middle East and South Asia over the past several decades.  As a result of western military depredations against these other formerly stable – if autocratic – governments – most specifically in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan – a mass migration movement should not be a surprise.

What has not been recognized is that the current “militarized” refugee crisis is not caused by Russia or Syria, but by previous wars initiated by the west.  When the pressure became too great for Turkey, they opened the gates towards Europe and allowed the refugees to flow out.

Israel is the greatest global success story concerning militarized/weaponized refugees.  The current refugee crisis ‘aimed’ at Europe is blowback from that success.

 Note

[1] NATO’s Gen. Breedlove: Syrian refugees are weapons against Europe.  Ed Adamczyk.  March 2, 2016.   www.wpi.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Militarized” Refugees – “A Success Story”

Shortly after beginning his speech at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, Donald Trump was rapidly surrounded by Secret Service agents after an audience member grew increasingly raucous to the point of Trump appearing to duck at hearing a noise. Trump did not leave the stage and carried on with his speech, adding “I was ready for him, but it’s much easier if the cops do it, don’t we agree?” This comes after last night’s violent protests (which Soros-funded MoveOn.org have taken credit for) and this morning’s misinformation about the cancellation of the Ohio rally.

Trump’s anxiety is understandable after last night’s violence, and expectations of further protests to come, as Infowars reports, Ilya Sheyman, a failed Illinois contender for Congress and the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, has taken credit for the violence at a cancelled Trump event last night in Chicago.

He promised similar violence and disruption will occur at future Trump political events leading up to the election.

“Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonight’s events,” on the George Soros funded MoveOn web page. “To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank you for standing up and saying enough is enough. To Donald Trump, and the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election.”

The violent demonstration in Chicago on Friday may represent a precursor to the sort of activity the organization will engage in as it tries to “shut down” its political enemies and elect either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

On Friday night many of the protesters shouted “Bernie!” and held placards announcing their support for the socialist Democrat.

The group acts as a front for wealthy Democrats. It was founded with the help of the financier George Soros who donated $1.46 million to get the organization rolling. Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt hotel family gave the group a $4 million donation.

The “promise” of violence? Sounds like domestic terrorism? Or is that only when “the other” side do it?

Of course, the media is implicitly opining that this is all his own doing, which made us consider the alternative – Imagine if someone attacked President Obama and the media proclaimed it was Obama’s own fault?

So far it seems 45,000 people in Dayton and Cleveland were ready to peacefully listen to what Trump had to say…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Caught On Tape: Secret Service Agents Storm Stage To Protect Donald Trump
Last month Cuban baseball stars and brothers Lourdes and Yulieski Gourriel left the national team in the Dominican Republic in order to pursue careers in Major League Baseball. It was reported widely from the official Communist Party newspaper Granma to regional and national news outlets. The coverage certainly represents a change from some years ago, when the issue would have been considered taboo, but was unremarkable considering the progression of Cuban society and media since then. But for New York Times editorial writer Ernesto Londoño the incident represented a dramatic emergence of free expression in Cuba, which, he argues, has been brought about only by the Obama administration’s change in policy toward the island.

The move by the Gourriel brothers was not a surprise inside or outside of Cuba. Rumors that Yulieski’s days were numbered with the national team were reported as early as June 2015 on Cuban blogs and shared on social media by Cubans.

While the Cuban government allows its players to compete in foreign sports leagues, the U.S. government does not permit Cubans to obtain visas due to the embargo. Consequently, Cubans seeking to play in MLB must establish residency in a third country and declare they do not intend to return to Cuba. 

The decision to play in MLB is literally a decision to abandon one’s country. Granma‘s story noted that the Gourriel brothers abandoned their hotel “in frank attitude of handing themselves over to the merchants of hired, professional baseball.” Londoño, however, makes the official line sound significantly more hostile in his translation, saying the brothers were criticized for “surrendering to mercenaries” of for-profit professional baseball.  

Londoño’s political bias is most salient when he calls Cuba “the most repressive country in the hemisphere.” Similar right-wing propaganda has been used for decades against the progressive government for challenging U.S. political and economic control by “the threat of a good example.”

Since the late 1950s, the U.S. government has sponsored client states throughout the hemisphere ruled by military dictatorships who eliminated political opposition, clergy, students and peasants with death squads whose bloody campaigns reached genocidal levels in countries like Guatemala and El Salvador.

In Londoño’s native Colombia, the government and its affiliated paramilitaries kill hundreds of labor and human rights activists annually and dispossess tens of thousands more. In the last two weeks alone, Telesur reports four activists have been killed. With nearly six million internally displaced persons, Colombia is second in the world behind only Syria.

In Cuba, on the other hand, political disappearances and killings are unheard of since the Revolution assumed power in 1959. Nor is there even one single refugee from violence.

In his opinion piece “Pushing the Boundaries of Free Speech in Cuba,” Londoño cites Cuban journalists lamenting the state of their country’s baseball league in the wake of the Gourriel brothers incident, and questioning whether Cuban youths are apolitical, as evidence of a trend driven by U.S. policy:

American critics of the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Cuba have called the shift in policy a failure by focusing on how rigid the socialist government has remained. They’re missing something important: The new relationship has done much to diminish the culture of fear and obedience the state has long used to control its citizens. For years, those who criticized the government paid a high price and were branded as traitors, but today Cubans from a broader cross-section of society are speaking out with less fear.

This statement contains several spurious claims. First, that the Cuban government has remained “rigid.” Under President Raúl Castro, the Communist Party Congress decided to reform its economic model. Since millions of Cuban participated in nationwide debates in 2007, the government has deliberately implemented consensus reforms that emerged from this process. In 2012, Castro expressed a desire to adapt to present challenges “without haste.”

Second, the claim Cuba has a “culture of fear and obedience” is clearly ideologically driven. Londoño doesn’t provide any examples to substantiate this allegation. It is taken for granted this is how Communist governments behave. Violence has never been a tool of population control by the Cuban Revolution. And it is not clear who allegedly paid a “high price.” It would be impossible to name even a single person who paid the ultimate price of his life.

Lastly, after failing to establish that the political culture he describes ever actually existed, Londoño argues that culture has now changed – thanks to the U.S. policy shift under the Obama administration.

This is a non sequitur. Yes, the U.S. and Cuban governments started the normalization process in December 2014. And subjects that were once taboo are now discussed more openly in 2016. But that does not mean the former has any connection to the latter, much less that there is a causal relationship.

Cubans unsurprisingly reject a narrative that puts the United States at the center of the changes in their politico-economic system. Juan Manuel Alvarez, a computer sciences engineer in Havana, disputed the idea that Granma’s publication of the Gourriel brothers departure had anything to do with encouraging Cubans to test the limits of free expression.

“For a long time in the country, internal problems have been discussed with much more freedom, and that is not at all related to December 17, 2014 (the bilateral announcement of normalization between the two countries),” Alvarez said in an email. “The whole dynamic that Londoño refers to, in which the blogs and regional journalism web sites like the Vanguardia are included, has been driven by the Communist Party itself and its main leaders, because before there definitely existed a strong control over all that.”

According to the imperialist narrative, the Cuban government is not capable of representing the political aspirations of its people. So any positive development – real or perceived – is attributed instead to the American government, who do represent the political aspirations of Cubans.

But the assumption of American benevolence towards Cuba is belied by the historical record, which shows American officials wanted to create “disenchantment and disaffection” among the “majority of Cubans” who supported the Revolution.

“Every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba,” wrote Lester Mallory in a secret memo, “to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

The embargo and isolation of Cuba are complementary tactics in an economic war waged on the country for more than half a century. The United States government and media must acknowledge that U.S. policy towards Cuba has never had noble intentions; on the contrary, it was illegal and immoral.

And it cannot be retroactively justified by any alleged benefits. Change, to the extent that Cubans want it, should and will be brought about Cubans themselves, without any involvement of the United States.

The most benevolent thing the U.S. government can do for Cuba is to cease hostilities against the country. The normalization process is only a partial, first step in that direction. It must also be followed by the complete termination of the embargo; the end of the occupation of Cuban territory and return of the Guantanamo Naval Base to Cuba; termination of financial support for domestic political opposition; and payment of reparations for the hundreds of billions in damages caused by the embargo and decades of terrorism.

A recent editorial in Granma laid out the principles by which mutual engagement between the two governments should take place:

Cuba affirms its will to advance relations with the United States, on the basis of the observance of the principles and intentions of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, signed by the officials of the State and Government of the region, which include the absolute respect for its independence and sovereignty, the inalienable right of all states to choose their political, economic, social and cultural system without interference of any kind; equality and reciprocity.

Cuba has shown they are willing to move beyond decades of the U.S. government’s interference, subversion, terrorism and aggression against them. So far, the Obama administration has shown no willingness to oblige. Media narratives that take for granted an American role in Cuba’s evolution encourage the U.S. government to continue its meddling.

The notion that the U.S. government’s new relationship will bring about positive societal changes in Cuba should be disposed of, along with the imperialist mindset that assumes such an outcome is even possible. U.S. policy should be judged by the extent which the U.S. government stops trying to influence politics in Cuba and lets the island develop independent of any outside pressure.


Matt Peppe writes the Just the Facts blog. He can be reached on Facebook and Twitter or by email at [email protected].
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Media Manufacture Narrative of U.S. Benevolence Towards Cuba

Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton’s recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding alack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with “the full spectrum of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if what we’re talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention. But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails,dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

  1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
  2. Increase French influence in North Africa,
  3. Improve his internal political situation in France,
  4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
  5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed byinvestigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a “rape policy” involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa – or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Toppling the Global Financial Scheme

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

It is banks, not governments, that create most of the money in Western economies, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged. This has been going on for centuries, through the process called “fractional reserve” lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold.  In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold domestically with central bank-created reserves, but gold remained the reserve currency internationally.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created money system globally. An IMF ruling said that no paper money could have gold backing. A money supply created privately as debt at interest requires a continual supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries wound up in debt to the IMF. The loans came with strings attached, including “structural adjustment” policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the US dollar traded interchangeably with gold as global reserve currency. When the US was no longer able to maintain the dollar’s gold backing, in the 1970s it made a deal with OPEC to “back” the dollar with oil, creating the “petro-dollar.”  Oil would be sold only in US dollars, which would be deposited in Wall Street and other international banks.

In 2001, dissatisfied with the shrinking value of the dollars that OPEC was getting for its oil, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. Regime change swiftly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than just sell his oil in another currency.

As these developments are detailed by blogger Denise Rhyne:

For decades, Libya and other African countries had been attempting to create a pan-African gold standard.  Libya’s al-Qadhafi and other heads of African States had wanted an independent, pan-African, “hard currency.”

Under al-Qadhafi’s leadership, African nations had convened at least twice for monetary unification.  The countries discussed the possibility of using the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money to buy African oil.

Until the recent US/NATO invasion, the gold dinar was issued by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL).  The Libyan bank was 100% state owned and independent.  Foreigners had to go through the CBL to do business with Libya.  The Central Bank of Libya issued the dinar, using the country’s 143.8 tons of gold.

Libya’s Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa).  In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas.

Showing What Is Possible

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya’s own state-owned bank.

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

[T]he goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.

Mystery Solved

Hilary Clinton’s emails shed light on another enigma remarked on by early commentators. Why, within weeks of initiating fighting, did the rebels set up their own central bank? Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow . . . may never be known for certain – at least not publicly.

There the matter would have remained – suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI probe. They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. Listen to “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails

The Future Doesn’t Like You

March 14th, 2016 by Anthony Freda

The future is a place where people will believe that giving up their liberty will help fight terror and save the Earth.

(It will do neither)

The future is a place where your every move will be recorded, tracked and analyzed without you even knowing it.

(Because They-hate-your-freedumb)

The future is a place where your car will drive itself with the promise of giving you more freedom and autonomy.

(You will lose both)

The future is a place where “humanitarian” wars will continue to destroy millions of human lives and fuel terror.

(To keep you safe)

The future is a place where your neighborhood police will look and act like soldiers on a battlefield.

(To protect and serve)

The future is a place where drugs, media and technology will used respectively to keep you sedated, misinformed and distracted from the fact that

The Future Doesn’t Like You.

Anthony Freda www.AnthonyFreda.com

Anthony Freda
www.AnthonyFreda.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Future Doesn’t Like You

Witnessing his Ottoman Empire remake dream crumbling on the ground in northern Syria, sultan Turkish President Recep Erdogan launched his highly touted (mini-)invasion into Syria this weekend. After a near month and a half of constant daily artillery shelling into Syria from the Turkish side of the border, Ankara has just stepped up its desperate aggression in the five year war to rid Syrian president Assad. Russian Foreign MinisterSergey Lavrov meeting in Geneva for peace talks resuming on Monday stated that Turkey is advancing its “creeping expansion” into Syrian territory which of course violates both the recent US-Russian ceasefire as well as all international law.

In a Sunday interview with Russia’s REN TV, Lavrov disclosed that Turkish troops have ensconced themselves several hundred meters (yards) into Syria to prevent its declared enemy the Syrian Kurds (YPG) from fortifying their positions and connecting the Kurds’ east-west corridor to take control over nearly the entire Syrian-Turkish border. The Russian minister stated:

According to our information, they [Turkish forces] are digging in a few hundred meters from the border inside Syria.

Though Erdogan’s own generals have strongly advised against an all-out invasion of Syria, knowing the grave consequences for Turkey and its military would be catastrophic against the Russian coalition’s superior air and firepower, in the face of recent decisive victories achieved against Turkey’s proxy allies the ISIS and al Nusra terrorists, debate over whether Erdogan will actually bully his armed forces into launching a ground war invasion into Syria has been heavily speculated by both Turkish and Middle East press. In February Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s most powerful leaders were publicly announcing to the world their intention to invade Syria in a protracted ground war risking World War III. Saudi jets were even deployed to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base.

But in the month since the Saudi-Turkish hot-air pre-invasion plans were uttered, Russian jets providing continual air support to the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian Kurds have only advanced deeper into Aleppo and Latakia provinces, scattering the terrorists in flight or pushing them to retreat toward their final jihadist stronghold Raqqa. With the Russian-Syrian definition per the truce agreement anyone still left fighting against Syrian forces are terrorists, they are clearly winning both in strategy and America’s “war of terror.” The US led Western coalition has had to resort to subterfuge in order to keep its war on terror still alive, making major concessions that have the terrorist all but defeated and on the run. With the main anti-Assad opposition groups honoring the February 27th truce, the terrorists left fighting on their own are currently being routed on multiple fronts. The top ISIS commander has just been reported “clinically dead,” kept barely alive by machines after a US air strike struck his compound a few days ago.

Apparently a US air strike on Sunday just killed an Israeli citizen fighting alongside the terrorists as well. Of course with his Golan Heights hospital bedside photo-ops,Netanyahu has long been in bed with jihadist terrorists fighting in Syria.

Obama has apparently conceded that his created terrorist monster ISIS doesn’t stand a chance anymore as his proxy terrorists appear to be suffering a rapid defeat in Syria ever since Putin’s game-changing intervention began last fall. Now that the US has ostensibly joined forces with Russia in a ceasefire and ongoing peace talks, even US jets are contributing to the terrorist demise at least with a few better aimed air assaults actually targeting real terrorists now, unlike Obama only pretending to hunt down ISIS before. Barring any major reversals, the war against terrorists in Syria will likely soon be coming to a close as the peace talks start up again this week with US backed opposition groups also meeting in Geneva. Russia has asked the UN to invite the also US supported Syrian Kurds to the talks as well.

Meanwhile, many of the Islamic State terrorists have been fleeing Syria heading in the south into Jordan. At the same time in recent weeks Saudi Arabia has intensified its interventions to destabilize Jordan and Lebanon in a last gasp ploy to relocate, regroup and reconstitute its terrorist safe zones within territory of Syria’s Arabic neighbors. Saudi Arabia entertains the objective of forcing Lebanese Hezbollah troops from the Syrian front back home to deal with Saudi induced instability in Beirut. No doubt this covert action by US main Muslim allies in the Middle East is part of Kerry’s “Plan B.”

Then several weeks ago Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates abruptly ordered its citizens back home and placed a travel ban to Lebanon. With its capital Beirut only 50 miles from Damascus, this move created speculation over the hyped up, but temporarily delayed plan of invading Syria with the Saudi led 34-Sunni nation “antiterrorist” coalition, of which twenty of those nations sent up to 350,000 troops to northern Saudi Arabia allegedly just now completing several weeks of military exercises.

On Saturday the negotiator of the main Syrian opposition group still called for Assad’s removal by either resignation or death as the precursor to a transition government. As the opposition groups take a seat at the negotiation table Monday, Syria has already redlined regime change as non-negotiable. Talk of a transition government in Syria is off the table according to the Syrian defense minister. So right away both France and the US are already grumbling with rhetoric, accusing Syria of sabotaging the Geneva negotiations and pressuring Russia and Iran to get Assad in line despite Assad calling for aparliamentary election to be held next month. But that’s not good enough for the US led coalition still wanting a timeline on Assad’s removal from power. The Kerry promise of Plan B should the peace talks fail that he alone unilaterally came up with right after the truce agreement already is in the making, claiming Syria is failing to adhere to its agreed upon plan.

As if that old regime change dead horse isn’t quite dead enough, ex-NATO commander Admiral Stravridis sounding off as the globalist puppet he is in CFR’s Foreign Policy ragjust claimed that Syria should be partitioned into three separate pieces (a la the Iraq federalist design of course patterned after 1990’s forerunning template Yugoslavia’s “balkanization,” aka destruction (which has become a permanent fixture in American Empire/CFR/globalist mainstay policy). In 2013 the globalist guru himself Henry Kissinger mouthed that same wish-list desire for Syria to be broken up into “more or less autonomous regions.” Then recall the master plan, the Greater Israel Project agenda to redraw borders by partitioning Arab nations according to Zionist design with US Empire busily fighting its expansionist proxy wars.

Stravridis and Washington still hope that for their war efforts the Syrian Kurds can “earn” their own turf in Syria (while labeling the Turkish Kurds wanting the same terrorists), and at least for now Iran and Russian-backed Assad can keep his Damascus government enclave while Kerry’s Plan B of a “moderate” Islamic State caliphate can claim their long planned security zone in eastern Syria for Turkey and Saudi Gulf states to continue waging their proxy terrorist war against Assad. Clearly the US Empire led axis-of-evil still has designs to protect their long term war on terror investment and the same old US imperialistic agenda is merely dragging on in sheep’s clothing under a phony, deceitful disguise of “peaceful settlement.”

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey “Invades” Syria on the Eve of Geneva “Peace Talks”

map of ukraine globalresearch.caConflict Heats Up in Ukraine. Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) Versus the Donbass and Lugansk militias

By South Front, March 08 2016

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement this February regarding the casualties sustained in the conflict in the eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) and the Donbass and Lugansk militias.

ukraine-nazi-emblems-e1427470301248Good Old American Taxes Dollars Funding Nazi Forces Of The Ukraine Government

By NovoRossia Today, March 13 2016

Readers may remember when, with a defense authorization bill in debate last June, two congressmen advanced an amendment banning military assistance to “openly neo-Nazi” and “fascist” militias waging war against Ukraine’s eastern

ukraine-les-masques-de-la-revolutionU.S. Government Backs Ukraine Fascists Who Want to Destroy Russia

By Eric Zuesse, March 09 2016

The Nation  published an outstanding article on March 9th, by James Carden, which described the remarkable extent to which the Obama government (and virtually all of the Washington Establishment) are supporting (financially and otherwise) fascists who want to destroy Russia.

USA Ukraine 2Ukraine, America’s “Lebensraum”. Is Washington Preparing to Wage War on Russia?

By Prof. John McMurtry, March 13 2016

Ukraine was and remains a breadbasket of the world, not much mentioned in Western reports as US-led corporate globalization now sweeps East.

ukraine-natoPresident of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker Damns Obama’s Plan for Ukraine

By Eric Zuesse, March 13 2016

Jean-Claude Juncker, the most powerful person in Europe, the chief of the European Commission and therefore Europe’s closest equivalent to America’s President, said, in a little-noticed comment on March 3rd, “Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20-25 years, and not of NATO either.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Conflict in Ukraine. Oligarchy and Militarism Collude.

Amid massive conflict and upheaval, Iraqi Kurdistan has leveraged its natural resources in an effort to gain independence.

Recent conflicts with Islamic State (ISIS), as well as economic difficulties from the global downturn in the oil industry, are factors which have slowed Iraqi Kurdistan’s recent, exponential, economic growth. However, the region, governed by the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) seems positioned for continued prosperity and growth over the long haul.

Contrasted to images of the the region around them, particularly within Syria, the standard of living in Iraqi Kurdistan is noticeable. Below is a spectacular night time look at a thriving Erbil, (also called or written as Irbil, “Hawler” or “Hewler” in English) less than a decade after the end of the Iraq War.

 

The optimism comes through in the above video, as well as a litany of others like it. It is not a giant mental leap to empathize as to why KRG’s Peshmerga forces have fought so hard and successfully against ISIS, and continue to do so. Who wants the hard work and  efforts seen above to become ruin?

Compared to recent history, things are on the upswing for Iraqi Kurdistan and oil has been the driving force for the building boom within Iraqi Kurdistan. In fact, since the start of the Iraq War in 2003, there have been some claims of having 10,000 millionaires from the area.

Iraqi Kurdistan: Oil Oasis “Boom Towns”

Oil, and the follow on industries that come with it, bring to mind the Western United States’ “boom towns” that sprung up, seemingly overnight, out of the American West, during the Gold Rush.

In this region of the world, the oil rush is still in full swing regardless of where the current price is. Iraqi Kurdistan and the KRG appears to be doing all it can to capitalize off of successful economic neighbors like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait; all of which have cities with spectacular skylines and that did not exist a decade ago.

Is it a coincidence the prosperous Gulf Cooperation Council nations are, for the most part, aligned with the West?

This revenue from oil has brought new levels of prosperity which extends Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital of Erbil, and beyond. An example is seen in the city of Sulaymaniya, which attracted its very own Grand Millennium Hotel.

Grand_Millennium_Sulaimani_Hotel_in_Sulaymaniyah,_Kurdistan (1)
GRAND MILLENNIUM HOTEL, SULAIMANI (Image Source: WikiCommons)

Feel free to click the following links and check out Grand Millinium’s 360 Rotating Restaurant, or the Crystal Champagne Baror one of the 5 other bars, lounges, or dining options, world class spa, or many suite options.

Oil, Wealth, Independence.

The KRG, its people, the land, and the wealth that comes with it, want their independence. As recently as January of this year, KRG leader, President Massoud Barzani continued to state the case for independence.

The Guardian captures the following statements from Iraqi Kurdistan’s President:

‘I think that within themselves, [world leaders] have come to this conclusion that the era ofSykes-Picot is over” … Whether they say it or not, accept it or not, the reality on the ground is that.  But as you know, diplomats are conservatives and they give their assessment in the late stages of things.  And sometimes they can’t even keep up with developments.’

Part of the pathway to Iraqi Kurdistan’s independence is tied to its ability to “pay their own way” so to speak.

In 2015, by their own accounts, they have been pushing a grand total of 570,000 barrels a day of output; this includes over 420,000 barrels a day though their KRG-Turkish pipeline. With this type of production, one could understand why the centralized government in Baghdad is in no hurry to let Iraqi Kurdistan become independent without getting something in return.

Oil and gas are merely the foundation and gateway, to long-desired wealth, affluence, and independence from Baghdad.

The Oil Oasis attracts other business. 

Along with the giant oil corporations, Iraqi Kurdistan has seen the arrival of constant construction, malls and commercialism, and a growing service industry, along with a host of other sub-industries and follow-on development.

One interesting industry that has grown at historical proportions, just waiting for the oil prices to rise at a later date, is housing. The housing projects, and their scale, simply have to be seen to be believed. Below is only a small sample of the recent housing developments, and overall construction, within Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan, that would make Donald Trump blush.

 

 

Not to fret Real Estate agents of America, the housing market and the construction that goes with it has not been stagnate everywhere…

The Kurdistan Board of Investment states that since 2003, “78 Housing Projects in the region amounting to around $5.8 Billion, which is 42.9% of investment capital and 44.51% of investment land distributed thus far making it the largest capital & land investment in any one sector in the region.”

Meanwhile, from 2006 to 2012, “Erbil [same as Irbil] was clearly the epicenter of housing construction, with 81 projects totaling $8.89 billion. In contrast, Slemani [same as Sulaymaniya]implemented 45 projects totaling $2.25 billion in investment and Duhok executed 40 projects totaling $2.55 billion.

Construction is seen in many sectors besides housing. Various malls, hospitals, monuments, government buildings are all surging in recent years due to companies such as the Miran Group.

Below is a 30 second video of a City Star Mall in Sulaymaniya, constructed by Miran Group.

 

The Kurdish Renaissance is no accident.

Iraqi Kurdistan has the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria near its borders. How, amid regional turmoil, has Kurdistan thrived?

It is hard to blame Iraqi Kurdistan for “seizing the moment” after many, often violent, years with Iraq from the 1960’s through Saddam Hussein era. Why would they not position themselves to profit, similar to nations of the prosperous Gulf Coalition Council?  The Iraq War was the perfect convergence of planning and opportunity for the KRG.

The KRG has leveraged the Iraq War of 2003, in particular, to both stand on its own and gain power within the Iraqi government. Also, not without notice, the Peshmerga fighters of Iraqi Kurdistan have and proven their worth in counter-terrorism fights along side the United States. All of the preceding reasons are expounded upon by Yaniv Voller, who goes into exceptional detail on the history and relationship between the KRG and Baghdad, in his research paperKurdish Oil Politics in Iraq: Contested Sovereignty and Unilateralism.

More Oil, More Problems

President George W. Bush and KRG President Massoud Barzani, October, 2005.

Presidents Bush and Barzani
(Image Source: Wiki Commons)

At times, the KRG’s oil and gas deals with foreign corporations come with officially recognized licenses from the Iraqi government and sometimes they do not.

There are 27 oil and gas companies from 13 countries within Iraqi Kurdistan, are recognized by Baghdad. However, some of the KRG’s deals made outside of the purview of Baghdad, such as the one with Exxonare not officially recognized but are in effect nonetheless.

President Barzani’s ability to play all the angles has been top notch thus far, with moving towards independence without “burning bridges” with Baghdad. Similarly, he has been able to deal with just about everyone. Business deals have been made with nations currently at odds elsewhere. The presence of both Russia’s Gazprom and the United States’ Chevronfor example, seem to “hedge bets” that neither super power will look upon Iraqi Kurdistan unfavorably, regardless of what happens between them. The KRG can simply be friends with both and put off “choosing sides” in the interim.

SEE ALSO: SPECIAL REPORT: ISIS Oil? Follow the Money (Back to Europe).

Cash flow and oil flow are ever-fluctuating dance partners. The foreign investment and hundreds of corporations from various industries descending upon the area are all new to Iraqi Kurdistan.

Oil prices have been down lately, so return per barrel has taken a hit. With some threats and posturing due to lack of payments to oil companies from the KRG, by the like of Genel Energy’s Tony Hayward, things have become strained.

The KRG’s response is a simple one. Since the economy is not really diversified beyond the oil industry, the answer has been to increase oil production while hoping oil goes up again. Therehave been reports that the KRG wants to get the barrel-per-day production number to a million, while also hoping the price per barrel goes from the 30 U.S. dollar range to the 70-80 dollar range. Who wouldn’t want to double their money for the same amount of work?

Industry website, OilandGasPeople.com writes that “Oil is an inherently cyclical business.”  The conventional sentiment seems to be that “what goes down, seemingly will come back up.”

While oil companies have seen a slower return on profits, they continue to be on good terms with the KRG. This is seen in the The National which writes that back payments to oil companies will be made and, “a further payment of 5 per cent of each respective monthly payment to start clearing arrears” will begin.  Companies such as DNOGenel Energy, Gulf Keystone, and Dana Gas, have to play a “waiting game” but seem destined for compensation and profit over time.

The Path to Independence

Iraqi Kurdistan’s history with leaders such as Saddam Hussein, their recent fights with ISIS, their own refugee issues, their dealings with oil markets and unforeseen stoppages in oil flow, are all “growing pains.” However, the daily, monthly, and yearly adversity they have lived through and still encounter appear to only slow and delay their continued rise within the region.

Iraqi Kurdistan’s economic rise has not been without obstacles and has lost some of its early momentum. Still, with geopolitical moves and business alliances that demonstrate they have made, they appear to have “the long game” in mind.

While waiting to regain the full momentum of Iraqi Kurdistan’s economic growth, one could do worse than partying with Russian DJ Katusha, at one of the many Erbil night clubs, such as Aura below.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boom Town: Iraq’s Kurdish Region Flourishes Amidst Warfare

Early in the morning on March 3, in La Esperanza, Honduras, unidentified men broke into the home of the environmental activist Berta Cáceres and murdered her. Cáceres was the cofounder of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Movements of Honduras (COPINH) and the 2015 winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize, and her murder has prompted an international outcry as well as investigations supported by the United Nations and the FBI. The Mexican environmental activist Gustavo Castro, who was staying in Cáceres’s home in hopes of deterring violence against her, witnessed the murder and was subsequently detained by Honduran authorities. Amnesty International has warnedthat Castro, who was shot twice in the attack, is in “grave danger.”

Cáceres’s activism spanned several issues, including indigenous rights, feminism, LGBT rights, and environmentalism, but recently, “more than anything,” her sister Agustina Flores told me, “it was Agua Zarca,” a proposed hydroelectric dam project, which was to be built on the territory of the indigenous Lenca people. Flores, a retired teacher, says that Cáceres had received repeated death threats related to her work. The threats were so serious in recent months that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights repeatedly called on the Honduran government to provide her with protection. Her sister said that protection was never provided. “We have feared for her life for a long time,” Flores said in a telephone interview, adding that in November, Cáceres told her she was being “seriously harassed” by three local politicians who she believed were acting at the behest of Desarrollos Energéticos, SA (DESA), the private energy company behind the Agua Zarca dam.

Photo: Inti Ocon/AFP/Getty Images

DESA is partially controlled by the controversial Honduran Atala family, whose members are involved in a variety of business ventures and suspected by many of having backed the 2009 coup. Best known among them is billionaire Camilo Atala, president of Banco Ficohsa, a regional bank that in 2014 acquired most of Citibank’s assets in the region, making it the largest bank in Honduras.

The Intercept requested comment from DESA, Agua Zarca, and the Atala family. DESA provided the following statement:

The board of directors of the company that is carrying out the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project has not given any declaration nor does it plan to do so until the authorities in charge of the investigation determine the causes and perpetrators of this regrettable incident that ended the life of the indigenous leader Berta Cáceres. This, as is logical, is in order to not provoke any more speculation than what already exists and which is spreading among public opinion around what happened.

Agua Zarca also received financing from the Central American Bank for Economic Integration. The original contractor hired to build the dam, supported in part by the World Bank, was one of the largest hydropower engineering companies in the world, Sinohydro Group. For more than a year, in 2012 and 2013, community members formed a human barricade to block construction of the dam, while COPINH led a national and international advocacy campaign to highlight the environmental and cultural destruction the dam would cause. DESA’s private security guards and the Honduran military responded with a campaign of violence and intimidation.

“The army has an assassination list of 18 wanted human rights fighters with my name at the top,” Cáceres told Al Jazeera in December 2013. “I take lots of care but in the end, in this country where there is total impunity I am vulnerable,” she continued. “When they want to kill me, they will do it.”

Eventually, both Sinohydro and the World Bank pulled out of the dam project and it is currently on hold.

Cáceres’s family strongly believes that someone involved with Agua Zarca ordered her execution. Her children have circulated a press release in which they name DESA, the various Agua Zarca funders, and the Honduran government for its failure to protect their mother. On March 3, Agua Zarca felt compelled to issue a statement denying that it was involved in the murder. “Agua Zarca roundly affirms that there is no direct nor indirect connection between the project and the regrettable event that ended the life of the indigenous leader.”

Last year, the group Global Witness named Honduras as the world’s deadliest country for environmental activists. “There is a straight line between environmentalist activism and assassination in Honduras,” said Dr. David Wrathall, a United Nations University geographer who studiesHonduras. Over the last decade, Central America has become awash in drug money, Wrathall says, which frequently ends up entangled in large-scale agriculture and development projects such as dams.

“Big public infrastructure works are the most corrupt sector in the global economy, even more than oil or the arms trade,” said Peter Bosshard, anexpert in dams and corruption at International Rivers. Although Honduras does have laws on the books that require environmental impact analyses (EIA) to be performed before a dam project can go forward, practically speaking, these reports never recommend against a project. “You will never see an EIA that says, well, the impacts of this project are so severe that we recommend not going forward,” said Bosshard. “Even though that’s the point of the EIA.”

Marco Tulio Carrillo, a spokesperson for the Honduran Ministry of the Environment, which awards dam permits, said that he had “no knowledge with respect to the subject” and that “it should be under investigation.”

Whereas powerful landowners, businesses, and politicians have resorted to violence against activists in the past, now these actors have more illicit enterprises and transactions to hide, coupled with unrestrained capital and a reserve army of hit men,” Wrathall said. “So it’s anti-environmentalism (literally) on drugs.

Honduran soldiers guard 15 tons of seized cocaine in Patagallina, Santa Rita municipality, Yoro department, some 300 kms north of Tegucigalpa, on November 29, 2012. The drug -found in an underground vault that operated as a laboratory- was divided into 344 packs. AFP PHOTO/STR        (Photo credit should read STR/AFP/Getty Images)

Honduran soldiers guard 15 tons of seized cocaine in Patagallina, in the department of Yoro, some 300 kilometers north of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on Nov. 29, 2012.
Photo: Str/AFP/Getty Images

Honduras Is Open for Business

Cocaine has moved through Honduras for many years, but the quantities of the drug entering the country soared in 2007 when the U.S. succeeded in squeezing shut the old route from South America through the Caribbean and Mexico. Now, according to a recent State Departmentreport, about 90 percent of the cocaine destined for the U.S. passes through Central America and Mexico, and the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) has some of the highest homicide rates in the world.

Conditions worsened after the 2009 coup removed President Manuel Zelaya from office. As Berta Cáceres eloquently states in thisvideo interview from 2014, the coup, which was supported by the United States, created an atmosphere of violence and terror. Before the coup, the Zelaya administration had successfully blocked many hydroelectric projects, but the new government immediately began approving the projects en masse. In June 2010, 40 contracts were approved for a series of dams. When President Juan Orlando Hernández came into office, his rallying cry was “Honduras Is Open for Business.”

Berta Cáceres and COPINH saw development differently. Progress for them meant an ability to raise their families on their sacred ancestral lands, and a society in which power was distributed more equally. When those dreams were threatened, COPINH protested. “Berta loved to say, ‘They fear us because we’re fearless,’” wrote Beverly Bell, a U.S. activist who knew Cáceres for decades, in a eulogy she sent via email to The Intercept. “The fearlessness paid off over the years. COPINH has successfully reclaimed ancestral lands, winning unheard-of communal land titles. They have stalled or stopped dams, logging operations, and mining exploration — not to mention free-trade agreements. They have prevented many precious and sacred places from being plundered and destroyed.”

Cáceres’s family has demanded an investigation not only into who committed the murder, but also into those who ordered it. The office of the Honduran attorney general has refused to comment, declaring its investigation secret. “We don’t want Honduran investigators,” said Cáceres’s sister, Agustina Flores. She said that the FBI had been to their family home to interview her brother. “They said they’d received orders from their government to do everything possible to solve the crime.”

Some U.S. officials have echoed the family’s demands. Two days after the murder, in a letter read aloud at Cáceres’s funeral, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont demanded an “independent and comprehensive” investigation, adding that “the Rio Blanco and the territory that Berta devoted her life to defend should be protected. The Agua Zarca dam project should be abandoned.”

According to Annie Bird, an activist currently staying with Berta’s family in La Esperanza, the course of the Honduran government’s investigation so far is worrisome: Gustavo Castro and COPINH leadership are “being intensely questioned,” without lawyers, and the line of questioning suggests the government plans to argue that COPINH is behind the murder. There is “no indication that they have been investigating DESA or DESA guards.”

Before being detained by Honduran authorities, Gustavo Castro, the Mexican activist who witnessed the murder, denounced the investigation in an open letter, saying that the scene of the crime had been altered by authorities. Castro was initially given permission to leave the country, but when he arrived at the airport in Tegucigalpa, officials took him back into custody, saying they needed to return him to the crime scene for more questioning. On March 7, Castro was told that his detention would last at least 30 days. According to Amnesty International, “He fears that the authorities are trying to keep him in Honduras so that the assassination attempt against him can succeed the second time.”

Cáceres’s family and friends are determined to bear witness to the extraordinary example of her life and work, and the community to which she belonged. “I saw Berta die in my arms,” Castro wrote in his open letter, “but I also saw her heart planted in every struggle that COPINH has undertaken.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Drugs, Dams, and Power: the Murder of Honduras Activist Berta Cáceres

However, our laws have been written so as to protect government officials, and corporate executives, if and when they are prosecuted for it. This leaves considerable discretion for prosecutors and judges to let them off the hook; and, as a consequence of this rampant discretion, there are numerous similar cases that receive starkly different procedural and judicial outcomes (a classic definition of “injustice”); so that, in this, as in so many other aspects of government in the United States, our country is far more a government by persons, than it is a government by laws. 

This means that the legal outcome of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attempt to destroy the evidence on the email server that she had had installed in her basement, will depend not so much on what the laws are (which are intentionally vague), but on who is investigating, reporting, and making decisions about that case.

For an elementary example showing how arbitrary our system is about such matters, consider that this case ended with no prosecution of the police officers. A former Secretary of State who is also the leading candidate for President of the United States, may be presumed to be at least as likely, as they, to avoid even weak penalties for her evidence-tampering, regardless of how heavy the legal penalties might be for what she did if the perpetrator were only a regular powerless citizen doing essentially the same thing (and this is true regardless of whether or not there were top-secret documents on that unsecure server — the feature of the case which is the almost exclusive focus of media-coverage and federal investigation about the event).

For example: if the only reason why she destroyed that evidence was in order to prevent voters from knowing her private connections to persons and organizations that her Department was doing business with, and the ‘top-secret’ matter weren’t involved at all in the case, then what she was doing by deleting the records might not have been technically “criminal” at all, yet its outcome if she becomes President might be far more harmful to the nation than any lapse of state-security from unsecured private possession of top-secret information would be, or might have been.

So: on the face of it, what Secretary Clinton did was evidence-tampering and thus a federal crime, but to expect it to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, or even at all, would seem to be unlikely. It might be, in the American system, permissible crime.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519:

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

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    US Code

prev | next

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.

(Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 802(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 800.)

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/07/18/litigation-sanctions-for-spoliation-of-evidence

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=dlj:

[p. 1254, or p. 40 of the 122-page pdf discussing in this passage the Sarbanes-Oxley law’s changes to the criminal laws that had existed before Arthur Anderson & Co. accountants had evidence-tampered Enron’s audit-reports:] What if the documents are destroyed to guard against whatever suit might arise, without having specific litigation in mind? For example, how would the provision apply to the ongoing destruction of safety test records by a manufacturer when there is no specific plaintiff — perhaps not even a specific buyer for the product? Arguably, such upstream behavior would still fall outside the bounds of new section 1512(c).152 At the very least, Sarbanes-Oxley does little to resolve the issue. … If Andersen had been destroying audit-related documents as it went along, rather than after it learned of the SEC inquiry in October 2001, would it have been criminally liable under new section 1512(c)? Arguably not.

Regarding her likely Republican opponent (if she wins the nomination), Donald Trump, the three class-action lawsuits against him regarding Trump ‘University’, are presently civil fraud cases instead of federal criminal ones; but that could change. Trump, an aristocrat himself, has lots of enemies within the aristocracy. Unlike most of the other aristocrats, his fortune is in real estate instead of stocks; so, the Wall Street banks and the private equity and hedge fund people who finance most of American politics don’t like his plans on taxes and on shipping jobs overseas to lower-wage countries (so as to boost corporate profits). Already, Republican billionaires, such as Marlene and Joe Ricketts, founders of TD Ameritrade, are running Super-PAC ads against him on the Trump ‘University’ matter.

The Ricketts are dyed-in-the wool Republicans but they might support Clinton this time around — lots of Republican as well as Democratic billionaires might do that.

In 2012, the Ricketts had hired a firm to draw up a plan to stir hatred against President Obama. The plan as presented to them was titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.” It opened by saying, “Our plan is to do exactly what John McCain would not let us do. Show the world… the elephant in the room. … The metrosexual black Abe Lincoln has emerged as a hyper-partisan, hyper-liberal, elitist politician with more than a bit of the trimmer in him.” The plan became described on 17 May 2012 in The New York Times, in a news story, by Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, headlined “G.O.P. ‘Super PAC’ Weighs Hard-Line Attack on Obama.” They reported that the 54-page document was being considered by Joe Ricketts, who was aiming to spend $10 million in 2012 to get Republicans elected. “Lamenting that voters ‘still aren’t ready to hate this president,’ the document concluded that the campaign should ‘explain how forces out of Obama’s control, that shaped the man, have made him” the wrong person to lead the nation “in these days and times.” It recommended “full-page newspaper advertisements featuring a comment Mr. [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright made the Sunday after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ‘America’s chickens are coming home to roost,’ he said.” The Ricketts servant who had prepared this plan was evidently desperate, because voters, as his plan said, “still aren’t ready to hate this president.” The Jeremiah Wright attacks fell flat against Obama in 2008 and would be even less successful now four years later; so, Ricketts spent his campaign money elsewhere. And now, he’s spending his money in an attempt to prevent Trump from winning his Party’s nomination.

With both Republican and Democratic billionaires determined to block Trump from the White House, maybe it will be Trump instead of Clinton who ends up being indicted. Unlike Clinton, he doesn’t have friends in the right places. But anyway, the relative merits and demerits of candidates have little to do with the matter. Nor do the laws.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Destruction of Emails Was a Federal Crime

The popular defense groups confiscated amounts of ammunition, different sorts of shells and weapons in the northern countryside of Sweida province, foiling terrorists’ attempt to transfer them through al-Lajat area to terrorists positioned in Eastern al-Badiya (desert).

A source at Hasaka Governorate told SANA Thursday that the terrorists transferring the munitions were ambushed by the popular defense groups Wednesday evening in Kou’ Hadar area.

The terrorists suffered losses, with many of them getting killed, while others fled away leaving behind mortar shells, land mines, RPG shells, ammunition of machineguns and Israeli-made LAU missile, according to the source.

On Wednesday, authorities confiscated in cooperation with the popular defense groups a car loaded with rocket, mortar and artillery shells, mines and half a ton of TNT in the southern countryside of Sweida that was heading eastward.

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syria’s Popular Defense Groups Ambush Terrorists, Confiscate Israeli-Made Weapons

Israeli Aircrafts Drop Toxic Materials on Jordan Valley’s West Bank

March 13th, 2016 by The Palestinian Information Center

Poisonous substances were dropped from Israeli aircrafts in Palestinian agricultural and residential areas in the Jordan Valley on Friday, according to local sources.

Azem Mohamed, coordinator of agricultural relief projects in Jordan Valley, said that the Israeli side justified its action by claiming it was aimed at fighting wild animals in the Jordan Valley. Mohamed affirmed to the Palestinian Information Center (PIC) that the dropped materials pose a risk to livestock, which the majority of the Jordan Valley residents depend on for food and income.

He added that these materials also endanger the health and lives of the residents, especially the children, because of their presence near their homes and farms. The agricultural official warned the residents of tampering with these hazardous things and urged to them to necessarily inform the Palestinian authorities in their areas if they found them so as to destroy them in a proper manner.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israeli Aircrafts Drop Toxic Materials on Jordan Valley’s West Bank

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are continuing to clash against ISIS in Southeastern Aleppo. On Wednesday, the pro-government forces seized the villages of Shabib, Kharbeel, ‘Akeel, Al-Qalay’at, and Sirada in Khanasser Plains expanding a buffer zone along the strategic supply route to Aleppo.

At least 26 members of al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa have been killed in a series of their failed offensives in Tal al-Eiss. However, there are no indications that militants will cut their attempt to counter-attack in the area.

Syrian and Russian warplanes intensified air raids on ISIS positions at Palmyra. According to reports, the aerial operation focused on as-Sawwanah and al-Bayarat areas near the city.  The Syrian artillery units also pounded the militants’ positions in the oil-rich region of Jezl.

Meanwhile, ISIS launched offensive in the Eastern and Southeastern parts of Homs province attacking the loyalists’ strongholds in al-Maqale’a (quarries), Thaniyeh al-Rajmeh and Dhuhour al-Hayyal. The SAA repel these attacks.

The SAA launched an offensive on an ISIS stronghold near the town of Quaryatayn. Calshes are ongoing there.

On Mar.9, there reportedly were sporadic clashes between the civilians and ISIS militants in the city of Raqqa, the self-proclaimed Caliphate’s capital in Northeastern Syria. ISIS answered with setting up additional checkpoints and a new wave of arrests across the city. Earlier there have been a series of reports that some 200 militants switched sides and seized part of the city of Raqqa.

One has to consider the distinctive possibility such reports represent an effort by local Sunni tribes to establish a truce with at least one of the two main forces marching in the direction of Raqqa: the Syrian Arab Army or the Kurdish militias. Such developments represent the fact that ISIS has started to lose the influence even in the formally controlled territories of Syria.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: Rebellion against the Islamic State in Raqqa, Retreat of ISIS Forces in Southeastern Aleppo. Air Raids on ISIS in Palmyra

Readers may remember when, with a defense authorization bill in debate last June, two congressmen advanced an amendment banning military assistance to “openly neo-Nazi” and “fascist” militias waging war against Ukraine’s eastern regions. John Conyers and Ted Yoho got two things done in a stroke: They forced public acknowledgment that “the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov battalion,” as Conyers put it, was active, and they shamed the (also repulsive) Republican House to pass their legislative amendment unanimously.

Obama signed the defense bill then at issue into law just before Thanksgiving. The Conyers-Yoho amendment was deleted but for a single phrase. The bill thus authorizes, among much, much else, $300 million in aid this year to “the military and national security forces in Ukraine.” In a land ruled by euphemisms, the latter category designates the Azov battalion and the numerous other fascist militias on which the Poroshenko government is wholly dependent for its existence.

US money

An omnibus spending bill Obama signed a month later included an additional $250 million for the Ukraine army and its rightist adjuncts. This is your money, taxpayers, should you need reminding. As Obama signed these bills, the White House expressed its satisfaction that “ideological riders” had been stripped out of them.

No, you read next to nothing of this in any American newspaper. Yes, you now know what the often-lethal combination of blindness and arrogance looks like in action. Yes, you can now see why American policy in Ukraine must fail if this crisis is ever to come to a rational, humane resolution.

The funds just noted are in addition to a $1 billion loan guarantee—in essence another form of aid—that Secretary of State Kerry announced with fanfare last year. And that is in addition to the International Monetary Fund’s $40 billion bailout program, a $17.5 billion tranche of which is now pending. Since the I.M.F. is the external-relations arm of the U.S. Treasury (and Managing Director Christine Lagarde thus the Treasury’s public-relations face) this is a big commitment on the Obama administration’s part (which is to say yours and mine).

Good Old American Taxes Dollars Funding Nazi Forces Of The Ukraine Government

How are things on the receiving end, it is natural to ask. Our money goes to exactly what?

Until recently, what one heard and read of Ukraine’s progress into a neoliberal future was almost all happy talk (or silence, of course). Vice President Biden, who carries the Ukraine portfolio in the administration, makes regular trips to laud the Poroshenko government and the reformist zeal of Premier Yatsenyuk. This is perhaps only natural, given Biden’s son is neck-deep in Ukraine’s resource extraction industry.

Biden sounded a different note during his latest trip to Kiev, which came in December. Yes, there was another handout, this one $190 million to help the Poroshenko government implement “structural reforms” of the usual antidemocratic kind. (Are you toting up all these checks?) But Biden was stern, make no mistake. He shook his finger from the podium in parliament.

“We understand how difficult some of the votes for reforms are, but they are critical for putting Ukraine back on the right path,” Biden said. “As long as you continue to make progress in fighting corruption and build a future of opportunity for all Ukraine, the U.S. will stand with you.”

Back on the right path? Continue to make progress?

Since euphemisms are an American export item, familiar in euphemism markets the world over, a translation: You are embarrassing us because you have done nothing. We gave you a window to pass legislation before the Ukrainian people figured out how awful it would make their lives. You’re blowing it as we speak. Hurry up. Meantime, here is another couple of hundred million.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Good Old American Taxes Dollars Funding Nazi Forces Of The Ukraine Government

El pasado 7 de marzo, la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) anunció que dará a conocer una decisión este próximo 17 de marzo del 2016. Se trata de un primer fallo con relación a las excepciones preliminares presentadas por Colombia contra las dos nuevas demandas en su contra planteadas por parte de Nicaragua en el año 2013 (ver comunicado de prensa en francés, y en inglés).

Las dos demandas de Nicaragua del 2013

La primera demanda de Nicaragua fue presentada en setiembre del 2013, días después de oír una inédita declaración presidencial en Colombia sobre el supuesto carácter “no aplicable” del fallo del 2012 de la CIJ entre Nicaragua y Colombia. Al analizar en su momento los alcances (y algunas cómodas omisiones) de esta declaración del Presidente Santos, y la reacción de Nicaragua, nos permitimos concluir que: “Esta demanda se presenta pocos días después de la declaración del Presidente Santos y a pocas semanas antes de que entre en vigor la denuncia oficial de Colombia al Pacto de Bogotá del 29 de noviembre del 2012 (la cual requiere de un año para su entrada en vigor para “liberar” a Colombia de demandas futuras basadas en este texto): el tiempo dirá si la desafiante actitud de Colombia precipitó (o no) esta decisión de Nicaragua de recurrir nuevamente a la CIJ para solucionar una disputa de más de 33 años que tiene en espera a toda la región” (Nota 1).

La segunda demanda de Nicaragua contra Colombia se presentó a finales del mes noviembre del 2013.

En sus solicitudes al juez internacional, Nicaragua exigió a la CIJ aclaraciones sobre el límite de su plataforma continental en el mar Caribe a partir del fallo del 2012: como es sabido, geológicamente Nicaragua posee una plataforma continental que se extiende más allá de las 200 millas náuticas.  El artículo 76 de la Convención de Derecho del Mar  (ver  texto )  suscrita en 1982, instrumento al que es parte Nicaragua desde el 2000 (y no Colombia) prevé la posibilidad de extenderse hasta 350 millas náuticas (ver  estado oficial  de firmas y ratificación en el que  figuran los Estados de América Latina  – incluyendo a Bolivia así como a Paraguay, Estados sin litoral marítimo  – con excepción de Colombia, El Salvador, Perú y Venezuela).

Además, tal y como lo analizamos en su momento (Nota 2), Nicaragua solicitó en el 2013 a la CIJ indicar que el comportamiento de las autoridades de Colombia contraviene con varias obligaciones internacionales, así como otras relacionadas al debido cumplimiento del fallo del 19 de noviembre del 2012 de la misma CIJ.

El fallo del 2012 y la extraña estrategia de Colombia

Como se recordará, este fallo del juez de La Haya del 2012 fue  duramente criticado por varios sectores políticos en Colombia, llevando incluso a sus autoridades a manifestar una actitud desafiante ante la autoridad de la misma CIJ. No obstante, también encontramos algunos (pocos) artículos en la doctrina, incluyendo la colombiana, que objetan las posiciones de sus mismas autoridades con relación al hecho que no presentaron ningún recurso de interpretación o de revisión del precitado fallo desde el 2012 (Nota 3). Un  Estado disconforme con el contenido de un fallo de la CIJ tiene a su disposición vías legales previstas por los artículos 60 y 61 del  Estatuto , que detallan el artículos 98 (recurso de interpretación) y  el artículo 99 (recurso de revisión) del  Reglamento  de la misma CIJ.  Estados de América Latina disconformes con un fallo han recurrido a los recursos previstos para este fin, tal como lo hiciera El Salvador en el 2002 (solicitando una revisión del fallo de la CIJ de 1992 en su controversia con Honduras). En junio del 2008, México solicito a la CIJ una interpretación con relación a la decisión de la CIJ en el caso Avena (México contra Estados Unidos), dictaminada en el 2004. Se trata en definitiva de herramientas legales, a disposición de un Estado cuando este requiere algún tipo de aclaración sobre el contenido o el alcance preciso de un fallo de la CIJ, y que Colombia ha optado por no utilizar.

 

Figura de las zonas otorgadas a Nicaragua y a Colombia en el Mar Caribe por parte de la CIJ en su fallo del 2012. Extraída de artículo de prensa publicado en Poder.cr

Las excepciones preliminares ante la CIJ

Como es sabido, la figura procesal de las excepciones preliminares consiste, para la parte demandada, en intentar evitar un examen sobre el fondo por parte de la CIJ, cuestionando su competencia. Esta figura goza de amplia aceptación en derecho internacional, en la medida en que se considera que un Estado soberano  no tiene porqué explicarse ante un juez internacional si no ha dado previamente su consentimiento para someterse a este último.  La presentación de excepciones preliminares busca no solamente descartar una decisión sobre el fondo por parte del juez, sino también que se debata el asunto como tal. Para algunos autores, este intento puede también denotar poca confianza del Estado en sus argumentos sobre el fondo: en una publicación especializada publicada en Francia se lee que: “Il n´est pas rare de remarquer que l´Etat qui présente ces exceptions a quelques doutes sur l´issue du procès, autrement dit, il préfère que l´affaire s´arrête plutôt que de risquer de tout perdre au fond»  (Nota 4). Con relación a un ejercicio similar de Chile ante una demanda boliviana, tuvimos la oportunidad de advertir en mayo del 2015 que el recurso a esta herramienta procesal debería siempre ser objeto de una extrema cautela:

El recurso a esta herramienta procesal (excepciones preliminares) siempre debiera ser cuidadosamente sopesado por parte del Estado demandado. En el caso en que la CIJ rechace algunas de las excepciones preliminares, declarándose competente, coloca al Estado que hizo uso de este recurso en una posición inconfortable ante los jueces de la CIJ. Bien lo sabe Estados Unidos, que intentó evitar que la demanda planteada por Nicaragua en abril del 1984 siguiera su curso, con la presentación de excepciones preliminares: al no obtener que la CIJ se declarara incompetente, Estados Unidos optó por no comparecer en la fase siguiente del procedimiento sobre el fondo que concluyó con el histórico fallo de junio de 1986 de la CIJ. De igual manera se puede inferir que el precitado fallo de la CIJ sobre excepciones preliminares en la controversia entre Nicaragua y Colombia colocó a Colombia en una situación incómoda ante los jueces de la CIJ en la fase ulterior del procedimiento: intentar evitar que la justicia internacional se pronuncie no siempre es bien percibido por parte del juez internacional” (Nota 5).

Las audiencias celebradas en octubre del 2015

En las audiencias orales celebradas en octubre del 2015 sobre las excepciones preliminares presentadas por Colombia, las cuales se extendieron por dos (largas) semanas, los asesores legales de Colombia presentaron una batería de argumentos muy similares para intentar frenar ambas demandas nicaragüenses. Entre varios argumentos jurídicos avanzados, la CIJ deberá precisar este próximo 17 de marzo cuál es el alcance exacto de la disposición LVI del Pacto de Bogotá de 1948 sobre la denuncia del mismo: como se recordará, este emblemático instrumento interamericano, que lleva el nombre de su capital, fue denunciado por Colombia 10 días después de que se leyera el fallo de la CIJ, el 29 de agosto del 2012 (Nota 6). El plazo previsto para la entrada en vigencia  de la denuncia es de un año, y Nicaragua presentó su segunda demanda contra Colombia 24 horas antes de que surtiera pleno efecto dicha denuncia.

Durante las audiencias orales celebradas en octubre del año 2015, se dejó entrever un esfuerzo por parte de los asesores legales de ambas partes para no causar aburrimiento en los jueces de la CIJ, debido a la repetición de argumentos muy similares de una semana a otra. Así por ejemplo, por parte de Colombia, el profesor Michael Wood indicó en sus alegatos que: “As Members of the Court will be aware, this preliminary objection is identical to our first preliminary objection in the case heard last week. The pleadings in that case are available to the Members of the Court. I do not think it would be appropriate for me simply to repeat what I said last week” (véase  verbatim  de la audiencia  celebrada el 5 de octubre del 2015, p. 21). Por parte de Nicaragua, el profesor Antonio Remiro Brotons inició su alocución indicando:

Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, une personne normale, peu importe combien elle adore le cinéma, ne regarde pas le même film deux fois dans une semaine à moins que celui-ci soit absolument exceptionnel ou que la personne en question soit très intéressée à apprécier des détails passés inaperçus la première fois. Il serait arrogant de notre part de croire que vous attendez avec impatience une nouvelle séance du film sur la compétence de la Cour suivant le pacte de Bogotá projeté il y a à peine sept jours » (véase  verbatim  de audiencia del 6 de octubre del 2015 , pp.18-19)

Sobre estos y algunos otros detalles de estas audiencias orales realizadas en octubre del 2015 entre los equipos legales de Nicaragua y de Colombia, remitimos al lector a una breve nota nuestra publicada en varios sitios especializados de América Latina (Nota 7).

A modo de conclusión

Pese a no haber despertado mayor interés por parte de nuestros demás colegas, la actitud de Colombia es inédita en los anales de la justicia internacional. Denunciar un tratado emblemático para América Latina como lo es el Pacto de Bogotá, declarar “no aplicable” el fallo de la CIJ, buscar la manera de invocar su ordenamiento jurídico interno para justificar su actitud, y no recurrir a figuras previstas para precisar el alcance de un fallo de la CIJ o su revisión, forman parte de un inédita gestual corporal de un Estado. Si bien denota una clara inconformidad con el fallo del 2012 de la CIJ, ofrece a la comunidad internacional un espectáculo raramente visto. Durante las audiencias orales celebradas en octubre del 2015, se dejó incluso entrever cierta improvisación por parte de la delegación de Colombia, cuya estrategia resulta un tanto inusual. Los asesores de Nicaragua por su parte, intentaron hacer ver las contradicciones de sus contrincantes a los jueces de la CIJ. En nuestra nota antes referida, se reseña, además de otros aspectos de naturaleza más técnica y jurídica, la inusitada presencia de autoridades políticas colombianas durante las mismas audiencias ante los jueces, y el inusual uso de un solo idioma (en vez de los dos idiomas oficiales) por parte de Colombia en la presentación de sus alegatos finales. Este próximo 17 de marzo, se podrá apreciar cuál lectura tienen los integrantes de la CIJ de esta peculiar manera de litigar de Colombia en La Haya.

 Nicolas Boeglin

 

Nota 1: Véase nuestra breve nota BOEGLIN N., « Colombia no aplicará el fallo de la CIJ sobre Nicaragua”, Periodistas-es.com, 26/09/2013. Texto disponible aquí.  Una versión más extensa fue editada en francés: véase BOEGLIN N.,  “La décision de la Colombie de déclarer « non applicable » l´arrêt de la CIJ : brèves réflexions », Universidad de Laval, 2013. Texto disponible aquí.

Nota 2: Véase nuestra modesta nota, BOEGLIN N., “La nueva demanda de Nicaragua contra Colombia en la Corte Interancional de Justicia”, editada en el medio digital Informa-tico el 11/12/2013 (ver  nota ).

Nota 3: Véase por ejemplo, PRIETO SANJUÁN, R.A., “À vous la terre, et à vous, la mer: à propos de l’étrange sens de l’équité de la CIJ en l’affaire du Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie)”, Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional (ACDI), Vol. 8 (2015),  pp. 131-165. Leemos que para este autor, « Vues les réactions qui ont fait suite à l’arrêt, tout porte à croire que la Casa de Nariño (nom du palais présidentiel colombien) a du mal à accepter que lorsque la Cour est compétente pour connaître d’une affaire, il lui revient de trancher le différend dont elle est saisie de manière définitive et obligatoire. La Ministre des affaires étrangères a en effet publiquement pris attache avec un cabinet britannique qui, assure-t-elle, l’a convaincue de l’existence de bonnes chances d’introduire une demande d’interprétation, voire de révision de l’arrêt devant la Cour. Une demande d’interprétation ? Pourquoi pas si l’arrêt présente une difficulté de compréhension, mais il semble que la Colombie ait bien compris que sa thèse a été rejetée…; quant à obtenir une révision, encore faudrait-il faire valoir un fait nouveau » (pp. 134-135). Texto completo  del artículo disponible aquí.

Nota 4: Véase SOREL J.M & POIRAT Fl., «Rapport Introductif », in SOREL J.M. & POIRAT Fl. (Ed.), Les procédures incidentes devant la Cour Internationale de Justice : exercice ou abus de droits ? Paris, Pedone, Collection contentieux international, 2001, pp.9-57, p.55.

Nota 5: Véase BOEGLIN N., “Bolivia y Chile a audiencias ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ)”, Elpais.cr, 6/05/2015, disponible aquí.

Nota 6: Véase nuestra breve nota publicada en La Nación (Costa Rica): BOEGLIN N., “La denuncia por Colombia del Pacto de Bogotá”, disponible  aquí . Una versión más extensa fue publicada en francés en la Universidad de Laval (Canadá), BOEGLIN N., “Le retrait de la Colombie du Pacte de Bogota de 1948”, disponible aquí.

Nota 7: Véase la versión de nuestra nota en estas mismas páginas  BOEGLIN N., “Nicaragua y Colombia a audiencias ante la CIJ” (Global Research, 5/10/2015, disponible  aquí ), y publicada en una versión más extensa en el sitio jurídico en Perú de  Ius360 , y en los sitios jurídicos especializados en derecho internacional en Argentina en  dipúblico.org  y en el de nuestros estimables colegas de la Asociación Colombiana de Derecho Internacional,  Debate Global .

 

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

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Próxima decisión de la CIJ sobre las excepciones preliminares presentadas por Colombia ante demandas de Nicaragua

There are several aspects to this cultural war, in its broadest sense, which is presently being waged against Cuban socialist culture. One of these themes is the massive US media war and political disinformation campaign on the issue of civil rights in Cuba as part of human rights.

With only several days until Obama’s arrival in Cuba, the new Cuba–US relationship is entering into a very crucial and difficult stage. As part of yet another profound historical analysis of Cuba–US relations, Dr. Elier Ramírez Cañedo, one of Cuba’s most outstanding historians and experts on the confrontation and attempts toward “normalization” between the two countries, wrote an astute observation in reference to a remark Obama made on December 19, 2014. In the context of the US’s desire to bring about change in Cuba, the President said, “…how societies change is country-specific, it’s culturally specific.”

Ramírez Cañedo deduced:

In the face of this open declaration of cultural war, understanding culture in its broadest sense, beyond the artistic and literary meaning, it would be naive to think that history will not be – indeed it already is – one of the fundamental targets of those who seek to undermine from within the socialist culture in Cuba.

He also wrote in this same article:

But if some in Cuba or outside, especially in the revolutionary ranks, make the mistake of forgetting or neglecting the importance of study and deep knowledge of the past in the present circumstances, it would play into the hands of those who now with new clothes persist in their goals of destroying the Cuban revolution at its very roots.

The Massive US Media and Political War

There are several aspects to this cultural war, in its broadest sense, which is presently being waged against Cuban socialist culture. One of these themes is the massive US media war and political disinformation campaign on the issue of civil rights in Cuba as part of human rights. The US narrative is that indirectly or directly – and grudgingly – it acknowledges Cuba’s accomplishments in the realm of social rights, as a subset of human rights, with regard to health services, education, culture and sports. However, it accuses Cuba of violating individual civil rights and political rights, referring, as an example, to the often-cited US-centric double standard of the “right to free speech, free press and protest.” Thus, according to this anecdotal explanation, Cuba is not a democracy, since it violates civil/political rights and, by extension, human rights.

However, civil rights, such as political rights, comprise an important part of the foundation that safeguards and promotes the full spectrum of human rights. The most significant civil right afforded to Cubans – and demanded by Cubans – is to participate in its own political system. This tradition, while not perfect and thus always in evolution, stems back to the collective mass revolutionary struggle leading to the victory of the Cuban Revolution and thus to the people’s political power in January 1959. One cannot forget this history.

Civil Rights

This legacy has continued through many forms while seeking to improve participatory democracy. If Cubans had not had – and did not now have – the capacity to exercise their own political power, how could other human rights have been won and guaranteed? For example, if Cubans had not exercised their individual politics rights in the 1950s to win political power, how would the securing of social rights – such as the right to health, education, culture and sports – have been accomplished in the first place?

Since 1959, the Cuban Revolutionary Government strives to involve the participation of the people to improve these social civil rights. The citizens, for their part, endeavour to strengthen their own real political power to safeguard and upgrade their social/economic/cultural human rights. There is ample space within the Cuban socialist culture for this debate and action to flourish in order to move Cuban socialism from one stage to the next. However, this democracy in motion is ignored by the US ruling circles.

Washington and most of the US mainstream media only recognize those civil political rights as a component part of human rights defined and demanded by what they call Cuba’s “civil society.” This very marginal “opposition” is ideologically and/or financially dependent on the US, which has created it in the first place. Their goal is to act as a US Trojan horse to destroy the Cuban Revolution from within. Of course, this fringe is hardly a basis for undermining the Cuban Revolution. Thus, in order to reinforce the Trojan horse, the US also targets the more than 500,000 self-employed workers. This growing section of Cuban society is wrongly perceived by Cuba’s neighbours to the North as natural fifth column recruits to the US “way of life and values” (capitalism and dependence on the US) to undermine Cuban socialist culture. The US may underestimate the patriotism of the vast majority of Cubans, including the growing number of self-employed, who the US unjustifiably refers to as the “private sector,” as though they are detached from Cuban society and its socialist culture, which is not the case.

The “civil rights” of US-fabricated opposition and any other sections of the society that can be grafted on to them defy the civil and political rights of the vast majority of the Cuban people.

Challenges on the Horizon

There are several elements complicating the current situation in Cuba since the thaw that was initiated by both countries on December 17, 2014.

Within Cuba itself, Ramírez Cañedo is concerned, and rightly so, about some “in the revolutionary ranks” that become victim to this US-fuelled cultural war. This would come about, as seen by the author of this piece, among other hurdles, by forgetting Cuba’s past regarding civil/political and social human rights. Thus, individuals would fall into the trap of referring to the false dichotomy between civil/political rights and other human rights, such as health, education, culture and sports.

Outside of Cuba, the situation has also become more complex. Before December 17, 2014, many commentators had been strongly opposed to the US policy on Cuba. There was a gap between them and Washington. Now the situation has changed. Some of them have become the vanguard of Obama–Cuba policy, forgetting that the US has only changed tactics. They have morphed into apologists of the new policy, which serves to finally achieve its strategic goal of undermining – now from within – the Cuban Revolution. One of the political/ideological foundations of this new vocation is to say, in effect, “We concede that Cuba has made many achievements on social rights such as health and education as part of human rights, but civil and political rights are being violated in Cuba.” Political civil rights are thus set in contrast to social/economic/cultural rights. Alternatively, some may remain silent on Cuba’s revolutionary style of political civil rights, thus, wittingly or not, also assisting the US in its cultural war against Cuba.

For its part, the Cuban official newspaper Granma correctly wrote, in a decisive and cutting editorial on March 8, 2016, that “Cuba defends the indivisibility, interdependence and universality of civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights.”

The question is, will Obama’s visit to Cuba provide Cubans the opportunity to make headway against the cultural war, or will it allow the US to make inroads? Or are both these scenarios on the horizon?

Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are, on the one hand, the US and, on the other hand, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama in Cuba: Will the Visit Advance the US Cultural War Against Cubans?

Behind the glamour of the vogue power couple from Canada being hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama for a dinner at the White House, lies a secret continental climate strategy the two leaders will reportedly sign.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will not endorse the Trans Pacific Partnership there because the government “has a very deep commitment to transparency and a full national dialogue,” according to International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Why the double standard? Why should Canadians not be as widely consulted on a continental climate strategy, too?

Image: Flickr/pmwebphotos

Energy ministers in the three NAFTA countries agreed in Winnipeg on Feb. 12 to forge a continental clean energy accord.

Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said the Winnipeg agreement builds on “strides” made toward a continental energy strategy. That’s news to Canadians. What strides and to what end?

Would a continental energy strategy help Canada meet its ambitious Paris climate promises? Will it lock Canadians into their traditional role as diggers and exporters of carbon fuels?

There are reports a continental clean energy deal would be about tighter fuel and auto-emission standards, electric cars, and self-driving vehicles. If that’s all it is, Canadians would probably support it. But why did Carr talk about a continental energy deal to be discussed by the leaders of the three Amigo countries in May in Canada. Or are those separate, secret talks?

Powerful interests are pushing for a continental climate-energy deal.

In 2014, a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, based in New York, called for an energy and environmental strategy with Canada and Mexico to “strengthen the United States at home and enhance its influence abroad.”

The task force was headed by David Petraeus, former head of the CIA and former commander of the occupation forces in Iraq, and Robert B. Zoellick, former president of the World Bank and current chairman of Goldman Sachs’ international advisers. They call for cross-border energy regulatory and policy integration. That’s usually code for Canada and Mexico adopting the American way.

It’s easy to see why U.S. officials want continental energy integration. Despite the recent surge in domestic oil production, the U.S. is forecast to still import more than a quarter of its oil through 2035. Washington sees Canada and Mexico as much safer oil suppliers than the Middle East and Venezuela.

But would energy integration give Canadians energy security? Canada imports about 40 per cent of its oil. Eastern Canadians are vulnerable to international oil shortages.

If she becomes president, Hillary Clinton promises to immediately launch negotiations on a North American climate pact so the U.S. will lead the world in transitioning to a clean-energy economy and ensure Americans’ security.

But how will Canada get to a low-carbon future if it chains itself to massive carbon fuel exports?

Why should Canada tie its carbon-reducing plan with a country whose largest emissions — one-third — are from coal-fired electrical power plants? Obama’s paltry plan — put on hold by the Supreme Court — is to reduce such emissions by only 30 per cent by 2030. Ontario has completely eliminated them. Alberta will phase out coal power generation by 2030.

Canada’s main carbon emissions lie elsewhere. It’s the production of oil and natural gas, mainly for export, not autos and trucks used by Canadians, that is Canada’s biggest source. Alberta’s oil sands are the fastest-growing source. Its growth to Alberta’s “cap” of 100 megatonnes (Mt) a year, is the main roadblock to Canada cutting emissions from a projected 765 Mt to 524 Mt by 2030. Canada can’t meet those Paris promises if it’s locked into being America’s gas tank.

Phasing out carbon energy exports and oil sands production will cut our emissions the most.

Given the power imbalances, the U.S. will call the shots in a North American clean energy pact. Where would that leave the many Canadians pushing their governments for serious climate action? Their governments will have little ability to do much if they’ve given up sovereignty on climate action.

Washington often doesn’t heed the wishes of American citizens. It doesn’t care a whit what Canadian and Mexican citizens think.

If Ottawa is pursuing a continental clean-energy deal, it must widely consult with Canadians before ratifying it.

Gordon Laxer is the author of After the Sands: Energy and Ecological Security for Canadiansand the founding director of Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Is Canada Keeping the New “Secret” Continental Climate Deal with Obama under Wraps?

On March 11, 2006, President Slobodan Milosevic died in a NATO prison.

No one has been held accountable for his death. In the 10 years since the end of his lonely struggle to defend himself and his country against the false charges invented by the NATO powers, the only country to demand a public inquiry into the circumstances of his death came from Russia when Foreign Minister, Serge Lavrov, stated that Russia did not accept the Hague tribunal’s denial of responsibility and demanded that an impartial and international investigation be conducted. Instead, The NATO tribunal made its own investigation, known as the Parker Report, and as expected, exonerated itself from all blame.

But his death cannot lie unexamined, the many questions unanswered, those responsible unpunished. The world cannot continue to accept the substitution of war and brutality for peace and diplomacy. It cannot continue to tolerate governments that have contempt for peace, for humanity, the sovereignty of nations, the self-determination of peoples, and the rule of law.

The death of Slobodan Milosevic was clearly the only way out of the dilemma the NATO powers had put themselves in by charging him before the Hague tribunal. The propaganda against him was of an unprecedented scale. The trial was played in the press as one of the world’s great dramas, as world theatre in which an evil man would be made to answer for his crimes. But of course, there had been no crimes, except those of the NATO alliance, and the attempt to fabricate a case against him collapsed into farce.

The trial was necessary from NATO’s point of view in order to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the putsch by the DOS forces in Belgrade supported by NATO, by which democracy in Yugoslavia was finally destroyed and Serbia reduced to a NATO protectorate under a Quisling regime. His illegal arrest, by NATO forces in Belgrade, his illegal detention in Belgrade Central Prison, his illegal rendition to the former Gestapo prison at Scheveningen, near The Hague, and the show trial that followed, were all part of the drama played out for the world public, and it could only have one of two endings, the conviction, or the death, of President Milosevic.

Since the conviction of President Milosevic was clearly not possible after all the evidence was heard, his death became the only way out for the NATO powers. His acquittal would have brought down the entire structure of the propaganda framework of the NATO war machine and the western interests that use it as their armed fist.

NATO clearly did not expect President Milosevic to defend himself, nor with such courage and determination. The media coverage of the beginning of the trial was constant and front page. It was promised that it would be the trial of the century. Yet soon after it began the media coverage stopped and the trial was buried in the back pages. Things had gone terribly wrong for Nato right at the start. The key to the problem is the following statement of President Milosevic made to the judges of the Tribunal during the trial:

“This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer. The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural questions, because I’m not sitting here because I was accused of a specific crime. I’m sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party.”

The prosecution, that is the United States and its allies, had not expected a real defence of any kind. This is clear from the inept indictments, confused charges, and the complete failure to bring any evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The prosecution case fell apart as soon as it began. But once started, it had to continue. Nato was locked into a box of its own making. If they dropped the charges, or if he was acquitted, the political and geostrategic ramifications were enormous. Nato would have to explain the real reasons for the aggression against Yugoslavia. Its leaders themselves would face war crimes charges. The loss of prestige cannot be calculated. President Milosevic would once again be a popular political figure in the Balkans. The only way out for NATO was to end the trial but without releasing Milosevic or admitting the truth about the war. This logic required his death in prison and the abandonment of the trial.

The Parker Report contains facts indicating that, at a minimum, the Nato Tribunal engaged in conduct that was criminal regarding his treatment and that conduct resulted in his death. The Tribunal was told time and again that he was gravely ill with heart problems that needed proper investigation, treatment and complete rest before engaging in a trial. However, the Tribunal continually ignored the advice of the doctors and pushed him to keep going with the trial, knowing full well that the stress of the trial would certainly kill him.

The Tribunal refused prescribed medical treatment in Russia seemingly for political reasons and once again put the Tribunal’s interests, whatever they are, ahead of Milosevic’s health. In other words they deliberately withheld necessary medical treatment that could have lead to his death. This is a form of homicide and is manslaughter in the common law jurisdictions.

However, there are several unexplained facts contained in the Parker Report that need further investigation before ruling out poison or drugs designed to harm his health: the presence of the drugs rifampicin and droperidol in his system being the two key ones. No proper investigation was conducted as to how these drugs could have been introduced into his body. No consideration was given to their effect. Their presence combined with the unexplained long delay in getting his body to a medical facility for tests raises serious questions that need to be answered but which until today remain unanswered.

The Parker Report, despite its illogical conclusions, exonerating the Nato tribunal from blame, provides the basis for a call for a public inquiry into the death of President Milosevic. This is reinforced by the fact that the Commandant of the UN prison where President Milosevic was held, a Mr. McFadden, was, according to documents exposed by Wikileaks, supplying information to the US authorities about Milosevic throughout his detention and trial, and is further reinforced by the fact that Milosevic wrote a letter to the Russian Embassy a few days before his death stating that he believed he was being poisoned. Unfortunately he died before the letter could be delivered in time for a response.

All these facts taken together demand that a public international inquiry be held into the entirety of the circumstances of the death of President Milosevic, not only for his sake and the sake of his widow Mira Markovic and his son, but for the sake of all of us who face the constant aggressive actions and propaganda of the NATO powers. Justice requires it. International peace and security demand it.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ten Years Since the “Extrajudicial” Assassination of Slobodan Milosevic. NATO’s Responsibility

En el contexto de relaciones Cuba-EE.UU., el 2 de marzo, 2016 en Ginebra, Antony J. Blinken (secretario de Estado adjunto del Departamento de Estado de los EE.UU.) emitió una Declaración Nacional en el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU. En su declaración Blinken resalta entre otros puntos que Obama, durante su visita a Cuba en marzo, “…destacará que sería mejor para el pueblo cubano que existiera un ámbito donde la gente se sienta libre de escoger sus partidos políticos y sus líderes…”

Vamos a concentrarnos por el momento sobre el tema de “escoger sus líderes.”

La Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular (ANPP) electa en 2013 tiene un mandato de cinco años. Como primer paso antes de comenzar sus nuevos períodos de sesiones se reúne para elegir de entre sus miembros a su Presidencia (Presidente, Vicepresidente y Secretario) de la ANPP.

De entre los diputados, la ANPP también elige posteriormente al Consejo de Estado. Este se compone del Presidente del Consejo de Estado y el Primer Vicepresidente, otros Vicepresidentes, un Secretario y 23 miembros más, para un total de 31 integrantes. El Presidente del Consejo de Estado es asimismo Jefe de Estado y de Gobierno (Consejo de Ministros). El actual Presidente de estos dos órganos es Raúl Castro. Por último, la Constitución expresa que “el Consejo de Estado es responsable ante la Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular y le rinde cuentas de todas sus actividades”.

Cuba no tiene un “sistema presidencial” ni se propone tenerlo. El Presidente del Consejo de Estado es elegido de entre los diputados que, a su vez, son elegidos por los ciudadanos.

Tomemos como ejemplo a Raúl Castro de acuerdo a una descripción muy resumida de algunos pasos previos a su elección como Presidente del Consejo de Estado y del Consejo de Ministros. En las elecciones generales de 2013, fue electo diputado, para la Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular de Cuba (Parlamento), de un municipio en Santiago de Cuba, su provincia de origen. Aun cuando haya un solo candidato por escaño, el candidato necesita 50%, por lo menos, del voto popular. En las elecciones generales de 2013, Raúl Castro recibió 98.04% del voto. Este porcentaje fue uno de los más altos entre los 612 diputados elegidos.

La Comisión de Candidaturas Nacional (CCN) es la encargada de organizar la nominación y elección de la Presidencia de la ANPP y del Consejo de Estado. Comienza las consultas con los diputados tan pronto como son electos. Las elecciones de  2013  se celebraron el 3 de febrero.

El proceso electoral concluye el 24 de febrero 2013; este es el día en que la recién electa ANPP se reúne para quedar constituida. Cada diputado o diputada tiene derecho a proponer a cualquier diputado para cualquier cargo en la Presidencia de la ANPP y el Consejo de Estado.

Antes de la constitución del nuevo mandato de la ANPP, el 24 de febrero, la CCN entrega a cada diputado un tabloide con las biografías de los diputados electos, así como las de los miembros salientes del Consejo de Estado (Entrevista. Reus González).

Este proceso fue explicado, además, en una entrevista separada con la CCN Cuando el diputado llega a la oficina de la CCN, después de haber tenido tiempo suficiente para estudiar el tabloide, se les entrega a él o ella dos hojas en blanco: una para las propuestas para el Consejo de Estado y otra para la Presidencia de la ANPP. La persona puede entonces confeccionar una lista personal de sugerencias que también incluye sus preferencias para cargos específicos, como Presidente y Vicepresidentes del Consejo de Estado y la Presidencia de la ANPP. La lista no se firma y se deposita en secreto (Entrevista. Pérez Santana, Marchante Fuentes y Fajardo Marín).

El diputado Daniel Rafuls Pineda (en ese momento) se extendió en este proceso. Señaló que la CCN le entregó personalmente la lista de biografías de todos los diputados varios días antes de su cita del 7 de febrero en la sede de la Comisión. De esa manera, tuvo “toda la libertad del mundo para tomar [su] decisión” (Daniel Rafuls Pineda. Mensaje electrónico al autor, 15 de marzo de 2008).

El diputado Jorge Gómez (del grupo musical Moncada) relató su experiencia con este proceso.  Hizo igualmente un recuento interesante del período de enero a febrero de 2008. En aquel momento, en 2006, Fidel Castro ya había entregado temporalmente su cargo de Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros al Primer Vicepresidente, Raúl Castro. El 19 de febrero de 2008 hizo público su anuncio del día anterior: “No aspiraré ni aceptaré el cargo de Presidente del Consejo de Estado y Comandante en Jefe.”

Según Gómez, en su reunión privada en la sede de la CCN que tuvo lugar antes del anuncio hecho por el líder cubano, él había propuesto a Fidel Castro para Presidente del Consejo de Estado. Escribió igualmente el nombre de Raúl Castro como Primer Vicepresidente y el de José Ramón Machado Ventura como el siguiente Vicepresidente, junto con sus otras propuestas para ese órgano. Jorge Gómez también indicó su selección para la Presidencia de la ANPP en la otra hoja que le entregaron.

Después de una pregunta sobre la continuidad de la Dirección de la Revolución, el diputado —no miembro del PCC— era de la opinión de que, ante la ausencia de Fidel Castro quien ocupaba un cargo formal en el Consejo de Estado, era necesario “que se reforzara con la Dirección histórica de la Revolución”.

A otra pregunta sobre un artículo del diario Granma, de febrero de 2008, que informaba que Fidel Castro había sugerido a la CCN que Machado Ventura fuera nominado como Primer Vicepresidente, Gómez respondió que esta era una preocupación lógica de Fidel. Su objetivo ha sido garantizar en todo momento que no se perdiese la esencia de la Revolución. Gómez estimaba que Machado Ventura, por ser uno de los líderes históricos de la Revolución que tiene una vasta experiencia, debía ser nominado (Entrevista. Jorge Gómez Barranco).

Después de que todos los diputados habían pasado por este proceso de proponer candidatos para la Presidencia de la ANPP y el Consejo de Estado, la CCN tabuló las boletas en hojas de papel. De acuerdo con la cantidad de votos, confeccionó la lista de 31 miembros del Consejo de Estado, incluidos sus cargos principales. La CCN elaboró otra lista con las tres propuestas para la Presidencia de la ANPP (Entrevista. Pérez Santana, Marchante Fuentes y Fajardo Marín.).

Según lo observado por el autor durante la constitución del nuevo mandato de la ANPP en 1998 y lo que pudo conocer en las entrevistas sobre el mandato de 2008, los últimos pasos de las elecciones ocurrieron de la manera siguiente. El día en que debía quedar constituida la ANPP (24 de febrero de 2008) la Presidenta de la CEN, María Esther Reus González, dirigió la ANPP hasta que se eligió a su Presidencia. Se presentó a los diputados la lista con los tres nominados: Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada para Presidente; Jaime Alberto Crombet Hernández-Baquero para Vicepresidente, y Míriam Brito Sarroca para Secretaria.

A continuación tuvo lugar un voto a mano alzada para determinar si los diputados estaban de acuerdo con estas tres nominaciones o si tenían cualquier otra propuesta. No hubo más propuestas. Por tanto, la lista con los tres nominados se hizo oficial. Entonces, se levantó la sesión de la ANPP para realizar el en voto secreto en el vestíbulo, fuera del salón plenario. Cuando los tres nominados resultaron electos y fueron anunciados por la CEN, las nuevas autoridades asumieron la Presidencia de la ANPP.

A continuación, se procedió de la misma forma para los 31 miembros del Consejo de Estado.  Raúl Castro fue elegido Presidente del Consejo de Estado y, de hecho, ocupa el cargo de Presidente del Consejo de Ministros, por tanto, Jefe de Estado y de Gobierno. (Entrevista. Balseiro Gutiérrez y Amarón Díaz, 2008; Entrevista. Pérez Santana).

De esta forma, las elecciones generales —que habían comenzado en julio de 2007 con las elecciones municipales de primera fase— concluyeron el 24 de febrero de 2008. Las elecciones generales 2012-2013 siguieron el mismo procedimiento comenzando en julio de 2012 y finalizando en febrero de 2013. Hubo 612 diputados ese año.

Las nominaciones y elecciones para la Presidencia de la ANPP y del Consejo de Estado pueden parecer bastante formales. Esto es cierto, especialmente si se las compara con las elecciones para las asambleas municipales y la propia ANPP; sin embargo, sería ingenuo creer que la Dirección de la Revolución no participa en la selección de los dirigentes para el más alto nivel del Estado.

En lo referente a los desempeños y las posiciones de Fidel Castro y Raúl Castro, es una cuestión de calidad y no —como frecuentemente alegan los Estados Unidos y sus voceros disidentes— una cuestión de nepotismo.

Raúl Castro asumió el liderazgo provisionalmente en 2006 cuando Fidel Castro cayó enfermo. Ocupó esta posición, de acuerdo con la Constitución, como Primer Vicepresidente del Consejo de Estado. El 24 de febrero de los años 2008 y 2013, Raúl Castro resultó electo Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros. Hay que considerar varios factores.

En primer lugar, ha participado ininterrumpidamente en la lucha desde el asalto al cuartel Moncada en 1953. Ha hecho sus propios aportes innovadores, incluso antes del triunfo de 1959. Uno de estos fue organizar la administración de los territorios liberados en el Segundo Frente Oriental “Frank País”. Esto equivalía prácticamente a un Estado dentro del Estado y sirvió como precedente, hasta cierto punto, para el nuevo Gobierno Revolucionario que se estableció en enero de 1959.

Ha habido muchos otros ejemplos del desempeño de Raúl Castro desde esa época como, por ejemplo, la institucionalización del sistema del Poder Popular en 1974-1976. El Sistema de Perfeccionamiento Empresarial comenzó en los años ochenta bajo su dirección en el Ministerio de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (MINFAR), de las que fue Ministro hasta 2008. A partir de su elección en 2008 como Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros, al mismo tiempo que mantiene su posición como General de Ejército, ha continuado institucionalizando la dirección colectiva. Lo hace celebrando regularmente reuniones ampliadas (en las que participan otras personas independientemente de los miembros oficiales) del Consejo de Estado o del Consejo del Ministros, o de ambos.

Raúl Castro está igualmente al frente de los esfuerzos por poner fin a la burocracia y la corrupción de cuello blanco en las altas esferas. Al mismo tiempo, está realizando, junto con otros compañeros, innovaciones para preservar y perfeccionar el socialismo.

El sistema político cubano permite canales legales formales para que el pueblo pueda votar por sus líderes. Hay que insistir en que no se ajusta al pensamiento único estadounidense. Cuba no se rige por un sistema presidencial como el que existe en los Estados Unidos y en otros países.

No es el objetivo de este artículo mencionar más detalles y análisis de cómo ocurre esta elección y las elecciones generales. Sin embargo, así es como Raúl Castro fue elegido Presidente del Consejo de Estado (y por lo tanto, del Consejo de Ministros).

Arnold August

11 de marzo, 2016

Arnold August, Periodista y conferencista canadiense, el autor de los libros Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections y más recientemente, Cuba y sus vecinos: Democracia en movimiento. En Twitter: @Arnold_August Su sitio web: www.lademocracia.com

 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on ¿Tiene el pueblo cubano “la libertad de escoger sus líderes políticos”?

This incisive article was first published by GR in February 2010

Is offshore outsourcing good or harmful for America? To convince Americans of outsourcing’s benefits, corporate outsourcers sponsor misleading one-sided “studies.”

Only a small handful of people have looked objectively at the issue. These few and the large number of Americans whose careers have been destroyed by outsourcing have a different view of outsourcing’s impact. But so far there has been no debate, just a shouting down of skeptics as “protectionists.”

Now comes an important new book, Outsourcing America, published by the American Management Association. The authors, two brothers, Ron and Anil Hira, are experts on the subject. One is a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the other is professor at Simon Fraser University.

The authors note that despite the enormity of the stakes for all Americans, a state of denial exists among policymakers and outsourcing’s corporate champions about the adverse effects on the US. The Hira brothers succeed in their task of interjecting harsh reality where delusion has ruled.

In what might be an underestimate, a University of California study concludes that 14 million white-collar jobs are vulnerable to being outsourced offshore. These are not only call-center operators, customer service and back-office jobs, but also information technology, accounting, architecture, advanced engineering design, news reporting, stock analysis, and medical and legal services. The authors note that these are the jobs of the American Dream, the jobs of upward mobility that generate the bulk of the tax revenues that fund our education, health, infrastructure, and social security systems.

The loss of these jobs “is fool’s gold for companies.” Corporate America’s short-term mentality, stemming from bonuses tied to quarterly results, is causing US companies to lose not only their best employees-their human capital-but also the consumers who buy their products. Employees displaced by foreigners and left unemployed or in lower paid work have a reduced presence in the consumer market. They provide fewer retirement savings for new investment.

Nothink economists assume that new, better jobs are on the way for displaced Americans, but no economists can identify these jobs. The authors point out that “the track record for the re-employment of displaced US workers is abysmal: “The Department of Labor reports that more than one in three workers who are displaced remains unemployed, and many of those who are lucky enough to find jobs take major pay cuts. Many former manufacturing workers who were displaced a decade ago because of manufacturing that went offshore took training courses and found jobs in the information technology sector. They are now facing the unenviable situation of having their second career disappear overseas.”

American economists are so inattentive to outsourcing’s perils that they fail to realize that the same incentive that leads to the outsourcing of one tradable good or service holds for all tradable goods and services. In the 21st century the US economy has only been able to create jobs in nontradable domestic services-the hallmark of a third world labor force.

Prior to the advent of offshore outsourcing, US employees were shielded against low wage foreign labor. Americans worked with more capital and better technology, and their higher productivity protected their higher wages.

Outsourcing forces Americans to “compete head-to-head with foreign workers” by “undermining US workers’ primary competitive advantage over foreign workers: their physical presence in the US” and “by providing those overseas workers with the same technologies.”

The result is a lose-lose situation for American employees, American businesses, and the American government. Outsourcing has brought about record unemployment in engineering fields and a major drop in university enrollments in technical and scientific disciplines. Even many of the remaining jobs are being filled by lower paid foreigners brought in on H-1b and L-1 visas. American employees are discharged after being forced to train their foreign replacements.

US corporations justify their offshore operations as essential to gain a foothold in emerging Asian markets. The Hira brothers believe this is self-delusion. “There is no evidence that they will be able to outcompete local Chinese and Indian companies, who are very rapidly assimilating the technology and know-how from the local US plants. In fact, studies show that Indian IT companies have been consistently outcompeting their US counterparts, even in US markets. Thus, it is time for CEOs to start thinking about whether they are fine with their own jobs being outsourced as well.”

The authors note that the national security implications of outsourcing “have been largely ignored.”

Outsourcing is rapidly eroding America’s superpower status. Beginning in 2002 the US began running trade deficits in advanced technology products with Asia, Mexico and Ireland. As these countries are not leaders in advanced technology, the deficits obviously stem from US offshore manufacturing. In effect, the US is giving away its technology, which is rapidly being captured, while US firms reduce themselves to a brand name with a sales force.

In an appendix, the authors provide a devastating expose of the three “studies” that have been used to silence doubts about offshore outsourcing-the Global Insight study (March 2004) for the Information Technology Association of America, the Catherine Mann study (December 2003) for the Institute for International Economics, and the McKinsey Global Institute study (August 2003).

The ITAA is a lobbying group for outsourcing. The ITAA spun the results of the study by releasing only the executive summary to reporters who agreed not to seek outside opinion prior to writing their stories.

Mann’s study is “an unreasonably optimistic forecast based on faulty logic and a poor understanding of technology and strategy.”

The McKinsey report “should be viewed as a self-interested lobbying document that presents an unrealistically optimistic estimate of the impact of offshore outsourcing and an undeveloped and politically unviable solution to the problems they identify.”

Outsourcing America is a powerful work. Only fools will continue clinging to the premise that outsourcing is good for America.

Dr. Paul Craig  Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His latest book, “How The Economy Was Lost,” has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.

In Alliance with Al-Qaida, Israel Is Stealing Syria’s Oil

March 13th, 2016 by Uprooted Palestinians

Israel steps up oil drilling in Golan

Israel is moving forward with plans to drill for oil in the occupied Golan Heights, despite warnings that the move violates international law.

For the last year, Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of the US firm Genie Energy, has undertaken exploratory drilling in the Golan. Afek believes there is a vast reservoir of oil under Syria’s Golan that could supply all of Israel’s energy needs.

In September 2015, Afek announced it had discovered its first oil reservoir at one of the sites where it had been drilling.

Last month, the company was granted the go-ahead to conduct more drilling in the Golan by the Israeli authorities.

In response, Palestinian legal rights group Adalah and Al-Marsad, the Arab Human Rights Center in the Golan Heights, wrote to Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s infrastructure minister, demanding that the drilling permits be withdrawn.

In the letter, attorneys Suhad Bishara and Karama Abu Saleh reminded Steinitz that international law requires that residents of the Golan be able to control and benefit from the land’s resources.

Population expelled

In 1967, Israel occupied Syria’s Golan Heights, expelling most of the Syrian population.

Approximately 130,000 Syrians were driven out and most of the Golan’s 200 villages destroyed, according to a 2010 investigation by the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz.

Today, 22,000 Syrians belonging to the Druze minority community remain amid a similar number of Jewish settlers. The settlers are spread out across 30 settlements, all of which are illegal under international law.

In 1981, Israel formally annexed the territory but governments around the world, including the United States, consider that annexation null and void.

In 2006, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that reaffirmed what it called the “inalienable rights” of the Arab population in the Golan over its natural resources.

As the occupying power, Bishara and Abu Saleh write, Israel is “prohibited from altering, transferring or confiscating immovable properties,” as well as looting the Golan’s resources.

The 1907 Hague Regulations, a cornerstone of international law, state that an occupying power must “safeguard the capital of these properties.” Stealing resources from an occupied territory constitutes the crime of pillage.

But in December 2011, Israel’s high court ruled that Israel’s occupation is unique and not bound by the laws against pillage.

Indeed, Israel has already made profitable use of the Golan’s agricultural and water resources.

As journalist Jonathan Cook reported recently, the company behind the drilling expedition may have its own ideological motivations for the oil venture.

“Depths of darkness”

The chairperson of Afek is Effie Eitam, a far-right former politician and military general, who is an Israeli settler in the Golan.

Afek chairperson Effie Eitam has ordered fatal beating of Palestinians and has expressed his desire for them to be killed. (Juda S. Engelmayer)

Eitam has previously ordered the beating of Palestinians, some of whom have died as a result. He has also made a series of racist comments telling Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker that Palestinians are “creatures who came out of the depths of darkness.”

“We will have to kill them all,” he said. At that time, in 2004, Eitam was Israel’s housing minister.

The members of the strategic advisory board of Afek’s parent company include Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and Larry Summers, the former secretary of the US treasury.

The last year has seen Israel attempt to intensify its grip on the Golan Heights, while Syria is consumed by bloodshed and war.

Israel has offered significant financial incentives to its Jewish citizens to settle in the Golan and politicians have sought the world’s recognition of its annexation of the occupied territory.

At a meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Barack Obama, the US president, last November, Netanyahu reportedly suggested that the US change its position on the status of the Golan Heights in light of Syria’s civil war.

According to media reports, Netanyahu argued that because Syria is likely to be divided in the future, Israel’s rule over the Golan should be recognized as legitimate.

Last summer, Israel’s education minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the far right Habeyit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party, called on “the entire world” to “recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.”

Since 2011, President Bashar al-Assad has defended his rule against rebel factions, including Islamic State and affiliates of al-Qaida.

Israel has assisted the opposition to Assad by attacking areas under his force’s control and providing assistance to Syrian opposition forces, including Jabhat al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaida.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In Alliance with Al-Qaida, Israel Is Stealing Syria’s Oil

Jean-Claude Juncker, the most powerful person in Europe, the chief of the European Commission and therefore Europe’s closest equivalent to America’s President, said, in a little-noticed comment on March 3rd, “Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20-25 years, and not of NATO either.” The article reporting this, at europeonline.magazine, also observed that, “The commission, the EU‘s executive, plays a leading role in accession negotiations between the bloc and aspiring members.”

The main reason why U.S. President Barack Obama had perpetrated his coup in Ukraine in February 2014, and why his CIA hired racist anti-Russian paramilitaries to carry it out as they did behind the cover of the popular anti-corruption “Maidan” demonstrations in Kiev, was in order to get Ukraine into NATO, so that U.S. missiles will be able to be placed near-enough to Moscow for a blitz-attack so as to conquer Russia. That would be America’s ultimate “regime-change” operation (toward which the regime-change in Ukraine is merely one of the most important steps); but the European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker has here said it’s not going to happen.

This isn’t only a reversal of what the EU had been promising to Ukraine’s government (especially promising to the post-coup government), but it’s also a drastic separation of Europe from America’s empire: a severe limitation of the control by the U.S. aristocracy, which has, ever since the time of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, been executing his plan to strangulate Russia by surrounding it with NATO member-nations on Russia’s western borders, and so cutting off Russia’s major trading-partner (Europe), thus squeezing Russia’s economy until a regime-change can be carried out there like was done in Ukraine, ‘democratically’ instead of by an outright invasion of Russia. This way, the threat of a NATO blitz-attack won’t even need to be acted upon, and the world’s most resource-rich nation, Russia, can thus be added to the U.S. international-corporate fold without NATO needing first to attack Russia by any such super “Prompt Global Strike” — a PGS that can destroy Russia’s command-and-control within just a few minutes, instead of within an hour or even more.

Juncker is thus challenging the U.S. aristocracy here; he’s saying that GHW Bush’s plan isn’t going to go all the way. The U.S. aristocracy can benefit bysurging U.S. arms-sales that are generated from NATO’s expansions, but not into Ukraine.

As the representative of Europe’s aristocracies, Juncker is finally saying, to the U.S. aristocracy: You’re not going to control us entirely. We want to work with you on things such as TTIP, which will benefit the aristocracies of every participating nation; but, we’re not going to follow your lead regarding the conquest of Russia; we European aristocrats (the billionaires whom these government-officials represent) will instead pursue our own independent policies regarding Russia. We’re not going all the way with you on that.

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker Damns Obama’s Plan for Ukraine

In 2007 I wrote and presented a conceptual paper to an international studies group in Portugal. The subject matter was, generally, the use of Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience (ECN) to manage humanity. That paper would eventually finds its way, remarkably, into Rebecca Costa’s seminal The Watchman’s Rattle.

I said back in 2007 that America’s ongoing obsession with national security and the enormous funding necessary to soothe a national psyche of fear and war was a key driver for enhancing security thereby eliminating the uncertainty of daily living. I suggested that ECN could generate predictive and diagnostic biotechnologies to reduce tension. Such a development could eliminate much uncertainty and concomitant drama in human affairs by providing leaders with assets to manage the complexities in brain-behavior relationships. To get there though, reliable data on human beings, as they function as interconnected consumers, warfighters, enemies, refugees, diplomats, criminals, and citizens of their respective nations would need to be collected and assessed.

I went on to say that a comprehensive knowledge base of planetary ecosystems and how humans interface with those ecosystems would have to be constructed and meshed with the findings of brain-behavior functions. The dissection of the individual and global organism may lead to unprecedented forecasting capability with the ultimate outcome the creation of biomachine systems that suggest procedures and diagnostics with which to anticipate and/or minimize a wide range of human problems. Biomachine tools might become available that could suggest courses of action such as military intervention, diplomacy, containment, stability and consequence management operations, economic aid, covert operations, etc. I also briefly mentioned that one of the dangers in such a pursuit would likely be the development of neuroweaponry.

In just under ten years, the topics alluded to in my 2007 paper have taken the form of four converging and accelerating movements that seem likely to usher in drastic change in the human condition: The digitization of human behavior; cracking open the brain through neuroscience; the engineering and manipulation of human and non-human genomes; and the proliferation of the Internet of Things, which is code for the sensorization of the human/non-human, home, work, school, automobile, street, global commons, etc.

Is it any surprise that the Anthropocene is upon us?

What Happens Next?

Shoshana Zuboff, in the article, The Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism, thinks that humanity will become mentally displaced, perhaps disembodied, as behavior becomes totally predictable and free will vanishes.

The significance of behavioral surplus was quickly camouflaged, both at Google and eventually throughout the Internet industry, with labels like “digital exhaust,” “digital breadcrumbs,”…These euphemisms for behavioral surplus operate as ideological filters, in exactly the same way that the earliest maps of the North American continent labeled whole regions with terms like “heathens,” “infidels,” “idolaters,”  “primitives,” “vassals,” or “rebels.”  On the strength of those labels, native peoples, their places and claims, were erased from the invaders’ moral and legal equations, legitimating their acts of taking and breaking in the name of Church and Monarchy. We are the native peoples now whose tacit claims to self-determination have vanished from the maps of our own behavior. They are erased in an astonishing and audacious act of dispossession by surveillance that claims its right to ignore every boundary in its thirst for knowledge of and influence over the most detailed nuances of our behavior.  For those who wondered about the logical completion of the global processes of commodification, the answer is that they complete themselves in the dispossession of our intimate quotidian reality, now reborn as behavior to be monitored and modified, bought and sold.

Radar Love

Social Radar has been a goal of the government and business for some time.  Its applications are legion: Predictive behavioral algorithms to ensure consumers are directed to the right product to ensure steady profits; underlying predictive mathematical models that allow the military commander a quantitative, geospatial view of open or urban terrain with humans moving predictably like aircraft on an air traffic controller’s screen; and the creation of a predictive reality in which the masses believe they are “free”, but are, unknown to them, being behaviorally shaped for the larger system. These notions can be found in military doctrine and a host of academic and marketing organizations. It’s all there out in the open if anyone cares to look.

Consider The MITRE Corporation’s development of Social Radar. In Social Radar for Smart Power, Mark Maybury writes:

“Conventional radar requires signatures for different kinds of objects and events: it needs to be tuned to different environmental conditions to provide accurate and reliable information.  Analogously, a social radar needs signatures, calibration, and correlation to sense, if not forecast, a broad spectrum of phenomena (e.g., political, economic, social, environmental, health) and potentially forecast changing trends in population perceptions and behaviors.  For example, radar or sonar enable some degree of forecasting by tracking spatial and temporal patterns (e.g. they track and display how military objects or weather phenomena move in what clusters, in which direction(s) and at what speed.)  A user can thus project where and when objects will be in the future.  Similarly, a social radar should enable us to forecast who will cluster with whom in a network, where, and when in what kinds of relationships…Public Opinion Polling by Proxy (POP/P) [is] an exploration of the ability of social media (e.g., Twitter) to serve as a proxy for traditional opinion polling methods to overcome their latency, expense, and invasiveness.”

If We Kick the Ant Hill, Where will the Ants Go?

The US national security community’s dream is to have a Social Radar–like the one described above by Maybury—that would allow military commanders to lord over other countries. The Pentagon’s Sociocultural Behavior Research and Engineering in a Department of Defense Context contains this statement:

“Mastery would mean that U.S. forces would have the data on indigenous populations and the training they need to move easily in those populations; could see the parameters of culture and society and integrate those with conventional mapping of the physical terrain; could detect often complex and dynamic networks, where adversaries and civilian populations are intermingled; and would possess non-kinetic tools as well as the ability to anticipate both the near-term and long-term impacts of applying those tools.”

It’s easy to pick on the Pentagon on these matters, of course. But the insidious reality is that for profit, commercial enterprises with global reach—and the many lobbyists and non-profits who work on their behalf to distort regulatory regimes designed to oversee their activities—must modify human behavior in order to control/corner global markets, turn a profit and survive. These are the new colonialists who now brandish the US military as a tool for their own ends.

If Zuboff is correct, then Google–and corporations colluding with them or like them—are engaging in a type of intellectual property theft from unwitting customers. The thoughts, feelings, the sense of individual uniqueness of a human being (or his/her genetic structure) ultimately ends up getting copyrighted, trademarked or patented by corporations. It is the Internet of Sensors, Neuroscience, Genetic Engineering and the Digitization of Earth in the techno-dictatorial hands of corporate boardrooms and financiers that may well prove to be apocalyptic for all life on Earth.

Unfortunately the leadership of the dangerously privatized US military has become an extension of this techno-corporate collective and the governing civilians the collective owns. Indeed, so much so that US military leadership, while on “active duty”, emulates its mentors in the corporate world because (a.) rampant internal privatization has distorted the US military; and (b.) the private sector is where US military leaders long to be when it’s retirement time. It’s all about networking for the big payday in the private sector, or developing networking diagrams to see who the bad guys affiliate with in some remote corner of the African continent.

So it is no surprise that

“…the worldview that governs the U.S military’s approach…is one where populations are de-coded as networks. To see like the twenty-first century US military is to see a world of networks. This world of networks is a secular cosmological vision derivative from the human-machine assemblages where US military personnel and institutions are imbricated. These human-machine assemblages have been violently extended…through new technologies like iris-scan biometrics devices and data-base management…many new twenty-first century technologies, like big data mining and computational social network analysis, are rooted in colonial practices.” (The Afterlives of Counterinsurgency:  Postcolonialism, Military Social Science, and Afghanistan 2006-2012 by Oliver Christian Belcher)

John Stanton can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Imperialism via Data: The Digitization of Human Behavior, “Social Radar”, Sensors and Neuroscience

Do Black (Haitian) lives matter to Canada’s leading ‘left-wing’ foreign-policy think tank? Apparently not as much as having the corporate media mention their work by getting in bed with militarism disguised as peacekeeping.

At the start of Black History Month the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute co-published Unprepared for Peace?: The decline of Canadian peacekeeping training (and what to do about it). On the cover of the report a white Canadian soldier, with a massive M-16 strapped around his shoulder, is bent over to hold the hand of a young black boy. In the background are Canadian and UN colours.

A call for the Canadian Forces to offer its members more peacekeeping training, Unprepared for peace? is premised on the erroneous notion that UN missions are by definition socially useful. And it repeatedly implies that Canada’s most significant recent contribution to a UN mission — the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) — was an operation we should be proud of.

The lead author of the report is Rideau Institute board member Walter Dorn, who has worked with and publicly lauded the UN mission in Haiti. “With financial support from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade”, Dorn wrote, “the United Nations sent me on research trips to the UN missions in Haiti” and elsewhere in 2006. During a sabbatical that year Dorn served as a consultant to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and later briefed the “Military Directors of the UN Mission in Haiti” on “Technologies for Peacekeeping”. With help from MINUSTAH he published Intelligence-led Peacekeeping: The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), 2006–07. In it Dorn claims the intervention to overthrow Haiti’s elected government in 2004 was designed “to create basic conditions for security and stability.” The report largely focuses on UN intelligence activities in Cité Soleil, Port-au-Prince’s poorest neighbourhood.

In applauding UN operations in Cite Soleil, Dorn ignores MINUSTAH’s political role. After helping oust Jean-Bertrand Aristide and thousands of other elected officials, 500 Canadian soldiers were incorporated into a UN mission that backed up the coup government’s violent crackdown of Haiti’s pro-democracy movement from March 2004 to May 2006. The UN force also participated directly in pacifying the slums, which left dozens of civilians dead in Cité Soleil (a bastion of support for Aristide).

Dorn has delivered a number of lectures and interviews in favour of the UN force. In 2010 he presented on “The Protection of Civilians: The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti.” The next year he told CBC Radio’s The World This Weekend the world is “crying for Canada” to expand its military role within the UN, noting “we have a long-standing police contribution in Haiti but we could easily contribute to the military side.”

He also rebuked critics of the UN. In 2012 the author of a Council of Hemispheric Affairs report, Courtney Frantz, told IPS MINUSTAH “perpetrated acts of violence” and had “become an instrument of the U.S., France and Canada in terms of their economic interests (including privatisation in Haiti).” In the article, Dorn countered Frantz, saying UN forces delivered “law and order”.

The next year Dorn told the Canadian Press that adding 34 Canadian soldiers to MINUSTAH was a “positive development. It helps Haiti. It helps the United Nations, the United States and Brazil.”

While dispatching Canadian soldiers may have helped the US and Brazil (the country leading the military mission), most Haitians see the UN as an occupying force responsible for innumerable abuses. Aside from the above-mentioned political repression, the UN’s disregard for Haitian life caused a major cholera outbreak, which left at least 8,000 Haitians dead and 750,000 ill. In October 2010 a UN base in central Haiti discharged sewage, including the feces of newly deployed Nepalese troops, into a river where people drank. This introduced the water-borne disease into the country.

Haiti represents but one example of Dorn’s support for Canadian backed UN violence. In writing about the early 1960s UN mission in the Congo Dorn ignores that mission’s role in the assassination of elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Similarly, he provides a wildly one-sided version of the early 1950s “UN police action” in Korea, which left as many as four million dead.

Dorn promotes greater Canadian engagement in UN military actions, but doesn’t mind if this takes place alongside US/NATO led wars. Last March he wrote, “the two approaches can coexist. It’s not one or the other and nothing in between. We can excel in combat and excel in peacekeeping.”

Sympathetic to Washington’s worldview, Dorn isn’t troubled by UN forces standing in for NATO. In Unprepared for Peace? he writes: “In the post-Afghanistan period, the burden of addressing emerging international crises is increasingly shifted towards the United Nations, with NATO limiting its intervention primarily to air strikes such as those used in Libya in 2011.”

In the case of the Canada/France/Britain/US war in Libya, Dorn called for a UN force to mop up a conflict he deemed, even four years after, “justified… easily passing a Just War threshold.” Five months into that war the Independent reported him saying, a “peacekeeping mission in Libya would present the UN with an opportunity to overcome its surprisingly outmoded attitude to new military technology.”

As he campaigns for improved UN military capacity, Dorn enthused about the Obama administration’s commitment to strengthening UN weaponry. “The U.S. effort is genuine”, he said in March. “I’ve been to Washington three times in recent months to talk with the (U.S.) Department of Defense on helping bring United Nations peacekeeping technology into the 21st century.”

Dorn attracts corporate media interest, which presumably explains the Rideau Institute’s interest in collaborating. Unprepared for Peace? was cited throughout the dominant media and the Toronto Star editorial board even praised its conclusions.

But, Dorn’s establishment standing is largely due to his position at the Royal Military College and Canadian Forces College. The military’s website describes Dorn as a “professor at the Canadian Forces College and Chair of the Master of Defence Studies programme at RMC [Royal Military College].” Dorn survives, even thrives, at the military run colleges because elements of the Canadian Forces have long viewed “peacekeeping”, which demands a military force, as a way to maintain public support for its budget.

An indication of his opinion towards military spending, in 2014 Ipolitics reported, “[Dorn] said he is satisfied with the current size of the military. He said anything smaller would mean Canada is spending less than 1 per cent of GDP on its Armed Forces – and, as a professor of defence studies, that’s not something he could support.”

Perhaps some might argue that the “foreign policy left” should be a broad coalition that includes anyone who is in favour of anything called “peacekeeping” or that the Rideau Institute has simply not thought through the implications of promoting Dorn’s views. But how do you square either argument with Richard Sanders, coordinator Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade, appeal to peace activists attending a 2010 Rideau Institute sponsored event with Dorn: “Knee-jerk support for anything with the UN ‘peacekeeping’ brand can lead folks to supporting mass murder of innocent civilians.”

Unfortunately, Canada’s preeminent ‘left-wing’ foreign policy think tank has spurned demilitarization and anti-imperialist voices to promote the views of the liberal end of the military. The Rideau Institute works with an individual who aggressively supported Canada’s worst foreign-policy crime of the first decade of the 21st century. But the victims were poor black Haitians so apparently that does not matter.

Happy Black History Month.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Military Role in Haiti’s “UN Stabilization Mission”

Targeting China? Australian Military Bases for US bombers

March 13th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Subservience is a terrible state, not merely because of its indignities, but its distortions. Speech from the main political centre is garbled and marred, ever mediated by the higher power. Media releases from departments from the vassal or satrap state tend to be coloured by the broader interests of the larger power. For years, that has been characteristic of US-Australian relations.

The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was again sallying forth with a whitewashing measure, hoping that no one would notice that Australia was again offering itself up for conspicuous targeting in the event of any future conflict. In February, the Turnbull government had already announced a $140 million package for military expansion that would see a greater reliance on Washington’s good will, and a greater desire to stick its neck out in the event of any conflict with China.

Washington had decided to press its Australian allies on permitting a rotation of bombers at the Darwin and Tindal bases, notably the long-range, nuclear capable B-1B type, in the aftermath of rising tensions in the South China Sea. In 2011, it got Canberra’s acquiescence in increased US troop deployment on Australian soil, a measure that will see US personnel rise to 2,500 in 2017. For all of that, Australians still insist they are not under a benevolent occupation.

According to the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Auslin, “It is part of an overall rebalancing of military forces to the region.” It continues what is amounting to an increasingly dangerous theatre of demonstrations, with the USS aircraft carrier John C. Stennis along with a cruiser and destroyer stepping up patrols in an effort to maintain freedom of navigation.

Precisely by putting its eggs in this one notable basket of comfort, Canberra has persistently demonstrated its indifference to broader matters in the region. Economically, 60 percent of the country’s trade passes through the South China Sea, while China is Canberra’s biggest trading partner.

Such a deployment does not bother such analysts as Jennifer Harris of the Council on Foreign Relations. Another China-watcher keen to see Beijing as unduly expansionist, Harris insists that the US move and its greater use of Australian soil in the measure “is simply making good on those promises [that further escalation by China] would bring [various consequences].”

While it insists on having good trade relations with China, it also insists on provoking it by happily permitting American military personnel from using its territory. This is not a point that Australian politicians understand. The Australian Northern Territory chief minister Adam Giles gave his “absolute” support for the measure, thinking “the greater level of security we can have in the NT… to protect Australia’s interest and the Territory’s interest, the better.”

At the same time, a blinkered Giles was very aware about commercial interests that did involve a Chinese stake in the territory’s economy, a point demonstrated by the leasing of Darwin Port to a Chinese company, Landbridge, for a 99 year period. “Our number-one priority is to stand up for territorians, particularly to stand up for jobs. We also stand up for investment coming into the Territory, that’s how the Territory has been built in the past.”[1]

As if it mattered, the US ambassador John Berry was asked where the NT port deal with Landbridge fitted in the scheme of Washington’s interests. This curious question arose largely because the State Department had been conducting its own polling through its intelligence and research bureau about Australian opinions on the subject. This point might have bothered the minions in Canberra, but not a peep came out of them.

Notwithstanding that overly keen interest, Berry seemed satisfied that Australia had behaved appropriately. “Australia alone determines its sovereign criteria for investment projects,” came the response in a statement. The concept would be novel to those more familiar with the actual relationship between the US and Australia.

As for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, spokesman Hong Lei advised that, “Any bilateral cooperation must not jeopardise a third party’s interests.” Further to that, the lease need not worry Australians. “This investment by a Chinese enterprise is a normal business operation that complies with market principles, international rules and Australian laws.”[2]

This is well and good, till one realises that the company in question has strong ties to various members of the Chinese Communist party, while the port itself has been used by the Australian navy and the military forces of other countries. Turnbull, in error, suggested in November that it was a purely “commercial port”.[3] It would be good, suggested Luke Gosling, the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Solomon in Darwin, “if the Prime Minister, when coming to the north, knew what he was talking about.”

The US-Australian alliance continues to show itself to be a relationship without reciprocity, one dictated by the absolute needs of one over the misguided, misread needs of another. If Palmerston’s dictum about permanent interests always existing over the notion of permanent friends count in international relations, then things look far rosier to the US establishment than they do to those down under.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.australianetworknews.com/nt-bombers-southchinasea/

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/australia-nothing-to-fear-from-darwin-port-lease-says-china/7237218

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-20/turnbull-gets-it-wrong-on-whether-darwin-port-used-by-military/6958404

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Targeting China? Australian Military Bases for US bombers

The Giant Lie About Fukushima

March 13th, 2016 by Prof. Karl Grossman

 With the third anniversary of the start of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe coming next week, the attempted Giant Lie about the disaster continues—a suppression of information, an effort at dishonesty of historical dimensions.

It involves international entities, especially the International Atomic Energy Agency, national governmental bodies—led in Japan by its current prime minister, the powerful nuclear industry and a “nuclear establishment” of scientists and others with a vested interest in atomic energy.

Deception was integral to the push for nuclear power from its start. Indeed, I opened my first book on nuclear technology, Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, with:  “You have not been informed about nuclear power. You have not been told. And that has been done on purpose. Keeping the public in the dark was deemed necessary by the promoters of nuclear power if it was to succeed. Those in government, science and private industry who have been pushing nuclear power realized that if people were given the facts, if they knew the consequences of nuclear power, they would not stand for it.”

Published in 1980, the book led to my giving many presentations on nuclear power at which I’ve often heard the comment that only when catastrophic nuclear accidents happened would people fully realize the deadliness of atomic energy.

Well, massive nuclear accidents have occurred—the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima catastrophe that began on March 11, 2011 and is ongoing with large discharges of radioactive poisons continuing to be discharged into the environment.

Meanwhile, the posture of the nuclear promoters is denial—insisting the impacts of the Fukushima catastrophe are essentially non-existent. A massive nuclear accident has occurred and they would make believe it hasn’t.

“Fukushima is an eerie replay of the denial and controversy that began with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” wrote Yale University Professor Emeritus Charles Perrow in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last year. “This is the same nuclear denial that also greeted nuclear bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at Windscale in northern England and Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine.”

The difference with Fukushima is the scale of disaster. With Fukushima were multiple meltdowns at the six-nuclear plant site. There’s been continuing pollution of a major part of Japan, with radioactivity going into the air, carried by the winds to fall out around the world, and gigantic amounts of radioactivity going into the Pacific Ocean moving with the currents and carried by marine life that ingests the nuclear toxins.

Leading the Fukushima cover-up globally is the International Atomic Energy Agency, formed by the United Nations in 1957 with the mission to “seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.”  

Of the consequences of the Fukushima disaster, “To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the accident,” declared the IAEA in 2011, a claim it holds to today.

Working with the IAEA is the World Health Organization. WHO was captured on issues of radioactivity and nuclear power early on by IAEA. In 1959, the IAEA and WHO, also established by the UN, entered into an agreement—that continues to this day—providing that IAEA and WHO “act in close co-operation with each other” and “whenever either organization proposes to initiate a program or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.”

The IAEA-WHO deal has meant that “WHO cannot undertake any research, cannot disseminate any information, cannot come to the assistance of any population without the prior approval of the IAEA…WHO, in practice, in reality, is subservient to the IAEA within the United Nations family,” explained Alison Katz who for 18 years worked for WHO, on Libbe HaLevy’s “Nuclear Hotseat” podcast last year.

On nuclear issues “there has been a very high level, institutional and international cover-up which includes governments, national authorities, but also, regrettably the World Health Organization,” said Katz on the program titled, “The WHO/IAEA—Unholy Alliance and Its Lies About Int’l Nuclear Health Stats.” Katz is now with an organization called IndependentWHO which works for “the complete independence of the WHO from the nuclear lobby and in particular from its mouthpiece which is the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are demanding that independence,” she said, “so that the WHO may fulfill its constitutional mandate in the area of radiation and health.”

“We are absolutely convinced,” said Katz on “Nuclear Hotseat,” “that if the health and environmental consequences of all nuclear activities were known to the public, the debate about nuclear power would end tomorrow. In fact, the public would probably exclude it immediately as an energy option.”

WHO last year issued a report on the impacts of the Fukushima disaster claiming that “for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”

Then there is the new prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, who last year insisted before the International Olympic Committee as he successfully pushed to have the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo (180 miles from Fukushima): “There are no health-related problems until now, nor will there be in the future, I make the statement to you in the most emphatic and unequivocal way.”   Abe has been driving hard for a restart of Japan’s 54 nuclear power plants, all shut down in the wake of the Fukushima catastrophe.

His is a totally different view than that of his predecessor, Naoto Kan, prime minister when the disaster began. Kan told a conference in New York City last year of how he had been a supporter of nuclear power but after the Fukushima accident “I changed my thinking 180-degrees, completely.” He declared that at one point it looked like an “area that included Tokyo” and populated by 50 million people might have to be evacuated. “We do have accidents such as an airplane crash and so on,” Kan said, “but no other accident or disaster” other than a nuclear plant disaster can “affect 50 million people… no other accident could cause such a tragedy.” Moreover, said Kan, “without nuclear power plants we can absolutely provide the energy to meet our demands.” Japan since the accident began has tripled its use of solar energy, he said, and pointed to Germany as a model with its post-Fukushima commitment to shutting down all its nuclear power plants and having “all its power supplied by renewable power” by 2050. The entire world could do this, said Kan. “If humanity really would work together… we could generate all our energy through renewable energy.”

A major factor in Abe’s stance is Japan having become a global player in the nuclear industry. General Electric (the manufacturer of the Fukushima plants) and Westinghouse have been the Coke and Pepsi of nuclear power plants worldwide, historically building or designing 80 percent of them. In 2006, Toshiba bought Westinghouse’s nuclear division and Hitachi entered into a partnership with GE in its nuclear division. Thus the two major nuclear power plant manufacturers worldwide are now Japanese brands. Abe has been busy traveling the world seeking to peddle Toshiba-Westinghouse and Hitachi-GE nuclear plants to try to lift Japan’s depressed economy.

As for the nuclear industry, the “Fukushima accident has caused no deaths,” declares the World Nuclear Association in its statement “Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors…Updated October 2013.”   The group, “representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession,” adds: “The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health.”

What will the consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster be?

It is impossible to know exactly now. But considering the gargantuan amount of radioactive poisons that have been discharged and what will continue to be released, the impacts will inevitably be great. The claim of there being no consequences to life and the prediction that there won’t be in the future from the Fukushima catastrophe is an outrageous falsehood.

That’s because it is now widely understood that there is no “safe” level of radioactivity. Any amount can kill. The more radioactivity, the greater the impacts. As the National Council on Radiation Protection has declared: “Every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”

There was once the notion of there being a “threshold dose” of radioactivity below which there would be no harm. That’s because when nuclear technology began and  people were exposed to radioactivity, they didn’t promptly fall down dead. But as the years went by, it was realized that lower levels of radioactivity take time to result in cancer and other illnesses—that there is a five-to-40-year “incubation” period

Projecting a death toll of more than a million from the radioactivity released from Fukushima is Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk who has been a professor at a number of universities. . “Fukushima is still boiling radionuclides all over Japan,” he said. “Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse.”

Indeed, a report by the Institute for Science in Society, based in the U.K., has concluded: “State-of-the-art analysis based on the most inclusive datasets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach.”

A death toll of up to 600,000 is estimated in a study conducted for the Nordic Probabilistic Safety Assessment Group which is run by the nuclear utilities of Finland and Sweden.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, told a symposium on “The Medical Implications of Fukushima” held last year in Japan: “The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas. As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain…radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local.”

Dr. Caldicott, whose books on nuclear power include Nuclear Madness, also stated:  “The Fukushima disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swaths of Japan will never be ‘cleaned up’ and will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever.”

Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, has said: “The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we’re going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan.”

At Fukushima, “We have opened a door to hell that cannot be easily closed—if ever,” said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at the U.S.-based group Beyond Nuclear last year.

Already an excessive number of cases of thyroid cancers have appeared in Japan, an early sign of the impacts of radioactivity.  A study last year by Joseph Mangano and Dr. Janette Sherman of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and Dr. Chris Busby, determined that radioactive iodine fall-out from Fukushima damaged the thyroid glands of children in California.  And the biggest wave of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima is slated to hit the west coast of North America in the next several months.

Meanwhile, every bluefin tuna caught in the waters off California in a Stanford University study was found to be contaminated with cesium-137, a radioactive poison emitted on a large scale by Fukushima. The tuna migrate from off Japan to California waters. Daniel Madigan, who led the study, commented: “The tuna packaged it up [the radiation] and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”

There is, of course, the enormous damage to property. The Environmental Health Policy Institute of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in its summary of the “Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster” cites estimates of economic loss of between $250 billion and $500 billion. Some 800 square kilometers are “exclusion” zones of “abandoned cities, towns, agricultural land, homes and properties” and from which 159,128 people have been “evicted,” relates PSR senior scientist Steven Starr. Further, “about a month after the disaster, on April 19, 2011, Japan chose to dramatically increase its official ‘safe’ radiation exposure levels from 1 mSv [millisievert, a measure of radiation dose] to 20 mSv per year—20 times higher than the U.S. exposure limit. This allowed the Japanese government to downplay the dangers of the fallout and avoid evacuation of many badly contaminated areas.”

And last year the Japanese government enacted a new State Secrets Act which can restrict—with a penalty of 10 years in jail—reporting on Fukushima. “”It’s the cancerous mark of a nuclear regime bound to control all knowledge of a lethal global catastrophe now ceaselessly escalating,” wrote Harvey Wasserman, co-author of Killing Our Own, in a piece aptly titled “Japan’s New ‘Fukushima Fascism’.”

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the nation’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission has over the past three years consistently refused to apply “lessons learned” from Fukushima. Its chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, was forced out after an assault led by the nuclear industry after trying to press this issue and opposing an NRC licensing of two new nuclear plants in Georgia “as if Fukushima had never happened.”

Rosalie Bertell, a Catholic nun, in her book No Immediate Danger, wrote about the decades of suppression of the impacts of nuclear power and the reason behind it: “Should the public discover the true health cost of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperative passively with their own death.”

Thus the desperate drive—in which a largely compliant mainstream media have been complicit—to deny the Fukushima catastrophe, a disaster deeply affecting life on Earth.

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism  at the State University of New York/College of New York, is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Giant Lie About Fukushima

The Giant Lie About Fukushima

March 13th, 2016 by Prof. Karl Grossman

 With the third anniversary of the start of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe coming next week, the attempted Giant Lie about the disaster continues—a suppression of information, an effort at dishonesty of historical dimensions.

It involves international entities, especially the International Atomic Energy Agency, national governmental bodies—led in Japan by its current prime minister, the powerful nuclear industry and a “nuclear establishment” of scientists and others with a vested interest in atomic energy.

Deception was integral to the push for nuclear power from its start. Indeed, I opened my first book on nuclear technology, Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, with:  “You have not been informed about nuclear power. You have not been told. And that has been done on purpose. Keeping the public in the dark was deemed necessary by the promoters of nuclear power if it was to succeed. Those in government, science and private industry who have been pushing nuclear power realized that if people were given the facts, if they knew the consequences of nuclear power, they would not stand for it.”

Published in 1980, the book led to my giving many presentations on nuclear power at which I’ve often heard the comment that only when catastrophic nuclear accidents happened would people fully realize the deadliness of atomic energy.

Well, massive nuclear accidents have occurred—the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima catastrophe that began on March 11, 2011 and is ongoing with large discharges of radioactive poisons continuing to be discharged into the environment.

Meanwhile, the posture of the nuclear promoters is denial—insisting the impacts of the Fukushima catastrophe are essentially non-existent. A massive nuclear accident has occurred and they would make believe it hasn’t.

“Fukushima is an eerie replay of the denial and controversy that began with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” wrote Yale University Professor Emeritus Charles Perrow in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last year. “This is the same nuclear denial that also greeted nuclear bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at Windscale in northern England and Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine.”

The difference with Fukushima is the scale of disaster. With Fukushima were multiple meltdowns at the six-nuclear plant site. There’s been continuing pollution of a major part of Japan, with radioactivity going into the air, carried by the winds to fall out around the world, and gigantic amounts of radioactivity going into the Pacific Ocean moving with the currents and carried by marine life that ingests the nuclear toxins.

Leading the Fukushima cover-up globally is the International Atomic Energy Agency, formed by the United Nations in 1957 with the mission to “seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.”  

Of the consequences of the Fukushima disaster, “To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the accident,” declared the IAEA in 2011, a claim it holds to today.

Working with the IAEA is the World Health Organization. WHO was captured on issues of radioactivity and nuclear power early on by IAEA. In 1959, the IAEA and WHO, also established by the UN, entered into an agreement—that continues to this day—providing that IAEA and WHO “act in close co-operation with each other” and “whenever either organization proposes to initiate a program or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.”

The IAEA-WHO deal has meant that “WHO cannot undertake any research, cannot disseminate any information, cannot come to the assistance of any population without the prior approval of the IAEA…WHO, in practice, in reality, is subservient to the IAEA within the United Nations family,” explained Alison Katz who for 18 years worked for WHO, on Libbe HaLevy’s “Nuclear Hotseat” podcast last year.

On nuclear issues “there has been a very high level, institutional and international cover-up which includes governments, national authorities, but also, regrettably the World Health Organization,” said Katz on the program titled, “The WHO/IAEA—Unholy Alliance and Its Lies About Int’l Nuclear Health Stats.” Katz is now with an organization called IndependentWHO which works for “the complete independence of the WHO from the nuclear lobby and in particular from its mouthpiece which is the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are demanding that independence,” she said, “so that the WHO may fulfill its constitutional mandate in the area of radiation and health.”

“We are absolutely convinced,” said Katz on “Nuclear Hotseat,” “that if the health and environmental consequences of all nuclear activities were known to the public, the debate about nuclear power would end tomorrow. In fact, the public would probably exclude it immediately as an energy option.”

WHO last year issued a report on the impacts of the Fukushima disaster claiming that “for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”

Then there is the new prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, who last year insisted before the International Olympic Committee as he successfully pushed to have the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo (180 miles from Fukushima): “There are no health-related problems until now, nor will there be in the future, I make the statement to you in the most emphatic and unequivocal way.”   Abe has been driving hard for a restart of Japan’s 54 nuclear power plants, all shut down in the wake of the Fukushima catastrophe.

His is a totally different view than that of his predecessor, Naoto Kan, prime minister when the disaster began. Kan told a conference in New York City last year of how he had been a supporter of nuclear power but after the Fukushima accident “I changed my thinking 180-degrees, completely.” He declared that at one point it looked like an “area that included Tokyo” and populated by 50 million people might have to be evacuated. “We do have accidents such as an airplane crash and so on,” Kan said, “but no other accident or disaster” other than a nuclear plant disaster can “affect 50 million people… no other accident could cause such a tragedy.” Moreover, said Kan, “without nuclear power plants we can absolutely provide the energy to meet our demands.” Japan since the accident began has tripled its use of solar energy, he said, and pointed to Germany as a model with its post-Fukushima commitment to shutting down all its nuclear power plants and having “all its power supplied by renewable power” by 2050. The entire world could do this, said Kan. “If humanity really would work together… we could generate all our energy through renewable energy.”

A major factor in Abe’s stance is Japan having become a global player in the nuclear industry. General Electric (the manufacturer of the Fukushima plants) and Westinghouse have been the Coke and Pepsi of nuclear power plants worldwide, historically building or designing 80 percent of them. In 2006, Toshiba bought Westinghouse’s nuclear division and Hitachi entered into a partnership with GE in its nuclear division. Thus the two major nuclear power plant manufacturers worldwide are now Japanese brands. Abe has been busy traveling the world seeking to peddle Toshiba-Westinghouse and Hitachi-GE nuclear plants to try to lift Japan’s depressed economy.

As for the nuclear industry, the “Fukushima accident has caused no deaths,” declares the World Nuclear Association in its statement “Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors…Updated October 2013.”   The group, “representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession,” adds: “The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health.”

What will the consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster be?

It is impossible to know exactly now. But considering the gargantuan amount of radioactive poisons that have been discharged and what will continue to be released, the impacts will inevitably be great. The claim of there being no consequences to life and the prediction that there won’t be in the future from the Fukushima catastrophe is an outrageous falsehood.

That’s because it is now widely understood that there is no “safe” level of radioactivity. Any amount can kill. The more radioactivity, the greater the impacts. As the National Council on Radiation Protection has declared: “Every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”

There was once the notion of there being a “threshold dose” of radioactivity below which there would be no harm. That’s because when nuclear technology began and  people were exposed to radioactivity, they didn’t promptly fall down dead. But as the years went by, it was realized that lower levels of radioactivity take time to result in cancer and other illnesses—that there is a five-to-40-year “incubation” period

Projecting a death toll of more than a million from the radioactivity released from Fukushima is Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk who has been a professor at a number of universities. . “Fukushima is still boiling radionuclides all over Japan,” he said. “Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse.”

Indeed, a report by the Institute for Science in Society, based in the U.K., has concluded: “State-of-the-art analysis based on the most inclusive datasets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach.”

A death toll of up to 600,000 is estimated in a study conducted for the Nordic Probabilistic Safety Assessment Group which is run by the nuclear utilities of Finland and Sweden.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, told a symposium on “The Medical Implications of Fukushima” held last year in Japan: “The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas. As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain…radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local.”

Dr. Caldicott, whose books on nuclear power include Nuclear Madness, also stated:  “The Fukushima disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swaths of Japan will never be ‘cleaned up’ and will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever.”

Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, has said: “The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we’re going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan.”

At Fukushima, “We have opened a door to hell that cannot be easily closed—if ever,” said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at the U.S.-based group Beyond Nuclear last year.

Already an excessive number of cases of thyroid cancers have appeared in Japan, an early sign of the impacts of radioactivity.  A study last year by Joseph Mangano and Dr. Janette Sherman of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and Dr. Chris Busby, determined that radioactive iodine fall-out from Fukushima damaged the thyroid glands of children in California.  And the biggest wave of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima is slated to hit the west coast of North America in the next several months.

Meanwhile, every bluefin tuna caught in the waters off California in a Stanford University study was found to be contaminated with cesium-137, a radioactive poison emitted on a large scale by Fukushima. The tuna migrate from off Japan to California waters. Daniel Madigan, who led the study, commented: “The tuna packaged it up [the radiation] and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”

There is, of course, the enormous damage to property. The Environmental Health Policy Institute of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in its summary of the “Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster” cites estimates of economic loss of between $250 billion and $500 billion. Some 800 square kilometers are “exclusion” zones of “abandoned cities, towns, agricultural land, homes and properties” and from which 159,128 people have been “evicted,” relates PSR senior scientist Steven Starr. Further, “about a month after the disaster, on April 19, 2011, Japan chose to dramatically increase its official ‘safe’ radiation exposure levels from 1 mSv [millisievert, a measure of radiation dose] to 20 mSv per year—20 times higher than the U.S. exposure limit. This allowed the Japanese government to downplay the dangers of the fallout and avoid evacuation of many badly contaminated areas.”

And last year the Japanese government enacted a new State Secrets Act which can restrict—with a penalty of 10 years in jail—reporting on Fukushima. “”It’s the cancerous mark of a nuclear regime bound to control all knowledge of a lethal global catastrophe now ceaselessly escalating,” wrote Harvey Wasserman, co-author of Killing Our Own, in a piece aptly titled “Japan’s New ‘Fukushima Fascism’.”

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the nation’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission has over the past three years consistently refused to apply “lessons learned” from Fukushima. Its chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, was forced out after an assault led by the nuclear industry after trying to press this issue and opposing an NRC licensing of two new nuclear plants in Georgia “as if Fukushima had never happened.”

Rosalie Bertell, a Catholic nun, in her book No Immediate Danger, wrote about the decades of suppression of the impacts of nuclear power and the reason behind it: “Should the public discover the true health cost of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperative passively with their own death.”

Thus the desperate drive—in which a largely compliant mainstream media have been complicit—to deny the Fukushima catastrophe, a disaster deeply affecting life on Earth.

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism  at the State University of New York/College of New York, is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Giant Lie About Fukushima

‘University College London Union has this week adopted BDS as official policy’.

In England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; in Oxford and London and on university campuses throughout the United Kingdom, there is growing anger at the intransigence and complete failure of the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu:

1. to permanently cease all settlement building in the Occupied Territories, that is in gross violation of international law

2. to repatriate all illegal settlers back to their homes in Israel

3. to end the six year illegal blockade of essential supplies to 1.8 million in Gaza that is a pretext to obtaining regime change

4. to end the occupation by removing all Israeli troops and military installations from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan

5. To comply with the resolution of the United Nations that has declared the Holy City of Jerusalem to be an international city with free access to all faiths, in perpetuity

6. To open the suspected nuclear weapon sites at Dimona, Eilabun, Kfar Zekharya, Yodefat, Nahal Soreq, Rafael and Tirosh to the international inspection of the IAEA

7. To submit a comprehensive list of Weapons of Mass Destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) currently held, to the United Nations Security Council

8. To release the thousands of political prisoners at present held without charge in Israeli prisons

9. To engage constructively in peace talks with the UN and the PA

10. To genuinely co­operate in the self-­determination of the Palestinian people and to tear up the Likud charter for a ‘Greater Israel’ which requires the ‘transfer’ of all non-­Israelis to neighbouring states.

The International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the “Occupying Power”.UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation “an affront to international law.”The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under “belligerent occupation”.

 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on British Consensus For an Independent Palestinian State. Five Million Still under Israeli Military Occupation

This incisive article was first published in February 2015

Seeing through the Official Lies on Ukraine 

“We can no longer find any willingness on the part of Poland to conduct serious negotiations with us. These proposals for mediation have failed because [of ] – – Polish mobilization.” (Adolph Hitler, 1939) 

These are the words of Adolph Hitler just before invading Poland and then the Soviet Union. I have replaced Poland with Russia (see below) to show the analogy of US and Nazi pretexts.

“We can no longer find any willingness on the part of Russia to conduct serious negotiations with us. These proposals for mediation have failed because [of ] – – Russian mobilization.”

This is not surprising given the very significant role that major US corporations like GM, IBM, Dupont, Ford, Standard Oil, Chase Bank as well as George and Jeb Bush’s grandfather Prescott who profited big as a bank-front director for the Nazi death machine run (not to mention the big Nazi corporations doing very well in the US during and after the war including Siemens and Allianz). There were also the deals German war criminals made to escape post-War trials, providing 70% of NATO’s intelligence after the war and direction to death squads in Latin America.

After the Poland invasion by pretext provided initial Lebensraum of large fertile lands and an open path to Russia for the Nazis, the invasion of Ukraine offered a bigger prize. Ukraine was and remains a breadbasket of the world, not much mentioned in Western reports as US-led corporate globalization now sweeps East. In 1940’s Ukraine, militant collaborators with Hitler’s Nazis arose at every level to assist in the genocide of Jews, German occupation, killing of resisters, and policing of concentration camps. These pro-Nazi militants featuring Stephen Bandera are still idolized today by their neo-Nazi descendents whose leaders have crucial armed-force posts and militias within post-coup Ukraine, as reports from Global Research like Michel Chossudovsky’s The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine have observed. Yet  mockery of any Ukraine-fascist reality today keeps the memory hole closed. “Dream on”, sneers New York Times International Weekly to the  facts without any counter-evidence, and so denial  publicly prevails as Ukraine neo-Nazis have armed militias, death squads  and the notorious Azov battalion on the ground and cabinet posts in the post-coup Kiev state.

All is “Putin’s paranoia” in the Western media in a pervasive campaign of vilification that holds the story together through all its lies.  Charges of aggression and crime against Russia and Putin are daily proclaimed with no evidence, but together provide a pretext for why “Russia must be stopped” and the US-led West Ukraine regime armed with US weapons to “teach Putin a lesson”.  The known five billion dollars spent on political destabilization of Ukraine in recent years, the covert special forces, and the direct financing and orchestration of the overtly fascist coup leaders all disappear into the anti-Putin/Russia propaganda field.

At the very same time, the descendents of the Eastern resisters to the Nazi occupation have been  resisting the reborn Ukraine fascist forces. Yet they are called “terrorists” now as then and war-criminal attacks on the civilian population and infrastructures by US/Kiev direction have followed ever since the illegal violent coup  year ago. For months only abuse and indiscriminate rocket and bombing attacks attacked the Eastern Ukraine civil resistance – until military mobilization occurred with Russian arms and volunteer assistance as well as captured tanks and armaments. That is where we are today with the resistance forces quickly gaining the upper hand against the real aggressor. Neo-Nazi gangs and militias are good at terrorizing and mass murdering civilians, and a mostly unwilling and drafted Ukraine army can pound civilians and infrastructures into hell with artillery, rockets and bombs. But an impassioned armed resistance against them of people speaking the same language and living the same culture will defeat them, and so it has happened here. The February 15 truce has been made because the Eastern-Ukraine resistance and forces have effectively pushed the Kiev forces, fascist militias and mercenaries out of the Donbass/Donetsk region. It was also possible because the US was not directly involved in the Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia meetings..

Is the Truce Just a Space for the US-led Forces to Build More War towards Russia?

No sooner was the truce signed than all onus was put on Russia to sustain it with none evident on Kiev or its US master. Is it just another pause before more weapons, special forces and advisers come in to prop up the US-constructed coup state in Kiev? Certainly that is what the West-Ukraine puppet leaders and US war party are pressing for.

Now most of all, the connections to the Nazi past in Ukraine and the US itself go down the memory hole. So too does the recent warning by Italy’s former Minister of the Economy, Giulio Tremonti, about the new forces at work in Europe – “financial fascism, white fascism” (translated from his apparently suppressed 2012 book, Emergency Exit: Ending the Tyranny of Finance). In short, all the degenerate trends across big bank dictatorship, corporate oligarchies running Europe, ever more armed forces against ever more dispossessed adversaries, squeezing workers wages and employment without limit, devouring attacks on public sectors and programs across nations to privatize their revenues, and now outright civil war in Ukraine are at work together  in a forming a situation which is hell on earth in the long social democratic Europe before 2008 (as diagnosed in global depth by my The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure).   Ukraine is the where the war of movement and land clearance is focused now because the greatest resistance yet to the carcinomic program has arisen here.

Again we might return to the Nazi past to find connective threads of meaning. US and Nazi  justifications have much in common. Before being able to publicly justify Nazi Germany’s military extension into East Europe, Hitler had to have a pretext, to satisfy public opinion. This was managed by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939 attacking a German radio station, Sender Gleiwitz, inside Germany near the border. All went as planned. And so too the movement on to Ukraine and Russia unrolled, always to “stop aggression” – the very same words and reverse pretexts. And always resisters were “terrorists”. These central concepts are at the core of the official stories of Nazi Germany as well as the US. But not only Eastern Europe is thus subjugated. The US has moved far beyond where Hitler expanded, from Iraq to Honduras to Venezuela to Vietnam – where does it stop? Always the question is, “where will Putin stop?” None stop to reflect that no Russian regular forces have moved beyond Russia’s borders, as repeatedly divulged under questioning by a Ukraine intelligence spokesman, the Chief of Staff himself, General Muzenko, and Ukraine’ s spokesman, Major Alexander Raran, at truce time . On the other hand while continuously proclaiming the lie that “Russian troops have invaded Ukraine”, US armed forces move across borders around the world. Where do they stop? They threaten force everywhere, and one can always tell that a people is resisting when the US  embargoes, threatens or bombs them – here with doubled-troop deployments across all Russia’s Western borders.

The difference from the Nazis is the normal subjugation by financial and trade levers, and slower motion of armed forces against resistance.  World rule has already been largely achieved. But Putin, Russia and – most of all – Eastern Ukraine itself have drawn a long overdue line. Russia now is no longer an open looting basin for transnational oligarchs with a drunken puppet Yeltsin in charge. Armed resistance on the ground from the Donbass region has stopped the world’s most lethal ever war-and-money machine from taking all of Ukraine by a US-led and neo-Nazi enforced coup. The Nazis themselves would have kept going. The US does not, and the fascist rump of Ukriane is neither popular nor competent. But the war party is everywhere demanding Russian blood for support of the resistance.  It all started with Kiev-led sniper mass murders in  Maidan square, and was whipped further into frenzy at the downing of a European-filled passenger jet. Yet Putin and Russia have not been so easily blamed in the Internet age where facts come out despite corporate mass media monopoly and NATO dominance.

There is no need to idealize Russia or Putin. Yet they do show exceptional capacity to withstand never-ending terror and attacks from the West, saving the world from Napoleon, Hitler and – so far – the US war state going East today. The evidence of “Russia’s aggression” – armed invading or civil destabilizing of other countries against international law – is pervasive for the US, but sorely lacking in the case of Russia. Knowledge here can win the day. The mass murder, destitution, and oppression in Europe is becoming ever better known, especially in Ukraine itself, and so too the Nazi connections. Once people awake to the worst in fact, they will not go along with the next big-lie pretext for aerial war and destroying another society.

How the Quality Press Lies for the Official Story to Stay Believed

Today on the eve of the first anniversary of the US-led fascist coup in Ukraine and a new truce agreement, the anti-Russia propaganda peaks as if to ensure that any future violation is blamed on Russia. The underlying US-EU corporate plan to pry open Ukraine and Russia downstream as undefended looting basins is kept quiet because it is not supported by any public. And those who serve the program do not fight so well – as we have seen in Ukraine – when confronted by people fighting for their mother country and community lives. That is why the call is so fervent from the war party to get US weapons to the Kiev puppet state.  The official story, of course, is opposite. The weaker is, as always, accused of being the despotic villain that must be brought under control, here a country with a declining population two-thirds the size of Brazil.

Even the academic press gets into the reverse blame game. Yale University Press recently published a book – Ukraine Crisis: What It Means for the West – which was year glowingly reported in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Guardian Weekly (among others) despite its reversal of the most basic facts of the Ukraine crisis. The serial mass murders by snipers which began Ukraine’s violent coup d’etat one year ago are falsely attributed to the pro-Russian President who fled the coup, even though EU evidence has itself shown Kiev agency in the mass murders and the US-led coup leadership refused to investigate (as documented ahead). Yale author Andrew Wilson also asserts with the corporate media that the shootdown of Malaysia flight MH17 killing 298 passengers was by a Buk missile “from Moscow”. Yet the European Union‘s Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), the chief investigating body, has revealed no such evidence while the plausible possibility of a covert black-op to blame on Russia or the Donetsk resistance is blinkered out. The tragedy was certainly not in the interests of the resistance because it gained nothing and almost got war declared on it by NATO as Kiev has aimed for all along. As always, again, the first question of forensic justice – cui bono? – is never asked.

As ultimatums and embargoes from the US and the EU continually escalate blaming “Russia’s aggression” without sustainable evidence ever produced, the war-mongering by the corporate media simultaneously increases to foment war fever. None seem to have processed the undeniable fact that the neutrality and non-arming of Ukraine was promised by NATO and the US  Secretary of State James Baker in 1991. Still the war party’s favorite liars like John McCain and the New York Times declare unsubstantiated war-pretext accusations daily. So the question arises: What will be the next big-lie pretext for NATO and US armed intervention?

State and media war mongers give a hint on what is being cooked up. Consider this paradigm example. The iconic British Guardian and its eminent writer on political affairs, Timothy Garton Ash, headline a February full-page story just before the new truce and coup anniversary, “Putin must be stopped. Guns will be essential”, the headline screams. Why? “Putin is the Slobodan Milosevic [convicted war criminal] of the old Soviet Union [KGB communist]”, Ash proclaims. Then he further alleges with no evidence that Putin and Russia only “spew anti-Western propaganda” and “if the [NATO] threat did not exist Russian television would invent it”. We may observe here another perfect reversal of Western propaganda operations onto the leader and weaker society it is attacking. Impartial observation of the Western press will find in fact continuous slanders at will, while Putin and RT are surprisingly polite in comparison. In general, there is no standard of truth or slander to inhibit free-roaming hate and falsehoods against any foreign force whatever the facts of the matter. Mass sales of product and expensive advertising also rise, and – key to the whole system – the audience is churned to aggressive diversion from their own oppression.

The Guardian story reproduces the old lies as well floating new ones.  Putin uses “energy blackmail” (that is, requirement for overdue payments for gas in the billions of Euros), and brings only “more blood and tears” to peoples (although staying on its borders while the US is war-gaming over 6000 miles from Washington). The New York Times feeds in with war propaganda from the other side of the ocean on the very weekend of truce (NYT Weekly, February. 14-15). It dismisses Russia’s encirclement by escalating US-led NATO forces in six countries and the Black Sea as a “preposterous fable – – to generate hysteria and buttress Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine”. Breathtaking erasure of the most basic facts and reverse projection onto the designated Enemy here combine in a paradigm illustration of the big-lie system at work.

At the same time, news stories have silently shifted to a new slant – to finally report the civilians and infrastructures of Eastern Ukraine being one-way shelled and bombed to ruin by US-led Kiev, but with no identification of which side is aerial bombing and shelling civilians and civilian targets.  In this way the US-led West-Ukraine forces that perform all of the aerial bombing and – until recently – almost all of the artillery shelling of public and civilian structures and citizens are collapsed into the general fighting that is all blamed on “Russia’s aggression”. The same article under the bold-print heading of Intelligence describes the denial of “all the Russian forces” as “nonsense” and a “figment of the imagination” although as we have seen the denial has come under questioning from the top of the Ukraine armed forces and intelligence spokesmen themselves. The lying propaganda techniques are a study in their own right. The invariably feature the elimination and reversal of facts as their only consistent method.

The really unspeakable fact is erased altogether, but lies deeper still. The age-old Russian-speaking minority of Ukraine – almost the same in language but not beliefs – has been subjected to the biggest ethnic cleansing operation of the millennium. A now estimated 1,500,000 people have been driven from their homes by one-way Kiev bombings and bombardments of even hospitals, schools and public buses while stopping all access to Eastern citizens means of existence as far as possible (not done by Putin even in the height of the US-sponsored war in Chechnya). The distinction between the millions of Eastern Ukraine’s Russia-speaking victims by US-led Kiev bombing, terror and life means deprivation and those in Kiev-ruled Western territory who are untouched by any rebel bombs and terror is simply abolished. This is how a genocide of the Eastern Ukraine people stays in motion while all that is reported is “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine”.

The Unseen Genocidal Program of the US-Led Coup Government

Almost down the memory hole is the precipitating cause of the Ukraine civil war – a spectacularly violent neo-Nazi-led coup overthrowing the established elected federal government of the Party of Regions – the now collapsed federalist party supported by most citizens before the US-orchestrated coup. The federalist option was thus annihilated to cause the uprising of Eastern Ukraine which, accordingly, was targeted for annihilation too. There have three main methods for this genocidal clearance operation whose people produce 95% of the country’s coal and most of its exports as well being rooted in a different language, culture, social organization and political-religious belief system. The first has been cultural dispossession and erasure – abolition of past language rights and federal accountability to the region’s people, the initial spur of the East’s uprising along with the neo-Nazi leadership of the coup state.  Nothing but worse to come was promised by this stripping of cultural and regional rights and institution of a US-led extreme-rightist state led on the ground and in cabinet posts by open neo-Nazis with US support, along with a banker puppet as prime minister who bawls “terrorists” and “Russian aggression” every other sentence. I bracket out proper names to ensure the underlying design is clear because submergence in alien names is part of the cover-up of every deciding fact by the official story.

The second level of genocidal method is armed-force terror by fascist gangs and militias on the ground committing atrocities combined with indiscriminate one-way aerial bombing and relentless artillery bombardment of civilians and civilian sites, vehicles and infrastructures –  never reported in Western corporate media even as the fleeing people multiplied to far more than ISIS proportions. The third and most unrecognized method even by critics has been deliberate mass starvation. It has proceeded among other instruments by cut-off of all social security and pensions to Eastern citizens, freezing of bank accounts to be inaccessible, stoppage of electricity, and  proclaiming “Russian invasion” every time food lorries came in to provide water and food to the starving people, with NATO’s Supreme Commander war-mongering daily about Russian troop build-ups and intentions to invade. Meanwhile every more sanctions and manipulations of global markets to break Russia’s capacity to assist or to defend escalated along with pervasively lying propaganda (as illustrated above).  Most deeply, all the dots remained unjoined by any public observation – with for example, CBC and the NDP echoing the official story daily. .

Given the Russia-speaking citizens who have led the revolt against the fascist-led coup and its US godfather, one could see a preconscious reversal of history back to Nazi-led dominance, oligarchy of the rich and father cult in Ukraine, and hate propaganda as again the moving force of public opinion. As every turn of aggression projected onto Russia has shown for a year, economic war on Russia and cumulative total war machinations have formed with the EU and other satellite corporate states in a geo-strategic trajectory interested in “peace” only as space for more war of expansion and ruin, automatically reverse-blamed on Putin to sustain it. It is difficult to deny the operationalization of the familiar grand objective of totalizing world rule always blamed on the resisters against it. Certainly as in other US-orchestrated “regime changes”, official and media attention blame the very party who has been attacked and never report the catastrophic consequences on innocent people’s lives, even when the terror and destruction becomes genocidal in scope.

Certainly the US-orchestrated “regime change” in Ukraine and continuous subsequent war crimes never reported has led to the worst large-scale mass murdering in Europe since the Nazis, already beyond Bosnia – another US-led expansion of transnational corporate rule backed by NATO bombing. The US-orchestrated “regime change” in Ukraine and its war crimes never reported in the Western media has already executed a very large-scale homicidal planning which none dares to name in public. Consider the dimensions – one-way aerial bombing and indiscriminate attacks of civilians and infrastructures in the Donbass area alone, mass starvation of millions of mainly Russia-speaking citizens, armed-force land clearances and appropriations, one-way mass murder atrocities by the US-led side, documented torture and rape by neo-Nazi death squads and the infamous Azov battalion, and ever more hundreds of thousands of people forced to flee their homes and region in East Ukraine but nowhere else. A mounting ethnic cleansing’ has already happened but is still unspeakable to report in the West.

Instead month after month the audience has been conditioned to revile the new hate object of Vladmir Putin, and thus to justify any life-destructive action at all in East Ukraine. We have seen this movie before. Always focus on the constructed Enemy to keep all eyes of what is being done by the US with allies to destroy millions of peoples’ lives. It is the DNA of this system. “Economic war” too is ratcheted up to ever new levels on Russia to destroy its collective life base, always the underlying target in the society-wrecking program of US-led corporate and NATO globalization. It is a death machine.

Meanwhile the immense assets in line for military-led takeover by the US and allies are excluded from discussion. It is projected instead onto Russia’s “expansionists aims”, while US-led NATO military operations threaten war on all Russia’s East-European borders, ever more military training and the deployment of special forces in coup-state Ukraine, transfer of war instruments and directors, contract-violating sanctions strangling the Russian economy, and even manipulation of global financial and oil markets to “stop the Russian aggressor”. Yet not just the bombs and artillery terrorize the victims of Eastern Ukraine There has been a choking off of their foods, electricity, social supports and pensions, medicines, bank accounts, humanitarian aid, and even freedom of movement – with mandatory passes and check-points like Israel and unpredictable bombardments of citizens with no military target near.

All the while thunderous denunciations of Putin rise to divert all attention from this one-way  war on all fronts as the war crimes multiply by the US-Kiev axis with Harper joining in and warmongering for more. Peace talks are revived in February to “give Russia one more chance” after the Ukranian representative failed to show up at the last talks in Minsk. As peace is hoped for by the peace and hope president, ever more new NATO and US war forces are installed and called for around Russia and the Ukraine “to prevent Russia’s continued aggression”.

What about Russia’s Seizure of Crimea in Violation of International Law?

The war might end if the new truce terms are acted on by Kiev – namely that Kiev-governed Ukraine only regains control of East Ukraine “after local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk and after a full political settlement (deadline end of 2015)”, plus the further conditions of “humanitarian aid; restoration of full economic links with Donetsk/Luhansk, including welfare payments and banking services; Ukrainian state to help develop Donetsk/Luhansk and regions’ co-operation with Russia”.

These terms seem minimally reasonable for any democratic social order. But their deprivation and restoration have been long suppressed reasons for the civil war.  It is a good sign that they are finally made public, if the media carry them, and finally restored to stop the war, if the US-led Kiev wants to.

Yet so far there is little evidence of either commitment on the US side. So far all there is only  talk of “Russia “and “the separatists” breaking the truce, as always. The terms themselves expose  the lie that Russia is only after expansion. The terms allow for no such expansion. No Western media will pick up on this, I predict. It explodes the official story they have been running day in and out for a year. Yet still the terms of truce are there for the first time, and the agreement was brokered by Germany and France in the EU. So it is big advance even if it is doomed to violation under the usual false pretexts. What will come out strongly in the days ahead, I predict, will be that “Russia has won by still having marched into Crimea and seized it by force”, “Russia has violated the sacred territorial integrity of Ukraine and gotten away with it”, “Russia has received a big reward for its aggression”, “Russia has been encourage to go on expanding like Hitler” and so on and on. The millstone of Crimea is still around Russia’s neck, the war crime of invading another nation’s sovereign territory remains, the sanctions must stay on Russia and weapons be provided to Ukraine , and again the justifications for continued economic if not military war remain in place to be repeated ad nauseam. So it is good place to revisit Russia’s re-integration with Crimea to consider how much of all this holds up under scrutiny.

“Russia’s brutal invasion and seizure of Crimea” is, after all, the core charge on which all others rest as the grounding fact to justify the demonization of Vladmir Putin and Russia in Ukraine. The justification itself is never questioned within Western state and media circles. In Ukraine, any questioning of Russia’s crime here – any “public denial or justification of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine”, may now land one in jail. Informally such siding with Russia or the resistance may lead to execution, with many hundreds have already so murdered by Kiev regime’s killer gangs and militias with no Kiev investigations of them.

In the wider world, Russia’s re-unification with Crimea with massive electoral support – neither fact ever allowed discussion in official state and media circles of the US and its allies let alone Ukraine – is sufficient to condemn it to ruin by blanket economic and military attacks.  Ever increasing threats of NATO buildups and war preparations as well as war-like embargoes and violations of trade contracts have already happened because of “Russia’s armed seizure of Crimea” and “gross violation of international law”

Of course what the official story fails to report is that Crimea has been an historic Russian port and strategic peninsula for centuries since Catherine the Great. The Nazi-like narrative further  ignores the fact that Ukraine’s brief interregnum occurred by a 1954 decree from Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian leader who was once led the Soviet Union whose laws now apply nowhere else.  Observe that this is “the sacred territory” that Canada’s toxic PM Harper has sworn will be retaken in pledging “family” loyalty on the September 18 visit of billionaire President Poroshenko. Observe too the patriarchal-mafia intimations.

The claim that Russian soldiers “poured into Crimea to seize it” is, however, perfectly false.  In fact, it was a voluntary referendum with demonstrated EU Parliamentarian-observing its overwhelming public support for re-unification with Russia. No evidence suggests that the already-present Russian soldiers involved were not models of presence without abuse and threat. No doubt many Tatars wanted no part, but the soldiers did not arrive by instruction from the Kremlin “to overthrow with brute force”. They were already a long time in Crimea under contract with Ukraine and in fewer number than the undenied contract allowed. No-one disputes any of this. Diversion from it is the game, and lies about Putin is the strategy that sustains it. An 83% voter turnout elected re-integration with Russia by over 90%. No counter-evidence disputes this, only unsubstantiated innuendos.

In contrast, Poroshenko’s post-coup election in October 2014 was by a fraction of Ukraine’s total electorate with most of the Russia-speaking South and the East unable to participate. His October 26 snap parliamentary election was in the conditions of more than a million citizens driven from their homes, oligarch and foreign money pouring in to indoctrinate voters, and anti-communist and anti-Russian mass passions inflamed to terrorizing proportions. Under post-coup law, the Kiev regime’s sacred claim to Crimea is criminal to disagree with and liable to social destruction – the “new Western democracy and freedom”.

Also erased from the official story are the facts that the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter and “the right of nations to self-determination” (Article 2, Chapter 1). This is the very right Ukraine invoked in seceding from the USSR in 1991, and the same right invoked for the separation of Kosovo from Serbia – which was in fact enforced by NATO bombing. Further erased is the UN International Court ruling in July 2010 that “general international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence”.

Facts and laws are not all that is automatically reversed in the official story and repeated like 2 + 2 =4. The contrast between Russia’s governing treatment of Crimea and the coup government’s treatment of the Ukraine people is also very revealing. While the oligarchs are setting up the  Ukraine people to be permanent debt-slave in exchange for banker-corporate control over the country’s life capital, Russia is far advanced in  upgrading the public infrastructures and life security of  Crimea as fast as possible.

The Underlying Geo-Strategic Pattern

The underlying global pattern is that any organised force standing against NATO-backed corporate globalization is selected for attack and dismemberment. We have seen this from Afghanistan to Syria in the last decade. NATO is the combination of all the white world powers that formerly warred against each other. Now they have a common cause which has switched from the wartime-generated welfare state leading the world to the very polar opposite under the same name – disemploying, defunding and skinning everyone alive without private money stocks from Spain and Greece to Ukraine.

The major strategy of rule is to divide the population into warring sides. The Republican Party has no other evident policy in the US, nor does the US itself abroad. So civil war was planned for Ukraine from before 2000 as reported by Germany’s former State Secretary for Defence, Willy Wimmer, who has since made public his meeting with the US State Department in Berlin on May 2, 2000 when  a map was presented regarding NATO’s future expansion to include the dividing of Ukraine into Eastern and Western regions. Five billion dollars of US foreign-operations spending in Ukraine from 2008 (acknowledged to a business audience by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland after the Kiev coup she directed) was then directly invested in mass anti-regime circles and propaganda and financial support to key agents of the eventually violent overthrow. This was not the intention of the mainly peaceful and popular demonstrations before February 2014 against the government of Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt president in a long line. But a violent coup was opted for instead led by neo-Nazi terror on the ground. The terror was then projected onto the government to justify overthrowing it, and then onto the resistance in the Eastern regions, Russia and Putin as patsies for Western public opinion.

As always in US-orchestrated “regime changes”, official and media attention turns to blaming the designated enemy while the catastrophic consequences of the violent overthrow are blinkered out. The Ukraine “regime change” has led to massive bombings of civilians and infrastructures in the East, deliberate starvation of millions of citizens, and armed-force land clearances, murder, torture and rape by neo-Nazi death squads.  This large-scale ethnic cleansing’ has been  altogether screened out of Western state and media reports, while the official story has daily flailed Putin as the villain and the cause of all the problems.

If we look forward and backward from the “weapons of mass destruction of Iraq”, the “genocidal plans of the dictator Gadaffi”, and “Assad’s chemical weapons” as a pretext for bombing another society with major strategic and economic resources to be pried open, we see that the pretexts always turn out to be false. But in every case a society formerly independent of US dominance and doing better than neighbours is torn apart and opened to transnational corporate invasion.

Thus not long after US-led bombing and destroying of Iraq and Libya on false pretexts, another story for more war and bombing arose. In Syria which followed a similar pattern, president Assad was “gassing his own people” and “violating international law”. This story went all the way to a White House plan to bomb Syria’s civilian infrastructures to correct the problem, as in Iraq and Libya – – and as in Ukraine if the war party had won. Even with Assad’s “war crime”, the truth found by multiple analysis was that “kitchen sarin” manufactured in Turkey and crude-missile lobbed by the al Nusra jihadists  allied with the US and funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar (the precursor of ISIL) was the source of the gas massacre – as Seymour Hersh finally made public. But neither this fact nor the plan to bomb Syria disappeared. The mass media including the New York Times continue to broadcast “Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people” while erasing Hersh’s research from the record.

As long as all fault is projected onto the official enemy and the facts repressed, there is no release from the perpetual war for economic and military resources for more global strategic control and transnational corporate exploitation. Unlike British imperialism, there is no advance of civilisation for the ruined society. Life capital development is reversed, and socioeconomic genocide is the effective outcome.

How the Ukraine Was Turned Into Civil War

The initial demands from the Russian-speaking Donbass region of East Ukraine centred in Donetsk were not radical. They were rather like the demands of francophone Quebec that have been successfully negotiated in Canada – minority language rights and federal status allowing substantially independent government. Yet minority language rights were immediately revoked by the coup leaders. Past federalist status for the mainly Russia-speaking region was warred upon from the start with a new governor appointed from Kiev. Neo-Nazi gangs then started terrorizing Russian speakers in Ukraine as soon as the coup was completed – with, for example, mass murders of hundreds of unionists and Victory Day celebrants within months.

Bear in mind that the East Ukraine resistance was from the same region that resisted the Nazi invasion in the 1940’s. Now as then, only one side bombed civilians, deployed starvation tactics, and mass-murdered civilians. The official story is that Putin and Russia have led all the criminal aggression in Ukraine, but the coup murders and atrocities, the indiscriminate military bombing, and the embargos against income and sustenance all came from the US-led West Ukraine side.  They had already forced over one million people to flee their homes by September of 2014. This was documented by the UN High Commission for Refugees before last summer was over, but unreported by the mass media or Western  leaders who only bayed insults and threats at Putin. .

Violent overthrow of a people’s elected government, bloody mass murders by regime street gangs, criminal bombing and shelling of civilians and social infrastructures, mass starvation policies, blaming victims as “terrorists” if they resist, anti-communist hatred a moving passion throughout (and hushed-up anti-Semitism), and a regulation on hand for the slave labour of Eastern citizens – all the ignored facts eerily recall the Nazi invasion and nationalist Ukrainian collaboration in genocidal operations decades before. Certainly, a generic pattern remains constant across contemporary history. One society after another is torn apart. Not only is the society decapitated, as in Ukraine to begin the crisis, or Libya or Iraq, or as demanded in Syria. Its civil bonds are rent asunder, its social life supports are stripped, its productive base is run down or destroyed, its government is made a strategic vassal and permanent debt servant to foreign banks, and its environment and resources are hollowed out.

We may recall that Russia’s “plot to rule the world” was the storyline to explain the Cold War, with few noticing that world rule went the opposite way once Russia had its GDP halved in the grand capitalist experiment under the drunk Boris Yeltsin. This helps to explain why the US-led coup d’etat in Ukraine for another neo-liberal feeding frenzy has been resisted by force of arms. Before the coup, as US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told a business meeting afterwards, $5 billion of public money was invested to turn Ukraine into US control. The method was a familiar one – ever-rising civil destabilization and US alliance with internal extreme-right parties, in this case, parties descended from Ukrainian Nazis supporting Hitler, Pravi (Right) Sektor and Svoboda (“Freedom”, formerly “Social Nationalist Party”).

Although Europe was near brokering a peace agreement, Nuland went ahead with the coup, hand-picking Arseniy Yatsenyuk as putsch prime minister and instructing him to consult with Oleh Tyahnybok  (whose Nazi salute is well known on the Internet) “at least four times a week”.  When reminded of the EU peace talks, she responded in undenied leaked reply, “Fuck the EU”. This US-orchestrated coup then occurred after three days of sniper murder and chaos were falsely blamed on the elected government to overthrow it.

In fact, the sniper murders of 21 people in Kiev in February 2014 which precipitated the bloody coup and started the civil war were part of the larger strategic logistics. The EU’s Foreign Minister’s verified and recorded conversation with Foreign Minister, Urmas Paet of Estonia, speaks for itself. He reported that all 21 murders were (his words) by “the same type of bullets” and from “the same handwriting” which could only be from “the new coalition [in Kiev] which does not want to investigate what happened”. Nor did any Western press.

Reverse projection is the master psych-op at work. Blame the enemy for what the US is doing as the reason to attack it. Even if the evidence shows a big lie in motion, only a few know it and it will not be reported in the corporate media. In fact, such serial mass murder as the Kiev sniper killings is grounds for prosecution of crimes against humanity under international law and prosecution by the International Court. But so far such due process of law and criminal prosecution have been deployed only to serve the unspoken global agenda while war-drums beat against all those who draw a line against it on the ground. The deprived become the Enemy whenever they fight back.

The post-coup words of former “Orange revolutionary” and gas oligarch leader of the Fatherland Party, Yulia Tymoshenko, are revealing of the mind-set long at work leading the Ukraine and denouncing Russia. When she was released from jail for criminal embezzlement of state property in post-coup Kiev, she said: “Take up arms and go and wipe out these damn katsaps” [Russian minority] – – – so that not even scorched earth would be left of Russia.”  The Russian-speaking city of Luhansk was levelled months later by artillery, rockets and air-bombing of civilian centres, schools, hospitals and water and electricity infrastructures, with 350,000 forced to flee from this one city alone by the Fall.

The Global Stakes of the Ukraine Crisis

Harper rule in Canada has joined the war-mongering genocidal game in character – refusing to respond to any diplomatic correspondence from Russia, blocking information flows, and proclaiming inflammatory falsehoods. The profound common life interests at stake are unnamed by all. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe and its biggest landmass. Public assets are all on the privatization block. Slash-and-burn budgets are set to service new unpayable debts to foreign banks with ample collateral on tap. Ukraine has large and untapped fracking-gas deposits, and it provides new strategic military control up to Russia’s main border and colossally rich natural resources on the other side. Yet the operation of reverse blame goes from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine to Russia in one society destruction to the next.  With one-way pervasive media abuse, cumulatively destructive sanctions, and incremental arming of neo-fascist-led Ukrainian forces, vast global power and treasure are at stake beneath discussion which affect us all.

The collapse of Ukraine’s GDP by 60% after 1991 is evidently not enough for the ravenous appetite of US-EU corporate globalization.  While mass media and states chorus “Russian brute force” and “what Hitler did back in the 1930’s” (Hilary Clinton), reverse projection is as usual the syntax of blame. The fire-bombing of the House of Unions in Odessa by regime gangs (May 2) and again in Mariupol on the anniversary of Victory Day over the Nazis (May 9) were major mass murders without arrest of any of those responsible on site, and all has been unreported in the Western media. Yet PM Yatsenyuk with US support keeps proclaiming “Russia’s war to take Ukraine”, and the US war party and its Canada servants lap it up. Public amnesia rules by the media selecting out of public view all facts not in the ruling script.

A new truce has now been entered by EU and Russia initiative with terms to resolve the US-orchestrated civil war. All voices of the official story wonder whether “Russia and the separatists” will obey  its terms. Yet when we examine the record of international law and agreements, especially life-protective promises and agreements, who do we really need to worry about as a violator of them? The record tells us very plainly.

The US state has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court to uphold the law against war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it has publicly repudiated the Court’s right to investigate US criminal violations including the “supreme crime” of initiating a war of aggression (including the Clintons). While the US perpetually invokes international laws to blame others, it repudiates any life-protective law applied to its actions, or its key ally Israel. In truth, the US has systematically undermined virtually all international laws to protect life – treaties and conventions against landmines, against biological weapons, against international ballistic missiles, against small arms, against torture, against racism, against arbitrary seizure and imprisonment, against military weather distortions, against biodiversity loss, against climate destabilization, and even international agreements on the rights of children and of women.

The record of US war crimes and crimes against humanity, against human and planetary life itself, is suppressed. It should be foremost in the minds of those observing what happens next in this potential world war situation or – perhaps at last – non-US resolution.

John McMurtry is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and his work is published and translated from Latin America to Japan. He is the author and editor of the three-volume Philosophy and World Problems published by UNESCO’s Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), and his latest book is The Cancer Stage of Capitalism/from Crisis to Cure. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine, America’s “Lebensraum”. Is Washington Preparing to Wage War on Russia?

The Fukushima disaster is not over and will never end.

The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swaths of Japan will never be ‘cleaned up’ and will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever.” -Dr. Helen Caldicott [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (58:59)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

Nuclear expert Arnold Gundersen called it, “the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind.”[2]

It’s been five years since a tsunami triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility resulting in three meltdowns and the release of copious amounts of radioactive debris into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean.[3]

Mainstream press reports do not seem to reflect the severity of this ongoing disaster. For example, on the eve of the five year anniversary, Canada’s national broadcaster, the CBC, virtually ignored the radiation concerns. The report stated that there were “zero deaths or cases of radiation sickness as a result of radiation exposure” and attributed this low mortality to “the quick-thinking, preventative actions taken by the Japanese government.” [4]

Such reporting is misleading. As Gundersen explained in a June 2011 interview:

 “One cigarette doesn’t get you, but over time they do. These [hot particles] can cause cancer, but you can’t measure them with a Geiger counter. Clearly people in Fukushima prefecture have breathed in a large amount of these particles. Clearly the upper West Coast of the US has people being affected. That area got hit pretty heavy in April (2011).” [5]

We know that radioactive Plutonium 239 has escaped into the ocean from Fukushima. According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a single microgram of this toxic substance can cause leukemia and bone cancers. [6]

Not only has the mainstream media failed to address these environmental perils, it has also failed to adequately report on the extent of the cover-up by Japanese, U.S. and international authorities. In a 2014 article for Counterpunch, State University of New York/College of New York journalism professor Karl Grossman detailed the Japanese government’s efforts to defend the nuclear industry at the expense of the welfare of the public. For instance, the Japanese government increased the maximum allowable radiation exposure level from 1 mSv (millisievert) per year to 20 mSv per year, allowing authorities to reduce the number of required evacuations.

In his free internet e-book, independent journalist Hatrick Penry has unveiled an even more comprehensive account of multi-agency involvement in a cover-up of the severity of the situation. Among his discoveries were NOAA tracking of major 60 kilometre mile long plumes of radioactive clouds along the Japanese coast and officials statements acknowledging Spent Fuel Pools #3 and #4 “going dry.”

On the occasion of this anniversary, the Global Research News Hour brings listeners two related interviews on the topic of Fukushima and lessons learned.

The first interview is with Linda Pentz Gunter, international specialist for the environmental advocacy group ‘Beyond Nuclear.’ In this conversation, Gunter addresses the question of whether nuclear is being seriously explored as an alternative to the climate-ravaging fossil fuel industry. She also outlines aspects of the Fukushima cover-up, and why international bodies and media are failing to hold nuclear and government agencies to account.

In the final half hour, Portland-based Mimi German, Earth activist and founder of Radcast.org, speaks more about the cover-up, the nuclear situation in the U.S. and the consequences for society and all life on earth.

For more on Fukushima, please read Global Research’s comprehensive report.

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (58:59)

Click to Download 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.

Notes:

1) http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/the-giant-lie-about-fukushima/

2) Dahr Jamail, June 16, 2011, “Fukushima: It’s much worse than you think”, Al Jazeera;http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

3) ibid

4) http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-years-after-fukushima-by-the-numbers-1.3480914

5)  http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/the-giant-lie-about-fukushima/

6) http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fukushima-endgame/5420188

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fukushima At Five: Reflections on the Crime, the Cover-up and the Future of Nuclear Energy

The Fukushima disaster is not over and will never end.

The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swaths of Japan will never be ‘cleaned up’ and will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever.” -Dr. Helen Caldicott [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (58:59)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

Nuclear expert Arnold Gundersen called it, “the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind.”[2]

It’s been five years since a tsunami triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility resulting in three meltdowns and the release of copious amounts of radioactive debris into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean.[3]

Mainstream press reports do not seem to reflect the severity of this ongoing disaster. For example, on the eve of the five year anniversary, Canada’s national broadcaster, the CBC, virtually ignored the radiation concerns. The report stated that there were “zero deaths or cases of radiation sickness as a result of radiation exposure” and attributed this low mortality to “the quick-thinking, preventative actions taken by the Japanese government.” [4]

Such reporting is misleading. As Gundersen explained in a June 2011 interview:

 “One cigarette doesn’t get you, but over time they do. These [hot particles] can cause cancer, but you can’t measure them with a Geiger counter. Clearly people in Fukushima prefecture have breathed in a large amount of these particles. Clearly the upper West Coast of the US has people being affected. That area got hit pretty heavy in April (2011).” [5]

We know that radioactive Plutonium 239 has escaped into the ocean from Fukushima. According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a single microgram of this toxic substance can cause leukemia and bone cancers. [6]

Not only has the mainstream media failed to address these environmental perils, it has also failed to adequately report on the extent of the cover-up by Japanese, U.S. and international authorities. In a 2014 article for Counterpunch, State University of New York/College of New York journalism professor Karl Grossman detailed the Japanese government’s efforts to defend the nuclear industry at the expense of the welfare of the public. For instance, the Japanese government increased the maximum allowable radiation exposure level from 1 mSv (millisievert) per year to 20 mSv per year, allowing authorities to reduce the number of required evacuations.

In his free internet e-book, independent journalist Hatrick Penry has unveiled an even more comprehensive account of multi-agency involvement in a cover-up of the severity of the situation. Among his discoveries were NOAA tracking of major 60 kilometre mile long plumes of radioactive clouds along the Japanese coast and officials statements acknowledging Spent Fuel Pools #3 and #4 “going dry.”

On the occasion of this anniversary, the Global Research News Hour brings listeners two related interviews on the topic of Fukushima and lessons learned.

The first interview is with Linda Pentz Gunter, international specialist for the environmental advocacy group ‘Beyond Nuclear.’ In this conversation, Gunter addresses the question of whether nuclear is being seriously explored as an alternative to the climate-ravaging fossil fuel industry. She also outlines aspects of the Fukushima cover-up, and why international bodies and media are failing to hold nuclear and government agencies to account.

In the final half hour, Portland-based Mimi German, Earth activist and founder of Radcast.org, speaks more about the cover-up, the nuclear situation in the U.S. and the consequences for society and all life on earth.

For more on Fukushima, please read Global Research’s comprehensive report.

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (58:59)

Click to Download 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.

Notes:

1) http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/the-giant-lie-about-fukushima/

2) Dahr Jamail, June 16, 2011, “Fukushima: It’s much worse than you think”, Al Jazeera;http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

3) ibid

4) http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-years-after-fukushima-by-the-numbers-1.3480914

5)  http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/the-giant-lie-about-fukushima/

6) http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fukushima-endgame/5420188

Welcome to the Empire of Chaos

March 13th, 2016 by Ulson Gunnar

When globe-trotting journalist and keen geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar refers to the United States as the “Empire of Chaos,” it may seem like hyperbole. But upon looking deeper at both Escobar’s coverage and the United States’ foreign policy itself, it is perhaps the most accurate title for this political entity and its means of operation, perhaps more apt than the name “The United States” itself.

In the wake of World War II, the US and its allies set out upon the reclamation of the West’s lost colonies, many of which took advantage of Europe’s infighting to either establish independence from their long-standing colonial masters, or begin the conflicts that would inevitably lead toward independence.

Perhaps the most well-known of these conflicts was the Vietnam War. The United States would involve itself in the dissolution of French Indochina at the cost of some 4 million lives in a conflict that would embroil not only Vietnam, but much of Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. Covert coups and brutal insurgencies were underwritten by Washington across the planet, from the Middle East to South and Central America. And while this too seems chaotic, the goal always seemed to be the destruction of independent states, and the creation of viable client states.

These client states included the Shah’s Iran, Saudi Arabia, much, if not all of Western Europe and even to varying degrees, some of the enduring autocracies of the Middle East until for one reason or another they fell out of favor with Washington. The idea was to create an international order built upon the concept of globalization.

Globalization was meant to be a system of vast interdependencies governed by international institutions created by and for the United States and more specifically, the special interests that have long since co-opted America’s destiny.

However, the concept of globalization seems to have neglected any anticipation for rapid technological advances in both terms of information technology and manufacturing. There are very few real interdependencies left to stitch this vision of globalization together with many of them being artificially maintained at increasing costs. The idea of using sanctions to ‘starve’ a nation by isolating it from this global order has been exposed as more or less impotent by nations like Iran and North Korea who have sustained themselves for decades despite everything besides air and gravity being denied to them.

Indeed, nations understand the value of self-sufficiency in both terms of politics and the basic necessities which constitute any state’s infrastructure. Russia’s recent encounter with Western sanctions has caused it to look not only eastward, but inward, to secure its interests and to transcend sanctions wholly dependent on the concept of “globalization.”

As this “carrot and stick” method of working the world into Wall Street and Washington’s international order becomes less effective, some of the uglier and less elegant tools of the West’s geopolitical trade have taken a more prominent role on the global stage. It appears that if the West cannot rule this international order built upon the concepts of globalization, it will rule an international order built on chaos.

The Empire of Chaos 

The unipolar geopolitical concepts that underpin globalization have eroded greatly. Nations no longer have to pick between an existence of lonely isolation and socioeconomic atrophy or subordination within this international order. Instead, they can pick to associate with the growing community of what the West calls “rogue states.” So large has this list grown that the US may soon find itself and Western Europe the last remaining members of its failed international order.

The real danger for an aspiring global empire is to find a planet that has suddenly begun to move in tandem out from under its shadow and moving on without them in relative peace and prosperity. To prevent this from happening we have seen a concerted effort focused on disrupting and destroying this emerging multi-polar world.

In Europe, the refugee crisis is being used to polarize European society and allow governments to increase their power domestically and further justify wars abroad. Along Western Europe’s borders, facing Russia, a relative stable balancing act maintained by former Soviet territories attempting to benefit from associating with both East and West has been turned into outright war.

Throughout North Africa and the Middle East, any nation that even so much as slightly resembles a sovereign nation state has been undermined and attempts to violently overthrow them pursued. The goal is no longer to create viable client states, but rather to Balkanize and leave them in ruins so as to never contest Western ambitions in the region again. This can be observed clearly in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen where none of the groups backed by the US and its allies could ever realistically run a functioning nation state.

And in Asia, in state after state, those leading political parties marked by Washington for future client status are being removed from power and their leaders, long backed by the US, being either exiled or jailed.

Where these political gambits are crumbling, a steady stream of violence perpetrated by terrorist groups not even indigenous to the region has begun to build in strength.

Divide and Conquer

Divide and conquer is a geopolitical maxim that has served as empire’s bread and butter since the beginning of recorded human civilization. When the British could not subdue a targeted territory just beyond the grasp of its empire, it would divide and destroy them. A ruined nation that can be plundered and trampled may not be as desirable as a loyal client state run by a British viceroy, but it is better than a pocket of national sovereignty serving as an example for others of the merits of resisting “Great Britain.”

Today, it is clear that the idea of creating a client state in the midst of a general public increasingly aware of the features and fixations of modern empire is becoming ever more tenuous. Such client states are less likely to be accepted by a local population who, with minimum effort, can put up significant resistance against even the best funded of foreign proxies.

Globalism required more and more illusions to convince people they needed a global system controlled by far-off special interests to do what can now be done through advances in technology nationally and even locally. Now all that is left is the sowing of chaos to prevent people from leveraging this technology nationally and locally, to keep them divided and distracted for as long as possible, to perpetuate the West’s global hegemony for as long as possible.

Moving Beyond the Chaos

An empire built on chaos is not meant to last. Chaos, like the international order of globalization that preceded it, requires illusions and manipulation to perpetuate itself. Unfortunately, stirring chaos among a population is a lot easier than convincing them of the non-existent interdependencies of globalization.

Nations leading the way out of this chaos include those who have suffered the most because of it. Their leaders have realized the necessity of closing off the vectors through which the West feeds this chaos within their borders, which include socioeconomic disparity, foreign-funded propaganda, foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and of course extremist groups used to carry out the actual terrorism and agitation required to create the worst sort of chaos.

Russia and China in particular have been busy creating alternatives not only for the remnants of the West’s globalization racket, but alternatives for the unipolar world the West was trying to create. They are both looking within and across their borders to create a patchwork of nations ready to move beyond the chaos and toward a more widespread balance of power.

By in turn, placing sanctions on the West, Russia is forcing itself to not only produce raw materials for export, but to become a more capable producer of finished goods. By doing so, Russia has begun a process that turns America’s sanctions game back onto itself. While many believe Washington drives American policy, it is unrealistic to discount Wall Street’s role. By cutting the corporations trading on Wall Street down to size, one cuts down their unwarranted power they wield on the global stage.

Nations choosing to trade rather than being forced to because of an ungainly system of globalization ensures that any given people have more control over not only what they buy and sell, but how and where their natural resources are used.

With the Empire of Chaos in terminal decline and with a new multi-polar order emerging, the only question left to ask is; will chaos spread and destroy faster than this new multi-polar order can be built? It is certainly a close race pushing both sides into acts of increasingly unimaginable confrontation.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Welcome to the Empire of Chaos

The Imperial Myopia of Candidate Bernie Sanders

March 13th, 2016 by Chris Floyd

Does Bernie Sanders know what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did to Honduras? Does he care? Last week saw yet another savage murder of a Honduran activist for democracy — one of hundreds such atrocities since Clinton and Obama blessed a brutal oligarchical coup there in 2009. But Sanders said nothing — says nothing — about this damning legacy of his opponent. It’s an extraordinary omission by someone presenting himself as an alternative to the failed elitist policies of the past.

The only Sanders reference to Honduras that I’ve been able to find is some justified criticism of the draconian treatment of Honduran refugees by the Obama-Clinton team. But he never tied this back to why there has been a flood of Hondurans fleeing their country — most of them children, sent on a perilous journey by desperate parents hoping to save them from the hellish conditions wrought by the coup. Political repression and rampant gangsterism — including the abandonment of broad swathes of society to the ravages of poverty and gangs — have driven the nation to its knees. Last week’s murder of indigenous activist Berta Cáceres is but the latest bitter fruit of the Obama-Clinton betrayal of democracy.

Clinton — with a heart as hard as that most adamantine of all elements, neoconium — obviously doesn’t care. (Although at least she has refrained from looking on the latest murder and crying, “We came, we couped, she died!”) One assumes that Sanders, who over the years has opposed various American depredations in Latin America, might not be so sanguine. But as of this writing, a week has passed since Cáceres’s murder without comment from Sanders. However, his Senate colleague from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, did condemn the killing — and the wasteful, land-grab dam project that Cáceres opposed. Perhaps now that Leahy has provided some Establishment cover, Sanders could bestir himself for a word or two on the Cáceres case.

But the reticence to attack Clinton on the substance — and the essence and the goals — of American foreign policy is very much a hallmark of the Sanders campaign. For example,his only word about the American-backed campaign of slaughter, ruin and starvation being conducted by the Saudis against Yemen has been a lament that the Saudis are wasting good ammo in Yemen when they should be “getting their hands dirty” against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Yes, apparently the proper “democratic socialist” position is that the world needs more violent intervention by the greatest purveyors of Islamic extremism in the world. We need more killing — and more military expansion — by one of the most repressive regimes on the face of the planet. This is where the “progressive left” is at these days.

Again, this is an extraordinary position for someone who is calling for a “revolution” in American affairs. For although Sanders wants the Saudis to do more of the “dirty” work of killing people in the Middle East, there’s no suggestion on this part that the United States won’t continue to supply the weaponry and logistics and intelligence for the “Sanders Surrogate” wars he envisions, just as it is doing now in Yemen. This same resistance to any fundamental change in America’s militarist imperium runs through all of Sanders’ foreign policy stances. Which means that his plans for a “revolution” (really mild reform) in domestic affairs are doomed to failure, because the War Machine will continue to dictate policy — and budget priorities. Dennis Riches put it well in this quote from MintPress News:

Although Sanders claims to seek a more democratic government and hopes to remove the influence of money from politics, Riches said he avoids talking much about this complex topic because doing so would involve admitting how much the U.S. national economy depends on a massive military and endless foreign wars.

“Doing the right thing would require a complete abdication of America’s self-assigned role as master of the global order, and this would also entail a re-imagining of the domestic economy,” Riches noted.

There will be no “revolution” — there will not even be any genuine reform, beyond mild tinkering at the margins — without such an abdication and re-imagining. But this is not on offer from any of the “major candidates” now vying to be the temporary manager of the corrupt and violent American imperium, including Sanders.

2.
Meanwhile, the horror in Honduras goes on. As so often over the years, John Perry of the London Review of Books provides excellent background on the situation there. He notes that the Cáceres murder is part of an American-backed ethos that puts “business” before any and all other concerns — community, environment, individual human lives.

In this case, even the decidedly unsentimental Chinese investors — and the equally bottom-line World Bank as well — concluded that the dam project opposed by Cáceres was not worth pursuing. But local oligarchs, backed by the coup regime, decided to plow ahead. Perry sets the scene:

After the 2009 military coup, Honduras was declared open for business. Utopian projects for charter cities to bring in foreign entrepreneurs are still on the drawing board, but Honduras’s mineral resources have already attracted investors. To serve hundreds of new mines, 47 new hydroelectric projects were given the go ahead two months after the coup, overriding the legal protection for indigenous lands. One of them, Agua Zarca on the Gualcarque River, with dams generating 22 megawatts of electricity, would destroy Lenca farmland and villages. The Lenca community of Rio Blanco and the Council of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras (COPINH), co-founded by Cáceres, were determined to stop the dams being built.

They blocked the access road for construction traffic for a whole year in 2013, eventually forcing the Chinese firm Sinohydro to give up its contract. The World Bank also withdrew funding. The community seemed to have won, at the cost of activists being killed or injured by soldiers guarding the construction site.

Then last July, DESA, the local firm that holds the concession to dam the river, decided to go ahead by itself. A new phase of struggle began, with peaceful protests met by violent repression and bulldozers demolishing settlements in the valley. Threats against the leaders, and Cáceres in particular, increased. She was granted special protective measures by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, but the Honduran government never properly implemented them.

So just two months after the coup, 47 dam projects got the green light, to serve hundreds of new mines. Yet Hillary’s defenders (you can read their obsequious offerings by the yard at Daily Kos) now tell us that she and Obama only supported the ouster and exile of the democratically elected Honduran president in 2009 in order to “prevent a civil war” in the country. It was pure altruism, on the level of high statecraft. It had nothing to do with, say, grubby business interests and powerful investors (including the not-at-all Washington-connected World Bank) needing a “green light” to move the pesky redskins off their land and gut the earth for more extraction profiteering. Such considerations did not enter into the mix at all.

(Even if one takes the argument of the Clinton apologists at face value, it’s still a remarkable scam: Rightwing oligarchs threaten civil war if they don’t get what they want; you give them what they want; and hey presto — you’ve “saved” a nation from civil war! Why didn’t Abe Lincoln think of that?)

The violent repression took its accustomed course:

In the small hours of the morning on Thursday 3 March, armed men burst through the back door of Cáceres’s house and killed her in her bed. They also injured a visiting Mexican activist, Gustavo Castro. At around eight o’clock, police and army officers arrived, dealing aggressively with the family and community members who were waiting to speak to them. As they left the scene, they insinuated that the motive was robbery. Cáceres’s body was wrapped in plastic and thrown in the back of an unmarked truck. …

It is all part of a sickening pattern, played out over and over in Honduras, as elsewhere in the American imperium. As I wrote back in 2010:

Since the installation of these throwbacks to the corrupt and brutal ‘banana republics’ of yore, Obama’s secretary of state, the “progressive” Hillary Clinton, has spent a good deal of time and effort trying to coerce Honduras’ outraged neighbors in Latin America to “welcome” the thug-clique, now led by Porfirio Lobo, back into the “community of nations.” Let bygones be bygones, Clinton says, as Lobo’s regime murders journalists (nine so far this year), political opponents and carries on the wholesale trashing of Honduran independence (such as sacking four Supreme Court justices who opposed the gutting of liberties and the overthrow of constitutional order). After all, isn’t that Obama’s own philosophy: always “look forward,” forget the crimes of the past? Every day is a new day, a clean slate, a chance for a new beginning — indeed, for “hope and change.”

In other words: let the dead bury the dead — and let the rich and powerful reap their rewards.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Imperial Myopia of Candidate Bernie Sanders

The European Central Bank (ECB) yesterday unleashed a new series of measures under its quantitative easing program, including expanded purchases of financial assets, a further lowering of interest rates and increased financing for banks. The moves amount to an increasingly desperate bid to counter the worsening outlook for the euro zone and the global economy.

The ECB reduced its deposit rate to minus 0.4 percent from minus 0.3 percent and increased its purchases of financial assets from the present level of €60 billion per month to €80 billion and included for the first time the purchase of debt issued by non-financial corporations. Previously the program, which is set to run to March 2017 or beyond if considered necessary, had only included government debt.

It also decided to extend further credit to banks under its so-called longer-term refinancing operations, charging them interest rates as low as minus 0.4 percent—in effect paying them to borrow money.

However, the immediate effect of the measures was the opposite of what was intended. European markets initially rose on the news because the expansion of the asset-purchasing program by €20 billion was larger than had been expected, but then ended the day sharply down. The euro at first fell against the dollar but then rose rapidly in one of the largest one-day swings in the currency’s history. On Wall Street the Dow fell by as much as 178 points before rising to finish the day just 5 points down.

The cause of the gyrations in the currency and equity markets appears to have been remarks by ECB president Mario Draghi that there would be no further interest rate cuts. He said that while interest rates will “stay low, very low, for a long period of time … we don’t anticipate that it will be necessary to reduce rates further.”

He indicated the central bank could not go negative as far as it wanted without any consequences for the banking system. Since the move by the Bank of Japan to negatives rates at the end of January and the spread of the negative-rate regime to countries comprising around a quarter of global gross domestic product, there has been considerable concern that it has having an adverse impact on the business models of banks, leading to significant falls in their share values.

In his prepared remarks Draghi gave a downbeat assessment of the euro zone economy. Real GDP growth was 0.3 percent for the fourth quarter in 2015. While it was supported by domestic demand, it was “dampened by a negative contribution from net exports” with the most recent surveys pointing to “weaker than expected growth momentum at the beginning of the year.”

His assessment on the immediate outlook was internally contradictory. He began by saying that the ECB expected “economic recovery to proceed at a moderate pace”—the standard mantra of all the global financial institutions even as a world economic outlook worsens.

“However,” he continued, “the economic recovery in the euro area continues to be dampened by subdued growth prospects in emerging markets, volatile financial markets, the necessary balance sheet adjustments in a number of sectors [the need to reduce high level of non-performing loans held by European banks] and the sluggish pace of implementation of structural reforms.”

The latter point is a reference to the long-held ECB demand that so-called labour market flexibility—the gutting of conditions of employment—must be intensified throughout the euro area.

Overall “the risks in the euro area remained tilted to the downside” relating to “heightened uncertainties in the global economy as well as geopolitical risks” with the ECB having revised down its estimates for growth from its December meeting.

The official rationale for the program of monetary stimulus is to bring the euro zone rate of inflation towards but not above the level of 2 percent. However, prices are moving in the opposite direction. The inflation rate for February was minus 0.2 percent, compared to 0.3 percent in January and would only reach 0.1 percent for 2016 as a whole, according to the ECB’s own forecast.

During the question and answer session, Draghi sought to answer criticism that the central bank’s policy was ineffective and it had had “no ammunition left.” He claimed the new range of measures was “very significant” and it was foolish to think it was possible to get back to 2 percent with an economy that had not recovered. But once there was a solid recovery for the euro area there would be an upward movement on wages and prices.

The claim that the program of the ECB and other central banks will eventually bring about a recovery has been thoroughly exposed by economic reality. It is now more than seven years since the meltdown of 2008 and euro zone output has still yet to reach the levels it attained before the financial crisis.

Further remarks by Draghi pointed to the real nature of the so-called “unconventional measures” adopted by financial authorities. “Suppose we had not acted at all? … What would be the counterfactual? And of course we deem that the counterfactual would have been a disastrous deflation,” he said.

In other words, the actions of the ECB are not a program aimed at real economic recovery—their most significant effect has been to increase financial wealth and widen social inequality—but amount to a holding operation to prop up the financial system and prevent a collapse like that of the 1930s. Moreover, the fact that the program has had to be continually widened, signifies that, not only are the underlying contradictions within the financial system still unresolved, they are intensifying.

On the eve of the ECB meeting, Bank of America chief investment strategist Michael Hartnett noted that the policies of central banks over the past seven years had not stimulated economic growth.

The ‘seven-year glitch’ is that the underlying narrative of markets remains deflationary, despite 619 global interest rate cuts, $10.4 trillion of financial asset purchases by central banks, $9 trillion of global government debt yielding 0 percent—roughly equal to 23 percent of all government debt in the world,” he said. There was no sign of monetary stimulus bring an acceleration in GDP “any time soon.

While the latest measures will do nothing to boost real economic growth, they will have an impact. Despite Draghi’s strenuous avowals to the contrary, they represent a stepping up of the currency wars in which countries try to improve their position in global markets by lowering the value of their own currency at the expense of their rivals.

In attempt to head off such criticism, Draghi pointed to the recent G-20 meeting in Shanghai where “all countries took a solemn agreement that basically they would avoid such war” but then acknowledged that some of the latest measures would have a “spillover on the foreign exchange market.”

The other major impact will be on the bond markets. Further asset purchases will increase the price of bonds and lower yields (the two move in an inverse relationship), in some cases into negative territory. This means that investment in bonds is not carried out to secure income from interest payments but with the aim of selling the bond at a still higher price as interest rates fall.

As one analyst pointedly commented, with negative-yielding bonds “you are essentially in prayer mode for the opportunity to sell to essentially a bigger fool.”

In other words, while the ECB measures are not going to boost the real economy, they will further contribute to turning bond markets into a giant Ponzi scheme, dependent on the continued inflow of cash, thereby creating the conditions for another financial disaster.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on European Central Bank (ECB) Cuts Rates and Pours More Money into Financial Markets

“And all the news just repeats itself like some forgotten dream we’ve both seen.”  John Prine “Hello in There”          

There is no doubt that the repetitious coverage of the presidential primaries keeps people entertained and focused.  Attention deficit disorder is on vacation.

In a high-tech culture of the copy such as ours, repetition is an art form, a method to distract, and the air we breathe.  Everything is repeated, except life.  But they are working on that.  Reiterate, repeat, replay, rewind, retrieve, replicate, echo, copy, parrot, ditto, yakety-yak.  We even have a relatively new word to capture this phenomenon – a meme.  No doubt we will soon have an official mental disorder called “Mental Carpal Tunnel Syndrome,” mental breakdowns caused by repetitive motions of the mind.  Then the media will report the news of a new drug to treat it – something with a catchy name like “Reptiva” or “Captiva.”  The ads for it will run in endless loops.

It is touching to hear the non-stop commentaries about the American people making their voices heard by supporting one candidate or another: the woman, the rebel, the reality television mogul et al. – stock characters from a long-running movie.  It is uplifting to think that this matters and a contested, vigorous democratic process is underway.  It’s just not true.  But what’s new?

In his ground breaking 1965 book, Propaganda, the French sociologist Jacques Ellul makes it clear that propaganda is a normal part of a technological world; that they go together of necessity.  It would be a mistake, he argues, to think of propaganda as just lies or the use of specific techniques to control people’s opinions.  It is this, but, more importantly, it has a sociological component that is ongoing, insidious, and all-inclusive.   “Propaganda is not the touch of a magic wand,” he writes.  “It is based on slow, constant impregnation.  It creates convictions and compliance through imperceptible influences that are effective only by continuous repetition.  It must create a complete environment for the individual, one from which he never emerges.”

And in that complete environment there are certain truths that become “unspeakable,” to use the word James Douglass borrowed from Thomas Merton and used so brilliantly in his book, JFK and the Unspeakable.  The unspeakable is a “collective denial of the obvious….a kind of systemic evil that defies speech,” writes Douglass.  Merton says, “It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.”

But there are intermediate truths that can be spoken and that shed light on a mass media that echo deceptive banalities and use techniques to manipulate public opinion, often by repetition.

Let me mention three recent speakable revelations in descending order of darkness.  They are good work that stops short of an invisible taboo, and in doing so inadvertently illuminate the penumbra of the unspeakable.

In a fine review article in the New York Review of Books (2/25/2016), “We Are Hopelessly Hooked,” Jacob Weisberg explores the ways our technology has created a society of electronic addicts obsessed with keeping up and afraid of missing out (FOMA: fear of missing out).  He explains how successful apps are based on repetitive hand movements and create a “persistent routine” that triggers needs that they momentarily satisfy in an endless loop.  He tells us about the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford University where students are taught to use fear and “hot triggers” to build habits and “change people’s thoughts and behaviors in predictable ways.”  This is termed “captology,” for computers as persuasive technology, academic bullshit for propaganda via computers.  This is helpful to know, and exemplifies Ellul’s linkage of propaganda with technology and the repetition compulsion integral to both.

Then there is Neal Gabler’s March 4th article published on the liberal website Moyers & Company, “How the Media Enabled Donald Trump by Destroying Politics First.”

Drawing on Daniel Boorstin’s prescient book, The Image (1961), and his idea of “pseudo-events,

” Gabler clearly shows how the media that bemoans candidates like Donald Trump created the conditions for their rise by turning news reporting into entertainment.

Everything the mass media now touch has an unreal quality to it – show business for the masses.  “Having given us nothing in election after election but a show,” Gabler writes, “we expect nothing but a show.” Gabler is correct, of course.  The media are hypocritical in their pious protestations of outrage at a condition they created.  This too is a speakable truth.

Lastly, in a darker uncovering of the onion skins, Robert Epstein has written about important research he has done with his associate Ronald Robertson.  In “The New Mind Control” (Global Research, March 3, 2016) he reports that they discovered that the internet, especially Google’s search engine, can control people’s thinking on everything they think, say, and do.  By far the most popular search engine, Google is using its technology to invisibly control the minds of its users.  Epstein and Robertson call this the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME).

  “We now have evidence suggesting that on virtually all issues where people are initially undecided, “ he writes, “search rankings are impacting almost every decision people make.  They are having an impact on the opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of internet users worldwide – entirely without people’s knowledge that this is occurring.”

Epstein reports that in the 2012 U.S. presidential election Google donated $800,000 to Barack Obama and $37,000 to Mitt Romney.  He sees clear signs that Hilary Clinton is receiving Google’s backing this time, and through her hiring of Google’s Stephanie Hannon, and the work of Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google’s parent company, in setting up a semisecret company – The Groundwork – Google has become Clinton’s “secret weapon,” as Julian Assange puts it.

These are fine articles and the authors are to be commended for their truth-telling.  They help us comprehend the invisible power and repetitive machinations of the media and the technologists.  While important, these truths remain within the bounds of acceptable analyses. They disclose the methods of public relations and propaganda, while eliding propaganda’s deepest power: To set limits to the permissible.  In Orwell’s words, to make a heretical thought literally “unthinkable.”

Yet if we are to fully understand the repetitive reporting on the U.S. presidential horse race, we need to look further and explicate the unspeakable.

Here again are James Douglass and Thomas Merton:

“ ‘One of the awful facts of our age,’ Merton wrote in 1965, ‘is the evidence that [the world] is stricken indeed, stricken to the very core of its being by the presence of the Unspeakable.’ The Vietnam War, the race to a global war, and the interlocking murders of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy were all signs of the Unspeakable.  It remains deeply present in our world.  As Merton warned, ‘Those who are at present so eager to be reconciled with the world at any price must take care not to be reconciled with it under this particular aspect: as the nest of the Unspeakable.  This is what too few are willing to see.’ “

That nest is our current resting place where we hatch our ongoing denials under the tutelage of the corporate media. It is the warfare state, the conjoined power of big business, media, intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, Wall Street, etc.  It is the secret government spawned by the likes of Allen Dulles and his ilk whose rise and current power David Talbot meticulously chronicles in The Devil’s Chessboard.  It is the “deep state” that Peter Dale Scott dissects in The American Deep State where he explains how these secret dark forces have controlled or eliminated U.S. Presidents since their murder of JFK and how that assassination is linked to Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11 in a progressive growth of repressive secret power at the expense of democracy.  It is Americans’ refusal to come to terms with these events by not going beyond conventional political thinking and assuming such forces don’t exist today. It is the protective stupidity of making believe that presidents and presidential candidates are unaware of the message sent from the streets of Dallas on November 22, 1963.

These are the issues that the corporate media – and a lot of the alternative online media – refuse to broach as they bombard us with non-stop news and commentary about the presidential primaries. Hilary, Bernie, Donald et al. – the parade of first-name personalities who say this and pledge that, as if real power resided with them and they were our friends.  If it sounds old, it is.  We hear it every four years ad infinitum.  It’s the news that just repeats itself.

Maybe someday we’ll get beyond our repetition compulsions and spotlight the unspeakable.  If we don’t, we are in for more of the same.

To repeat an endlessly repeated misquotation: “Play it again, Sam.”

It’s still the same old story.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Media’s “Repetition Compulsion” in Coverage of the Presidential Primaries

Vector-Republican-Democrats-Prev-by-DragonArt1The United States Is Led by Two Corrupt Establishments

By Robert Parry, March 11 2016

The United States is led by two corrupt establishments, one Democratic and one Republican, both deeply dependent on special-interest money, both sharing a similar perspective on world affairs, and both disdainful toward the American people who are treated as objects to be manipulated, not citizens to be respected.

hillary-clinton-donald-trumpAmerican Exceptionalism Presents an Election Made in Hell

By William Blum, March 12 2016

If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.

SandersEconomists and Financial Experts in Favor of Bernie Sanders’ Wall Street Reforms

By Martin Zeis, March 12 2016

In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis.

Hillary Clinton, a katz / Shutterstock.comHillary Clinton: the Queen of Chaos and the Threat of World War III

By Diana Johnstone and Maidhc Ó’Cathail, March 12 2016

Maidhc Ó Cathail: In your latest book, you dub Hillary Clinton the “Queen of Chaos”. Can you explain why you chose this derogatory sobriquet to describe Hillary? Diana Johnstone: Libya, in a word.

Police and the lineup for the eventDonald Trump Rally in Chicago Cancelled amidst Mass Protests

By George Marlowe, March 12 2016

The Republican Party presidential front-runner Donald Trump cancelled his scheduled rally Friday night at the University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC), west of downtown Chicago, as violence and scuffles broke out inside.

Romney’s Neocon Foreign Policy PlanMitt Romney Throws Hat Toward Ring, Warns of Abyss. “If We Republicans Choose Donald Trump…”

By William Boardman, March 10 2016

Mitt Romney, former Republican candidate for president, showed up in public again on March 3 to make a non-announcement announcement of his candidacy before rambling into a semi-coherent, 18-minute speech, the main purpose of which seemed to be to attack Donald Trump – or so it was widely reported: “a detailed, thorough and lacerating assault on Mr. Trump,… a diatribe,” according to the New York Times.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: 2016 US Elections. “Two Corrupt Establishments” Vie for the Win.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau completed yesterday a three-day state visit to Washington, which included talks with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as a state dinner at the White House.

Behind the celebrity-style glitz and fawning media coverage, Trudeau and Obama focused on deepening their countries’ long-standing strategic collaboration. Although the main areas of discussion publicly reported concerned trade, other economic issues and climate change, Ottawa and Washington’s military-security cooperation was central to the Canada-US summit.

At a joint White House press conference Thursday morning, Obama and Trudeau made several policy announcements. Canadian and US intelligence agencies will increase information sharing, with the purported aim of speeding up exit and entry at the border and ensuring the accuracy of no-fly lists. This expands on the already extensive integration of Canada’s intelligence agencies with those of the US, including through the US National Security Agency-led “five eyes” alliance which conducts mass surveillance on the world’s telecommunications and internet use.

The two leaders also committed to increased cooperation in the Arctic on scientific work and in developing new commercial shipping routes, and to a joint plan to reduce methane gas emissions at oil and gas facilities.

Both went out of their way to underscore the strengthening of Canadian-US ties, with Obama declaring, “We have a common outlook on the world, and I have to say I have never seen so many Americans excited about the visit of a Canadian prime minister.” Obama held out the hope that an agreement on the softwood lumber trade dispute will be reached before the expiry next October of the one-year grace period that kicked in when the previous nine-year deal ended last fall.

Trudeau announced he will host a “three amigos” NAFTA summit, with Obama and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto this June, following which Obama will address a joint session of Canada’s two houses of Parliament. Trudeau also indicated his support for Washington’s rapprochement with Cuba—a country with which Canada has extensive economic and diplomatic relations—and discussed working with Washington to bring an end to the decades-long insurgency in the jungles of Colombia. Like the US, Canada has close ties to Colombia’s right-wing government, which behind a thin democratic facade ruthlessly represses social opposition.

“Canada and the U.S. will stand side by side to confront the pressing needs that face not only our two countries, but the entire planet,” Trudeau told the press.

At the state dinner held in the White House later Thursday, Obama and Trudeau both lauded the Canada-US military-security partnership, which goes back to the outbreak of World War II. “[W]e agree that our countries are stronger and the world is safer when we work together,” declared Trudeau.

“For more than half a century, we’ve joined forces to protect our continent. And we’ve been the closest of allies overseas for even longer, fighting together on the beaches of France, standing shoulder to shoulder with our European partners in NATO, and now confronting violent extremism in the Middle East.”

Trudeau won the support of significant sections of Canada’s ruling elite during last year’s election campaign, due in no small part to the Liberals’ commitment to strengthen Canada’s strategic partnership with Washington. This takes place under conditions where US imperialism is the most destabilizing force in world politics, having been waging virtually uninterrupted war for the past quarter-century as it seeks to use its overwhelming military superiority to offset its economic decline.

Trudeau’s predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, embraced US-led military interventions in Libya in 2011, and Syria and Iraq in 2014, while expanding the Afghanistan deployment launched by the Chretien Liberal government. But sections of big business grew concerned that his government was mismanaging relations with the US by openly aligning with Obama’s Republican opponents over the Keystone XL pipeline and encouraging Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in bucking Washington’s counsel.

Canada is a major partner in all three of the US’s principal military-strategic offensives: its aggressive moves against Russia in Eastern Europe and the Baltic, the war in the Middle East to secure hegemony over the world’s most important oil-producing region and the Obama administration’s “pivot” or “rebalance” to Asia which aims to economically and militarily isolate China in preparation for war. At their first face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of last November’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Manila, where Obama heightened his bellicose stance towards Beijing, the US President proclaimed that “there are no closer friends we have than the Canadians.”

On Thursday, the two leaders pledged to work towards implementing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) trade deal, the economic arm of Washington’s geostrategic offensive against Beijing.

The extent of Canadian-US military collaboration was revealed in a CBC report last fall on how in 2013 talks took place at the highest levels of the countries’ militaries about creating a joint expeditionary force capable of offensive deployments around the world. Former Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Tom Lawson and the then-head of the US Joints Chief of Staff US General Martin Dempsey considered ways to improve interoperability between the two armed forces, and even floated the idea of fully merging the Canadian and US militaries.

Predictably, the bourgeois press avoided raising such issues during Trudeau’s US visit. Instead, it reported breathlessly on the “warmth” of the relationship between the president and prime minister, their jokes and quips, the menu for Thursday evening’s state dinner and the lavish gowns worn by their wives.

Despite reservations in some quarters about a lack of substance to the leaders’ talks, the media response was overwhelmingly positive. The visit had been a “win for Canada,” Tim Harper wrote in the Toronto Star. “Without being noticed in the United States —politically or culturally—little of substance or positive value for this country will flow.”

The media’s incessant, mind-numbing propaganda serves a definite political purpose: to conceal from the population the real, aggressive character of the discussions that are taking place.

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who is now a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, produced a briefing paper earlier this week that sheds light on the real agenda for Canada-US military-security collaboration being worked out in elite circles.

Robertson urged Canada to intensify security and military cooperation with the US in the Arctic so as to challenge Russia’s growing presence in the far north. To this end, he called on the Canadian government to join the US ballistic missile defence system (BMD)—a highly destabilizing weapons system whose ultimate purpose is to make the fighting and winning of a nuclear war possible.

It is in this context that Obama and Trudeau agreed to step up collaboration in the Arctic, building on the 2012 Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation agreement, the aim of which is to further integrate the US Northern Command, Canadian Joint Operations Command and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). In parallel with the 2012 agreement, a statement of intent was signed on joint military training and exercises in the Arctic region.

Lastly, Robertson demanded that Canada boost its military spending to 2 percent of GDP in line with the commitment made by the NATO alliance in 2014. This would equate to a doubling of the current Canadian Defence Department budget to some $40 billion per year.

A major reason for the Canadian ruling elite’s enthusiasm for an even closer military partnership with US imperialism is its concern over the relative decline of Canada’s economic importance to its southern neighbour. At present, 76 percent of Canadian exports go to the United States, while Canada accounts for 19 percent of all US exports. But growth in Canada-US trade has been slowing for more than a decade and last November Canada was overtaken by China as the US’s largest trading partner. Mexico, whose trade volume with the United States has grown rapidly since the turn of the century, in large measure due to low-wage auto production, is also rapidly closing in on Canada.

Obama’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline project last year was a major blow to the Canadian bourgeoisie, particularly that section based around the oil and gas industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It has intensified the crisis facing western Canadian oil producers, which currently lack any means to transport their product to tidal water, meaning that much of it is sold at substantially below world market prices to US customers.

Several influential think tanks are calling on the Canadian government to press for a “continental energy and climate change strategy” with the dual aim of using the growing energy independence of North America to give the US and Canada greater geo-political leverage and developing green energy technology to give North American capitalism a competitive advantage.

The McDonald-Laurier Institute wrote in a paper on Canada-US relations, published to coincide with Trudeau’s visit, that energy independence is “worthwhile for both Canada and the US in the face of the geopolitical calculations behind production decisions in other energy-producing jurisdictions.” It went on to urge Trudeau to advocate strongly not only for the resurrection of the Keystone project, but an expansion of binational energy and electricity infrastructure.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trudeau Pledges Strengthened Canada-US Partnership in White House Visit

Image: Police and the lineup for the event

The Republican Party presidential front-runner Donald Trump cancelled his scheduled rally Friday night at the University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC), west of downtown Chicago, as violence and scuffles broke out inside.

Thousands of students and workers in the area marched outside the UIC arena to protest Trump’s attendance at the campus, denouncing his extreme right-wing and fascistic political views. Protesters marched from the campus quadrangle along a heavily-barricaded protest route to the UIC Pavilion with a large police and security presence. The protests outside were entirely peaceful.

In canceling the event, Trump’s team cited security concerns over growing protests outside the arena and the highly volatile situation inside. After doors were opened at 3:00 p.m., protesters who attended the rally entered into scuffles and altercations with the rally participants as well as with security.

After significant delay, the announcer told the crowd, “The event is over.” Cheers erupted, as well as more scuffles. Trump’s team told the media in an official statement that “for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date.”

Prior to the cancellation, Trump’s announcers initially encouraged conflict by telling attendees to inform police of protesters by placing a rally sign over their head and chanting “Trump, Trump, Trump,” according to NBC’s Chicago affiliate.

The events in Chicago followed several incidents of violence directed at protesters from Trump supporters and security, encouraged by the candidate. This included an incident on Wednesday in which a protester was punched in the face as he was escorted out of a rally in North Carolina by police. Trump on numerous occasions has encouraged his supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters.

Trump responded to the cancellation of the rally on Friday by denouncing protesters for violating “free speech.”

The anti-Trump rally was attended by many thousands of workers and particularly young people of all races and ethnicities. It was originally organized on Facebook by an undocumented UIC graduate student, Jorge Mena Robles. Robles is a member of a newly formed political organization called Mijente, which promotes Latino identity politics and voter mobilization for the Democratic Party.

Image: Demonstrators protesting the Trump event

Support for the demonstration, however, was not limited to such forces. Over 11,000 responded to the Facebook event page by Friday.

Citing the incidents of violence at Trump rallies across the country, UIC students and faculty denounced the administration and Chancellor Michael Amiridis for allowing Trump to host his campaign event on the campus. Amiridis responded to the anger of students and faculty by saying, on the grounds of “free speech,” that Trump had every right to rent a space at UIC. Similar considerations have not prevented the administration from placing enormous obstacles on the promotion of socialist politics on campus.

Reporters from the World Socialist Web Site spoke to students, workers and professionals who attended the protest against the Trump rally.

Adriti, a biology student at UIC, said,

“Trump needs to go. His attacks on Muslims and immigrants are despicable. America is a melting pot. Many people are fleeing countries as refugees and he keeps attacking them. So many immigrants have helped advance our country. What is the point of scapegoating immigrants?”

Image: Tim and Adriti

Tim, a student of computer science, added,

“And then Trump is calling for torture, war and assassinating people. We need to stop doing all that. We need to stop all the wars too, and I realize that both parties are involved in these policies. We need more equality and to move in that direction and away from war and torture.”

Paul, a UIC student, said,

“I think Trump is a fascist and he’s a homophobe and a bigot. He makes me feel really angry and I don’t think he would be good for us as president. I don’t like his ideology or his political proposals. A lot of people want the world collectively to be peaceful and we don’t need to implement war policies. Things are already quite dangerous right now.”

“It really frustrates me that Trump is on the platform,” said Tim, a professional who came to see the protests.

“He’s channelling the frustrations of many people and taking it to a really scary place. As far as Sanders, I like what he is saying. A big reason why I am pro-Sanders, at least among the candidates that can be elected, is because he’s called himself a socialist. I think capitalism is a flawed system and I agree with socialism in general, but I’m not sure if the United States is unified enough right now for that.

“But I would like to see us go towards a more socialist country. I do worry that Sanders may not keep his promises, but right now that’s who I side with. At the same time, I do need to look at his record more closely and make a more educated decision.”

Rachel, a workers compensation paralegal, said,

“I hate Trump. I think that his policies of wanting to build a wall around Mexico are ridiculous. That’s not what America should be about. It’s like the second coming of Hitler. But we also need an alternative that’s not just a Democrat or a Republican. Politicians make promises to us that they won’t keep either. The inequality in this country is extremely awful. America is not a democracy anymore.”

Images: Left, Rachel, right, two of the demonstrators from UIC

Another student, who also works at UIC, said,

“His policies are incoherent. I am here more to protest the fact that UIC is even hosting Trump. We have an incredibly diverse student body and it’s a completely inappropriate place for a Trump rally. He’s condoned violence at his rallies before.

“Trump is also calling for torture, which is an open secret of American politics now. We have an ostensibly democratic system that doesn’t in fact represent people, with our crony capitalism and the outsized power of money and lobbyists. Look at the closure of Chicago State University. We don’t have money for schools in Chicago, but if one of [Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s] buddies wants something, they have the money for it. Even Obama was not as liberal as he claimed to be. He was an idealized candidate.

“If Sanders is elected, it’s going to be really difficult to see how he actually deals with the conflicts that the US is already in. Does he actually stop drone warfare? Given that he’s for it? He’s been able to mobilize grassroots support, but I don’t know how he’s going to govern if he’s elected. I agree with you though that we need deep structural change.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald Trump Rally in Chicago Cancelled amidst Mass Protests

Obama Loses His Rag

March 12th, 2016 by Paddy McGuffin

Anyone tuning into the news headlines yesterday could have been forgiven for doing a swift double take at the calendar to ensure we hadn’t somehow fast forwarded to April 1.

First up we had the outgoing US President Barak Obama writing a magazine article in which he criticised “the US’s oldest allies” Britain and France for their catastrophic imperialist adventurism in Libya saying that they had dragged the US into the folly and then left the country in a mess…

Obama particularly criticised David Cameron for failing to secure parliamentary approval for the debacle and attacked then French president Nicolas Sarkozy for grandstanding and boasting of France’s decisive role when in fact it had been the US who had done the dirty work for him.

Now, on the one hand this is actually an unusually accurate assessment of the situation from a US president, not often known for their grasp of foreign affairs, geography or anything else for that matter.

Dubya wouldn’t even have known where Libya was. He probably thinks Tripoli is an Italian ice-cream flavour.

On the other hand, however, this is the president of a nation which has carpet-bombed over 80 countries around the world, many of which, such as Cambodia and Laos, it wasn’t even at war with.

A country which has illegally subverted, destabilised and overthrown democratic governments across Latin America and beyond funding, arming, training and working alongside death squads responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists and left wing activists.

A country who fabricated another country’s history to impose the shah on Iran in 1953 and has used the same formula again and again to install and prop up puppet regimes in furtherance of their interests and the fight against “communism.”

A country which has kept Cuba under effective siege for over half a century for having the temerity to overthrow Uncle Sam’s pet dictator Fulgencio Batista and its refusal to bow down before its threats and intimidation.

And that’s before we even get to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria which, let’s face it, could not be described as unqualified successes.

So, basically we have the US president interfering in other countries’ affairs to lecture those countries for interfering in other countries affairs.

This column yields to no-one in its loathing of Cameron and Sarkozy. Their smug and entirely premature triumphalism in Benghazi was truly repugnant but they were merely aping Bush and his infamous “Mission Accomplished” moment aboard a US aircraft carrier in 2003.

But I’m damned if I’m going to listen to any lectures from a lame-duck president who couldn’t even keep his own house in order, extended the “war on terror” and signally failed to end the torture and illegal imprisonment of innocent detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Both Downing Street and Washington were apparently rattled by the outspoken criticism with the White House quick to issue a statement praising the “special relationship” and to remind Britain to keep its mouth shut and keep buying their weapons or else.

Oh it’s a special relationship all right, like that between abuser and victim.

Turning closer to home and another unholy alliance was formed this week when Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby gave an interview on the European referendum and the refugee crisis in which he claimed that it was “outrageous” to call members of the public who raise genuine concerns about immigration as racist.

His comments were gleefully seized upon by anti-EU crusader Iain Duncan Smith who seems to have conveniently forgotten that Welby basically called him Satan incarnate over his savage attacks on the poor and vulnerable.

IDS gushingly welcomed the Archbishop’s comments which was quite a U-turn from the Work and Pensions Secretary who had previously suggested that the Church should keep its nose out of the business of government.

He said that for years the “elite” had shut down the debate on immigration and that anyone who raised the issue was portrayed as xenophobic.

Ok, a few points if I may.

First, IDS seems not to have noticed the crucial use of the word “genuine” in the Archbishop’s comments.

That is as opposed to the knee-jerk reactionary scaremongering that the Tories and IDS in particular seem to rely upon in an attempt to justify every act of brutality and sadism they inflict on the undeserving public.

Second, they don’t come much more elite than the mansion-dwelling freeloader and millionaire Duncan Smith.

He’s not exactly Spartacus. More like an onanistic Nero fiddling with himself while the welfare state burns.

And, last but by no means least: the reason that those who continually rail against the evils of immigration are accused of being racist… is because in approximately 99 per cent of cases that’s exactly what they are.

And while IDS may well be part of the 1 per cent in financial terms, when it comes to immigration he’s just a common or garden bigot.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Loses His Rag

In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.

Signers (Institutional listing for identification purposes only): 

1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
2. Robert Hockett, Cornell University
3. James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
4. Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
5. Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
6. Jeff Connaughton, Former Chief of Staff, Senator Ted Kaufman
7. William Darity Jr., Duke University
8. Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
9. Brad Miller, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
10. William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City
11. Lawrence Rufrano, Research, Federal Reserve Board, 2005-2015
12. Darrick Hamilton, New School for Social Research

161. Joseph Persky, University of Illinois-Chicago
162. Julie Matthaei, Wellesley College
163. Peter Spiegler, University of Massachuetts-Amherst
164. James Ronald Stanfield, Colorado State University
165. William D. Pitney, CFP, Director of Advocacy, FPA of Silicon Valley
166. Ora R. Citron, CFP, Oak Tree Wealth Management
167. Susan Webber, Former Associate at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
168. Richard D. Wolff, Democracy at Work and New School for Social Research
169. Mu-JeongKho, University College London
170. Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Economists and Financial Experts in Favor of Bernie Sanders’ Wall Street Reforms

Maidhc Ó Cathail: In your latest book, you dub Hillary Clinton the “Queen of Chaos”. Can you explain why you chose this derogatory sobriquet to describe Hillary?

Diana Johnstone: Libya, in a word. Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a “Clinton doctrine”, meaning a “smart power” regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

The Libyan catastrophe actually inspired me to write this book, along with the mounting danger of war with Russia.

War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary’s vaunted “foreign policy experience”.

MÓC: What would you say to women who want to see Hillary as president because she’s a woman? You claim that “[a]voiding World War III is somewhat more urgent than ‘proving’ that a woman can be President of the United States.” Why do believe that Hillary is likely to launch World War III?

DJ: There are two questions here. As for the second part, I don’t believe anyone will consciously launch World War III. The situation now is more like the eve of World War I, when great powers were armed and ready to go when an incident set things off. Ever since Gorbachev naïvely ended the Cold War, the hugely over-armed United States has been actively surrounding Russia with weapons systems, aggressive military exercises, NATO expansion. At the same time, in recent
Johnstone-Queen-Cover-ak800-291x450-1years the demonization of Vladimir Putin has reached war propaganda levels. Russians have every reason to believe that the United States is preparing for war against them, and are certain to take defensive measures. This mixture of excessive military preparations and propaganda against an “evil enemy” make it very easy for some trivial incident to blow it all up.

My answer to the first part of the question is that “voting for Hillary because she is a woman” makes no sense to me at all. Yes, women should get together for causes that affect women in general: equal pay for equal work, equal recognition of abilities, reproductive rights, maternity leave and child care, that sort of thing. But Hillary Clinton is an individual, she is not women in general. Women together might fight for women’s right to be elected President, but that right exists. It cannot be reduced to one particular woman’s right to be President.

The President of the United States is not a purely symbolic position. It involves crucial decision-making powers. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated dangerously poor judgment in fateful questions of war and peace. That should disqualify her.

MÓC: One of your chapters is titled “Libya: A War of Her Own.” Considering the key role of the pro-Israeli Bernard-Henri Lévy in persuading France to support the so-called “rebels,” why do you single out Hillary for blame for NATO’s destruction of the formerly richest country in Africa?

DJ: Bernard-Henri Lévy repeatedly stated that he supported military intervention in Libya “as a Jew”, perhaps meaning that he considered overthrowing Gaddafi to be good for Israel. The French government was perhaps motivated by fear that Gaddafi’s scheme to create a gold-backed African currency might replace the French-backed CFA franc used throughout France’s former African colonies. But neither France nor France and Britain together had the military capacity to carry out the operation that finally overcame Libyan resistance. The U.S. leadership was divided, and it was Hillary Clinton who overcame the reluctance of President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates to enter the war. It was the United States that provided the means to destroy Libya.

MÓC: In the chapter titled “The War Party” you write that “[s]ince the War Party dominates both branches of the Two-Party-System , the recent track record suggests the Republicans will nominate a candidate bad enough to make Hillary look good.” It sounds like you anticipated the incredible rise of Donald Trump, doesn’t it?

DJ: As a matter of fact I didn’t. But I did anticipate the rise of Trump’s main rival, Ted Cruz, who may actually be worse than Trump. As Robert Reich has pointed out, Cruz is a radical right-wing fanatic, with solid reactionary convictions, who is sure to do the wrong thing. Trump shoots off his mouth in all directions, so much so that there’s no telling what he might do. At least he does seem interested in avoiding war with Russia.

Nor did I anticipate the rise of Bernie Sanders, and the enthusiasm he has aroused among young people at the prospect of nominating a decent alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Both phenomena show the deep dissatisfaction among Americans with the country’s dysfunctional political system.

MÓC: In “Queen of Chaos,” you predicted that “[a]s things look now, the 2016 presidential race could be a contest between Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. In either case, the winner would be Israel.” Could you elaborate on Saban’s “devotion” to another Clinton presidency and what it would mean for U.S. foreign policy?

DJ: If you think U.S. policy couldn’t be more pro-Israel than it is now, just wait until you see Hillary in the White House. After Haim Saban pledged to spend “as much as necessary” to make her President, Hillary Clinton has pledged to invite Netanyahu to the While House in her first month as President, to use the occasion to “reaffirm the unbreakable bonds of friendship and unity” between America and Israel, and to do everything to destroy the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement. She continues to echo Israeli denunciations of Iran as a dangerous “terrorist state”. She has previously equated criticism of Israeli policies with “anti-Semitism” and blamed the people of Gaza for Israeli assaults on their wretched territory.

Previous Presidents, including Obama, have often had their moments of exasperation with Israel’s uncontrollable conduct. With Hillary, it seems that there would be no objections to further Israeli destruction of Gaza or even to attacks on Iran. She is perfectly in line with Israel’s tacit policy to destroy and dismember Syria.

MÓC: When asked which women in the world “inspired” her, Hillary cited Pussy Riot. What does this tell us about Hillary? And what does it mean for U.S-Russia relations?

DJ: Can you imagine Hillary having group sex with Bill in a museum, as radical anarchist Nadezhda Tolokonnikova did in one of her performance art protests against the system? An “inspiration”? As is so often the case, Hillary doesn’t say what is true, but grabs the chance to show how anti-Putin she is. The joke is that Tolokonnikova recently expressed her preference for Bernie Sanders.

MÓC: If the so-called “responsibility to protect,” or R2P, is to be the organizing principle of Hillary’s foreign policy, can you explain why this would be bad for human rights around the world?

DJ: The Libyan disaster proved to most of the worldalthough not to Hillarythat R2P is a dangerous doctrine. Supposedly to “protect” certain Islamist rebels in Benghazi, the NATO R2P intervention totally destroyed the modern city of Sirte, provided cover for racist lynching of Libya’s black population, killed thousands of civilians and left the country in a shambles.

R2P might make sense if there really existed a neutral, all-knowing world police force to intervene on the basis of solid, unbiased evidence. This is most surely not the case

In the case of Libya, the evidence for the “humanitarian emergency” was manufactured by internal opponents of the regime and relayed to the world by a docile mainstream media. It was almost entirely untrue, but conflicting sources were ignored. (See Maximilian Forte,Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa.)

With the current relationship of forces in the world, R2P can only be applied by a great power to a smaller one, according to the great power’s own interpretation of events in the smaller one. In reality, R2P is simply used by the United States against regimes it doesn’t like, period.

MÓC: You write that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Barack Obama “went on to outdo even his predecessors in useless aggressive war-making—with moments of hesitation, however, which we cannot expect from Hillary”. What makes you believe that a Clinton presidency would be less hesitant than Obama to use U.S. military force?

DJ: Simple: whenever Obama hesitated, Hillary did not. She urged war in Libya, a no-fly zone in Syria, and from all she says, would have been urging stronger action against Russia when her former spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was leading the anti-Russian coup in Kiev. Her chuckling over the bestial murder of Gaddafi shows an absence of any human feeling for her adversaries. She dismisses them as subhuman. In addition to her absence of compassion, she seems to have no doubts about the ultimate ability of the United States to prevail in any armed conflictand this is most dangerous of all. She is ready to push every adversary as far as possible, apparently certain that the “bad guy” will back downeven if it happens to be nuclear-armed Russia.

Obama apparently lacks Hillary’s assurance. His lavish use of murderous drones reflects the military recognition of the limits of U.S. ground forces. He has been under constant pressure from the War Party. Sometimes he has resisted their pressure, as in the case of chemical weapons in Syria, after Kerry had replaced Clinton as Secretary of State.

MÓC: In your concluding chapter titled “The War Party” you write that “[t]he rise of Hillary Clinton should make clear the total failure of clinging to the Democratic Party as the “lesser evil.” But if the demagogic Donald Trump is running against Hillary, do you think it’s possible to convince voters that she isn’t the lesser of two evils?

DJ: That looks impossible on the face of it. Who knows, perhaps Trump will make the danger of war a major issue. But it seems to me now that an election contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be decided at the gut level, not on issues. I may be wrong, but foreign policy seems of minor concern in this election, even though it should be a top concern. Trump appalls the elite, but internet comments show that hostility to Hillary is reaching the boiling point. It will be strengthened if Bernie Sanders loses the nomination as a result of what looks like cheating. The way things are going, the November election risks being a race between the two most hated people in America.

MÓC: You propose a “Peace Party” as an alternative to the “War Party” that dominates both branches of the Two-Party-System. You suggest two admirable women to serve as part of a “peace team” to support a “peace candidate”, namely, Cynthia McKinney and Coleen Rowley. They couldn’t be more different from the women with whom Hillary has surrounded herself, such as Madeleine Albright, Suzanne Nossel, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, could they? Are you optimistic that one day the American people will become sufficiently aware to know the difference?

DJ: By Peace Party, I mean something broader than a political party. I mean a network of knowledgeable, principled people who are intent on saving the country and the world from what has become an insanely arrogant policy of world domination. The difficulty is that the so-called neocons and the liberal interventionists have more or less taken over the State Department and have recently purged the Pentagon. The Peace Party could be made up of diplomats, scholars, military officers, politicians, editors. I would suggest that individuals who want to avoid World War III need to study the example of the neocons, who through a web of think tanks, editorial pages, financial interest and infiltration of the executive branch have seized control of the policy-making apparatus. Can this process be reversed, and if so, how? It is not up to me to answer this question. But it needs to be asked.

At the popular level, the Peace Party could be built on economic demands: cut back the insane military budget in order to finance useful and productive domestic activities, shut down superfluous military bases, stop expanding NATO to conquer the world, stop subsidizing Israel to the tune of three billion dollars per year. American riches, the American people and the American future are being squandered to wage increasingly destructive wars. The real enemy is the U.S. military industrial complex, which survives and expands because the government provides sure profits on financial investment. If the American people were fully aware of this, the Peace Party would grow naturally.

Diana Johnstone is an American political writer based in Paris, France. She focuses primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Johnstone also regularly contributes to the online magazine CounterPunch. Her latest book is Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton(CounterPunch, 2015). MAIDHC Ó CATHAIL is a widely published writer and political analyst. He writes a monthly column for the Irish language online magazine Beo!,

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton: the Queen of Chaos and the Threat of World War III

 “There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”    William Shakespeare

First it was the Fed, then it was the Bank of Japan, now the ECB (and maybe even China).  Mario Draghi finally let loose this morning with everything left in his monetary “bazooka” and gone as far as the Bundesbank will let him. He also has to face the BIS restrictions in the next three weeks which are far from certain to be in favor of his actions.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-10/draghi-whips-out-bazooka-ecb-announces-surprise-refi-marginal-lending-rate-cuts-boos

Looking backward first, the Fed unsettled markets in mid December with a rate hike.

Japan lit gold’s fuse in January with the announcement of negative interest rates.

Today, Mario Draghi spent and fired his last shot, it will be seen as a blank.  Now we will get to see what sort of reaction is received from the markets.  Initially the markets went in the “favored” directions, that only lasted for about an hour.  The Euro is again strengthening, gold going higher and stock markets have turned negative as if asking “now what?  Do you have anything else”?

Before going further I want to break down what they are trying to do into its most basic form.  Systemically (including Europe) the world ran into “debt saturation” back in 2007.  The plan was to cure too much debt with …more and more debt.  The “experiment” has not worked and will not work …and Mario Draghi just ran into a wall where this is it, he has no more room to “experiment”.  No doubt this is being done now to try to support the Italian (Spanish and others) debt that has gone bad.

There is another little problem that few are talking about, the BIS.  The Bank for International Settlements has warned Mr. Draghi not to go to this wall of negative interest rates and further outright monetization.  The BIS has the ability to force Draghi to not only stop the madness but also reverse it.  So not only are the markets asking “what’s next?”, it is also wondering whether or not the BIS will step in.

We also have another piece to add to this puzzle, China.  They just announced they will begin to take equity stakes for non performing loans via the banking system.  “Nationalization” no matter what they call it.  It had been speculated China would have to devalue the yuan in an effort to make their massive corporate debt payable and industry more competitive.  I would suggest this is simply wiping out current debt in an effort to make room available to create more debt and to reflate.  We will see how this works out but I do not believe this is any more credible than any of the other “serial reflators”.

Many times it is said “OK, so you see the problem but what’s the answer”?

The answer is obvious and we will get to it after looking at the true problem.  The world hit debt saturation in 2007, sovereign treasuries and central banks stepped in and sacrificed (destroyed) their own balance sheets in an effort to reflate.  We know it has not worked and the global economy (pie) is no longer growing.  The ONLY way for a country or region to “grow” is by taking an inordinate size of the pie and the only way to do this is by devaluing currency faster than your competitors.

The problem today is ALL currencies are competing against each other in debasing (devaluing).  If you devalue too slowly you lose.  If you devalue but not enough, again you lose.  This is the problem with and misunderstanding of the USDX index, the currencies are all valued against each other and NONE OF THEM ARE REAL!  The “answer” as it was back in 2008 is still the same, rather than race “against” each other THEY ALL need to collectively devalue!  The only way to do this is to collectively devalue against “something” …and that something is what it always has been, GOLD!

A collective devaluation will do several things.  First, it will create “inflation” and thus make the existing debt payable if the devaluation is deep enough.  Business will get “reflated” and main street will actually participate in the better business conditions.  Most importantly, for those nations who actually do hold gold, their balance sheet holes will be filled up and patched.  Sovereign treasuries with gold will suddenly see their coffers filled.  There is of course the problem of nations who either do not hold gold or have lied and no longer hold what they said they did.  In this case, these nations become the world’s new “cheap labor” and begin to dig their way out via industrial/commercial production.  This is a very long and hard process which also involves a huge drop in the standard of living.

Do I know what the level needs to be for gold to perform its function as central bank reserve?  No, the number could be $25,000, $50,000 or $5 million or more, I do not have the answer.  The biggest holder(s) of gold on the planet could simply “mandate” a price or do it via the physical markets over a reasonable period of time …but they will do this as it is the only viable solution.

We now have a situation where central banks have lost their credibility.

This will lead to a loss of confidence in all things paper.

Either the central banks revalue their balance sheets with a wildly high gold price or the markets will do this for them by voting with their feet so to speak.  We are on the cusp of absolutely wild market gyrations and obscene price levels for gold.  So obscene you will either be in or you will be out forever.  Do not try to time anything, these last bazookas fired with blanks will be seen as a very large starting gun!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Broken Financial Bazookas! Unsettled Markets, the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan, Central Banks have Lost Their Credibility

Palm Oil and GM Mustard: A Marriage Made in Hell

March 12th, 2016 by Colin Todhunter

The current drive to get genetically modified (GM) food crops into India is being spearheaded by GM mustard. However, the decision to sanction the commercialisation of this crop has been delayed due to accusations of  “unremitting fraud” and “regulatory delinquency.”

These accusations are being strengthened with each passing day, as further evidence comes to light about the underhand, deceptive and corrupt tactics that have been used to fudge and manipulate data under a veil of secrecy. It is becoming increasingly clear that GM will not increase yields or have any benefits, especially when compared to current non-GM and traditional, high-yielding varieties. In fact, it would do more harm than good (see this also and this slide show too) and GM mustard would serve only one purpose: it would act as a Trojan horse to open the floodgate to GM food crops being grown in India.

One of the main (bogus) arguments put forward in favour of GM mustard is that India needs to reduce its imports of edible oils and that GM will give an underproductive indigenous edible oils sector a much-needed boost. While it is clear that India’s imports of edible oils have indeed increased, this is not as a result of an underperforming home-grown sector.

In terms of volumes, palm oil, soybean oil and mustard oil are the three largest consumed edible oils in India, with respective shares of 46%, 16% and 14% in total oil consumption (2010 figures). Over the past 20 years, India’s indigenous edible oil output has risen only about a third whereas imports have surged twelve fold, making it the world’s top buyer of cooking oils.

The argument to reduce imports certainly carries weight: overseas purchases of edible oils exceed $10 billion per year, India’s third-highest after oil and gold.

However, Davish Jain, chairman of the Soybean Processors Association of India, targets the heart of the issue when he says:

“India has become the dumping ground for palm oil. Our oil seed and edible oil production will not rise unless we restrict cheaper imports.”

Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Then import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This was a deliberate policy that effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector.

Aside from one previous occasion (1987), 1996 saw imports of palm oil reach over 1,000 MT (metric ton) and have increased more than nine fold since then. Back in September, with Malaysian palm oil prices near six-year lows, the fear was imports could rise even more.

Palm oil imports (source: US Department of Agriculture)

Market Year Imports Unit of Measure Growth Rate
1964 7 (1000 MT) NA
1965 11 (1000 MT) 57.14 %
1966 8 (1000 MT) -27.27 %
1967 1 (1000 MT) -87.50 %
1970 1 (1000 MT) 0.00 %
1971 2 (1000 MT) 100.00 %
1972 91 (1000 MT) 4,450.00 %
1973 15 (1000 MT) -83.52 %
1974 15 (1000 MT) 0.00 %
1975 40 (1000 MT) 166.67 %
1976 320 (1000 MT) 700.00 %
1977 486 (1000 MT) 51.88 %
1978 396 (1000 MT) -18.52 %
1979 595 (1000 MT) 50.25 %
1980 431 (1000 MT) -27.56 %
1981 410 (1000 MT) -4.87 %
1982 597 (1000 MT) 45.61 %
1983 557 (1000 MT) -6.70 %
1984 730 (1000 MT) 31.06 %
1985 798 (1000 MT) 9.32 %
1986 921 (1000 MT) 15.41 %
1987 1120 (1000 MT) 21.61 %
1988 330 (1000 MT) -70.54 %
1989 600 (1000 MT) 81.82 %
1990 209 (1000 MT) -65.17 %
1991 165 (1000 MT) -21.05 %
1992 30 (1000 MT) -81.82 %
1993 200 (1000 MT) 566.67 %
1994 480 (1000 MT) 140.00 %
1995 970 (1000 MT) 102.08 %
1996 1300 (1000 MT) 34.02 %
1997 1530 (1000 MT) 17.69 %
1998 2900 (1000 MT) 89.54 %
1999 3300 (1000 MT) 13.79 %
2000 4000 (1000 MT) 21.21 %
2001 3400 (1000 MT) -15.00 %
2002 3954 (1000 MT) 16.29 %
2003 3486 (1000 MT) -11.84 %
2004 3525 (1000 MT) 1.12 %
2005 2899 (1000 MT) -17.76 %
2006 3650 (1000 MT) 25.91 %
2007 5013 (1000 MT) 37.34 %
2008 6867 (1000 MT) 36.98 %
2009 6603 (1000 MT) -3.84 %
2010 6661 (1000 MT) 0.88 %
2011 7473 (1000 MT) 12.19 %
2012 8364 (1000 MT) 11.92 %
2013 7820 (1000 MT) -6.50 %
2014 9129 (1000 MT) 16.74 %
2015 9525 (1000 MT) 4.34 %

 

Supporters of GM mustard now twist this situation to call for the introduction of GM mustard to increase productivity. This is of course erroneous on two counts: first, it was not poor productivity that led to the massive increase in imports; second, GM mustard is even lower yielding that varieties that already exist – no amount of manipulated data can hide this, as we can now see.

However, there has been a big winner in all of this: the palm oil industry in Indonesia and Malaysia. India is now the world’s leading importer of palm oil, accounting for around 15% of the global supply. It imports over two-­thirds of its palm oil from Indonesia.

Indonesia leads global production, but the cheap price is often offset by the destruction of large tracts of tropical forest. Oil palm plantations often replace tropical forests, leading to the killing of endangered species and the uprooting of local communities as well as contributing to the release of climate-changing gases (see this analysis). Indonesia emits more greenhouse gases than any country besides China and the US and that’s largely due to the production of palm oil.

From 2000 to 2009, Indonesia supplied more than half of the global palm oil market at an annual expense of some 340,000 hectares of Indonesian countryside. Planned expansion could wipe out the remaining natural habitat of several endangered species. This is a ludicrous situation considering that Brazil and Indonesia spent over 100 times more in subsidies to industries that cause deforestation than they received in international conservation aid from the UN to prevent it. The two countries gave over $40bn in subsidies to the palm oil, timber, soy, beef and biofuels sectors between 2009 and 2012, some 126 times more than the $346m they received to preserve their rainforests.

If there were ever a case study of how to rundown your own edible oils sector, then India is it. At the same time, in doing so, it has been a main contributor to the growth of Indonesia’s palm oil sector and in the process has fuelled massive environmental damage that is impacting the whole planet.

And now, under pressure from the feed and poultry sector, India could be on the verge of encouraging the flow of soy imports into the country, which would further undermine the indigenous sector. If you can’t fool the nation into growing GM, then at least you can get it to import it from the likes of South America or the US – which could be in the pipeline (see this, page 1).

Just as in Indonesia, this would also fuel massive environmental catastrophe as well as further widespread social devastation and damage to human health (outlined here).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palm Oil and GM Mustard: A Marriage Made in Hell

In April 2014 I first visited Syria, going to Homs and Latakia, in addition to Damascus. On each of my three subsequent trips to Syria, speaking moderate colloquial Arabic, I have been able to interact one-on-one with Syrians there, whether in markets, taxis, on the streets or in areas I visited. 

In Latakia, many of the the over 1 million Internally Displaced Persons from Idlib, Aleppo and surrounding areas who are being housed and supported by the Syrian government spoke of the same heinous kidnappings, beheadings, and other crimes that most media currently only associate with Da’esh (ISIS), but which were perpetrated (with Turkish support) by the so-called FSA and other terrorist factions.

© Eva Bartlett A newly opened fruit and vegetable stand in Homs’ Old City

A man from Harem, near the Turkish border, spoke of being kidnapped by FSA terrorists and of the decapitations of Harem residents, with their heads sent home in boxes.

“The terrorists attacked us, terrorists from Turkey, from Chechnya, and from Arab and other foreign countries. They had tanks and guns, like an army, just like an army. For 73 days we were surrounded in the citadel of Harem. They hit us with all kinds of weapons. We had women and children with us. They showed no mercy. When they caught any of us, they slaughtered him, and then send his head back to us. They killed over 100 people, and kidnapped around 150… children, civilians, soldiers. Until now, we don’t know what’s happened to them,” he said.

People from the village of Kassab spoke of the joint Turkish-Nusra attack on their village in March 2014, of escaping with the help of Syrian soldiers, of the over 80 who were slaughtered, including 13 who were beheaded, and of the raping and plunder of their people and homes. “They raped our older women because they couldn’t find any girls,” one resident told me.

In Latakia, I met two Americans living there for the last twenty years. The mother told me of Western reporting (she cited an LA Times article by way of example) which alleged Syrian security were cracking down on people in Latakia one day but that on that particular day she had been to all the named areas of the city and there was no unrest.

In Homs, I met with local Syrians involved in the Reconciliation process, including religious leaders and community members. The Old City of Homs in April 2014 was still occupied by terrorist factions. When I returned in June, it had just been liberated. I was able to speak with residentswho had stayed during the Farouq Brigades (FSA) and al-Nusra’s occupation of the Old City, who denied it was a “revolution” and spoke of terrorists’ thieving every last food item from their home.

A local man spoke of the militants’ assassination of 75 year old Dutch priest Father Frans van der Lugt who, while neither pro-government nor pro-“rebel” did write of witnessing armed men among the early protests, “who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.” Others spoke of the sectarian slogans in the early protests in Homs, including the slaughtering of Alawis and the driving out of Christians.

Many historic churches in the Old City were damaged or destroyed, and looted, by the terrorist factions.

When I visited Homs again in December 2015, most of the churches were repaired enough to use, and some of the residents had patched up their homes and opened new shops and were preparing to celebrate Christmas for the first time in years.

In June 2014, I visited the recently-liberated ancient village of Ma’aloula. There, terrorists primarily from Nusra besieged the village for 8 months, plundered from its ancient monasteries, destroyed and desecrated what couldn’t be stolen and murdered the daughter of the priest of St. Thekla convent, Konstantin al-Khouri, who explained to me that he himself then took up arms to defend the village.

In Damascus I met with various leaders of internal opposition, who notably all rallied behind President al-Assad and against the external Riyadh and Turkish-backed “opposition” put forth by the West. The Kurdish representative, Berwine Brahim, stated, “We want you to convey that conspiracy, terrorism and interference from Western countries has united supporters of the government and the opposition, to support President Bashar al-Assad. We opposition members see that President al-Assad is the guarantee of Syria.”

On two occasions I have met Syria’s highest Muslim religious authority Grand Mufti, Dr. Ahmad Badreddin, whose own son Saria, 22, was assassinated in October 2011. The following day, Mufti Hassoun publicly called for the pardon of the assassins, who in turn sent a message they would kill him next. Hassoun continues to use his platform to call for Syrians to lay down their weapons and “come back” to their country. He rejects the sectarianism sent to Syria by Saudi Arabia and calls for the rehabilitation of European mosques influenced by Wahhabism.

In June 2014 I met with Minister of Reconciliation, Dr. Ali Haidar, an eye doctor and leader of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). In June 2012, Haidar took the position of Minister of Reconciliation in order to further the process of those armed Syrians who wish to reconcile. The movement continues to see Syrians granted amnesty and returning to their normal lives. Haidar’s son Ismail was assassinated in May 2012 by terrorists hoping to kill Haidar himself.

Staying in the Old City of Damascus, I got a taste of the daily mortar terrorism, then primarily from “moderate” “rebels” in their stronghold of Jobar, just east of the city. I visited a hospital where children from the mortared Manar school were being treated for mild to severe injuries. On another visit, in Damascus, I visited the University Hospital, where children, women and men were being treated for injuries from mortars and missiles fired by terrorists in Douma. Many had amputations, many were in intensive care, including those with severe brain injuries.

In Damascus, IDPs from the Yarmouk district spoke of terrorists taking over their homes, stealing food, sniping at them. Those being housed in a governmental school had better circumstances than those sardined in UN housing. Most wanted to go home. In spite of the corporate media and Ken Roth type accusations of the Syrian government being the cause of suffering in Yarmouk, the government continues to send or facilitate entry of aid into the district. As with Madaya, that aid is often stolen by terrorists for their own use or for extortionist re-sale.

In December 2015, on my second visit to Yarmouk, Palestinian leadership informed me the vast majority of the former 1 million Syrians and around 170,000 Palestinians had left or been evacuated. Around 5-6000 people remained, including fighters and those supporting the militants. I was able to enter roughly 400 metres into the district before Palestinian soldiers accompanying me told me to go any further would be to welcome a sniper’s bullet.

The al-Zahra’a district of Homs has been the site of repeated terror bombings and suicide attacks which get virtually no coverage in the media. I visited in December 2015 just days after a triple-explosion series of terror bombings which state media reported killed at least 16 residents (but which later local updates put over 20 murdered). Since then, al-Zahra’a has been hit three further times by terrorist bombings. The area comprises a variety of faiths, including many IDPs from elsewhere in Syria. One of the recently-murdered victims was a Christian man who had fled Sadad, which faces Da’esh and other terrorists’ attacks. Zahra’a is not the only area of Homs to be terror-bombed. In my April 2014 visit I spoke with residents of Karam al-Luz who had survived a double-car bombing which killed at least 25 residents.

The al-Waer district of Homs in December 2015 saw a deal in which a few hundred of the armed militants and their families were shuttled to Idlib and surrounding areas. Another 2,200 primarily anti-government mercenaries remain within the residential area of al-Waer. The government continues to supply residents with food, medicine, electricity (free) and water (free) and has a bread factory at the last checkpoint before entering al-Waer, which I visited in December 2015. The factory receives wheat from the government and supplies the residents within with bread (in spite of the presence of the anti-government militants). While observing Syrians walking towards the checkpoint to the terrorist-held area, I was cautioned by security to step back: there is a ceasefire, but the militants within could violate that at any time.

© Eva Bartlett
A flower vendor in Sweida

In Sweida, a Druze area southeast of Damascus which has largely fought off the attacks of militants since the beginning of the crisis in 2011, residents told me they had from very early on recognized the ‘revolution’ as a foreign plot against Syria. Druze leader, Sheikh Hammoud al-Hanawi (known as Sheikh al-Aqel) reiterated what residents had said about this plot, and spoke of how Sweida’s young and old men have protected the region and stand with the Syrian Arab Army.

In Sweida, many residents who had been living abroad returned to open new restaurants, hotels and businesses, in order to support their sanctions-shattered economy. As with Latakia, Tartous, and Damascus, Sweida has also absorbed large numbers of IDPs from other southern areas, including Sunnis from Dara’a.

In spite of the security within Sweida, on the drive back to Damascus, the driver noted that, just 30 km to the east, Da’esh were present, but unable to break into Sweida. The Sweida-Damascus road was formerly perilous due to land mines, snipings and kidnappings, but now is highly-secured by the Syrian army. The driver, whose own friends disappeared in kidnappings added, “but here we all support the army.”

In addition to hearing the tragic stories of Syrians’ suffering these past five years, I’ve also been party to celebrations, and very moving Easterand Christmas services and music. I’ve been invited into the homes of Syrians and showered with hospitality, and above all, seen the culture, love and resilience that makes Syrians proud of their country and people.

Wherever I’ve gone in Syria (as well as many months in various parts of Lebanon, where I’ve met Syrians from all over Syria) I’ve seen wide evidence of broad support for President al-Assad. The pride I’ve seen in a majority of Syrians in their President surfaces in the posters in homes and shops, in patriotic songs and Syrian flags at celebrations and in discussions with average Syrians of all faiths. Most Syrians request that I tell exactly what I have seen and to transmit the message that it is for Syrians to decide their future, that they support their president and army and that the only way to stop the bloodshed is for Western and Gulf nations to stop sending terrorists to Syria, for Turkey to stop warring on Syria, for the West to stop their nonsense talk about “freedom” and “democracy” and leave Syrians to decide their own future.

To quote a Syrian I met in Lebanon in April 2015:

“We want the Syrian state to return to how it was and most importantly, President Assad will stay. We love Bashar al-Assad very much. Syria was wonderful, the state supported us in many ways (free education & health care, food and oil subsidies…) Syria had security. Our country will win and return to how it was, and better. Souria samideen… Syria remains steadfast.”

Avatar

Eva Bartlett (Profile)

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip, where she lived a cumulative three years (from late 2008 to early 2013), arriving by boat as a part of the Free Gaza missions. She documented the 2008/9 and 2012 Israeli war crimes and attacks on Gaza while riding in ambulances and reporting from hospitals. Eva accompanied Palestinian fishers and farmers as they came under intensive fire from the Israeli army. She has been to Syria four times since April 2014 and works to convey the voices of a people suffering under the foreign war on Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign ‘Revolution’

If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.

My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted. And not much better can be expected on domestic issues from this woman who was paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs – one of the most reactionary, anti-social corporations in this sad world – for four speeches and even more than that in political donations in recent years. Add to that Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the board of Walmart while her husband was governor of Arkansas. Can we expect to change corporate behavior by taking their money?

The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial the day after the multiple primary elections of March 1 which began: “Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States,” and then declared: “The reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government.”

When I need to have my car fixed I look for a mechanic with experience with my type of auto. When I have a medical problem I prefer a doctor who specializes in the part of my body that’s ill. But when it comes to politicians, experience means nothing. The only thing that counts is the person’s ideology. Who would you sooner vote for, a person with 30 years in Congress who doesn’t share your political and social views at all, is even hostile to them, or someone who has never held public office before but is an ideological comrade on every important issue? Clinton’s 12 years in high government positions carries no weight with me.

The Times continued about Trump: “He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world.”

Again, knowledge is trumped (no pun intended) by ideology. As Secretary of State (January 2009-February 2013), with great access to knowledge, Clinton played a key role in the 2011 destruction of Libya’s modern and secular welfare state, sending it crashing in utter chaos into a failed state, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists.

What good did Secretary of State Clinton’s knowledge do? It was enough for her to know that Gaddafi’s Libya, for several reasons, would never be a properly obedient client state of Washington. Thus it was that the United States, along with NATO, bombed the people of Libya almost daily for more than six months, giving as an excuse that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States was thus saving the people of that city from a massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. (The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.)

The Western intervention in Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.”  All the knowledge she was privy to did not keep her from this disastrous mistake in Libya. And the same can be said about her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported. Both policies were of course clear violations of international law and the UN Charter.

Another foreign-policy “success” of Mrs. Clinton, which her swooning followers will ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America. The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to up to two centuries of oppression … and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States – if not the mastermind behind the coup – does nothing to prevent it punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this “affront to democracy”. (See Mark Weisbrot’s “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras”.)

In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices”, Clinton reveals just how unconcerned she was about restoring Zelaya to his rightful office: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere … We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly, and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Washington, however, quickly resumed normal diplomatic relations with the new right-wing police state, and Honduras has since become a major impetus for the child migrants currently pouring into the United States.

The headline from Time magazine’s report on Honduras at the close of that year (December 3, 2009) summed it up as follows: “Obama’s Latin America Policy Looks Like Bush’s”.

And Hillary Clinton looks like a conservative. And has for many years; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, when she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua.

Then, during the 2007 presidential primary, America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, ran an editorial by Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett was a policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, and a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture? Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.”

During the same primary we also heard from America’s leading magazine for the corporate wealthy, Fortune, with a cover featuring a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”.

And what do we have in 2016? Fully 116 members of the Republican Party’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton! “Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto. Another signer, foreign-policy ultra-conservative author Robert Kagan, declared: “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The only choice? What’s wrong with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate? … Oh, I see, not conservative enough.

And Mr. Trump? Much more a critic of US foreign policy than Hillary or Bernie. He speaks of Russia and Vladimir Putin as positive forces and allies, and would be much less likely to go to war against Moscow than Clinton would. He declares that he would be “evenhanded” when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to Clinton’s boundless support of Israel). He’s opposed to calling Senator John McCain a “hero”, because he was captured. (What other politician would dare say a thing like that?)

He calls Iraq “a complete disaster”, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.” He even questions the idea that “Bush kept us safe”, and adds that “Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists.”

Yes, he’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?

CIA motto: “Proudly overthrowing the Cuban government since 1959.”

Now what? Did you think that the United States had finally grown up and come to the realization that they could in fact share the same hemisphere as the people of Cuba, accepting Cuban society as unquestioningly as they do that of Canada? The Washington Post (February 18) reported: “In recent weeks, administration officials have made it clear Obama would travel to Cuba only if its government made additional concessions in the areas of human rights, Internet access and market liberalization.”

Imagine if Cuba insisted that the United States make “concessions in the area of human rights”; this could mean the United States pledging to not repeat anything like the following:

Invading Cuba in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs.

Invading Grenada in 1983 and killing 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.

Blowing up a passenger plane full of Cubans in 1976. (In 1983, the city of Miami held a day in honor of Orlando Bosch, one of the two masterminds behind this awful act; the other perpetrator, Luis Posada, was given lifetime protection in the same city.)

Giving Cuban exiles, for their use, the virus which causes African swine fever, forcing the Cuban government to slaughter 500,000 pigs.

Infecting Cuban turkeys with a virus which produces the fatal Newcastle disease, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 turkeys.

In 1981 an epidemic of dengue hemorrhagic fever swept the island, the first major epidemic of DHF ever in the Americas. The United States had long been experimenting with using dengue fever as a weapon. Cuba asked the United States for a pesticide to eradicate the mosquito involved but were not given it. Over 300,000 cases were reported in Cuba with 158 fatalities.

These are but three examples of decades-long CIA chemical and biological warfare (CBW) against Cuba.   We must keep in mind that food is a human right (although the United States has repeatedly denied this.

Washington maintained a blockade of goods and money entering Cuba that is still going strong, a blockade that President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, in 1997 called “the most pervasive sanctions ever imposed on a nation in the history of mankind”.

Attempted to assassinate Cuban president Fidel Castro on numerous occasions, not only in Cuba, but in Panama, Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

In one scheme after another in recent years, Washington’s Agency for International Development (AID) endeavored to cause dissension in Cuba and/or stir up rebellion, the ultimate goal being regime change.

In 1999 a Cuban lawsuit demanded $181.1 billion in US compensation for death and injury suffered by Cuban citizens in four decades of “war” by Washington against Cuba. Cuba asked for $30 million in direct compensation for each of the 3,478 people it said were killed by US actions and $15 million each for the 2,099 injured. It also asked for $10 million each for the people killed, and $5 million each for the injured, to repay Cuban society for the costs it has had to assume on their behalf.

Needless to say, the United States has not paid a penny of this.

One of the most common Yankee criticisms of the state of human rights in Cuba has been the arrest of dissidents (although the great majority are quickly released). But many thousands of anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy Movement, which began in 2011, more than 7,000 people were arrested in about the first year, many were beaten by police and mistreated while in custody, their street displays and libraries smashed to pieces.   ; the Occupy movement continued until 2014; thus, the figure of 7,000 is an understatement.)

Moreover, it must be kept in mind that whatever restrictions on civil liberties there may be in Cuba exist within a particular context: The most powerful nation in the history of the world is just 90 miles away and is sworn – vehemently and repeatedly sworn – to overthrowing the Cuban government. If the United States was simply and sincerely concerned with making Cuba a less restrictive society, Washington’s policy would be clear cut:

  • Call off the wolves – the CIA wolves, the AID wolves, the doctor-stealer wolves, the baseball-player-stealer wolves.
  • Publicly and sincerely (if American leaders still remember what this word means) renounce their use of CBW and assassinations. And apologize.
  • Cease the unceasing hypocritical propaganda – about elections, for example. (Yes, it’s true that Cuban elections never feature a Donald Trump or a Hillary Clinton, nor ten billion dollars, nor 24 hours of campaign ads, but is that any reason to write them off?)
  • Pay compensation – a lot of it.
  • Sine qua non – end the God-awful blockade.

Throughout the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin America has witnessed a terrible parade of human rights violations – systematic, routine torture; legions of “disappeared” people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups. The worst perpetrators of these acts during this period have been the military and associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras. However, not even Cuba’s worst enemies have made serious charges against the Havana government for any of such violations; and if one further considers education and health care, “both of which,” said President Bill Clinton, “work better [in Cuba] than most other countries”   , and both of which are guaranteed by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, then it would appear that during the more-than-half century of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the very best human-rights records in all of Latin America.

But never good enough for American leaders to ever touch upon in any way; the Bill Clinton quote being a rare exception indeed. It’s a tough decision to normalize relations with a country whose police force murders its own innocent civilians on almost a daily basis. But Cuba needs to do it. Maybe they can civilize the Americans a bit, or at least remind them that for more than a century they have been the leading torturers of the world.

Notes

  1. Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy”, updated March 4, 2016.

  2. New York Times, February 28, 2016
  3. Mark Weisbrot, “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras”, Common Dreams, December 16, 2009
  4. Roger Morris, former member of the National Security Council, Partners in Power (1996), p.415. For a comprehensive look at Hillary Clinton, see the new book by Diane Johnstone, Queen of Chaos.
  5. National Review online, May 1, 2007
  6. Fortune magazine, July 9, 2007
  7. Patrick J. Buchanan, “Will the Oligarchs Kill Trump?”, Creators.com, March 08, 2016
  8. William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (2005), chapter 14

  9. Ibid., p.264
  10. White House press briefing, November 14, 1997, US Newswire transcript
  11. Fabian Escalante, Executive Action: 634 Ways to Kill Fidel Castro (2006), Ocean Press (Australia)
  12. Huffington Post, May 3, 2012
  13. Miami Herald, October 17, 1997, p.22A
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Exceptionalism Presents an Election Made in Hell

Bribing officials.  Relaying and returning migrants to poor countries without adequate scrutiny or screening. Closing borders.  Setting up camps with appalling conditions.  Barbed wire and armed guards.  Europe now faces the most profound test on the refugee crisis so far: to persist in processing arrivals within its borders, or return them with indifference into unsafe territories. 

This is the Australian model of border control writ large. It enlists and politicises defence forces and border protection behind a veil of military grade secrey.  It shifts the burden of processing asylum seekers and refugees from wealthier states to poorer ones.  It effectively suspends the application of the Refugee Convention and does a good bit of demonising of refugees along the way.

In October last year, before an audience attending the Margaret Thatcher gala dinner,  the sniping and aggressive former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott warned European leaders that embracing his own “turn back the boats” policy was essential for continental stability and the protection of European civilisation.  “The only way to stop people by trying to gain entry is firmly and unambiguously to deny it.”[1]

Critics laughed it off as irrelevant, a political product of a paranoid island continent and a clownish ex-leader.  Landlocked countries, in particular, could hardly impose a return policy en masse given the sprawling trails of humanity coming in. It would entail massive border closures and expulsions, not of boats with dozens of human occupants but convoys of tens of thousands.

Turning back refugees, and cutting off the lines through the Balkans, is exactly what is happening in the pursuit of a rather venal plan of mass deportation with Turkey.  The outlines of it were made at a summit on March 7, where European leaders met the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlou.

The Turkish proposal involves accepting the return of all migrants and refugees who cross the Aegean to Greece in return of a resettlement of asylum seekers in EU countries from Turkey itself.  This effectively constitutes a mass removal of individuals, a plan of questionable legality.  Under international refugee law, Turkey would have to be designated a safe haven for asylum seekers.

The summit has invariably spurred countries to close the Balkan route. Macedonia has closed the border with Greece, resulting in the stranding of 15,000 individuals.  Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia have tightened controls, putting on the brakes with heavy feet. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has expressed confidence in this new “collective” response to the refugee crisis, claiming that “irregular flows of migrants along western Balkans route have come to an end”.[2]

Some of the press analysis on this sees the European-Turkish deal as “messy but necessary”.  The Economist editorial on this subject is even more chilling in admitting what Turkey has become in this entire farce of human misery.  “Throughout the Cold War, Turkey was one of Europe’s bastions against Soviet armies.  Now it is being turned into Europe’s barrier against the huddled masses of the Middle East.”[3]

This was geographic reality – Turkey being the bridging country between two landmasses.  But, argued The Economist, order had to return, with borders opened, to a certain extent; “the only alternative to chaos is a fair and orderly migration system”. Human flesh has become a measure of grand political bargaining.

The consequence of this haggling has been a trafficking and bartering over human matter in favour of new political realities Turkey wishes to change.  There is the issue of visa liberalisation, which Ankara has been pursuing with some vigour.

The largest matter, one that never goes away, is that of Turkish accession to the EU.  Most striking of all is the refusal on the part of the EU to raise the issue of Ankara’s latest, and very aggressive, assault on press freedoms. President Recep Erdoğan has every reason to be pleased, crushing dissent and scrutiny at hope while pretending to be Europe’s broom of order.

Despite any reservations on the part of the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, his government still signed a readmission agreement for migrants crossing the Aegean to be returned.[4]  This further builds in a regime that promises to be more cruel than fair.

The strong message from Davutoğlou in discussions with Tsipras indicated the determination to shut out third countries and transit points for those using the route through Turkey and effectively the Balkans, to get to EU countries.  The agreements, he argued, sent “a clear message to migrants coming from third countries, rather than countries at war… that there is neither the political will [to allow their passage] nor the ability to cross to Europe.”

Supposedly, that aspect of the deal will cover those migrants who are not deemed to fall within the international regime of protection.  This re-admission into Turkey is problematic on several levels, assuming an orderly and expeditious processing of individual claims. “I am deeply worried,” expressed a concerned UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi, “about any arrangement that would involve the blanket return of anyone from one country to another without spelling out the refugee safeguards under international law.”[5]

Such fairness is evidently missing to those who are huddled before the closed borders.  Refugees chant German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s name in desperation and hope.  Merkel in turn had regarded the Balkan closure as an “unsustainable” travesty, an outcome of a failed approach to the issue of dealing with refugees.  But she is wrong to assume that Europe is not acting collectively on this.  A dis-unified position is rapidly forming into a hardened, brutal stance of vicious unity.

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

 

Notes

[1] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/europe-should-learn-from-australia-how-to-halt-refugees-tony-abbott-20151027-gkkaop.html

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/balkans-refugee-route-closed-say-european-leaders

[3] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21694536-european-bargain-turkey-controversial-offers-best-hope-ending-migrant?force=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/amessybutnecessarydeal

[4] http://www.ekathimerini.com/206786/article/ekathimerini/news/greece-and-turkey-build-on-plan-for-return-of-refugees

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-idUSKCN0WA1D4

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Killing Asylum: The Turkish-EU Deal on Migrants. Closed Borders, Camps, Barbed Wire…