Global Research

Why is the first line of defence, of any Likudnik, against valid Jewish criticism of his right-wing, political agenda always the same childish accusation: ‘You’re a self-hating Jew!’?

Where is the justification for such character assassination? Could it be that the individuals concerned are really incapable of any rational argument?

What would you think about a similar comment but with a substituted target:

‘You’re a self-hating Brit because you’re critical of Cameron’s Conservative Party !’  Or substitute ‘German’ and ‘Merkel’, or ‘American’ and ‘Obama’, to better appreciate the crass stupidity of the comment.

However, the Zionist propaganda that tries to justify the unjustifiable, keeps coming 24/7, throughout the online media, broadcast and print!

Upon reflection, the only reasonable answer to the above question is that the Political Zionist knows full well that regardless of how ludicrous is his accusation, his co-religionist victim cannot help but be hurt by such abuse.

The apparent tactic being that when valid criticism is rejected, always attack the critical observer in the hope that your guilt will be overlooked. However, the context in this case is far too serious with major consequences for both the Middle East and the international community for it to be ignored.

My experience is that a substantial proportion of European Jews, together with a substantial minority within Israel itself, reject the extremist policies of the current Likud coalition of Binyamin Netanyahu which serve only to increase anti-Semitism around the world.

To the best of my knowledge, many such Jews, whilst being overtly proud of their ancient religious heritage, are acutely embarrassed and ashamed at the illegal settlement and blockade agenda imposed by this Israeli government against the five million civilian inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

It has for long been illegal in most parts of Europe to disseminate symbols or propaganda of the defunct National Socialist Party and the same should apply to the invective of the current Political Zionist Movement.

The EU needs to take action.

On Friday, March 4th, the leading opposition newspaper in Turkey, Zaman, was taken over by the Government; and, today, March 5th, one of the other opposition newspapers,Cumhuriyet, reported that Zaman’s separate news-service to other news-media, Cihan News Agency, has now also been disabled on the Internet. (Anyone who goes to the site obtains an error-message.)

The Turkish Government is trying to prevent the Turkish public from knowing that Turkey has been serving as the transit-route by which the U.S. government and its allied Arab oil monarchies (especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar) have been supplying foreign jihadists and weapons (largely U.S. but paid for with Saudi funds) into Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad from power.

Zaman’s editor has been imprisoned for publishing such prohibited truths, but somehow his newspaper continued reporting on a court case in which Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan is accused of breaking Turkish law by aiding terrorists. That continued resistance by the newspaper might be a reason why the Turkish Government has now (as of Friday March 4th) shut it down.

On March 1st, Cumhuriyet, headlined, “Former Justice Minister of Turkey: Erdoğan Will Stand Trial,” and reported that, “Former Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Turk, said that Erdoğan’s actions ‘do not comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court.’ He criticized [Erdoğan] by saying … ‘One day this matter must be settled by the judiciary’.”

Russian Television had first reported on the case, in English, back on 26 November 2015, headlining, “Turkish newspaper editor in court for ‘espionage’ after revealing weapon convoy to Syrian militants.” This news-report said that:

In May, the outlet [Cumhuriyet] published photos of weapons it said were then transferred to Syria by Turkey’s intelligence agency. … The articles, published on Cumhuriyet’s front page in May, claimed that Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MİT) is smuggling weapons in trucks into Syria and was caught doing so twice in 2014. The trucks were allegedly stopped and searched by police, with photos and videos of their contents obtained by Cumhuriyet.

According to the paper, the trucks were carrying six steel containers, with 1,000 artillery shells, 50,000 machine gun rounds, 30,000 heavy machine gun rounds and 1,000 mortar shells. The arms were reportedly delivered to extremist groups fighting against the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad, whom Ankara wants ousted from power.

The Erdoğan government alleged the weapons were “aid to Syrian ethnic Turkmen tribespeople and labeled their interception by local police an act of ‘treason’ and ‘espionage’.”

Turkey is a NATO member, and the famous investigative reporter Seymour Hersh had revealed in the 6 April 2014 London Review of Books, that on 20 June 2013 — just a few months prior to the sarin gas attack that Obama blamed on Assad and used as his excuse to invade Syria — the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency reported that America’s allies in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad were engaged in “the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort,” but the U.S. Director of National Intelligence denied that it was true. One U.S. ally there was Al Qaeda in Syria, known in Syria as Al Nusra, (Nusra and Erdoğan wanted this gas-attack to provide the excuse that Obama had set as his “red line” to overthrow Assad — a chemical-weapons attack in Syria.) However, Hersh reported, “Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin.” All of that had occurred prior to the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack.

Hersh went on:

The officer ultimately responsible for the planning and execution of the attack [U.S. bombing of Syria] was General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs. From the beginning of the crisis, the former intelligence official said, the joint chiefs had been sceptical of the administration’s argument that it had the facts to back up its belief in Assad’s guilt. They pressed the DIA and other agencies for more substantial evidence. ‘There was no way they thought Syria would use nerve gas at that stage, because Assad was winning the war,’ the former intelligence official said. Dempsey had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria.

Hersh subsequently reported that, rather than go ahead with an operation that the Joint Chiefs considered fraudulent, they sabotaged Obama’s policy. On 2 January 2016, Hersh headlined in the London Review of Books, “Military to Military,” and he explained how and why they had done this:

The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success.’ So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. … General Dempsey and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept their dissent out of bureaucratic channels, and survived in office. General Michael Flynn did not. ‘Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria,’ said Patrick Lang, a retired army colonel who served for nearly a decade as the chief Middle East civilian intelligence officer for the DIA. ‘He thought truth was the best thing and they shoved him out. He wouldn’t shut up.’

Obama couldn’t be swayed that the enemy were Al Qaeda and other jihadists instead of Assad — that overthrowing him was his top priority. However, Hersh said in his 6 April 2014 article, that Obama had to backtrack at the last moment anyway, because British intelligence reported to David Cameron that the sarin used in the attack didn’t come from Syria — that it had been imported; this implied that it was a set-up job in order to ‘justify’ invading. Cameron didn’t want to be just another Tony Blair. Obama couldn’t get his necessary-for-appearances’-sake public cover for an invasion, Britain, as his predecessor had done regarding Iraq. Hersh went on, in that 2014 article:

Obama’s move for congressional approval quickly became a dead end. ‘Congress was not going to let this go by,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘Congress made it known that, unlike the authorisation for the Iraq war, there would be substantive hearings.’ At this point, there was a sense of desperation in the White House, the former intelligence official said.

Obama, in other words, was now trapped. He couldn’t fire all of his Joint Chiefs — at least not right away; it would be embarrassing, how could he explain it? And the Republicans were eager to expose his Administration’s disarray on the matter. So: the story was passed around that Secretary of State John Kerry got Russia to get Assad to eliminate his sarin stocks. Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin was happy to help Obama avoid invading his Syrian ally. That was how the ‘news’ organizations reported the backtrack — as a rare instance of U.S.-Russian cooperation: good news for everybody. But for Obama, it was actually the way out of a desperately embarrassing situation. And he never gave up his goal of switching Syria from the secular Assad to a failed state whose crucial oil-pipeline routes would be in ‘friendly’ (to Saudi Arabia and Qatar) jihadist Sunni-ruled areas of Syria, so that ‘our’ Arab ‘allies’ (the jihadist-financiing nations, as even Kerry’s predecessor Hillary Clinton had known them to be) can grab the world’s largest energy-market, Europe, away from Russia.

Hersh, in his 2014 article, continued:

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

He closed:

Barring a major change in policy by Obama, Turkey’s meddling in the Syrian civil war is likely to go on. ‘I asked my colleagues if there was any way to stop Erdoğan’s continued support for the rebels, especially now that it’s going so wrong,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘The answer was: “We’re screwed.” We could go public if it was somebody other than Erdoğan, but Turkey is a special case. They’re a Nato ally.’

There is simply too much evidence proving that Erdoğan is supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria. This is the reality of NATO: conquering Russia, first by switching its allies (such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc.), is the assignment, regardless of the public’s safety. Even if the U.S. weren’t backing jihadists directly (which we are), we’re backing them by having jihadist governments such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar as allies — instead of as enemies. ‘Our’ oil companies and mega-banks are in bed with them, and their top stockholders and executives, and their lobbyists, control the people who control the U.S. Government. The U.S. Constitution’s “We, the People …” has become only those “People.” The rest are now just for extras in crowd-scenes, at political campaign events — and their mass-mind-control is done by their media, ‘our’ ‘free press’ (who don’t report this reality), in ‘our’ ‘democracy’.

Erdoğan is profoundly angry at the unsteady support he has been receiving from the U.S. government in their joint efforts to eliminate Bashar al-Assad. However, apparently, Obama doesn’t feel that the U.S. is yet ready for a nuclear war to be sparked between NATO and Russia — Obama thinks that doing it now would be premature. ‘Color revolutions’ and ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘Maidan demonstrations’, and other populist covers for coups (taking advantage of the local political opposition, which exists in any country), are a far safer way to gradually strip Russia of its allies and turn them into yet-more enemies of Russia — and, only then, can the rip-cord finally be pulled, and Russia be forced to either submit or else die (even if the rest of the world might die also). The U.S. has been doing this boil-the-frog-slowly routine ever since U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush laid the foundation for it in 1990.

As John Kerry recently said, when responding to aid workers at a donor conference for anti-Assad forces, “What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?” Clearly, Erdoğan is lots more eager for that than Obama is. Perhaps Erdoğan thinks that Putin would just back down. American Presidents, however, aren’t so desperate that they feel they need to do it during their own Administration; they can afford to wait until the time is right, even if the plaudits will then go to some future President. Their paymasters will be duly appreciative of the contributions that each one of them has made toward the final ‘U.S.’ victory. (Victory for the paymasters, of course.)

So, the American government’s charade goes on. But already an MIT analysis — theLloyd-Postal report — on the sarin attack that occurred 21 August 2013, stated unequivocally that the Obama Administration was lying through its teeth about the matter. They provided excruciating detail showing why “the US Government’s interpretation of the technical intelligence it gathered prior to and after the August 21 attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.” (That’s a tactful, yet passionate, way of saying: “Obama and his Administration were trying to lie this country into invading Syria.”) Yet, Western news-media still simply ignore the evidence (they can do that in this dictatorship), and report that Assad’s forces were behind the sarin attack. It’s still the official reason why we’re at war against Assad. Was even George W. Bush worse than this?

Seymour Hersh had tried to get his news-reports on these matters published by what had been his regular publisher, the New Yorker, which turned them down; and he tried other U.S. outlets as well, but wasn’t successful in finding any that would pay his regular charges — and he had already spent much in order to research these matters. Finally, he obtained a suitable outlet, in the LRB. This is why his recent reports are being published abroad.

Anyone who wishes to know more about what motivates the U.S. government regarding Syria should read the astoundingly brilliant article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., published on an obscure environmental website, February 25th, “Syria: Another Pipeline War.” He tells so much suppressed history there, it’s flabbergasting to see it all brought together into one flowing historical narrative — and my checking of the few sources that I hadn’t previously known of indicates that his standards for quality-of-evidence that he builds his narrative on are as rigorous and high as mine are — which is rare. I very much respect that.

Every high school student should read his article in order to understand how corrupt the U.S. is at its highest levels. The article is a masterpiece of historical writing. But even a masterpiece can have a flaw: his article plays down the role that leading Democrats after Reagan have been playing in GHW Bush’s long war to conquer Russia. We’re still in the post-Reagan era, just as, between FDR and Reagan, we had been in the post-FDR era. Obama is as rabid a Russia-hater as practically anyone except John McCain would be. If a piece of historical writing is going to be partisan (as almost all are), at least this one is partisan on the less-unacceptable side.

I might write RFK Jr.’s name onto the Presidential line of my ballot in November. There’s someone with favorable name-recognition, who clearly has the integrity and depth, and knowledge, to deal with the rot that has overtaken America, if anyone does. Maybe he could win by acclamation, if he wouldn’t be knocked-off first. But if the idea of writing in his name goes around like wildfire in the weeks before the November 8th general election, then who knows what would happen? Certainly, if Hillary is on the ballot as the ‘Democratic’ nominee, I won’t vote for her, though I’m a lifelong Democrat. And I don’t want to be forced to vote for Trump (since he’s almost totally unpredictable — which still isn’t as bad as Hillary). (Besides: Hillary should be in prison for her destruction of crucial public records — State Department emails — to hide her crimes; and The Donald should be in prison for his fake Trump ‘University’ commercial fraud. But the corrupt Obama won’t allow any such prosecutions.) And there’s such beautiful irony here: “Trump: If Elected, I’ll Prosecute Hillary.” It’s so much like Ukraine! (Cast Hillary as Tymoshenko, and Trump as Yanukovych — and I’d vote then for Trump, so as to avoid the near-certainty of disaster.)

But no intelligent American can be justified in simply not voting for President. That would be outrageously irresponsible. I won’t ever do that. Every intelligent and caring person must vote for President — not leave that responsibility to others (which would be unpatriotic — plus wrong and callous — for any well-informed voter). The “anyone but ___” non-voters are mere fools and frauds. They simply don’t care enough about the country to do their most-basic civic duty, which is to become informed and then to vote for someone on that basis (though never as a ‘protest vote’ — the nation is too important for any mere ‘protest’ — but only as a real vote, for someone who has an authentic chance of winning the election). Any mere throw-away ‘vote’ is like a non-vote.

That article by Kennedy should be linked to by all of his supporters: it tells more about the man than any number of campaign speeches possibly could. It proves that he’s fit for the job, if anyone is. That’s one person who doesn’t need to campaign for the job. He’s an outsider whose knowledge and understanding of the subject is probably among the best there is, and whose heart is unquestionably in the right place — which would be a refreshing and radical change, a change that’s of a kind needed now more than ever in the U.S.

But anyway: RFK Jr.’s article is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the horrendous war in Syria. My article here is just a warm-up to it — and, I hope, a totally non-partisan one.

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.

If the Russian Aerospace Forces’ performance took NATO by surprise, it is because earlier Russian operations did not suggest that level of ability. Russian aviation took serious losses in the 2008 conflict with Georgia: 7 aircraft shot down including a Tu-22M bomber, 4 damaged, or one loss per each 17 combat missions.  There was practically no new aircraft procurement since 1994. Russian aircrews flew far fewer hours than their NATO counterparts.

But the Georgia conflict served as a wake-up call and led to reforms which proved both crucial and successful.

Russian airpower was reduced in numbers, and reorganized into 8 air bases, each supporting several air groups based on individual airfields, which allowed individual pilots to get more flying time. In 2012, the air bases and air groups were renamed divisions and regiments.

Starting with 2012, new and modernized aircraft began to enter service in large numbers. By 2014 and 2015, Russian air forces were receiving 100 new or thoroughly modernized aircraft a year, and that pace is expected to continue in 2016. By 2020, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) are expected to have at their disposal about 1500 mostly modern combat aircraft, including 130 heavy bombers such as the Tu-160, Tu-95MS, and Tu-22M, over 800 fighters, and over 500 tactical bombers and attack aircraft.

These reforms led to the Russian VKS demonstrating a number of capabilities which seemed beyond its reach only seven years earlier:

• The ability to deploy and sustain a force of 100 combat aircraft for several months in difficult conditions, and the ability to sustain a high rate of combat missions.
• The ability to function in a “reconnaissance-strike complex” mode, which enables intelligence data obtained by a variety of sources, including aircraft, satellites, drones, and agents, to be converted into targeting data to allow even mobile targets, such as enemy mobile troop or supply columns to be quickly targeted.
• The ability to conduct close air support as well as battlefield interdiction and suppression against an enemy practiced in concealment.
• The ability to operate in any weather conditions, at any time of day.
• The ability to use precision-guided munitions.
• The ability to integrate long-range aerial early warning aircraft such as the A-50 and intelligence and ground surveillance aircraft, such as the Il-20 and Tu-214R, into the overall concept of operations.
• The ability to use drones on a large scale and as part of an integrated aerial operation.
• Granted, the picture is not perfect. Here is what Russian airpower has not demonstrated in Syria:
• The ability to organize and operate large aerial “strike packages” against sophisticated aerial and anti-aircraft defenses. To be sure, while US and some NATO forces may have had that ability a decade ago, it has been degraded by NATO airpower being used in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• The ability to use large numbers or a large variety of precision-guided munitions. Russian aircraft did use many satellite-guided KAB-500R bombs and Kh-29L laser-guided missiles. But most of the munitions dropped were unguided bombs and aerial rockets, aided by sophisticated on-board digital ballistic computers which allowed them to strike their targets with a fair degree of accuracy. Russia does not have tactical stand-off munitions like the SDB or AASM or the JASSM tactical cruise missile. Such weapons are in development and have been shown at MAKS-2015, but they will not be in service for years. On the other hand, perhaps there is a silver lining in this, because Russia is not over-reliant on satellite navigation systems to the same extent as NATO which might well experience a shock once it tries to use such weapons against opponents more sophisticated than the Taliban.

The maturity of some of the most modern aerial systems which entered service only very recently. The Su-30SM, Su-35S and Su-34 do appear to have at least minimum operational capabilities, as their performance in Syria did not give reason to doubt their performance. At the same time, the conflict did not push them to the edge of their performance, as most of the missions were performed equally well but much older though upgraded Su-24 bombers. Russian aircraft in Syria did not include the Mi-28N or Ka-52 attack helicopters, which raises questions about the degree of their operational maturity. However, nothing suggests these aircraft are failures in the same sense as the F-35, for example.

Everything suggests that the Russian VKS will not rest on their laurels but instead will continue to build on their strengths and eliminate weaknesses, so that it will be an even more capable force in the next conflict it has to fight.

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/

“Canada’s nuclear industry is a strategic asset for the country. It is a key driver of innovation; a leader in international collaboration; an enabler of Canada’s contributions to global safety, security, and non-proliferation objectives; and one of Canada’s largest contributors to its decarbonized grid and clean energy goals.” -Canadian Parliamentary Secretary Kim Rudd, February 25, 2016 (emphasis added) [1]

“Our (Canada’s) problem is the production for export to the United States of oil and natural gas. And that is the biggest source of our emissions. What I’m concerned about is this continental deal is going to lock Canada into being diggers of carbon fuels forever and that we can’t get a handle on our own emissions.” -Gordon Laxer (from this week’s program) 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (58:59)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format) 

Canada’s former Conservative Government had been quite blunt about its determination to secure economic prosperity for the country through a ravenous exploitation of its natural resources, particularly the Alberta oil sands. Prime Minister Stephen Harper notably ran afoul of Indigenous and environmental leaders in his pursuit of that resource wealth.[2] [3]

Enter the Trudeau Liberals. Since rising to power in last October’s general election they have been extremely vocal in their determination to distinguish their approach to governance from that of their predecessors, particularly when it comes to the establishment of pipelines to bring the bounty of Alberta’s resource wealth to market abroad. [4][5]

The Trudeau government was fully engaged in the recent Climate talks in Paris. Trudeau resists speaking in disparaging terms about critics of carbon-intensive industries, like oil sands projects and pipelines. Trudeau advances a determination to fully consult with First Nations, scientists and the broader public to ensure such endeavours have “social license.” [6]

Some might argue however that while the tome of the new government may be friendlier and less harsh, the overall objectives have remained virtually identical. For example, Trudeau did not criticize the Harper for pushing hard on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. He criticized the former Prime Minister, essentially, for not doing a better sales job! [7]

On February 12, Trudeau’s Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr met with his counterparts in the United States and Mexico to forge a memorandum of understanding on a collaboration agreement on climate change and energy. [8]

And recently, on March 3, Trudeau met with Canada’s Premiers and Territorial leaders to hammer out a new framework for meeting Canada’s commitments on Climate Change, agreed to at the last UN Climate summit in Paris. [9]

Do these and other meetings signal a profound change of direction for the government’s stewardship of the country’s economy and environment? Or is the generational language a smoke-screen for a return to more plunder in service of corporate elites at home and abroad?

This week’s Global Research News Hour explores these questions with two guests.

Candyce Paul is a previous guest. She is has been a member of English River First Nation for about thirty years and is active with the Committee for Future Generations, a Saskatchewan-based anti-nuclear group. In the first half hour of the show she outlines the incredible clout of the nuclear industry in Canada and especially in her province, as well as the environmental racism it seems to foster. She also addresses the question of whether nuclear energy is being embraced as a strategy for climate action.

 Gordon Laxer is a political economist and the former head and founding director of the Parkland Institute based at the University of Alberta where he is Professor Emeritus. He is widely published in newspapers and magazines and the author of several books including Open for Business: The Roots of Foreign Ownership in Canada (Oxford University Press), and his most recent After the Sands: Energy and Ecological Security for Canadians (Douglas & Mcintyre.) Professor Laxer joins us in the second half hour to examine the myths surrounding Canada’s energy and economic dependance on fossil fuels, and how ‘continental security pacts’ may actually threaten the national interest. 

 LISTEN TO THE SHOW

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://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1037129&tp=970
2. Jeff Rubin (2015); “The Carbon Bubble:What Happens When It Bursts” pg 45-48, Random House of Canada, Ltd
3. http://www.cbj.ca/open_forum_with_prime_minister_stephen_harper_building_upon_our_vast_untapped_natural_resources/
4. http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/10/24/news/trudeau-takes-more-inclusive-approach-harper-climate-change-summit
5. http://globalnews.ca/video/2498677/trudeau-on-pipelines-that-approach-for-ten-years-failed-alberta
6. http://globalnews.ca/news/2121279/trudeau-wants-more-public-support-before-backing-energy-east-pipeline/
7. Steven Chase and Paul Koring (Nov. 7, 2015), “Liberals plan ‘fresh start’ on energy after rejection of Keystone pipeline”, Globe and Mail; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-disappointed-by-keystone-rejection-but-points-to-fresh-start/article27149544/
8. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/international/nacei/18102
9. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-ministers-premiers-trudeau-1.3474380

.  

Originally published in July 2013

This week’s deployment of Blackhawk helicopters in Chicago is only the latest in a series of “urban warfare training” exercises that have become a familiar feature of American life.

As elsewhere, this exercise was sprung unannounced on a startled civilian population. Conducted in secrecy, apparently with the collusion of local police agencies and elected officials, Democrats and Republicans alike, the ostensible purpose of these exercises is to give US troops experience in what Pentagon doctrine refers to as “Military Operations on Urban Terrain.”

Such operations are unquestionably of central importance to the US military. Over the past decade, its primary mission, as evidenced in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been the invasion and occupation of relatively powerless countries and the subjugation of their resisting populations, often in house-to-house fighting in urban centers.

The Army operates a 1,000 acre Urban Training Center in south-central Indiana that boasts over 1,500 “training structures” designed to simulate houses, schools, hospitals and factories. The center’s web site states that it “can be tailored to replicate both foreign and domestic scenarios.”

What does flying Blackhawks low over Chicago apartment buildings or rolling armored military convoys through the streets of St. Louis accomplish that cannot be achieved through the sprawling training center’s simulations? Last year alone, there were at least seven such exercises, including in Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Tampa, St. Louis, Minneapolis and Creeds, Virginia.

The most obvious answer is that these exercises accustom troops to operating in US cities, while desensitizing the American people to the domestic deployment of US military might.

Preparations for such deployments are already far advanced. Over the past decade, under the pretext of prosecuting a “global war on terror,” Washington has enacted a raft of repressive legislation and created a vast new bureaucracy of state control under the Department of Homeland Security. Under the Obama administration, the White House has claimed the power to throw enemies of the state into indefinite military detention or even assassinate them on US soil by means of drone strikes, while radically expanding electronic spying on the American population.

Part of this process has been the ceaseless growth of the power of the US military and its increasing intervention into domestic affairs. In 2002, the creation of the US Northern Command for the first time dedicated a military command to operations within the US itself.

Just last May, the Pentagon announced the implementation of new rules of engagement for US military forces operating on American soil to provide “support” to “civilian law enforcement authorities, including responses to civil disturbances.”

The document declares sweeping and unprecedented military powers under a section entitled “Emergency Authority.” It asserts the authority of a “federal military commander” in “extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.” In other words, the Pentagon brass claims the unilateral authority to impose martial law.

These powers are not being asserted for the purpose of defending the US population against terrorism or to counter some hypothetical emergency. The US military command is quite conscious of where the danger lies.

In a recent article, a senior instructor at the Fort Leavenworth Command and General Staff College and former director of the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies laid out a telling scenario for a situation in which the military could intervene.

“The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated. After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief. The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade. By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises. Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits …”

In other words, the Pentagon sees these conditions—which differ little from what exists in the US today—producing social upheavals that can be quelled only by means of military force.

What is being upended, behind the scenes and with virtually no media coverage, much less public debate, are constitutional principles dating back centuries that bar the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. In the Declaration of Independence itself, the indictment justifying revolution against King George included the charge that he had “affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Side by side with the rising domestic power of the military, the supposedly civilian police have been militarized. An article published by the Wall Street Journal last weekend entitled “The Rise of the Warrior Cop” graphically described this process:

“Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the US scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”

The article describes the vast proliferation of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) units to virtually every town in America, fueled by some $35 billion in grants from the Department of Homeland Security, “with much of the money going to purchase military gear such as armored personnel carriers.”

This armed force was on full display in April when what amounted to a state of siege was imposed on the city of Boston, ostensibly to capture one teenage suspect. The entire population of a major American city was locked in their homes as combat-equipped police, virtually indistinguishable from troops, occupied the streets and conducted warrantless house-to-house searches.

Underlying this unprecedented militarization of US society are two parallel processes. The immense widening of the social chasm separating the billionaires and multi-millionaires who control economic and political life from American working people, the great majority of the population, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and requires other forms of rule. At the same time, the turn to militarism as the principal instrument of US foreign policy has vastly increased the power of the military within the US state apparatus.

Both America’s ruling oligarchy and the Pentagon command recognize that profound social polarization and deepening economic crisis must give rise to social upheavals. They are preparing accordingly.

Former Detroit Mayor Dave Bing warned local corporate leaders that the city could be on the verge of an urban rebellion.

Speaking at the Detroit Chamber of Commerce policy conference held at the Motor City Casino downtown, Bing said that despite the rhetoric of an economic resurgence, the majority African American population was being left out of key decision making roles.

Bing said conditions were such that the city was just “one incident” away from an explosion similar to events in Ferguson, Missouri or what happened in Detroit in July 1967. The Detroit Rebellion nearly five decades ago was the largest of such outbreaks in the history of the United States.

“As much as we say or think we are being inclusive, the reality is we are not,” said Bing. “There is an undercurrent of frustration and anger that could lead to a negative outcome.” (Deadline Detroit, Feb. 25)

The former Piston’s basketball star, corporate spokesperson and businessman during the 1960s through the present, Bing noted that he had spent several months talking with African-American businesses, students and others in the city. He said many people feel “left out” of the so-called revival of Detroit.

“African-American economic empowerment and neighborhood development must be an essential part of Detroit’s resurgence. Diversity is about counting people. Inclusion is about making people count,” he emphasized.

During the mayoral tenure of Dave Bing the general perception among many people in Detroit was that he was preparing the city for emergency management and restructuring, which occurred under his leadership from 2009-2013. Bing never provided any serious opposition to the imposition of emergency management by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and the forcing of the city into bankruptcy during 2013-2014, the largest in U.S. municipal history.

Bing’s legacy has been one closely allied with the automotive industry serving as a spokesman for Buick during the late 1960s when the African American liberation struggle was a high level. This was a period when many professional athletes identified with and joined demonstrations against racism and national oppression.

Obviously Bing is echoing certain sections of the ruling class in Detroit who realize that conditions are worsening for the African American people. Growing militancy among the masses has been illustrated through protests against the engineers of emergency management and bankruptcy at three public events in recent months.

Two gala affairs honoring Federal Judge Stephen Rhodes, who presided over the bankruptcy, the Jones Day law firm, which represented the Snyder administration’s re-structuring plan in court, and former emergency manager Kevyn Orr, at the Detroit Institute of Arts, saw residents blocking parking lots and confronting guests. A public forum at Wayne State University (WSU) in late 2015 was cancelled due to disruptions by people in the audience who denounced Snyder and Orr.

At WSU, corporate-oriented Mayor Mike Duggan refused to walk onto to the stage amid the demonstration. Duggan is the first white mayor in the city since 1973.

Bing Attacked by Duggan Administration

These statements by Bing were condemned by police chief James Craig who said the former mayor’s comments are not true. Craig often says that street crime is down, yet reports abound related to corruption in the Detroit Land Bank Authority known for its no-bid contracts and abusive administrators.

“To make a statement that suggests we are one incident away from Ferguson, Mayor Bing, where have you been?” said Craig. “Have you not watched the transition? I get that it didn’t happen on your watch, but it’s happening now.” (WXYZ, Feb. 26)

Other Duggan appointees joined the chorus against Bing touting their dialogue with African American business owners and residents of the city. The administration of Duggan is known for its intolerance of critical comments about the social situation in Detroit.

Detroit still suffers from widespread poverty, unemployment and home foreclosures. Public transportation is poor and large swaths of the city remain dark where street lights do not work.

Mike Duggan delivered his “State of the City” address on Feb. 23 at Second Ebenezer Church on the city’s eastside that has been devastated through job losses and residential flight fostered by the role of the banks and corporations. The speech was met by at least four disruptions from the audience who chanted him down.

Demonstrators gathered outside the entrance of the Church carrying a banner which said: “Duggan=Black Death.” When opponents of the Duggan administration attempted to set up a picket line in front of the church doors they were told by police that they had to move to the sidewalk outside because it was “private property.”

Some demonstrators challenged this notion since the “State of the City Address” is a public event featuring elected officials. Detroit and corporate interests were sued in 2014 for turning away protesters at a public area downtown.

The City of Detroit in response settled the suit and passed a new ordinance ostensibly designed to protect “free speech.” Several Duggan opponents feel that the police action on Feb. 23 violated the law.

Anger Mounts Opposing False Narrative

Recent demonstrations against the ruling class agents of the city have gained the attention of at least a fraction within the power structure. Bing’s warning cannot be viewed within a political vacuum.

Citywide elections are scheduled for 2017 and the Duggan administration along with City Council has almost nothing to show for its efforts over the last three years.

Most neighborhood and small business districts in the city remain devastated. Approximately 50,000 homes are facing tax foreclosures after the March 31 deadline.

A Detroit News study during 2015 documented that the banks were responsible for the tens of thousands of abandoned homes and apartments in the city. Many of the report’s findings reflect what the Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shut-offs has said since 2008.

Successive city and state administrations have failed to stand up to the tyranny of the banks and corporations who continue to loot the municipality of Detroit and Michigan as a whole.

Gov. Snyder has come under fire for his continued emergency management of the Detroit Public Schools. Teachers have engaged in “sick-outs” and other protests against the deplorable conditions prevailing in the schools.

Darnell Earley, the DPS emergency manager appointed by Snyder, stepped down on February 29. Nonetheless, retired Federal Judge Stephen Rhodes, who presided over the bankruptcy theft of retiree pensions, healthcare programs, public assets and massive water shut-offs, has been appointed by Snyder as the new emergency manager over the DPS.

This appointment exposes the fact that Snyder and his backers are committed to maintaining corporate control over the DPS and all other aspects of public life in the city. Efforts by the state-controlled school system to sanction teachers for their protest actions have failed so far within the courts.

Duggan and his allies are proposing a new scheme of control and disempowerment over the DPS through what they call a Detroit Education Commission (DEC). This plan would continue the denial of the right to vote for an empowered school board rendered impotent by the state.

These developments if continued could very well lead to a mass rebellion. Police in the city appear unprepared to address such a possibility considering the broad anger and discontent among the city’s nearly 700,000 residents.

GR Editor’s Note

The purpose of this event featuring Tom Bower, David Aaronovitch and a panel of so-called expert witnesses is unclear.

Is it intended to reveal the war crimes committed by Tony Blair?

Will it focus on the lies and fabrications surrounding the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq?

The evidence is overwhelming: Tony Blair is Britain’s most “outstanding” war criminal.

I doubt that this event will focus on Tony Blair’s record of crimes against humanity. In the spirit of a British style “Debate”, the pros and cons will be put forward, the positive and negative political contributions of Tony Blair will be presented. 

Tom Bower is outnumbered. The panel of so-called “expert witnesses” is in large part composed of cronies and apologists of  Tony Blair. For them war crimes are “collateral damage”.

The main issues will be avoided. The outcome of this one sided “Debate” — which will be summarized on Britain’s tabloids on Tuesday morning– will no doubt seek to be “balanced”:

A “good” and outstanding Prime minister, occasionally involved in fraudulent behaviour, “made mistakes”.

The issue, however, is not only Tony Blair. It’s all the people within Britain’s establishment who over the years actively collaborated in planning and implementing war in the Middle East.

With regard to Iraq, these “mistakes” resulted in millions of deaths and the destruction of an entire country. That is the unspoken truth, which will not be mentioned by the British media.

Blair will not be on trial for his war crimes under Nuremberg, he is “on trial” for his “political errors”.  

This is not a balanced debate between Tom Bower and David Aaronovitch. 

Tom Bower is outnumbered. The panel of so-called “expert witnesses” is in large part composed of cronies and apologists of  Tony Blair. For them war crimes are “collateral damage”. The main issues will be avoided. 

Where are the witnesses of war crimes, –e.g. the children of Iraq, those who were tortured, the surviving families of more than a million Iraqis killed. Where are the human rights lawyers? The anti-war activists.  

While the Tony Blair on Trial Debate was hardly publicized, the organizers have announced that the event is sold out. You can however join a waiting list by giving your name and email.

“As they slug it out, Bower and Aaronovitch will call upon their specially chosen expert witnesses to bolster their case.

Join us on March 7th, hear the arguments and cast your vote.”

Is the event being used to whitewash the criminal record of  former Prime minister Tony Blair?

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 5, 2016

*     *     *

Tony Blair on Trial

with Tom Bower and David Aaronovitch

MONDAY 7 MARCH 2016, 7PM | EMMANUEL CENTRE, LONDON, UK

intelligencesquared.com

When Tony Blair became prime minister in May 1997, he had a landslide majority, an approval rating of 93 per cent, and he went on to become Labour’s longest-serving premier.

At his last PMQs he got a standing ovation in the chamber of the House of Commons. How things have changed. Nowadays all we hear about is the accusations of lies, hubris and money-making business deals.

But is this disillusionment justified? To assess the record of this extraordinary politician, Intelligence Squared are staging Tony Blair on Trial. Levelling the charges against him will be Tom Bower, the investigative journalist who is about to publish his most explosive book yet: Broken Vows: Tony Blair and the Tragedy of Power.

Bower will admit that he shared the hope and excitement that millions felt when Blair took office promising a New Labour programme of modernisation and reform. But that general optimism was swept away by the controversy over the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and the ‘dodgy’ dossiers about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The spin didn’t stop there, Bower will argue. Blair’s claims to have improved Britain’s schools, hospitals and welfare services will all come under his forensic spotlight. As for Blair’s record since leaving office, how is it, he will ask, that the man who risked his government to destroy Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein has earned a fortune advising leaders of highly dubious regimes?

All this is a travesty, according to David Aaronovitch, award-winning columnist on the Times, who will be defending Tony Blair in our event. The problem, as Aaronovitch sees it, is that the political classes hate Blair. The Left have never forgiven him for proving them wrong and the Right have never forgiven him for defeating them. But in the country at large, Blair’s legacy is overwhelmingly impressive. Take education. Teaching standards were raised, and flagship programmes such as the academies and Teach First, which fast-tracks bright graduates into London’s toughest schools, were instigated and later embraced by the Coalition. Childcare was provided for millions of working parents for the first time. The same thing happened on health. Without Blair’s NHS reforms it is hard to know how the system would have coped.

The minimum wage, equal rights for gay people, a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, a London mayor – many of these initiatives were controversial when first proposed but are now part of the political consensus. As for military intervention, Aaronovitch will point to the success stories of Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and argue that the current crisis in the Middle East is more the result of the West’s refusal to act than any failure of Blair’s.

As Labour’s warring tribes – the Blairites and Corbynites – threaten to tear the party apart, there could be no better time to examine the legacy of the man who reinvented Labour and triumphed in three general elections, but who is now one of this country’s most controversial figures.

As they slug it out, Bower and Aaronovitch will call upon their specially chosen expert witnesses to bolster their case.

Join us on March 7th, hear the arguments and cast your vote.

Image: Work is a derivative of “Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister (1997-2007)” by Chatham House, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Speakers

David Aaronovitch

Columnist on the Times, author and broadcaster. His books include Voodoo Histories: the role of Conspiracy Theory in Modern History and most recently his memoir Party Animals: My Family and Other Communists.

Tom Bower

One of Britain’s leading investigative journalists known for his unflinching biographies of Robert Maxwell, Mohamed Fayed, Gordon Brown, Richard Branson and Conrad Black. His latest book, just published, is Broken Vows: Tony Blair and the Tragedy of Power.

Expert witnesses  

Professor Margaret Brown

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics Education at King’s College London.

 

Michael Clarke

Director General of the Royal United Services Institute from 2007-2015. He has been a specialist adviser to the House of Commons Defence Committee since 1997.

 

Matthew Taylor

Chief executive of the RSA and a Downing Street adviser to Tony Blair from 2003 to 2006. He is a regular public speaker on topics including public service reform, social trends and education policy.  ANOTHER CRONY

Chair

Nick Robinson

Presenter on Radio 4’s Today programme and former BBC political editor.

The Israeli authorities demolished around 97 homes and 86 facilities in the West Bank in February under the pretext of “illegal construction”, according to a statistical report released Thursday by the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ).

The Palestinian institute also said that demolition orders and orders to stop construction were issued to a further 139 houses and facilities.

An estimated 653 dunums of Palestinian land in various parts of the West Bank is also facing confiscation orders.

“The occupation has used the demolition policy as a way to put pressure on the Palestinians so to empty the region classified as Area C in the West Bank,” adding that the demolitions are part of a policy of “collective punishment”. [File photo]

In an interview with Quds Press, Doughlas stressed that the demolitions aim to displace Palestinians in order to “bring the settlers on the ruins of the Palestinians’ homes”.

“The occupation has used the demolition policy as a way to put pressure on the Palestinians so to empty the region classified as Area C in the West Bank,” adding that the demolitions are part of a policy of “collective punishment”.

Defense for Children International (DCI), Palestine Branch, has reported that Israeli soldiers have killed 41 children in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, since the current uprising began in Palestine, on October 1, 2015. Sixteen of the slain children were killed this year. The IMEMC added the name of the child who was killed, along with her mother, in Gaza.

DCI said that, on February 5th of this year, soldiers killed Haitham Sa’da, aged 14, from Halhoul town. in the southern West Bank district of Hebron, while kidnapping his cousin, Wajdi Sa’ada. Also 14, and chased their friend, who was later taken prisoner.

Wajdi told DCI that he and Haitham, along with their friends, were walking near a bypass road used mainly by Israeli soldiers and settlers, before some soldiers hiding in the area opened fire on them. Haitham was killed after suffering gunshot wounds in his upper body, while Wajdi was taken prisoner.

“We never hurled stones on them, never attacked them, but a soldier jumped and punched me in my face. I fell down, and they ordered me to remove my shirt,” he said. “I was looking at Haitham; he was motionless, looked dead, and then the soldiers cuffed him, and left the area.”

DCI said Haitham was shot with a live round which entered his back, severing his spine and puncturing his lung, and exited through his mouth, and that the soldiers then cuffed and blindfolded Wajdi and took him to a nearby military outpost in Karmie Tzur colony, where he was forced to stand in the cold for more than 90 minutes.

The soldiers held the child until midnight and, then, started interrogating him, without any legal representation or even the presence of a family member.

“They had an interpreter; the interrogator asked me about what I was doing in that area,” Wajdi told DCI. “He then held me by my head and pushed it against a wall before he slapped me, pushed me, and left the room.”

“30 minutes later, he started threatening me, told me he would keep hitting me, place me in a cell for a very long time, and that I would be sentenced to a high term if I did not confess.” He added, “I never said a word, he made me watch a video recording on his computer, and the three of us were there on tape, but nothing in it implicated us of anything, including throwing stones.”

DCI said the interrogator tried to force Wajdi to say that he carried a Molotov cocktail, but he rejected their claims and demands. The interrogator then started shouting and banging his hand on the table, in an attempt to scare the child into making a false confession.

“I told them I did not carry anything; my hands were empty,” the child said. “Then, the interrogators forced me to sign some papers in Hebrew; I signed, but I never knew what they said.”

The next day, Wajdi was cuffed, chained and blindfolded; the soldiers forced him to walk in front of them while shouting and cursing at him, and then transferred him to the Ofer prison. He is now awaiting trial.

DCI also said that the Israeli army implements “shoot to kill” policies, reaching very dangerous levels of extrajudicial murder.

“Under International Law, the excessive use of force is only used against imminent danger, deadly situations, a serious injury or to prevent a serious crime that would likely lead to death or serious harm,” DCI stated. “The UN requires exerting all efforts to avoid the usage of firearms, especially against children.”

Another case DCI has been working on is that of Mahmoud Sha’lan, aged 16, from Deir Dibwan town, north of Ramallah, after soldiers killed him on February 26, near Beit EI settlement.

An eyewitness told DCI that he was waiting for the soldiers to allow him, and at least five other drivers in their cars, to pass through the Beit El roadblock. He said Sha’lan then started walking towards the roadblock, carrying nothing in his hands.

“We heard three gunshots when Sha’lan went behind a concrete room with one of the soldiers,” he said. “We then decided to turn around and leave, but that is when I saw the child laying on the ground, wounded. Then, a soldier fired two more rounds on him.”

Medical sources at the Palestine Medical Center told DCI that Sha’lan was shot with five live rounds; three in his chest and two in his arm.

DCI reiterated that the occupying force, under International Humanitarian Law, must provide protection to the people it occupies, must protect the children, and is obliged to conduct serious investigations into all crimes committed against those civilians.

“But, this rarely happened; since October 1, Israel never investigated any of the fatal shooting incidents against children,” DCI added. Israeli authorities even rejected demands from the victims’ families to perform autopsies.

Israel is still holding the corpses of two children identified as Masan Manasra and Mo’taz Oweisat.

DCI said that the children killed by Israelis since October 1, 2015, until this day, have been identified as;

1. Abdul-Rahman Obeidallah, 13, from Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem, killed on October 5, 2005.

2. Ishaq Badran, 16, from Kafr Aqab in Jerusalem, killed on October, 10, 2016.

3. Marwan Barbakh, 10, from Khan Younis in southern Gaza, killed on October 10, 2015.

4. Ahmad Sharaka, from the al-Jalazoun refugee camp in Ramallah, killed on October 11, 2015.

5. Mustafa Khatib, 17, from Jabal al-Mokabber in Jerusalem, killed on October 12, 2015.

6. Hasan Mahani (al-Manasra), 15, from Beit Hanina in Jerusalem, killed on October 12, 2015.

7. Tareq Natsha, 16, from Hebron’s Old City, killed on October 17, 2015.

8. Bayan Asaliyya, 16, from Hebron’s Old City, killed on October 17, 2015.

9. Mo’taz ‘Oweisat, 16m from Jabal al-Mokabber in Jerusalem, from Hebron’s Old City, killed on October 17, 2015.

10. Bashar al-Ja’bari, 15, from Hebron, from Hebron’s Old City, killed on October 20, 2015.

11. Ahmad Kamil, 17, from Qabatia in Jenin, killed on October 24, 2015.

12. Dania Ersheid, 17, from Hebron’s Old City, killed on October 25, 2015.

13. Mahmoud Nazzal, from Qabatia in Jenin, killed on October 31, 2015.

14. Ahmad Abu ar-Rob, 16, from Qabatia in Jenin, killed on November 2, 2015.

15. Sadeq Abdul-Aziz Gharbiyya, 16, from Sanour in Jenin, killed on November 10, 2015.

16. Mahmoud Wadi, 17, from Sa’ir in Hebron, killed on November 13, 2015.

17. Ashraf Qatanani, 16, from Askar al-Jadeed refugee camp in Nablus, killed on November 22, 2015.

18. Hadeel Awwad, 14, from Qalandia refugee camp in Jerusalem, killed on November 23, 2015.

19. Ala Hashshash, 16, from Askar al-Jadeed refugee camp in Jerusalem, killed on November 23, 2015.

20. Ibrahim Daoud, 16, from Deir Ghassana in Ramallah, killed on November 25, 2015.

21. Ayman al-‘Abbassi, 17, from Ras Jerusalem, killed on November 29, 2015.

22. Ma’moun al-Khatib, 16, from Doha in Hebron, killed on December 1, 2015.

23. Mustafa Fannoun, from Hebron, killed on December 4, 2015.

24. Abdullah Nasasra, 15, from Beit Forik in Nablus, killed on December 10, 2015.

25. Noureddin Sabaghna, 17, from Qabatia in Jenin, killed on December 27, 2015.

26. Ahmad Kawazba, 17, from Sa’ir in Hebron, killed on January 5, 2016.

27. Ala Kawazba, 17, from Sa’ir in Hebron, killed on January 7, 2016.

28. Khalil Wadi, 15, from Sa’ir in Hebron, killed on January 7, 2016.

29. Adnan al-Mashni, 17, from Hebron, killed on January 12, 2016.

30. Roqayya Abu Eid, 13, from Anata in Jerusalem, killed on January 23, 2016.

31. Hussein Abu Ghosh, 17, from Qalandia in Jerusalem, killed on January 25, 2016.

32. Ahmad Toba, 17, from Kafr Jammal in Tulkarem, killed on February 1, 2016.

33. Ahmad Sa’ada, 14, from Halhoul in Hebron, killed on February 5, 2016.

34. Omar Madhi, 15, from al-‘Arroub refugee camp in Hebron, killed on February 10, 2016.

35. Na’im Safi, 16, from al-‘Obeydiyya in Bethlehem, killed on February 14, 2016.

36. Fuad Waked, 15, from al-‘Arqa in Jenin, killed on February 14, 2016.

37. Nihad Waked, 15, from al-‘Arqa in Jenin, killed on February 14, 2016.

38. Qussai Abu al-Rob, 16, from Qabatia in Jenin, killed on February 21, 2016.

39. Mahmoud Sha’lan, 16, from Deir Dibwan in Ramallah, killed on February 26, 2016.

40. Labeeb Azem, 17, from Qaryout in Nablus, killed on March 2, 2016.

41. Mohammad Zaghlawan, 17, from Qaryout in Nablus, killed on March 2, 2016.

It is worth mentioning that the Israeli army also killed Rahaf Yahya Hassan, 2, and her mother, Nour Rasmie Hassan, 30, who was five months pregnant, after bombarding their home in the Zeitoun neighborhood, in Gaza city, on October 11, 2015.

We condemn the assassination of Berta Cáceres, general coordinator and co-founder of the National Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. Berta was assassinated in La Esperanza, Intibuca after several individuals broke into the house where she was staying and shot and killed her.

An Indigenous Lenca women and community leader, Berta waged a grassroots campaign that successfully pressured the world’s largest dam builder to pull out of the Agua Zarca Dam.  Just last month, COPINH issued an alert noting that repression and violence against the Rio Blanco community, including Berta Cáceres had escalated as they carried out peaceful actions to protect the River Gualcarque against the construction of a hydroelectric dam by the internationally-financed Honduran company DESA. Due to the violence against her she was granted precautionary measures by the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights.

Berta Cáceres was recognized nationally and internationally as an environmentalist who fought for Indigenous rights.  In 2015 she was awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, the highest international recognition for environmental activists. As part of her recognition speech she spoke of the repression she faced, “they follow me, they threaten to kill me and kidnap my family, this is what we face”.

Berta was also instrumental in leading protests against the 2009 coup that overthrew the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Since the coup the human rights situation in Honduras has deteriorated as human rights defenders and social movement leaders are routinely killed and systematically criminalized.

On October 1, 2014, Canada implemented a Free Trade Agreement with Honduras despite opposition from civil society and labour organizations. The deal provided diplomatic and economic backing to an undemocratic government responsible for widespread human rights abuses, political violence that has generated massive inequality.

We call on the government of Canada to condemn the murder, and to call on the Honduran government to support an independent, international investigation into the murder.

ALBA capitulo Canada
Atlantic Regional Solidarity Network
British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation
Bolivarian Circle Louis Riel
Canada-El Salvador Cooperation for Development
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Canadian Union of Public Employees
CoDevelopment Canada
Colombia Action Solidarity Alliance
Comité pour les droits humains en Amérique latine
Common Frontiers
Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Confederation of Canadian Unions
Council of Canadians
Idle No More
Inter Pares
Kairos: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives
Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Network
Latin American Canadian Solidarity Association
Maquila Solidarity Network
Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network
MiningWatch Canada
Mining Injustice Solidarity Network
Movimiento Farabundista
Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Sierra Club Canada Foundation
United Church of Canada
United for Mining Justice
United Steelworkers
Unifor

For more information or to sign on contact: 
Raul Burbano – Common Frontiers, 416 522 8615, [email protected]
Amelia Orellana – CDHAL –  514 257 8710 poste 334, [email protected]

Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres was shot and killed in her home in La Esperanza, Intibuca, Wednesday. While the killers’ ID remains unknown, activists, media observers and the Cáceres family pointed to the increasingly reactionary and violent Honduran government, which has frequently clashed with Cáceres over her high-profile activism against land dispossession and mining, and her defense of indigenous rights.

There was widespread outcry and grief over her death, and the story was covered by major media in the United States. But there was a glaring problem with the coverage: Almost none of it mentioned that the brutal regime that likely killed Cáceres came to power in a 2009 coup d’etat supported by the United States, under President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As Greg Grandin at The Nation explains:

Cáceres was a vocal and brave indigenous leader, an opponent of the 2009 Honduran coup that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of State, made possible. In The Nation, Dana Frank and I covered that coup as it unfolded. Later, as Clinton’s emails were released, others, such as Robert Naiman, Mark Weisbrot and Alex Main, revealed the central role she played in undercutting Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and undercutting the opposition movement demanding his restoration. In so doing, Clinton allied with the worst sectors of Honduran society.

The Honduran military abducted President Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint and flew him out of the country on June 28, 2009. While the coup unfolded before the international community, the United Nations, the EU and the Organization of American States rushed to condemn it. Fifteen House Democrats joined in, sending a letter to the Obama White House insisting that the State Department “fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place and…follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian aid, as required by law.”

This photo of Honduran environmental activist Berta Caceres accompanied The Nation‘s expose of the US role in her death. (image: Goldman Environmental Prize)

But Clinton’s State Department staunchly refused to do so, bucking the international community and implicitly recognizing the military takeover. Emails revealed last year by the State Department show that Clinton knew very well there was a military coup, but rejected cries by the international community to condemn it. As The Intercept’s Lee Fang reported, Clinton attempted to use her lobbyist friend Lanny Davis to open up back channels with Roberto Micheletti, the illegitimate interim ruler installed after the coup, effectively endorsing the new right-wing government that would go on to crack down on Cáceres and others activists.

In her memoirs, Clinton herself discloses she had no intention on restoring the elected President Zelaya to power. “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary Espinosa in Mexico. We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras,” Clinton wrote, “and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

On September 28, State Department officials blocked the OAS from adopting a resolution that would have refused to recognize Honduran elections carried out under the dictatorship—giving the US’s final seal of approval to the military coup that began three months prior.

One wouldn’t know any of this reading US reports of  Cáceres’ death. The coup, and its subsequent purging of environmental, LGBT and indigenous activists, is treated as an entirely local matter, reduced to the “cycle of violence” cliche often employed with destructive governments the United States helped usher into power.

The New York Times mentioned that the Honduran coup put activists like Caceres in danger–but didn’t mention that the US had backed the coup.

The Washington Post, Guardian, NBC, CNN and NPR didn’t mention the 2009 coup that brought to power Cáceres’ likely murderers, let alone the US’s tacit involvement in the coup. TheNew York Times did briefly mention it, but omitted US responsibility:

Since a 2009 coup in Honduras, journalists, judges, labor leaders, human rights defenders and environmental activists have been assassinated in targeted killings, with their murders often going unsolved. Twelve environmental defenders were killed in Honduras in 2014, according to research by Global Witness, which makes it the most dangerous country in the world, relative to its size, for activists protecting forests and rivers.

The Times noted how much more oppressive and difficult life is under the new regime, but made no mention of who helped bring that regime about. Cáceres, of course, wasn’t killed in a vacuum. Her death is in part the result of a deliberate strategy by the United States to prop up a regressive, pro-development, pro-corporate government. That US-based media, reporting on the death of a foreign activist, wouldn’t mention their own government’s role is a glaring omission—and one that follows a distinct pattern of global reporting.

Chaos in other countries is seen as something organic, a product of failed cultures doomed to perpetual violence. It’s usually more complicated than that—especially in a region with a history of US intervention going back more than a century.

The documentation of Washington’s role in the 2009 coup is thorough and unequivocal. Combined with the fact that one of the principal parties responsible for Honduras’ regime change is currently running for president, the international context for the assassination of an environmental activist could hardly be more relevant.

Adam Johnson is an associate editor at AlterNet and writes frequently for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @adamjohnsonnyc.

Andrew Korybko’s latest research on Hybrid Wars.

Building off of the strategies that he described in last year’s book of the same name, Andrew Korybko has conceptualized a new paradigm for understanding international relations and invented an accompanying methodology for testing it. The “Law Of Hybrid War”, the name of his newest series, states that:

The grand objective behind every Hybrid War is to disrupt multipolar transnational connective projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, regional, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state.

Russia’s Eurasian integration objectives and China’s Silk Road projects are the targets of the US’ global Hybrid War strategy, and this accordingly opens up a wide range of geographic battlefields. Andrew examines the Greater Heartland, the Balkans, ASEAN, transoceanic Africa, and Latin America in identifying the vulnerabilities that each of the relevant transit states has to this revolutionary type of asymmetrical warfare.

His unique methodology incorporates the variables of ethnicity, religion, history, administrative boundaries, physical geography, and socio-economic disparity in crafting comprehensive analyses that demonstrate each country’s Hybrid War weaknesses. The objective of the work is to illustrate the means that the US could predictably employ in destabilizing these targeted states, thereby giving decision makers and the public advance notice so that they can be better prepared to deal with certain preplanned scenarios as they arise.

Please visit us to follow the updates of the “Hybrid Wars” series due to be released every Friday starting today.

The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid War is one of the most significant strategic developments that the US has ever spearheaded, and the transitioning of Color Revolutions to Unconventional Wars is expected to dominate the destabilizing trends of the coming decades. Those unaccustomed to approaching geopolitics from the Hybrid War perspective might struggle to understand where the next ones might occur, but it’s actually not that difficult to identify the regions and countries most at risk of falling victim to this new form of aggression. The key to the forecast is in accepting that Hybrid Wars are externally provoked asymmetrical conflicts predicated on sabotaging concrete geo-economic interests, and proceeding from this starting point, it’s relatively easy to pinpoint where they might strike next.

The series begin by explaining the patterns behind Hybrid War and deepening the reader’s comprehension of its strategic contours. Afterwards, we will prove how the previously elaborated framework has indeed been at play during the US’ Wars on Syria and Ukraine, its first two Hybrid War victims. Next part reviews all of the lessons that have been learned thus far and applies them in forecasting the next theaters of Hybrid War and the most vulnerable geopolitical triggers within them. Subsequent additions to the series will thenceforth focus on those regions and convey why they’re so strategically and socio-politically vulnerable to becoming the next victims of the US’ post-modern warfare.

Patterning The Hybrid War

The first thing that one needs to know about Hybrid Wars is that they’re never unleashed against an American ally or anywhere that the US has premier preexisting infrastructural interests. The chaotic processes that are unleashed during the post-modern regime change ploy are impossible to fully control and could potentially engender the same type of geopolitical blowback against the US that Washington is trying to directly or indirectly channel towards its multipolar rivals. Correspondingly, this is why the US won’t ever attempt Hybrid War anywhere that it has interests which are “too big to fail”, although such an assessment is of course contemporaneously relative and could quickly change depending on the geopolitical circumstances. Nevertheless, it remains a general rule of thumb that the US won’t ever intentionally sabotage its own interests unless there’s a scorched-earth benefit in doing so during a theater-wide retreat, in this context conceivably in Saudi Arabia if the US is ever pushed out of the Mideast.

Geostrategic-Economic Determinants:

Before addressing the geo-economic underpinnings of Hybrid War, it’s important to state out that the US also has geostrategic ones as well, such as entrapping Russia in a predetermined quagmire. The “Reverse Brzezinski”, as the author has taken to calling it, is simultaneously applicable to Eastern Europe through Donbass, the Caucasus through Nagorno-Karabakh, and Central Asia through theFergana Valley, and if synchronized through timed provocations, then this triad of traps could prove lethally efficient in permanently ensnaring the Russian bear. This Machiavellian scheme will always remain a risk because it’s premised on an irrefutable geopolitical reality, and the best that Moscow can do is try to preempt the concurrent conflagration of its post-Soviet periphery, or promptly and properly respond to American-provoked crises the moment they emerge. The geostrategic elements of Hybrid War are thus somewhat inexplicable from the geo-economic ones, especially in the case of Russia, but in making the examined pattern more broadly pertinent to other targets such as China and Iran, it’s necessary to omit the “Reverse Brzezinski” stratagem as a prerequisite and instead focus more on the economic motivations that the US has in each instance.

The grand objective behind every Hybrid War is to disrupt multipolar transnational connective projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, regional, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state.

This template can clearly be seen in Syria and Ukraine and is the Law of Hybrid Warfare. The specific tactics and political technologies utilized in each destabilization may differ, but the strategic concept remains true to this basic tenet. Taking this end goal into account, it’s now possible to move from the theoretical into the practical and begin tracing the geographic routes of various projects that the US wants to target. To qualify, the multipolar transnational connective projects being referred to could be either energy-based, institutional, or economic, and the more overlap that there is among these three categories, the more likely it is that a Hybrid War scenario is being planned for a given country.

Socio-Political Structural Vulnerabilities:

Once the US has identified its target, it begins searching for the structural vulnerabilities that it will exploit in the coming Hybrid War. Contextually, these aren’t physical objects to be sabotaged such as power plants and roads (although they too are noted, albeit by different destabilization teams), but socio-political characteristics that are meant to be manipulated in order to attractively emphasize a certain demographic’s “separateness” from the existing national fabric and thus ‘legitimize’ their forthcoming foreign-managed revolt against the authorities. The following are the most common socio-political structural vulnerabilities as they relate to the preparation for Hybrid War, and if each of them can be tied to a specific geographic location, then they become much more likely to be used as galvanizing magnets in the run-up to the Color Revolution and as preliminary territorial demarcations for the Unconventional Warfare aspect afterwards:

* ethnicity

* religion

* history

* administrative boundaries

* socio-economic disparity

* physical geography

The greater the overlap that can be achieved among each of these factors, the stronger the Hybrid War’s potential energy becomes, with each overlapping variable exponentially multiplying the coming campaign’s overall viability and ‘staying power’.

Preconditioning:

Hybrid Wars are always preceded by a period of societal and structural preconditioning. The first type deals with the informational and soft power aspects that maximize key demographics’ acceptance of the oncoming destabilization and guide them into believing that some type of action (or passive acceptance of others’ thereof) is required in order to change the present state of affairs. The second type concerns the various tricks that the US resorts to in order to have the target government unintentionally aggravate the various socio-political differences that have already been identified, with the goal of creating cleavages of identity resentment that are then more susceptible to societal preconditioning and subsequent NGO-directed political organizing (linked in most cases to the Soros Foundation and/or National Endowment for Democracy).

To expand on the tactics of structural preconditioning, the most commonly employed and globally recognized one is sanctions, the implicit goal of which (although not always successful) has always been to “make life more difficult” for the average citizen so that he or she becomes more amenable to the idea of regime change and is thus more easily shepherded into acting upon these externally instilled impulses. Less known, however, are the more oblique, yet presently and almost ubiquitously implemented, methods of achieving this goal, and this surrounds the power that the US has to affect certain budgetary functions of targeted states, namely the amount of revenue that they receive and what precisely they spend it on.

The global slump in energy and overall commodity prices has hit exporting states extraordinarily hard, many of which are disproportionately dependent on such selling such resources in order to satisfy their fiscal ends, and the decrease in revenue almost always leads to eventual cuts in social spending. Parallel with this, some states are facing American-manufactured security threats that they’re forced to urgently respond to, thus necessitating them to unexpectedly budget more money to their defense programs that could have otherwise been invested in social ones. On their own, each of these ‘tracks’ is designed to decrease the government’s social expenditure so as to incubate the medium-term conditions necessary for enhancing the prospects of a Color Revolution, the first stage of Hybrid Warfare. In the event that a state experiences both limited revenue intake and an unexpected need to hike its defense budget, then this would have a compound effect on cutting social services and might even push the Color Revolution timeframe forward from the medium- to short-term, depending on the severity of the resultant domestic crisis and the success that the American-influenced NGOs have in politically organizing the previously examined identity blocs against the government.

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the post-graduate of MGIMO University and author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

Journalists, academics, public figures, human rights activists, even young children criticizing regime policy risk imprisonment on charges ranging from insulting the president to terrorism, espionage or treason.

Turkey imprisons more journalists than any other country. Istanbul-based Zaman and its English language edition, Today’s Zaman, is the nation’s largest circulation broadsheet.

On Friday, Erdogan seized control of its operations, continuing his war on free expression, tolerating no dissent, wanting critical voices silenced – using state prosecutors and rubber-stamp courts to serve his interests.

Press freedom in Turkey sustained another major body blow. New management and staff will replace current personnel. Friday was the last day Zaman and Today’s Zaman could comment freely.

It released a statement, expressing grave concern about what it called “the darkest and gloomiest days in terms of freedom of the press (and) rule of law.”

“Journalists are now frequenting courts, not their newsrooms.” Many are imprisoned for doing their jobs.

“Two TV channels from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, Benguturk TV and İMC TV, have recently been dropped from the state-run communications satellite Turksat” – the same crackdown used against other broadcasters to silence them.

Erdogan ignores constitutional law. Article 26 “safeguards freedom of expression and thought…”

Articles 28 and 30 guarantee freedom of the press, stating:

A printing house and its annexes, duly established as a press enterprise under law, and press equipment shall not be seized, confiscated or barred from operation on the grounds of having been used in a crime.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, binding on Turkey, states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Zaman and Today’s Zaman have been heavily “pressure(d)” by regime authorities “for more than two years,” its now ousted management said – using “accreditation bans, tax inspections, meddling with its advertisers and threats to its readers.”

We have now been threatened with confiscation through the appointment of trustees. We are deeply concerned about all these developments that undermine Turkey’s democratic performance.

We believe the only way out of this nightmarish atmosphere is to return to democracy and the rule of law. We are publishing our concerns to inform the Turkish nation, intellectuals who believe in democracy and the wider world.

Separately, Zaman reported police in riot gear used tear gas and water cannons on a crowd of supporters, forcibly storming the broadsheet’s offices, scuffling with staff inside.

Zaman’s daily editor-in-chief Abdulhamit Bilici called Friday’s state-ordered assault on press freedom “a black stain” on Turkish history.

Zaman’s editor-in-chief Sevgi Akarcesme said “(p)olice did not let us inside our offices in our own newspaper building. This is pure despotism. They physically blocked me, both men & women,” she tweeted.

Staff inside were ordered out. The order came from Istanbul’s Criminal Court of Peace on request from the chief public prosecutor’s office.

It claimed Zaman follows orders from what it called the “Fethullahist Terrorist Organization/Parallel State Structure (FETO/PDY),” allied with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Turkey calls it a terrorist organization.

According to Zaman, “(t)his means that the entire management and the editorial board of Feza Media Group companies will be replaced by the three-member board named by the court.”

Addressing a crowd of supporters, editor-in-chief Akarcesme called Friday a “black day for democracy. Today we are experiencing a shameful day for media freedom in Turkey. Our media institutions are being seized…(T)he Constitution has been suspended.”

Washington remains unconcerned. State Department spokesman admiral John Kirby merely calling Friday’s action “troubling” shows contempt for press freedom – stopping well short of condemnation and demanding reinstatement of Zaman’s staff.

A previous article said since August 2014 elections elevated Erdogan from prime minister to president (formerly a ceremonial role), reign of terror governance followed.

He’s been systematically solidifying his grip on power, despotic rule by any standard, seizing Zaman his latest police state action.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

Our only choice may be between a corrupt, mendacious war criminal and a seemingly unhinged egomaniac.

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but Washington is occupied by neocons.

Seeking world domination, they’re steering the U.S. empire toward endless wars abroad. Back at home, they feed an illusion of freedom, democracy and choice presented by the two-party system.

They may seem like two distinct parties, but make no mistake: The Democratic and Republican Parties function more like a single party that promotes the interests of corporations, special interest groups and foreign governments — all of which profit from more war and human exploitation.

Perhaps nowhere are the similarities more striking than in the past two neocon administrations to occupy the White House.

The Grand Old Party’s George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror,” then gave the world the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, CIA “black sites,” and a drone program, among a host of other ills.

Seizing on the American people’s weariness of military adventurism and interventionism abroad, Barack Obama got himself on the Democratic ticket in 2008, campaigning on a platform of “change” and “hope.”

That change never really came to pass, though. Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, dropped over 23,000 bombs on the Middle East in 2015 alone. Guantanamo remains open and Bush’s drone program across Africa and the Middle East has grown more deadly.

Obama even out-Bushed Dubya by expanding the “War on Terror” to benefit the military-industrial complex. He allowed for the strengthening of extreme right-wing militias and governments, the emboldening of Gulf monarchies and apartheid Israel, and the development of a foreign policy agenda that’s become increasingly aligned with al-Qaida.

Sure, the Iran deal was finally secured under Obama, but the Russian bear also re-emerged under his watch, with the destabilization of Ukraine re-igniting the Cold War and the nuclear arms race.

Here to talk more about the neocon Republicans and Democrats pulling the strings in Washington is Daniel McAdams, director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace, a non-partisan initiative led by former politicians, policy advisers and even former Bush aides who oppose U.S. interventionism and work to educate the public about the neocon takeover of America.*

In this episode of “Behind the Headline,” host and MintPress News Editor-in-Chief Mnar Muhawesh talks to Daniel McAdams, director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace, about how the two-party system fulfills the neocon war agenda and discuss what’s holding third-party candidates back from bringing about real lasting peace.

The crowd that gathered in an airplane hangar in the desert roared with excitement when the man on stage vowed to murder women and children.

It was just another Donald Trump campaign event, and the candidate had affirmed his previously made pledge not only to kill terrorists but to “take out” their family members, too. Outrageous as that might sound, it hardly distinguished Trump from most of his Republican rivals, fiercely competingover who will commit the worst war crimes if elected. All the chilling claims about who will preside over more killings of innocents in distant lands — and the thunderous applause that meets such boasts — could easily be taken as evidence that the megalomaniacal billionaire Republican front-runner, his various opponents, and their legions of supporters, are all crazytown.

Yet Trump’s pledge to murder the civilian relatives of terrorists could be considered quite modest — and, in its bluntness, refreshingly candid — when compared to President Obama’s ongoing policy of loosing drones and U.S. Special Operations forces in the Greater Middle East.  Those policies, the assassinations that go with them, and the “collateral damage” they regularly cause are based on one premise when it comes to the American public: that we will permanently suspend our capacity for grief and empathy when it comes to the dead (and the living) in distant countries.

Classified documents recently leaked to the Intercept by a whistleblower describe the “killing campaign” carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command in Yemen and Somalia. (The U.S. also conducts drone strikes in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya; the leaked documents explain how President Obama has institutionalized the practice of striking outside regions of “active hostilities.”) Intelligence personnel build a case against a terror suspect and then develop what’s termed a “baseball card” — a condensed dossier with a portrait of the individual targeted and the nature of the alleged threat he poses to U.S. interests — that gets sent up the chain of command, eventually landing in the Oval Office.  The president then meets with more than 100 representatives of his national security team, generally on a weekly basis, to determine just which of those cards will be selected picked for death.  (The New York Timeshas vividly described this intimate process of choosing assassination targets.)

Orders then make their way down to drone operators somewhere in the United States, thousands of miles from the individuals slated to be killed, who remotely pilot the aircraft to the location and then pull the trigger. But when those drone operators launch missiles on the other side of the world, the terrifying truth is that the U.S. “is often unsure who will die,” as a New York Times headline put it.

That’s because intel on a target’s precise whereabouts at any given moment can be faulty. And so, as theTimesreported, “most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names.” In 2014, for instance, the human-rights groupReprieve, analyzing what limited data on U.S. drone strikes was available, discovered that in attempts to kill 41 terror figures (not all of whom died), 1,147 people were killed.  The study found that the vast majority of strikes failed to take down the intended victim, and thus numerous strikes were often attempted on a single target. The Guardianreportedthat in attempts to take down 24 men in Pakistan — only six of whom were eventually eliminated in successful drone strikes — the U.S. killed an estimated 142 children.

Trump’s plan merely to murder the relatives of terrorists seems practically tame, by comparison.

Their Grief and Mine 

Apparently you and I are meant to consider all those accidental killings as mere “collateral damage,” or else we’re not meant to consider them at all. We’re supposed to toggle to the “off” position any sentiment of remorse or compassion that we might feel for all the civilians who die thanks to our country’s homicidal approach to keeping us safe.

I admit to a failing here: when I notice such stories, sometimes buried deep in news reports — including the 30 people killed, three of them children, when U.S. airpower “accidentally” hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, last October; or the two women and three childrenblasted to smithereens by U.S. airpower last spring at an Islamic State checkpoint in northern Iraq because the pilots of two A-10 Warthogs attacking the site didn’t realize that civilians were in the vehicles stopped there; or the innumerable similar incidents that have happened with remarkable regularity and which barely make it into American news reports — I find I can’t quite achieve the cold distance necessary to accept our government’s tactics.  And for this I blame (or thank) my father.

To understand why it’s so difficult for me to gloss over the dead, you have to know that on December 1, 2003, a date I will never forget nor fully recover from, I called home from a phone booth on a cobblestone street in Switzerland — where I was backpacking at the time — and learned that my Dad was dead. A heart attack that struck as suddenly as a Hellfire missile.

Standing in that sun-warmed phone booth clutching the receiver with a slick hand, vomit gurgling up at the back of my throat, I pressed my eyes closed and saw my Dad. First, I saw his back as he sat at the broad desk in his home office, his spot of thinning hair revealed. Then, I saw him in his nylon pants and baseball cap, paused at the kitchen door on his way to play paddle tennis. And finally, I saw him as I had the last time we parted, at Boston’s Logan Airport, on a patch of dingy grey carpet, as I kissed his whiskered cheek.

A few days later, after mute weeping won me a seat on a fully booked trans-Atlantic flight, I stood in the wan light of early December and watched the employees of the funeral home as they unloosed the pulleys to lower Dad’s wooden box into the ground. I peered down into that earthen hole, crying and sweating and shivering in the stinging cold, and tried to make sense of the senseless: Why was he dead while the rest of us lived?

And that’s why, when I read about all the innocent civilians we’ve been killing over the years with the airpower that presidential candidate Ted Cruz calls “a blessing,” I tend to think about the people left behind. Those who loved the people we’ve killed. I wonder how they received the news. (“We’ve had a tragedy here,” my Mom told me.) I wonder about the shattering anguish they surely feel at the loss of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children, friends. I wonder what memories come to them when they squeeze their eyes closed in grief. And I wonder if they’ll ever be able to pick up the pieces of their lives and return to some semblance of normalcy in societies that are often shattering around them. (What I don’t wonder about, though, is whether or not they’re more likely to become radicalized — to hate not just our drones but our country and us — because the answer to that is obvious.)

Playing God in the Oval Office

“It’s the worst thing to ever happen to anyone,” actor Liam Neeson recently wrote on Facebook. He wasn’t talking about drone strikes, but about the fundamental experience of loss — of losing a loved one by any means. He was marking five years since his wife’s sudden death. “They say the hardest thing in the world is losing someone you love,” he added. I won’t disagree. After losing her husband, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandbergposted about “the brutal moments when I am overtaken by the void, when the months and years stretch out in front of me, endless and empty.” After her husband’s sudden death, author Joan Didion described grief as a “relentless succession of moments during which we will confront the experience of meaninglessness itself.”

That squares with the description offered by a man in Yemen who had much of his extended family blown away by an American drone at his wedding. “I felt myself going deeper and deeper into darkness,” the man later told a reporter. The drone arrived just after the wedding party had climbed into vehicles strewn with ribbons to escort the bride to her groom’s hometown. Everyone’s belly was full of lamb and it was dusk. It was quiet. Then the sky opened, and four missiles rained down on the procession, killing 12.

U.S. airpower has hit a bunch of other weddings, too. And funerals. Andclinics. And an unknown and unknowable number of family homes. The CIA’s drone assassination campaign in the tribal regions of Pakistan even led a group of American and Pakistani artists to install an enormous portrait of a child on the ground in a frequently targeted region of that country. The artists wanted drone operators to see the face of one of the young people they might be targeting, instead of the tiny infrared figures on their computer consoles that they colloquially refer to as “bugsplats.” It’s an exhortation to them not to kill someone else’s beloved.

Once in a while a drone operator comes forward to reveal the emotional and psychic burden of passing 12-hour shifts in a windowless bunker on an Air Force base, killing by keystroke for a living. One serviceman’s six years on the job began when he was 21 years old and included a moment when heglimpsed a tiny figure dart around the side of a house in Afghanistan that was the target of a missile already on its way. In terror, he demanded of his co-pilot, “Did that look like a child to you?” Feverishly, he began tapping messages to ask the mission’s remote observer — an intelligence staffer at another location — if there was a child present. He’ll never know the answer. Moments later, the missile struck the house, leveling it. That particular drone operator has since left the military. After his resignation, he spent a bitterly cold winter in his home state of Montana getting blackout drunk and sleeping in a public playground in his government-issued sleeping bag.

Someone else has, of course, taken his seat at that console and continues to receive kill orders from above.

Meanwhile Donald Trump and most of the other Republican candidates have been competing over who can most successfully obliterate combatants as well as civilians.  (Ted Cruz’s comment about carpet-bombing ISIS until we find out “if sand can glow in the dark” has practically become a catchphrase.)  But it’s not just the Republicans. Every single major candidate from both parties has plans to maintain some version of Washington’s increasingly far-flung drone campaigns. In other words, a program that originated under President George W. Bush as a crucial part of his “global war on terror,” and that was further institutionalized and ramped up under President Obama, will soon be bequeathed to a new president-elect.

When you think about it that way, election 2016 isn’t so much a vote to select the leader of the planet’s last superpower as it is a tournament to decide who will next step into the Oval Office and have the chance to play god.

Who will get your support as the best candidate to continue killing the loved ones of others?

Go to the polls, America.

Mattea Kramer is a TomDispatch regular who writes on a wide range of topics, from military policy to love and loss. She blogs at This Life After Loss. Follow her on Twitter.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

It might be torture. It might be immigration. It might be race. These issues only matter in the context of tactics and positioning for Donald Trump. To get elected, the man will literally say anything. It is a tactic that just might work.

He has no genuine, developed sense of the awareness about the topics he discusses. The reality television show reduces everything to just that: a show that sucks cerebral capacity as it turns the viewer into vegetable matter. The show is all consuming, and similarly reductionist.

Former Massachusetts governor and failed presidential contender Mitt Romney found that out all too clearly when he decided to level a salvo at Trump this week, claiming him to lack “the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader”.[1] Trump’s bitchy response was that Romney had “chickened out”. Besides, he had “made so much more money than Mitt.”

Shifting positions is something Trump does and continues to do. This tendency seems to surprise those news outlets who have taken such an interest in The Donald. “His position [on torture],” comes a CNN headline, “seems to have shifted dramatically in less than 24 hours.”

The initial position, assuming that Trump ever had a formulated one, was outlined on Thursday. It was true Fox News magic, indifferent to distinctions between fact and fiction. “We should go for waterboarding,” he insisted, “and we should go tougher than waterboarding.” It was perfectly legitimate, he argued, given what “those animals, over in the Middle East” were capable of.

Gone was the hypocritical mask of the decent American soldier or CIA operative who believe that consulting a book of regulations somehow heals your ghastly mission – here was a potential commander-in-chief willing to embrace what had been decried yet employed simultaneously. True, cruel Realpolitik.

Trump, proving to be on a blistering roll, decided to go one step further. Reality television – again, a true Fox special – kicked in, with Trump suggesting that families of terrorists be targeted for their associations. “When a family flies into the World Trade Centre, a man flies into the World Trade Centre and his family gets sent back to where they were going… They knew what was happening.”[2]

That gesture, purely for reasons of grabbing the headlines, worked.  Individuals expressed predictable outrage. Free Trump coverage poured in, much of it coming from the rattled GOP itself.

An open letter signed by various GOP national security experts (count among them the pro-imperial Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan and Michael Chertoff) was Trump’s singular achievement. It has all the problems you would expect from a rather delusional perspective of power that has lost sight of itself. The only thing all the names on the list have in common is a united “opposition to a Donald Trump presidency,” which constitutes something like manna for the campaign.

The authors proceed to swallow whole the Trump technique. He is berated for being “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle” on his vision of “American influence and power in the world”. They particularly tut tut him on trade. “His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars in a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.” Then there is the issue of torture. “His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.”[3]

In what must amount to a good deal of disingenuousness, the authors go on to suggest that Trump’s “expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States.”

So epileptically terrifying has Trump become for those on the Republican side that the very reality of US executive power wielded by the likes of George W. Bush has somehow eluded them. The hyper surveillance state, the historical context of rendition and extensive use of black sites – all these suddenly become things that never happened under any previous president. Amnesia has truly taken hold.

In rather clever fashion, Trump has actually made the GOP his own free publicity machine, harnessing criticism to boost his coverage, however infamous. His lack of predictability entails a slipperiness that his detractors cannot pin down. Sharp insight (since when was the US relationship with its allies not one of racketeering rather than genuine security?) is mixed with buffoonish stumbling.

Nothing in this is particularly stunning, and simply goes to show that Trump will play the nice card if he needs to, hoping to net those voters that might otherwise fall to Sanders or Clinton or for that matter anybody else. It is the show that matters, not any facts it necessarily entails.

In a statement released on Friday, he claimed an understanding that the United States “is bound by laws and treaties”. Nor would he “order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.” This was touted as a reversal.

The importance here lies in the issue who is giving the advice. The various torture memoranda spun by the likes of John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and their legal associates for the Bush administration conformed to a certain need. If the emergency demands it, the advisors will duly follow, however abusive that outcome. The result is enhanced interrogation and the inapplicability of the Geneva Conventions in certain spurious cases. The problem in that case will not be Trump but the torture complex that continues to lurk with unhealthy disdain in the corridors of US power, yet another by-product of empire.

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

Notes

[1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/999a7f499006448a9068f19130050428/gop-sees-options-stopping-trump-not-good-ones

[2] http://time.com/4247397/donald-trump-waterboarding-torture/

[3] http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

While the Western brain-conditioning machine wants you to believe that it is actually the North that is successfully indoctrinating its citizens, those of us who have worked on both sides of the border (or on both sides of the “DMZ”) know much better. And if they don’t tell, they lie!

From the “art work” on both sides of the barbed wire fences, to the institutions designated to brainwash millions of common people, South Korea is leading; its regime’s propaganda (and the propaganda of its Western handlers) is much more experienced, determined, aggressive and therefore, effective.

*

The curator of the “DMZ STORY, Berlin East Side Gallery & DMZ Story Exhibition” sounded more like an interrogator than an artist.

When I visited this huge German–South Korean anti-Communist propaganda “project” in Seoul, I mentioned at the entrance that I would be very happy to write about the exhibition. Then, I was not allowed to simply enter, I was forced to meet the curator.

And the curator sounded and behaved like an Asian apparatchik serving the West and its ideology (there are plenty of them in Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia and of course in South Korea). He began our encounter with the line of questioning so common in Seoul:

Where do you come from? What are you doing here?

Then things got a bit arrogant and patronizing:

What do you know about Korea? Is this your first time here?

“I know both sides fairly well”, I replied, still relatively politely.

Both sides? How could you know both sides? You visited North Korea?

“Yes”, I replied. “I was invited by the DPRK government. I travelled as a member of the Ramsey Clark Peace Delegation…”

Instead of showing well-mannered interest, his face turned red and he exploded:

So you were told all those lies! You were shown nonsense, propaganda, fabrications!

By then we were inside the multi-story exhibition venue. It was a truly monstrous place: lowest grade of propaganda kitsch! There were paintings of Brezhnev French-kissing Erich Honecker, as well as some sentimental outpourings about freedom, democracy, and peace… Anti-Communist barks were intertwining with pro-Western, pro-American ‘artwork’. There were images of both the Berlin Wall and Marilyn Monroe, on the same panel.

ROK-German propaganda art

Defeat Communism and get some pop

“Do you ever show mass-slaughter of Korean citizens by the US military?” I wondered.

“Americans never harmed anybody!” he began shouting.

“They are very good people. Maybe there was some unfortunate collateral damage during the war, but they would never harm anyone on purpose.”

His eyes were shining. He hated me with all his essence. It was obvious. And it felt so wonderful to be hated by someone like him!

“I have a good friend, an Australian artist” I resumed our conversation. “His name is George Burchett… His father’s name was Wilfred Burchett… You know, perhaps the greatest English-language journalist of all times, a war correspondent… He worked in your country, during the war. He exposed countless crimes against humanity performed here, by the West. He proved that the Americans were burning numerous Korean civilians alive, in the tunnels, while conducting bacteriological warfare. And that many Western prisoners of war were forcefully disappeared by their own military, when they were, after being exchanged, insisting on telling the truth about how well and humanely they were treated by their North Korean and Chinese captors.”

I gave him my card. He ran to his office in order to Google me, and most likely, to report me. He was fuming. A few minutes later he ran back to the gallery, shouting: “You do not exist!”

He obviously kept misspelling my name. I helped him, I reestablished my existence, and then left the place.

*

The War Museum of Korea, also known as The War Memorial of Korea, is perhaps the single greatest propaganda institution anywhere on earth. It is so outrageous, so grotesque, so vile, and so huge, that only those who see it could believe that something like that could actually exist, scarring our Earth.

War Museum

US strategic B-52 bombers are “decorating” its loans, and so are tanks, helicopters and jet fighters, even some gunboats.

Statues all over the neighborhood are depicting insane looking soldiers, charging towards their invisible enemies – no doubt the fellow Koreans and Asians. The ROK, North America and the West are shamelessly glorified. Everything North Korean, Communist, and Asian seems to be spat on.

There are endless explanatory signs, describing events and equipment, like the one in front of a deadly US jet fighter: “F-5A ‘Freedom Fighter’ (U.S.A.).”

There are memorials to those countries that participated in the Korean War, on the South Korean side, including such places like South Africa (still apartheid), Ethiopia (still fascist), Colombia, Thailand and Philippines (fascist and staunchly pro-Western), Turkey, but also, of course the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

There is a Museum Wedding Hall, in case someone is interested to tie the knot while being surrounded by all those bellicose relics, equipment and ‘art work’. Many actually do get married here, I am told; true patriotic duty, I suppose.

*

In South Korea, all Communist parties are banned, so the Communists have to operate clandestinely.

According to The Review of Korean Studies:

The South Korean government enacted legislation against “anti-national” activities in 1948 and firmly establishing an anti-communist ideology with the National Security Act. The act outlawed any dissent or criticism of the ruling South Korean government, effectively making communism illegal. This included the media, art, literature and music…

Truly democratic… But as long as voters are allowed to stick their papers to some box…

South Korea, one of the richest countries in Asia, grew on the foundations of open and uncompromising collaboration with the West in general and with the United States in particular. In the past it was resting on the fascist concepts designed by the West and by its own military and business oligarchs. ROK tortured, murdered and disappeared its dissidents. In many ways, it was not unlike Pinochet’s Chile or Suharto’s Indonesia.

Until now it remains one of the most fundamentalist hubs of capitalism, consumerism and pop culture. “K-pop” is actually spreading nihilism, idiocy, egotism and ignorance all over Asia, acting as an important tool of Western cultural imperialism.

The wealth does not always come with production (although some of it does). Seoul always got well rewarded for its efforts by its Western handlers.

While studying in New York City, I got to know several South Korean young women who were sent by their families to get diplomas at top US universities, while also acting on behalf of their corrupt military and corporate clans, purchasing prime multi-million dollar real estate; mainly condominiums in Manhattan.

*

Seoul is bad, but indoctrination gets even more intense, as one approaches the “border”.

At the very beginning of 2016, South Korean disinformation gurus resumed bombardment of DPRK with the vilest propaganda imaginable, using giant loudspeakers. Nonsense that was shouted through them again and again was supposed to humiliate the DPRK and its leadership, to discredit Communism, and to show the superiority of capitalist and Western dogmas.

The DPRK was ‘punished’ by those huge speakers for its missile program. ROK’s logic is simple: “it is fine to host the most aggressive army on Earth (the US army) on our territory. But if the DPRK decides to defend itself, it has to be castigated”.

Some time ago I wrote about one of my visits to that area – to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Here are a few updated excerpts. Until now nothing has really changed for better:

Any trip to the border is revealing, as long as one is ready to keep his or her eyes open and to forget for a while about clichés and slogans which have been hammered into our brains for decades by Western propaganda: “South Korea: freedom and democracy. North Korea: evil state”…

The most fortified border on earth – between North and South Koreas

If you are a connoisseur, the “Korean Veterans Association” arranges the ‘most enjoyable’ visits in conjunction with Chung-Ang Express Tour. Guides are nothing less than former South Korean soldiers and intelligence officers; just what those who are always willing to sample delicious nuances and tastes of pro-market and pro-western brainwashing process truly appreciate!

Everybody knows perfectly well what he or she is supposed to think about the land above the 38th parallel, but there is very little knowledge, at least in the West, about the brutality of former South Korean regimes: their fraudulent elections, aggressive anti-leftist propaganda, corruption, campaign of terror and intimidation, torture and political killings. Not much is remembered about the brutality of the US forces during the Korean War, including several massacres of the civilian population. The Vietnam War and Western genocides triggered in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos overshadowed the equally terrible chapter of the Cold War, which took place on the Korean peninsula.

But back to the visits to the DMZ and the “Joint Security Area” at Panmunjeom, with the “Korean Veterans Association” vehicle and with Mr. Kim as my guide:

One day before my departure I received the usual memo and warning:

“PLEASE NOTE” the leaflet said: “Casual clothes such as blue jeans (kind of jean), and sandals (slippers) are not permitted in the area. Shaggy or unkempt hair is not allowed either. Any equipment, microphones or flags belonging to the communist side in the MAC conference room are NOT TO BE TOUCHED! Do not speak with, make any gestures towards or in any way, approach or respond to personnel from the other side.”

No alcohol consumption was allowed before or during the trip.

In the morning I put on sharp looking black pants, trimmed my beard, and charged my cameras. After examining my reflection in the mirror I came to the conclusion that despite some shortcomings in my appearance beyond my control, I looked fit to represent the affluent world of ‘democracy, freedom and economic opportunities’. My inner thoughts remained well hidden and unless someone were to force me to undergo a lie-detector test, there was hardly any danger that my presence at the most militarized frontier in the world would cost disturbances or embarrassment to my South Korean hosts. Armed with my notebooks, cameras and US passport, I left the hotel, in anticipation of yet another surreal undertaking.

North Korean kids on the street

Big bus slowly and majestically departed center of Seoul. Mr. Kim, our guide, exceeded all my expectations. He summarized the evilness of the North Korean regime, underlined the great economic, moral and democratic might of the the Republic of Korea, and then warned us to be careful, “very careful” when we encounter “those North Koreans” at the border:

…And don’t make any unexpected and sharp moves. Don’t step away from the trails: the border is a minefield. Take photographs only when I advise you. Do not talk to North Korean guards! Enjoy your trip!

At the back of my seat, I found a brochure printed by the Korean Veterans Association. On the front page, a middle-aged western couple was grinning (showing perfect and clearly fake teeth) in the direction of North Korea. Sure enough, these people were not pointing fingers at anything. The woman was pointing her designer sun glasses held in well manicured fingers, a man – looking like he had just won a brand new Jaguar in sweepstakes – was pointing his small camera towards the territory of the proud member of the “Axis of Evil”.

“…And our close and reliable ally – the United States of America – is always ready to defend our freedom and democracy,” came from the loudspeakers attached to the ceiling of the bus. Mr. Kim was obviously doing his best to educate us.

Among other things, you will see Reunification Village – no taxes paid by its inhabitants. They are growing one of the best ginsengs in the world there. Reunification Bridge… You will see some of 700 thousand South Korean and American soldiers stationed at the border: 90% are Koreans, 10% Americans… You are all very privileged: Korean citizens have to apply for this visit 6 months to one year in advance, and most of them are not granted a permit… You will also see Ballinger Camp…

A perfect multi-lane highway was following the coast of the Han-gang River. There were no milestones on either side of it. Soon after we left Seoul, we spotted a small area between the motorway and the river being converted into a tremendous barbed-wire fortification “decorated” only with watchtowers and other military installations. All that probably just in case some North Korean military divers decided to invade this ‘capitalist paradise’.

Enormous concrete apartment blocks were visible from the window on the right side of the bus. Entire towns, entire cities made of the same multi-story housing projects. I could hardly keep up with the numbers: Block 23, Block 78, and on it went. Majestic Han-gang River, soldiers and endless wire on one side; concrete and identical looking housing ghettos on the other.

The bus entered “Freedom Road” and after a few miles, stopped at the parking lot near “Freedom Bridge”. There stood the last South Korean train station, after which the tracks went towards the North and the bridge itself, decorated with the heart-breaking paper messages written by ordinary Korean people attached to the metal grid: mostly wishes to see their families across the border at least one more time.

The bus moves again, this time towards the Tongil Bridge and the checkpoint. We were entering the “no-go-area”, the most militarized place on earth, the “Demilitarized Zone”.

Mr. Kim’s outbursts were intensifying. He was jumping at the front of the bus, excited, clearly ‘on the mission’. He began mixing attacks against North Korean state with his cheep military humor:

“So why do we still have so many American soldiers here? What do you think? Hey? Because they are protecting us! And because we don’t want to spend more money on our own defense!” He was laughing at his own puns, but nobody else was. Foreign visitors on the bus were silent. The view behind the window obviously overwhelmed them – especially those who came there for the first time.

Barbed wires were everywhere and so were the military trucks driving up and down the road. Everything looked unreal and disturbing, including the ginseng-growing Freedom Village, a small hamlet separated from the rest of the world, surviving in the middle of the minefields and well-hidden high-tech weaponry.

The area looked peaceful, almost serene. No heavy weapons visible: everything hidden under the ground. There must have been tens of thousands of tanks, camouflaged bunkers, artillery and missile silos as well as nerve-gas and biological-weapons concentrated around here, but from our angle of vision, there were only some majestic migrant birds flying over the gently rolling hills, shitting on all this baloney from tremendous heights.

The Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is just a strip of land – approximately 248km/155 miles long and 4 km/2.5 miles wide, cutting across the Korean Peninsula that serves as a buffer zone between the North and South.

The bus drove through the military Camp Bonifas and terminated its journey at the parking lot at Ballinger Camp. Our passports were checked again and then we had to attend a briefing. Another list of rules, another endless outburst of propaganda pushed down our throats. American and Korean soldiers were patrolling side by side, inside the briefing room and on the road.

“The American army has a golf-course here”, explained Mr. Kim after we had boarded another, this time military bus with two soldiers inside. “The funny thing is that it has only one hole and it is surrounded by the mine-field”. He laughed loudly, but again nobody responded.

South Korean soldier at Panmunjom

And then it appeared in front of us: the ‘truce village’ – Panmunjom – the only place where the North and South connect. It is called JSA (Joint Security Area), with several buildings on both sides and some constructed right on top of MDL (The Military Demarcation Line). This is where negotiations between the two sides have been held since 1953.

We were obliged to visit “Freedom House”, a monstrous propaganda establishment made of glass and steal. From here, the North Korean information center (Panmun-gak Pavilion) is less than 100 meters away. Theoretically I should have been free to cross all the way to the DPRK side and visit their center. I should have been free to move around, as long as I did not leave the JSA.

I was not prevented to enter by the North Koreans: I was prevented lo leave by the brisk military voice of Mr. Kim, my guide or whatever hell he really might have been. And of course, by Mr. Kim’s handlers…

Instead of going north I was again bombarded by stories about the bizarre “Stump of the Tree Chopping Incident” from 1976, about the shootout which followed the defection of a Soviet diplomat to the South during the Cold War, about long tunnels which were dug by the North Korean military (no outright lies, just manipulated half-truths).

At some point I felt that I could not stomach Mr. Kim any longer. I approached him on the viewing terrace, just a few feet from DPRK, and asked him publicly, in front of the soldiers and visitors:

Mr. Kim, could you please tell us about the accident involving the US soldier defecting from here to the North in 1983?

Mr. Kim stared at me in disbelief and I could only guess what would have happened to me if I had dared to challenge him in the days of the ROK’s full-blown military dictatorship.

“You must be out of your mind, young man”, he replied in a patronizing tone of voice. “Why would an American defect to the Communist North? Nothing like that ever happened.”

But it did happen, and it was not the only “incident” of its kind.

Finally I was allowed to enter the barrack where the negotiations between the North and the South take place. The Demarcation line – the border – runs in the middle of the table. I went around the table, technically entering the DPRK. It felt good…

South Korean soldiers kept their watch inside and outside the barracks. The ones selected to serve in this area were enormous – probably two meters tall.

Their ‘adversaries’ from the north were of average height.

South Korean soldiers, although most likely made of flesh and blood, were trained to stand still without the slightest movement, creating the impression that they were made of wax. Not one muscle moved. Their expressionless faces were decorated by large-frame sunglasses, making them look like mafia or like bouncers in some exclusive bordello. Outside the barracks, soldiers were standing with their legs unnaturally spread, only half of their faces facing the enemy, the other side facing the corner of the wall.

Grotesque, Kafkaesque, all this… Then I thought: “This is the true image of fascism, militarism and imperialism.”

At the other side, lonely looking North Korean soldiers appeared modest and very human in comparison, their Soviet-style uniforms far from fancy. They were facing their adversaries directly, not the wall of the barrack: directly, like true and proud human beings!

Standing for a while on the North Korean turf, I thought how little people are allowed to know about this land! Only what is tailored by countless vicious reports carried by the mainstream Western media.

But after the war, the North was successfully competing with the South. For quite some time it was richer, more prosperous, socially balanced, and optimistic. Then the ‘eastern block’ was destroyed by Western imperialism, and the North cynically abandoned, supported only by its great neighbor: China. Isolated and petrified (not unreasonably, as is evident from the history), it became a target, a punch bag of victorious western propaganda: “Communism? You want Communism? Just look at North Korea; that’s an alternative to our free society.”

The DPRK has been facing countless provocations from the south, but mainly from the West. US military bases on the territory of the ROK… Deadly US air force bases in Okinawa… Naval exercises near its shores… Sanctions and demonization… Terrible insults… All this, only because the DPRK wants to go its own way! Only because it has been refusing to become a serf, a slave!

And the past… Even according to BBC Timewatch:

More than one million civilians died during the Korean War in 1950 but no one knows how many of these were killed by American forces. Few doubt that US forces committed atrocities in Korea, although the Pentagon denies official responsibility for one of the worst incidents of the war: the frenzied slaughter of civilians at the No Gun Ri railway tunnels.

I asked Mr. Kim about the No Gun Ri tunnel, but by then I was firmly on his shit list, and he stopped replying to my questions.

Our bus briefly stopped at the “Bridge of No Return”, an abandoned border crossing. Again, the DPRK was just a few feet away.

“Look at the “Propaganda Village on the other side”, shouted Mr. Kim, salivating. “You can see the houses there, but nobody lives there. It is just propaganda. Pro-pa-gan-da! And that flagpole with the North Korean flag: it is the highest flagpole in the world, 157.5 meters high. We built our flagpole at 98.4 meters in 1980’s and they felt they have to have the highest one in the world.” He produced a dry, ugly and sarcastic laugh.

Again, the no man’s land between two Koreas seemed serene and quiet. Green fields and light mist were pleasing to the eyes. Birds were flying and shitting, while creeks were singing.

“To hell with the flagpole”, I thought. “What were you doing in the 1970’s, during Park’s dictatorship, Mr. Kim? Were you breaking balls, raping, torturing students?”

“And now”, said Mr. Kim, grinning happily, “Let’s give a big applause to our heroic soldiers, both Koreans and Americans!” We were approaching Camp Ballinger. “Here you can’t take photographs, but you can buy souvenirs and finally? Finally you can have a drink!”

After several checkpoints and a few miles of military roads, it was traffic jam all the way to Seoul. Traffic and barbed wires, only this time to my right. And the endless ocean of concrete apartment blocks on the left…

“Come and join us again”, said Mr. Kim, parting. Across the street, protesters were blasting “The International” in Korean, from enormous black speakers placed right on the sidewalk in front of some office building.

*

In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), things were more enjoyable. I went there in 2013. Pyongyang, celebrating the 60^th anniversary of the Victory; it was festive, full of cultural venues, grand music performances and concerts.

I then wrote:

60 years ago North Korea won the war. But some 4 million people died many of them, civilians. Maybe it was more than 4 million, nobody knows exactly. The capital city Pyongyang was totally leveled to the ground. I did not want to hear loud music and long speeches. I wanted to pay tribute to those who lost their lives, by sitting quietly by the river covered by mist, listening to the tall grass. But during my 8 days in North Korea, I had very few moments of silence, almost no opportunity to reflect.

What have I seen in those 8 days in DPRK – in North Korea? I saw an enormous futuristic city, Pyongyang, the capital, built from the ashes. I saw enormous theatres and stadiums, a metro system deep below the ground (public transportation doubling as nuclear shelter, in case the city came under attack). I saw trolley buses and double-decker buses, wide avenues, unimaginably ample sidewalks, roller-skating rinks and playgrounds for children.

Statues and monuments were everywhere. The size of some boulevards and buildings were simply overwhelming. For more than a decade I lived in Manhattan, but this was very different grandeur. New York was growing towards the sky, while Pyongyang consisted of tremendous open spaces and massive eclectic buildings.

Outside the capital I saw green fields, and farmers walking home deep in the countryside. Clearly, there was no malnutrition among children, and despite the embargo, everyone was decently dressed.

Young people that were working with me – my interpreter, drivers, and guides – had a fantastic sense of humor. They were also very kind.

My interpreter was obsessed with potato chips. She was also picking my brains about how to deal with her ‘evil’ boyfriend who was not ready to make his move and to propose marriage. As we were driving all over the country, they were showing me their motherland, while I was sharing my photos from all corners of the globed, stored on my iPhones.

At one point we came to the same spot, which I knew from the other side, to the same Panmunjom, and to the same DPRK information center (Panmun-gak Pavilion), which a few years earlier I had not been allowed to visit from the side of Republic of Korea.

There were detailed photo exhibitions and paintings on this side of the border. There were terrible events illustrated, and bitter memories revisited. But it was all so serene, human, and endlessly sad.

Ramsey Clark spoke about the horrors of the past, and about the brutality of US actions. An old man, one of the survivors of the mass killings of civilians in the tunnels, spoke about the brutality he witnessed as a child. The artwork in the local museum depicted the savage torture and rape of Korean women by US troops, their bodies mutilated; with nipples penetrated by metal hooks.

On July 26 2013, I met, together with Ramsey Clark and a few other delegates, Mr.Yang Hyong Sob, the Vice President of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People’s Committee.

“Seeing is believing”, he declared. “Please tell the world what you witnessed here.”

I replied:

It is their common tactic. The West portrays people of the DPRK, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Serbia, as heartless, as if they were some plastic androids. Then, subconsciously, compassion towards the people of those nations vanishes from the hearts of the Western public. Suddenly it is fine to starve, to bomb, to murder thousands, even millions of those androids. But once the faces are shown, the Western public gets confused; many refuse to support mass murder. Therefore, the faces are hardly shown.

No one knows how many Korean people died during the war. Millions, for sure… Some say 4 million… or more. Further millions of human lives were ruined by the sanctions, Western-provoked intimidations of the DPRK, and by the arms race.

Still, the hate, insults and professional propaganda are flying mostly from the South!

*

Seoul 2016… The first ice is gently covering the surface of Han-gang River.

My hotel “W” on top of Walker Hill is overly “cool”, impersonal, overprized and metallically cold. Techno beats are following me everywhere, from elevators to the vast lobby.

“Where are you from?” The driver on the way from the Incheon Airport interrogates me. His English is perfect. He served with the US military. Almost all drivers of those orange taxis that the foreigners are urged to use, are government agents. They only ask questions, and hardly ever answer.

“What do you think about North Korea? Oh, you went there? You know?”

After I reply, when I say what I witnessed, deep silence follows. Then a barrage of pointed questions. I ignore that old snitch.

I go around Seoul, searching for dissent. No new great films are made about the horrors of the ROK dictatorship. They still sell “Peppermint Candy” in some DVD stores, the greatest film so far, but it was made so many years ago…

There are some books, describing South Korean racism, xenophobia, and police, military and capitalist brutality. There are stories about the immigrants from DPRK, doctors and professors, forced to work as cleaners in the toughest bordellos of Seoul. It is not only foreigners who became targets of chauvinism, but also the immigrants from the north.

I don’t like what I see and feel in Seoul. It is cold, brutal, confused. I feel totally alone here. I talk to several foreigners: they all feel the same: from diplomats to English teachers. It does not feel like Asia. I am not exactly sure what it feels like. Like an enormous military base of some relatively rich country, perhaps?

Everyone who means something here was educated in the US. I see tremendous, horrifying Pentecostal churches all over the city. I see open and concealed pro-Western propaganda, everywhere. I see militarization. And Christmas trees…

Nobody wants to talk, if you are ‘different’. Unlike in Japan, here, many speak English: for obvious reasons. But nobody talks, beyond clichés. You have to fit. You have to be a Christian, right winger, anti-Communist, damn it!

Two of my books are translated to Korean and published in Seoul. I try to meet my publishers, but they reply in an extremely rude way, turning me down. They are not interested. My work is just some commodity. They don’t give a shit about me as a person.

I work for several days here. Eventually, emotionally exhausted, I run away.

On my TG flight from Seoul to Bangkok I watch the last bit of the insane propaganda – a South Korean film about the DPRK invasion, called “Northern Limit Line”. Again, North Koreans are robots, beasts, murderers, while South Koreans are good sons, good citizens, and true heroes. Like in K-pop, even the propaganda is now utilizing self-righteous, egotistic forms.

I came to write about South Korean propaganda and I got what I was asking for. I cannot complain. But I actually overate. The free “buffet” of it was just too vast. It will take some time to digest before I come back for more!

*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

The issue of human rights in the context of Cuba–US relations has erupted once again on the eve of Obama’s visit to the island on March 21 and 22, 2016. In Geneva on March 2, the Deputy Secretary of State of the US State Department, Antony J. Blinken, issued the National Statement at the Human Rights Council. He dealt with several countries that are always the target of US accusations of supposed human rights violations, such as China, Russia and Venezuela.

As is always the case, Cuba was also singled out. Concerning this country, the Blinken Statement indicated:

In Cuba, we are increasingly concerned about the government’s use of short-term detentions of peaceful activists, which reached record numbers in January. We call on the Cuban government to stop this tactic as a means of quelling peaceful protest. President Obama will make a historic visit to Cuba in a few weeks and will emphasize that the Cuban people are best served by an environment where people are free to choose their political parties and their leaders, express their ideas, and where civil society is independent and allowed to flourish.

The Cuban response

The head of the Cuban delegation to the Council, Pedro Núñez Mosquera, who is General Director of the Division on Multilateral Affairs and International Law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, was not at all intimidated by the superpower. Since 1959, Cuba has had a history of defending its interests in all international forums. Cuba is a small country, but with a voice that is respected internationally. In Geneva, Núñez Mosquera turned the tables on the US by calling it out for the gross violations of human rights that the US itself is responsible for, including racial discrimination, police violence, persecution of immigrants and torture that takes place in the Guantánamo prison. In addition, he insisted, the US is responsible for violations of the human rights of the Cuban people because of the blockade against the island.

Blinken’s statement on behalf of the Obama administration is notable for being yet another gross attempt at interfering in the internal affairs of Cuba. However, let us leave this aside for the moment and deal with his accusations against Cuba.

Peaceful activists and protests

He charges Cuba of temporarily arresting “peaceful activists” as part of a strategy of “quelling peaceful protest.” The term “peaceful” is arbitrary. In the US, for example, when African-Americans and their allies in the US revolt against police assassinations of African-Americans, they are called violent and are referred to as thugs. However, in January and February 2016, when armed right-wing individuals in Oregon occupied a federal agency, the government and media politely labelled the occupiers “protesters” and “militia.” The latter term “militia” provided legitimacy to these armed people. They were never categorized in any derogatory way as being violent.

Turning south to Latin America, the same double standard applies. In the National Statement, the US State Department demands the release of two imprisoned pro-American individuals in Venezuela. It respectfully refers to them as “opposition leaders.” However, they were responsible for violent terrorist acts against the constitutional order in which 43 people were killed and over 800 injured. The US, therefore, is far from being a reference point in dealing with peaceful or violent protests.

In the Cuban context, the individuals to which the US refers cannot be seen as merely “peaceful protesters.” Mainly, they are directly or indirectly paid mercenaries of the US. Their publicly stated goal is regime change in Cuba. The very essence of the objective is to smother the Cuban Revolution as the basis of Cuban sovereignty. This means turning Cuba once again into a de facto neo-colony of the US, making it safe for capitalism. Cuban independence, in turn, is the safeguard of the Cuban Revolution, whose mission is to strive continuously to develop and improve its socialism.

Thus, the reactionary change that the “peaceful protesters” seek is a rupture from the Cuban constitutional order to satisfy US interests. Therefore, by its very nature, this goal is violent, as it translates into a breach from the road that the overwhelming majority of Cuba people have taken since 1959. Whether, at the time of their detention, these individuals were or were not violent is irrelevant. Cuba has every right to defend itself from the coordinated efforts of the US-funded “opposition” and mainstream media to foment regime change in Cuba.

Choosing political parties and leaders

The Blinken Statement also highlights one of the goals of Obama’s March 21 and 22 visit to Cuba, that being to emphasize “that people are free to choose their political parties and their leaders.” The US is blinded by the US-centric notion of political parties and elections. The US has its “multi-party” political system and the Cubans have an altogether different system.

The Cuban process resulted from the Revolution. An essential feature of this Revolution stems from the tradition emerging out of the second half of the 19th-century revolutionary wars of independence against the Spanish colonizers. An essential ingredient was – and is – the need for one unifying political force to lead the Revolution.

The Communist Party of Cuba was born out of the combined political forces that were sacrificing their lives to defeat the bloody, US-backed Batista dictatorship in the 1950s. The Cubans chose their leading political force and indeed their leaders during the 1950s until the Triumph of the Revolution in 1959. Furthermore, in that period and since, millions of Cubans have chosen to be part of that Revolution, rather than to stand on the sidelines “choosing leaders” according to some preconceived-US notion of leadership. The role of this unifying political force is entrenched in the Cuban Constitution, which people at the grass roots contributed to drafting. In 1976, in a referendum on the Constitution, 98% of the electorate voted and, of those voters, 97.7% approved of the Constitution.

The Cuban political system also affords other formal legal channels so that Cubans can vote for their leaders. Once again, it does not conform to the US-centric notion. Cuba is not based on the presidential system as it exists in the US and other countries.

On Cuban leadership: Raúl Castro

Let us take the example of Raúl Castro based on a very summary description of some of the steps leading to his election as President of the Councils of State and Ministers. In the last 2013 general elections, he was elected as Deputy to the Cuban National Assembly of People’s Power (Parliament) from a municipality in his home province of Santiago de Cuba. While there is only one candidate per seat, a candidate needs at least 50% of the popular vote.

In the 2013 general elections, Raúl Castro garnered 98.04% of the vote. This was one of the highest among the 612 Deputies who were elected.

Once the elections are over, in order to elect leaders, the Deputies have their input on an individual basis and in private. Resulting from this consultation, a list of candidates to the Council of State, including the President of this body, is drawn up. The newly elected legislature meets, as it did, for example, on February 24, 2013. It chooses among the Deputies in a secret ballot vote. It is beyond the scope of this article to cover more of the details and analysis of how this and the general elections occur. However, this is how Raúl Castro was elected as President of the Council of State (and therefore also of the Council of Ministers). This role is carried out as a function of being a member of these collegial and collectives Councils. These bodies are in turn accountable to Parliament.

On Cuban leadership: Fidel Castro

Furthermore, a country that has forged itself in Revolution has its own standards on leaders. Let us take another example. Fidel Castro is known as the Historical Leader of the Cuban Revolution. In the Preamble to the Constitution approved by the population, the Magna Carta recognizes the “leadership of Fidel Castro.” Whether it is in the Constitution or not, the fact is that he is the Historical Leader of the Cuban Revolution and is recognized as such by the overwhelming majority of Cuban people.

These cursory facts regarding Cuba’s leaders do not seem to be of interest to the US ruling circles.

“Presidential systems” of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador

In any case, Washington’s ideological/political pressure for people choosing their leaders is arbitrary. For example, from a superficial standpoint, one can say that Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador all have “presidential systems.” Nevertheless, the US does not really recognize as presidents the directly elected leaders, including Nicolás Maduro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa. Rather, the US is continuously engaged in regime change in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to overthrow these elected leaders and everything they stand for. The US thus has an erratic stand with regards to leaders that is manipulated to serve its own purposes.

Cuban “civil society”

In Geneva, the US also rolled out its requirement for Cuba that “civil society needs to be independent.” The US, according to its own formula and in the context of Obama’s upcoming visit to Cuba, recognizes the “members of civil society, including those who certainly oppose the Cuban government’s policies.” One could ask the US, if it succeeds in further winning over those individuals to US policy, which is a foregone conclusion, is it not a fact that they will no longer be independent? On the contrary, they will be even more dependent on the US than they were before Obama’s visit. According to the US, if Cuban civil society works in harmony with the Cuban political process, then they are not independent. However, if they act in accord with the US, they receive bona fide credentials as being independent.

Improving the Cuban political system

Considering the above-mentioned themes with regard to the Cuban political system, this to not to say that there is no room for improvement. However, the Cubans who debate this issue do not need advice from the US. It is up to Cubans to bring about changes. For example, on August 14, 2015, during the joint press conference in Havana given by Secretary of State John Kerry and Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, a reporter asked Bruno Rodríguez a question about democracy in Cuba. He responded:

I feel very comfortable with Cuban democracy, and at the same time there are things that could be further perfected, as we are actively working on today with the processes related to the updating of our socialist economic and social model.

The necessity to ideologically and politically revamp the political system is part of their life-and-death struggle to bring about transformations in Cuba’s socioeconomic system despite the crippling US blockade and other factors that are domestic in nature. This is, and will be, Cuba’s own path.

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 the on the one hand the US and on the other hand Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now they are being made to pay. Their duplicity—embodied in politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—succeeded for decades. These elites, many from East Coast Ivy League schools, spoke the language of values—civility, inclusivity, a condemnation of overt racism and bigotry, a concern for the middle class—while thrusting a knife into the back of the underclass for their corporate masters. This game has ended.

There are tens of millions of Americans, especially lower-class whites, rightfully enraged at what has been done to them, their families and their communities. They have risen up to reject the neoliberal policies and political correctness imposed on them by college-educated elites from both political parties: Lower-class whites are embracing an American fascism.

These Americans want a kind of freedom—a freedom to hate. They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.” They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture. They want the freedom to have enemies, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism. They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy. They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture. They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave. And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism. These sentiments are engendered by the collapse of the liberal state.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, seen in reflection. (Andrew Harnik / AP)

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by anointing Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. She epitomizes the double-dealing of the college-educated elites, those who speak the feel-your-pain language of ordinary men and women, who hold up the bible of political correctness, while selling out the poor and the working class to corporate power.

The Republicans, energized by America’s reality-star version of Il Duce, Donald Trump, have been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans.

Richard Rorty in his last book, “Achieving Our Country,” written in 1998, presciently saw where our postindustrial nation was headed.

Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the “losers” who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment. The sociologist Émile Durkheim warned that the disenfranchisement of a class of people from the structures of society produced a state of “anomie”—a “condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals.” Those trapped in this “anomie,” he wrote, are easy prey to propaganda and emotionally driven mass movements. Hannah Arendt, echoing Durkheim, noted that “the chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships.”

In fascism the politically disempowered and disengaged, ignored and reviled by the establishment, discover a voice and a sense of empowerment.

As Arendt noted, the fascist and communist movements in Europe in the 1930s “… recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was that the majority of their membership consisted of people who had never before appeared on the political scene. This permitted the introduction of entirely new methods into political propaganda, and indifference to the arguments of political opponents; these movements not only placed themselves outside and against the party system as a whole, they found a membership that had never been reached, never been ‘spoiled’ by the party system. Therefore they did not need to refute opposing arguments and consistently preferred methods which ended in death rather than persuasion, which spelled terror rather than conviction. They presented disagreements as invariably originating in deep natural, social, or psychological sources beyond the control of the individual and therefore beyond the control of reason. This would have been a shortcoming only if they had sincerely entered into competition with either parties; it was not if they were sure of dealing with people who had reason to be equally hostile to all parties.”

Fascism is aided and advanced by the apathy of those who are tired of being conned and lied to by a bankrupt liberal establishment, whose only reason to vote for a politician or support a political party is to elect the least worst. This, for many voters, is the best Clinton can offer.

Fascism expresses itself in familiar and comforting national and religious symbols, which is why it comes in various varieties and forms. Italian fascism, which looked back to the glory of the Roman Empire, for example, never shared the Nazis’ love of Teutonic and Nordic myths. American fascism too will reach back to traditional patriotic symbols, narratives and beliefs.

Robert Paxton wrote in “The Anatomy of Fascism”:

The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as [George] Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

Fascism is about an inspired and seemingly strong leader who promises moral renewal, new glory and revenge. It is about the replacement of rational debate with sensual experience. This is why the lies, half-truths and fabrications by Trump have no impact on his followers. Fascists transform politics, as philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin pointed out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate aesthetic for the fascist, Benjamin said, is war.

Paxton singles out the amorphous ideology characteristic of all fascist movements.

Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity. The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination.

There is only one way left to blunt the yearning for fascism coalescing around Trump. It is to build, as fast as possible, movements or parties that declare war on corporate power, engage in sustained acts of civil disobedience and seek to reintegrate the disenfranchised—the “losers”—back into the economy and political life of the country. This movement will never come out of the Democratic Party. If Clinton prevails in the general election Trump may disappear, but the fascist sentiments will expand. Another Trump, perhaps more vile, will be vomited up from the bowels of the decayed political system. We are fighting for our political life. Tremendous damage has been done by corporate power and the college-educated elites to our capitalist democracy. The longer the elites, who oversaw this disemboweling of the country on behalf of corporations—who believe, as does CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, that however bad Trump would be for America he would at least be good for corporate profit—remain in charge, the worse it is going to get.

Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America.

Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen, Ukraine’s attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel’s destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.

The American state’s murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington’s crimes. Today the Europeans are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington’s wars. The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.

In the article below Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, medical centers and people’s homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as “collateral damage.”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176110/tomgram:_mattea_kramer,_the_grief_of_others_and_the_boasts_of_candidates/

If there is any outcry from Washington’s European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals, it is too muted to be heard in the US.

As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US and international law. The candidate proclaims that “torture works” — as if that is a justification — despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the “war on terror” have proven to have been innocents. They don’t know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands without endangering innocents.

Washington’s use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn’t even the intelligence of fools.

The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington’s lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.

The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.

Over the past three years Latin American leftist leaders, who presided over heterodox ‘free trade’ and commodity based welfare economies, lost presidential, legislative and municipal elections and referendums or faced impeachment.  They fell because they lost competitive elections, not because of US invasions or military coups.  These same leftist leaders, who had successfully defeated coups and withstood gross US political intervention via AID, NED, the DEA and other US government agencies, lost at the ballot box.

What accounts for the changing capacity of leftist presidents to retain majoritarian electoral support over almost a decade?  Why did the US-backed and funded candidates win this time, when they had been defeated in several previous elections?  What accounts for the defeat of the rightist violent road to power and their subsequent victory via the electoral process?

Class Struggle and Popular Mobilization as a Prelude to Leftist Electoral Victories

The electoral victories of the Left were preceded by a deep crisis in the ‘free market’ and deregulated economies, which were accompanied by intense class struggle from below.  Class struggle polarized and radicalized vast sections of the working and middle classes.

In Argentina, the total collapse of the financial and manufacturing system led to a popular uprising and the rapid overthrow of three presidents.  In Bolivia, two popular uprisings overthrew two US backed ‘free market’ presidents.  In Ecuador, a popular ‘citizen movement’ ousted a US-backed president.

In Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela, burgeoning peasant and urban movements, engaged in direct action and in opposition to their ‘free market’ presidents, resulted in the election of left presidents.

Four inter-connected factors came to the fore to explain the left’s rise to power:  First, the dramatic collapse and ensuing socio-economic crisis, entailing poverty, stagnation and repression by rightwing regimes, precipitated a large-scale shift to the left.  Secondly, the intense class struggle, responding to the crisis, politicized the workers, radicalized the downwardly mobile middle classes and eroded the influence of the ruling class and the impact of their elite-controlled mass media.  Thirdly, the leftist presidents promised long-term large-scale structural changes and successfully implemented immediate social impact programs (employment, social benefits, bank deposit protection, pay raises and large scale public investments).  Last, but not least, the leftist presidents came to power at the beginning of or during a mega-cycle commodity boom providing multi-billion dollar surpluses in export earnings and tax revenues with which to finance new inclusionary social programs.

Electoral Clientalized Politics, Social De-Mobilization and Extractive Partnerships

During the first years of the left governments, they kept the heat on the rightwing elites: defeating abortive coups, expelling intrusive US Ambassadors and US agencies and defeating the local US clients.

They moved on the legal front to consolidate political power by convoking constitutional assemblies to approve progressive constitutions.  They attracted and built on the support from their new indigenous, popular and middle class constituents.

The constitutional changes reorganized new social alignments, especially the rights of indigenous people, but fell far short of serving as the basis for a change of property relations.

The left governments reinforced their dependence on agro-mineral exports by designing a growth strategy based on economic partnership with multi-nationals and agro-business plantation owners.

The rising prices of commodities on the world market led to increases in government revenues, public investment in infrastructure and expanded employment in the public sector.  The left governments constructed large-scale patronage systems and clientelistic electoral machines, which ‘mobilized’ the masses on electoral and ceremonial occasions and for international forums.

International left academics and journalists were impressed by the left administrations’ fiery rhetoric supporting anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberal policies.  Local and overseas pundits parroted the rhetoric about new forms of ‘socialism’, 21^st century socialism in Ecuador and Venezuela and Andean socialism in Bolivia.

In actual practice long-term, large-scale contracts were signed with international giants like, Repsol, Monsanto, Jindel and scores of other imperial backed multi-nationals.

Big agro-exporters received credits, loans and technical aid while peasants and local producers received only the paper ‘land titles’ for their small holdings.  No large-scale land distributions were undertaken.  Landless peasants, who were engaged in land occupations, were forcibly evicted.  Increased government spending on credit and technical assistance was channeled almost exclusively to large-scale soya, cattle, cotton and other agro-exporters, which increased rural class inequalities and exacerbated the decline of food security.

During the decade, militants became functionaries, who developed ties with business groups and began their own process of ‘social mobility’.

The agro-mineral export model raised incomes and reduced poverty but also accentuated inequalities between government functionaries and peasants and urban workers.  The newly affluent, upwardly mobile middle class no longer flocked to hear ‘egalitarian rhetoric’.  They sought security, pursued credit-financed consumerism and looked upward toward the wealthy elite for their role models and life style changes – rather than expressing solidarity with those left behind.

From Retreat to Defeat:  Pragmatic Accommodation as a Formula for Neo-Liberal Restoration

The leaders’ anti-imperialist rhetoric was increasingly discounted by most people as it was contrasted with the large-scale inflow of capital and the contracts with multi-nationals.

The symbolic ‘gestures’ and local projects celebrated before large crowds were accepted but increasingly failed to compensate for the daily routines of centralized power and local corruption.

Over the decade the political cadres of the left governments rounded-up votes via electoral patronage favors, financed by bribes from contractors and illicit transfers of public funds.

Re-election bred complacency, arrogance and a sense of impunity.  The perquisites of office were taken for granted by party leader but were perceived as unwarranted privileges by many working class and peasant voters.

The de-radicalization process at the top and middle levels of the left regimes led the lower classes to rely on individualistic, family and local solutions to their everyday problems.

With the demise of the commodity cycle, the broad coalition of workers, peasants, middle class and professional groups splintered.  Many rejected the malfeasance of the left regimes as a betrayal of the promise of change.

Thus the popular sectors embraced the moralizing critique mounted by the right.

The retrograde radical right exploited discontent with the incumbents and played down or disguised their plans to reverse and undermine the employment and salary gains, pensions and family allowance gained over the decade.

Conclusion

The left governments stimulated the growth of extractive capitalism and converted their mass base into a passive recipient of regime reforms.

The unequal power between leaders and followers was tolerated as long as the incremental rewards continued to flow.

As classes rose in the social hierarchy they shed their leftist ideology born of crisis and looked to elite politicians as the new ‘modernizers’.

The left regimes encouraged a ‘dependency culture’ in which they competed for votes on the bases of growth, markets and patronage.

The left functionaries, unable to rise via the ‘closed’ agro-mineral sectors – under the control of the multi-nationals, turned to state corruption, extracting ‘commissions’ as intermediaries for the MNC, or simply absconding with public funds allocated for municipal health, education and infrastructure projects.

As a result, electoral promises were not kept.  The corrupt practices were ignored by their elected leaders, deeply offending the popular electorate, who were disgusted by the spectacle of corrupt left politicians applauding radical rhetoric while raiding federal funds with impunity.

Party loyalty undermined any national political oversight of local politicians and functionaries.  Disenchantment with the local functionaries spread up to the top.  Popular leaders, who were repeatedly elected soon, were implicated or at least complicit in bribe-taking.

The end of the decade and the end of the commodity boom marked the twilight of idols.  The left lost elections throughout the region.

Epilogue

            The Kirchner-Fernandez regime was defeated in Argentina (2015).

            The Lula-Rousseff regime faces indictment and impeachment in Brazil (2014-2016).

            The Chavez-Maduro regime lost the legislative election in Venezuela (2015).

            The Evo Morales regime lost the constitutional amendment allowing the president’s third term re-election in Bolivia (2016).

On March 3 2016, human rights and indigenous leader Berta Caceres was assassinated.

Berta’s martyrdom now serves as a global symbol of the struggle for freedom and democracy as colonized peoples world-wide languish beneath the yoke of imperialism.

Berta’s death is also a symbol of Canada’s criminality.

In 2009, a western-orchestrated coup deposed the democratically-elected government of Manuel Zelaya. Not long after the illegal coup, Canada ratified the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement, (euphemistically titled, “Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act”) with the criminal progeny of the coup. Zelaya’s promise of a moratorium on extractivist mining activity was quickly denied, and Honduran aspirations for freedom, human rights and democracy were smothered.

On March 31, 2014, Member of Parliament (MP) Alex Atamanenko, of British Columbia Southern Interior, BC, explained the corruption inherent in the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement:

“Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There are three fundamentally important criteria for assessing the merits of trade agreements.

First, does the proposed partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate labour and environmental standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is the proposed partner’s economy of significant or strategic value to Canada?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras clearly fails this test.”

Yet, despite – or rather, because of these failings – the exploitative agreement was passed, thus guaranteeing an entrenchment of oligarch rule in the asymmetrical Honduran economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Increased GDP does not “trickle down”.

Grahame Russell of Rights Action writes in “March 3rd, 2016 – The Day Berta Caceres Was Assassinated Berta/ Who She Is & What She Lived For”:

“Most recently, Berta was killed (…) by the U.S. and Canadian backed military coup in June 2009, that ousted a democratically elected government and brought back to power the same elites that for so long have dominated and abused Honduras; who – once back in power – took all the above and made it worse again, who use repression as a tool of societal terrorism and control, hiring sicarios to target and kill so many hundreds of people since the coup, people like Berta.

The U.S. and Canada helped kill Berta. Seven years after the coup, Honduras has the highest per capita murder rate in the world, and amongst the highest rates of repression, femicide, journalist killings, corruption and impunity in the Americas. Ignoring all this, the U.S. and Canadian governments sign “free trade” agreements and promote the expansion our mining, tourism, sweatshop, banana, etc. companies and investments.”

And yet Berta, a staunch defender of human rights, and the rule of law, refused to be cowed by credible threats of assassination. In 2013, this author wrote:

“Bertha Isabel Caceres Flores, a leader of the Lenca Indigenous people, is General Coordinator of the Civic Council of the Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH). A Chinese hydro-electric project is imposing itself on the ancestral lands of the Lenca Indigenous peoples, and her community is fighting for the right to free, prior, informed consent, as guaranteed by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Flores and her family have already received very credible death threats — her colleague, Thomas Garcia, was killed — and she is at the top of a government ‘Kill List’ which includes her lawyer.

More recently, her community suffered another threat. Sources declared that after the (likely fraudulent) Nov. 24 Presidential elections, they will ‘get them all, dead or alive’.”

Transnational and domestic oligarchs are crippling Honduras, scuttling in the dark like rats, gnashing their teeth, always wanting more, but beacons of light still pierce the Honduran darkness, bravely proclaiming Life and Justice, and Berta’s brave soul is surely amongst them.

Berta Caceres’ light is shining in Syria (and globally) as well. In Syria, indigenous (Syrian) peoples are taking a stand for life and liberty, and against the West’s mercenary proxies who are destroying the country.

The direct consequences of the destruction of countries targeted by the West, including human trafficking and mass migrations, are not acknowledged by the imperial perpetrators. Rather, the victims are blamed, so the cancerous cycle repeats itself over and over, beneath the cover of racism.

Democracy, prosperity, and the rule of law in Honduras would stem the flow of desperate migrants fleeing the country, yet the Western foreign policies of supporting illegal coups and transnational corporate rule frustrate these aspirations.

The same can be said of Syria, Libya, Iraq, or any other country invaded by Western powers. Illegal imperial destabilization of foreign countries creates chaos, poverty, crime, and floods of refugees. Yet these root causes are invariably, and conveniently, ignored by mainstream media, which has devolved into being little more than a propaganda arm for Western warmongers.

As with Honduras, the West vocalized its support for international law, the sovereignty of nations, and democracy, but it practiced the opposite by seeking to illegally oust the democratically-elected, and hugely popular, President Bashar al Assad – Zelaya’s counterpart. The same criminal strategies were perpetrated in Iraq, and Libya, to name a few examples.

We are the Axis of Evil in these desperate times of life and death, dignity and despair. But Berta’s light will not be extinguished. It is with the peoples of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and all imperial-ravaged countries throughout the world. Her light will be a companion of freedom and justice everywhere.

Jabhat Al-Nusra terrorists have pitched their camps right next to the border and receive regular supplies from the Turkish side, Syrian Kurdish forces told RT’s Lizzie Phelan, who traveled with YPG to investigate suspicious activity there.

An RT crew has filmed a number of vehicles coming through the Bab al-Salam crossing on the Turkish-Syrian border, on the outskirts of the northern town of Azaz, which is partially controlled by Al-Nusra, according to reports.

“We can actually see here the important border town of Azaz, that Turkey is determined to prevent YPG from taking. Just a little beyond that you can see the Bab al-Salam border crossing and a heavy flow of vehicles coming from Turkey into Azaz,” the RT correspondent said, reporting from the Turkey-Syria border, an area that TV crews rarely gain access to.

Click image to Watch Lizzie Phelan’s instagram video clipp.”

“Beyond that we can see the Turkish flag flying, that’s on the Turkish side of the border, and through there the YPG says they monitor a regular supply of weapons coming from Turkey to that Al-Nusra camp.”

2.&just a few km from Nusra controlled Azaz that #Turkey is determined 2 prevent YPG from taking. pic.twitter.com/FGIrtL0kvW

— Lizzie Phelan (@LizziePhelan) March 2, 2016

According to the Kurds, after the terror group was excluded from the ceasefire, Al-Nusra have taken down most of their flags, which would give their location away and invite airstrikes. However, the RT crew still managed to film some flags flying above their positions.

YPG are unequivocal about Turkey’s sponsorship of terrorist groups in Syria.

Head of the YPG in Afrin, Abdu Khalil, says Turkey is definitely providing support for terrorist groups in the area.

“Turkey wanted to make a coalition against terrorism, but any country which would be in a coalition against terrorism should not open its border to Al-Nusra Front,” he said.

“When there is a Kurdish prisoner, when he is in Turkish hands, they deliver him to Al-Nusra Front, whereas a wounded man from Islamic State who is in a Turkish hospital: he gets immunity and guards. No one can even look at him. What more evidence do you want than that?”

Abdu Khalil also said that some of the corpses that they found on the battlefield:

“…that belong to Al-Nusra Front were of Turkish origin and we even found IDs and passports. And the ammo we found in their warehouses – closed boxes of ammo – they were closed and stamped by the Turkish government. We even found clearance documents to allow [the boxes of ammo] cross the borders which proved that they were approved to cross the borders.”

Ankara says its direct strikes against the YPG are justified due to its links with the Turkish-based militant group the PKK, which Turkey has recently resumed its war against at home.

The rebel fighters on the ground say they are certain Turkey is providing assistance to IS, Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra.

“The reason Turkey is on the ground is to support groups like Al-Qaeda. Support for ISIS is coming from Turkey. They are shelling because it wants to occupy our land, not to help our people. Turkey dismissed many of the armed groups, and supported Al Nusra against us,” Abu Jouma Benawii, a general in the FSA and co-founder of Jaish al-Thuwar (Army of Revolutionaries), told RT.

“Our fronts against the regime have stopped, but our fronts against ISIS are going on and against Al Nusra as well. We are committed to the ceasefire, one million percent,” he added.

Asked if he would have changed his mind about joining the uprising, Abu Jouma Benawii said in hindsight:

“Really I would have changed my mind, because everybody contributed to destroying Syria, at the beginning and the end it is only the people who lose.”

“Had we known that Syria’s friends would be like this, we wouldn’t have been with them. All our people were forced to flee,” he added.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently said Turkey has the right to carry out military operations not only in Syria, but in any other country hosting terror groups that threaten the Turkish state. He alleged that Ankara’s stance has “absolutely nothing to do with the sovereignty rights of the states that can’t take control of their territorial integrity.”

“On the contrary, this has to do with the will Turkey shows to protect its sovereignty rights,” Erdogan added.

houses shelled by Turkey in village near Afrin city pic.twitter.com/dY0yTjyQOv

— Lizzie Phelan (@LizziePhelan) March 1, 2016

Turkish forces have been shelling YPG, which Ankara considers a terrorist organization, as well as government army positions in Syria, since mid-February. The bombings of YPG targets, the military wing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), have been underway despite the US, Ankara’s ally, viewing the Kurdish fighters as a vital partner in fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

BREAKING UPDATE: Damascus confirms its army targeted by Turkey shelling https://t.co/ELk2n32dNS pic.twitter.com/2TyXsMmsY7

— RT (@RT_com) February 14, 2016

There were reports of dozens of Turkish military vehicles crossing into Kurdish northern Syria, with servicemen digging trenches in the area. Turkey’s “provocative” military buildup on the border and shelling of the Syrian territory could thwart the fragile truce and disrupt the peace process in the Arab Republic, the head of the Russian ceasefire monitoring center Lt. Gen. Sergey Kuralenko said this week.

The ceasefire in Syria, which came into force on February 27, brokered by leading world powers, including the US and Russia, is designed to pave the way to reconciliation between the Syrian government and moderate rebel forces. They would together agree on a peaceful transition in the country. Some of the forces in Syria, including IS and Al-Nusra, are not subject to the ceasefire.

Experts have been criticizing moderate rebel forces, but even they think that the situation is shifting now.

Moderate rebels used to be “a fable, a pure lie,” Syrian political analyst Taleb Ibrahim told RT.

“Everyone remembers what happened to the rebels who had been trained in Turkish camps by the CIA, and when they returned to Syria, and turned to Al-Nusra Front”.

However, the situation is starting to change slowly, as more and more Syrian rebel fighters “discover that they are destroying their country and serving external plans to divide Syria.”

Russian aircraft continue to carry out airstrikes against Al-Nusra front militants to “stabilize the situation” in the regions north of the city of Aleppo, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

There have been at least 31 violations of the Syrian ceasefire over the past three days, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday, adding that during the same period the number of local ceasefire agreements between various factions had increased to 38.

This week a House Judiciary Committee began overseeing details of a US Federal Court case between tech company Apple and the FBI.

On February 16th, Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly rejected a court order to decrypt an iPhone said to be connected to the San Bernardino mass-shooting case from December of 2015.

The House Judiciary Committee listened to the controversial case between tech titan Apple and the FBI a day after Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of New York, struck down a federal court order pressuring Apple to help access encrypted data in a separate case involving illegal drug trafficking.

The landmark decision made by Judge Orenstein stated that the All Writs Act of 1789 (also used as the FBI’s main argument in the Apple/San Bernardino case) “does not permit a court to order companies to pull encrypted data off a customer’s phone or tablet, “ according to a recent article from The Washington Post.

The Post continued by discussing Orenstein’s lengthy argument against the FBI’s order against Apple in the drug related case:

“In a 50-page opinion disdainful of the government’s arguments, Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones.”

In addition, The Post outlined some of the social engineering aspects involved in the lead up to the FBI drug case overseen by Judge Orenstein, a case which has arguably been a part of an overarching back drop concerning the larger San Bernardino case:

“The Brooklyn case began last fall when Orenstein, one of a handful of magistrates across the country who are activists in the surveillance debate, received the government’s application to issue an order to Apple.”

While Apple has previously helped the federal government with some 70 phone cases since 2008, Judge Orenstein examined several problems with the FBI’s use of the All Writs Act:

“In an Oct. 9 ruling, Orenstein identified what he thought was a problem with the government’s argument. Though prosecutors cited a 1985 decision that found that the All Writs Act is a source of authority to issue writs “not otherwise covered by statute,” he said they failed to cite another part of the decision that found that the act does not authorize the issuance of “ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate.”

The new ruling in the FBI drug case will likely have a heavy impact on the eventual ruling in the San Bernardino/Apple court order, as it directly questions the heart of the government’s argument to gain easier access to encrypted consumer data.

It’s also interesting to note, that it was the FBI who put themselves in this position regarding the San Bernardino phone as they reportedly ordered the password to be reset via iCloud shortly after the apparent mass shooting.

You have to wonder why the agency would have ordered a new password almost immediately following the highly dramatic scene in San Bernardino…

‘INVENTIONS OF REALITY?’ – Is this latest “privacy crisis” a manufactured drama or a legitimate battle for those in the tech industry?

What’s interesting here, is that ABC news reported on December 3rd, a day after the apparent shooting:

“Sources say mobile phones, hard drives, virtually anything with digital memory that was associated with the alleged shooters — Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik — was smashed.”

Adding to that, we’ve mentioned a number of times here at 21WIRE, that none of the eyewitness testimony mentioned seeing a female shooter at the scene of the Inland Regional Center in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting.

A Right to Privacy

In our previous article detailing the ongoing encryption saga between Apple and the FBI, we stated that there are no guarantees in the security world, especially if a digital master-key were to be created, as this would potentially make it easier for invaders (either the government, or various hackers) mining for data moving forward into the future.

In a recent Guardian article, some of those involved in the technology and security sector offered their thoughts regarding the government’s continued encroachment on individual privacy:

Dan Kaminsky, the security expert who made his name with the discovery that one of the most basic parts of the internet, the domain name system, was vulnerable to fraud – disagrees:

“Feds want final authority on engineering decisions, and their interests don’t even align with fighting the vast bulk of real-world crime.”

Kaminsky further explained why Apple’s security measures already help law enforcement:

“If my iPhone is stolen, my emails stay unread, my photos stay unviewed, and I don’t need to notify anyone that the secrets they entrusted me with are going to show up on the internet tomorrow.”

Continuing, The Guardian interviewed former FBI agent Michael German, currently at judicial think-tank the Brennan Center. The following is a portion of that interview:

“After 9/11, you had this concept of total information awareness. The intelligence community was very enamoured of the idea that all information was available. Much like the NSA, they wanted to see it all, collect it all, and analyse it all.”

Additionally, there are many who believe weaker encryption may pose an even bigger security risk globally.

In many ways, it appears as though federal agencies are seemingly searching for the right crisis to push public opinion in favor of the state when it comes to security.

This is at the core of the perpetual privacy and security battle post 9/11…

‘TARGETING PRIVACY’ – FBI Director James Comey speaking at the Brookings Institution in October of 2014 about Going Dark. (Photo link brookings)

Shining a Light on the FBI ‘Going Dark’

Last September, The Washington Post published an article entitled,“Obama faces growing momentum to support widespread encryption, ” and within its contents, perhaps the true nature of the security/privacy issue was laid bare (hat tip saperetic):

“Privately, law enforcement officials have acknowledged that prospects for congressional action this year are remote. Although “the legislative environment is very hostile today,” the intelligence community’s top lawyer, Robert S. Litt, said to colleagues in an August e-mail, which was obtained by The Post, “it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.”

“There is value, he said, in keeping our options open for such a situation.”

Interestingly, in October of 2014, FBI Director James B. Comey, explained while speaking at the Brookings Institution he was “focused on trying to get the law changed” so that tech companies would have to comply with law enforcement to unlock data on various devices.

Continuing, he outlined the current security agenda concerning the FBI:

“We have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to a court order, but we often lack the technical ability to do that.”

The Brookings speech from 2014, appeared in stark contrast with a recent emotionally driven op-ed Comey wrote for Lawfare entitled “We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead.” Here’s a passage from that piece, that clearly displays the conflicting message of the FBI director:

“We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land.”

The Guardian refers to this as a “two-pronged approach” on the public’s senses – as one tone from the FBI comes across as caring and the other seems more focused on the greater, nationalistic implications of encryption.

Think good cop/bad cop hovering over you in an interrogation room and you’d be getting very warm.

This is the kind of psychological drama that has prompted some in media to think that the law enforcement agency has been exploiting the public in the wake of tragedy, in order to increase security measures.

This is absolutely something to watch.

So, what are we to make of the FBI’s claims of going dark in the digital age?

It has long since been claimed that intelligence agencies fear going dark in the age of high-tech gadgetry. This idea is vastly overblown and not rooted in reality, especially when you consider the many revelations concerning NSA spying, collection of bulk metadata and other tracking programs such as the IMSI catcher, otherwise known as Stingray (Stingray acts as cell tower locking onto all devices in a certain area) intercepts phone calls, texts, as well as your location.

The very notion that law enforcement will somehow be condemned eternally to outdated methods to catch criminals in the future – is patently absurd.

Furthermore, the concept and presentation of the FBI’s “going dark” scenario is nothing more than a talking point used to increase a police state apparatus within the United States.

Don’t Panic

On February 1st, a group of experts published report regarding the current status of law enforcement and their ability to keep up with the demands of crime solving in the world today. The lengthy report entitled “Don’t Panic” was compiled by The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

Here’s a passage below examining the FBI’s catchy mantra, ‘Going Dark’:

The U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities view this trend with varying degrees of alarm, alleging that their interception capabilities are “going dark.” As they describe it, companies are increasingly adopting technological architectures that inhibit the government’s ability to obtain access to communications, even in circumstances that satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Encryption is the hallmark of these architectures. Government officials are concerned because, without access to communications, they fear they may not be able to prevent terrorist attacks and investigate and prosecute criminal activity. Their solution is to force companies to maintain access to user communications and data, and provide that access to law enforcement on demand, pursuant to the applicable legal process.

However, the private sector has resisted. Critics fear that architectures geared to guarantee such access would compromise the security and privacy of users around the world, while also hurting the economic viability of U.S. companies. They also dispute the degree to which the proposed solutions would truly prevent terrorists and criminals from communicating in mediums resistant to surveillance.

While the report states that encryption is a difficult issue for law enforcement, all sorts of digital data is unencrypted and therefore can be accessed via a search warrant if there is cause – not to mention the spying capabilities of a plethora of smart devices also available for review.

Below is FBI Director (former Senior Vice President at Lockheed Martin) discussing the idea that the government is Going Dark…

In an article entitled “Here’s Why the FBI Went After Apple When It Did,” Fortune magazine revealed that on February 9th, DOJ head Loretta Lynch requested “an extra $38 million to help the FBI development workarounds on data encryption, bringing the total budget of what it calls “project Going Dark” to $69 million.”

Will the FBI continue to develop “encryption workarounds” in the event that they lose their battle with Apple over the San Bernardino case?

In Summary 

Regardless of how you shape the court battle between Apple and the FBI, this is about the government wanting a more direct route into personal devices moving ahead.

For Apple, this is a very important issue as a dip in consumer confidence, could be a crushing blow to the tech company’s overall brand.

It’s important to remember anomaly ridden events such as the San Bernardino shooting and the suspicious events in Garland, Texas, of last year, in addition to other inconvenient truths concerning the government’s role in manufacturing its own terror plots – which have ironically prompted calls for greater national security, while continuing to appropriate large funds to federal agencies.

You have to wonder, has the FBI’s case against Apple fallen apart?

We just got done hearing from none other than Mitt Romney regarding Donald Trump campaigning for The Presidency.  I am not really sure where to start with this topic as I do not believe there is any precedence.  Starting with my conclusion the “establishment” is in OUTRIGHT PANIC! mode, let’s work backwards.  What follows is my personal opinion, like it, don’t like it, read it or do not, I am still to this point allowed to actually have an opinion and can still voice it …so I will!

It is obvious to almost anyone with half a functioning brain there is “something” (MANY things!) wrong and going in the wrong direction in the U.S..  Whether it be the economy, rule of law, governance, morality or what have you, our country is headed in the wrong direction.  Donald Trump was looked at as a “joke candidate” by both Republican and Democrat establishments, now he is viewed as a threat. 

He has and is saying many things “the people” are thinking.  About the only thing he hasn’t said is “I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”.  Generally speaking, the mood in the country is that of ANGER!  Voters took their anger out on Congress in the last election …but nothing changed and the slide towards the infernal regions has continued unabated.

What Mitt Romney did today in my opinion is despicable (when asking Jim what he thought, he said “Romney made a complete, absolute and utter ass out of himself, I have never in all my years seen anything even close to this in politics”).  He failed to win an election for president in 2012 on the coat tails of an absolute landslide Congressional sweep for the Republicans.  Call what he is doing now a “poor loser” or anything else you want, I call it desperation …but not only on his part!  Until yesterday, Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers and other Republican interests had indicated they would cobble together $75 million to make sure Mr. Trump did not win, they have now announced they will not do this.  You can however rest assured, Mitt Romney would not have come forward with his Trump attack without their permission or wishes.

Let’s be perfectly clear, the groundswell of angry Americans is unlike anything any of us has seen in our lifetime.  In essence, Mitt Romney just spoke dozens of sound bites that Hillary Clinton will use if campaigning head to head with Trump.  Please understand this, there are NOT two parties as they are both the same and serve the very same masters.  We have “Republicans and Democrats” so it appears (to) we peasants have a choice in this great thing called democracy.  Without a doubt we have only one choice and that is to vote for “their candidate”.  If Mitt Romney’s speech today did not open your eyes to this reality, I don’t know what will!

You see, Donald Trump is an absolute threat to the status quo.

The “status quo” being a country that is being milked and a treasury being bilked as hard as possible.  Any “outsider” who comes in and interrupts this process is just plain bad for “profits”!  I have privately said for at least 4-5 months that there is zero chance Mr. Trump will become president.  It is my opinion if he gets close, he could be assassinated and the blame will go on some guy with “three names”.  I hope I am wrong on this.

Our country is on the verge of collapse in so many different areas.  If you look at gold as a barometer, it is now speaking to you.  After a two month rise it should have corrected but has not.  If you look at the COT numbers, gold should already have been slaughtered by $100 or more, it hasn’t.  I believe gold is rising for one (or all) of a half dozen or more reasons.  War, derivatives, debasement, China’s bid to value gold fairly via their own exchange, a “truth bomb” being dropped or whatever.

As you know by my past writings, I fully expect some sort of truth bomb to be dropped that pulls the rug out from under the dollar and thus the financial system in the West.  The “truth” can be any one or all topics.  Does the West have any gold of substance left?  False flags or real terrorism?  Is the West bankrupt financially?  Is “it” real or is it fraud?  No autopsy?  Birth certificate?  911?  I would even say since there are paper trails to almost all finance, do we have a Congress bought and paid for?  Which brokers were involved?  Audit the Fed?  The Treasury?

The bottom line is this, the whole thing is a PONZI scheme and people are beginning to sense this, what if a “truth bomb” proved this either directly …or indirectly by making it fall?

To finish, Donald Trump poses a huge risk to the “establishment” and as of yesterday the only outsider left in the field.  I will not be surprised if Mitt Romney’s outburst of panic actually gathers more support for Mr. Trump even from Democrats. 

Please do not get me wrong, I am not doing a “yay rah rah Donald” here but he is the only one pointing to the problems the establishment has created. 

Now, the establishment sees him to be a very credible problem for THEM!  The Irish bookies paid out on bets yesterday to those who bet on Trump as the Republican candidate.  I would not have done this because desperate people do desperate things and the “establishment” has now shown their hand of pure desperation!  

Standing watch,

Bill Holter
Holter-Sinclair collaboration
Comments welcome, [email protected]

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), including new members India and Pakistan, the Eurasian Economic Union – EEU (an alliance of six Eurasian nations – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan) are about to sign a Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The SCO and the EEU Integration will become a powerful Platform for the promotion of the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB).

Here is a transcript of a Russia-TV24 Skype interview on 2 March 2016, on the subject:

Russia-TV24 Question: Can these plans [described above] be compared to TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) which was signed last year by the US and other countries of a Trans-Pacific region?

Answer Peter Koenig (PK): You may want to add to the SCO and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the importance of the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) – which eventually will be interesting for Europe, especially Germany – that is, as soon as Madame Merkel, or her successor, will see the light. In 2014 Chinese President Xi Jinping offered Madame Merkel for Germany to become the western most pole of the planned new trade and development Silk Road. Most Germans want closer cooperation with Russia, with the East in general. They see that the future lies in the East, not the West. But for some reason Madame Merkel is hand-cuffed by Washington.

To answer your question – the Agreement between the SCO and the EEU will be of more importance to the countries concerned than is the TPP, because it is an accord of equal partners, whereas the TPP, similar to the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership planned with the 28 European Union members), is one-sided – in favor of the US and can only be imposed because the so-called partner countries are all vassals of Washington. – As the US empire is declining, this may change and once partner countries realize that they are being short-changed by the deal, they may simply abandon it.

Abandoning it, may mean joining a different economic system, applying to join the EEU – SCO – the Silk Road.

Russia-TV24: What kind of cooperation can we see within the new organization? It might be a trade union or something else?

PK: It may start as a trade union – or a union for trade; I could imagine, with the longer term objective to become a political union or federation that shares the same geopolitical interests. One of the most important impacts of this cooperation is that it will further marginalize the US dollar, and therefore the US economic hegemony. This cooperation will trade in local currencies, which is already happening among BRICS and SCO countries. It will have special importance for trading in hydrocarbons, for which transactions have traditionally been nominated in US dollars, hence the trillions of dollars flooding the world, through which the US Government is able to manipulate world economies, impose sanctions at will.

Once the dollar loses its importance it will rapidly decline as a reserve currency – which is already happening. When 15 years ago the dollar covered close to 80% of the world reserves, today it has declined to less than 60%. Once the 50% threshold will be reached, the descent may be even faster. In addition, as the Chinese Yuan has been admitted officially by the IMF as the fifth currency in the SDR basket, it can be expected to gradually replace the dollar as an important world reserve currency.

Russia-TV24: What will this new trade and cooperation agreement mean for the two conflicting partners India and Pakistan:

PK: It certainly has the potential of bringing them closer not only in trade but also politically. After all, trade when on equal footing, has often been an enabler of conflict resolution. This may not happen from one day to the next – but the agreement is likely putting the process in motion.

Russia-TV24: Do you think this process might be a part of the East-West competition?

PK: More than a competition, I believe this agreement may show the world that another economic and monetary system is possible – where countries trade fairly with each other, where the meaning of trade is recovering its true sense of the word – an exchange where all partners benefit. This is clearly not the case with the US-sponsored TPP and TTIP. Both of them are lopsided and imposed on vassal governments, rammed down the partner countries legislative by false propaganda.

I do believe and trust that this new EEU – SCO accord will become a real alternative for countries that seek freedom from the fangs of Washington. After all, the SCO – EEU countries comprise about one third of the world’s GDP and almost half of the world population. Their unity could clearly live independently from the western monetary system.

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.

The progressive cycle emerged from popular rebellions that altered power relations in South America. There were social improvements and democratic conquests, and imperialist aggression was curbed. But export-oriented extractivism increased and trade became more balkanized. The agreements with China made by each country reveal fractures in continental integration that have facilitated the reappearance of free trade treaties. Progressivism has suffered from unsuccessful neo-developmentalist attempts that failed to channel agro-export rents into productive activities. Social spending helped to ease protest but discontent has expanded under the centre-left governments.

The Right has won the Presidency in Argentina because of the inconsistencies of Kirchnerism, has been strengthened in Brazil by the conservative mutation of the Workers’ Party (PT), and is gaining new life in Ecuador owing to the deceitfulness of the official discourse. The conservatives conceal the corruption, drug trafficking and inequality that continue to be associated with their governments.

Venezuela is battling the U.S. attempt to regain control of its oil. A Chavista counter-attack requires communal power if it is to eradicate the foreign exchange fraud that enriches the bureaucracy. The Bolivarian process will be radicalized or it will regress. Characterizations of the progressive cycle as a post-liberal period omit the continuities with the previous phase and ignore the conflicts with the popular movement. But the pre-eminence of extractivism does not make all governments the same or convert the centre-left administrations into repressive regimes. Socialist projects offer the best outcome in the current stage.

The year 2015 ended with significant advances of the Right in South America. Mauricio Macri was elected President in Argentina, the opposition gained a majority in the Venezuelan parliament, and Dilma Rousseff is being hounded relentlessly in Brazil. Then there are the conservatives’ campaigns in Ecuador, and it remains to be seen whether Evo Morales will obtain a new mandate in Bolivia.[1]

What is the nature of the period in the region? Has the period of governments taking their distance from neoliberalism come to an end? The answer requires that we describe the particular features of the last decade.

Causes and Effects

The progressive cycle arose in popular rebellions that brought down neoliberal governments (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina) or eroded their continuity (Brazil, Uruguay). These uprisings modified the power relations but did not alter South America’s economic insertion in the international division of labour. On the contrary, in a decade of rising prices for raw materials all countries reinforced their status as exporters of primary products.

The right-wing governments (Sebastián Piñera in Chile, Álvaro Uribe-Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia, Vicente Fox-Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico) used the foreign exchange bonanza to consolidate the model based on openness to free trade and privatizations. The centre-left administrations (Néstor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, Inácio Lula da Silva-Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Tabaré Vázquez-José “Pepe” Mujica in Uruguay, Rafael Correa in Ecuador) promoted increased internal consumption, subsidies to local business owners and social welfare programs. The radical presidents (Hugo Chávez-Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia) applied models of improved redistribution of income and contended with sharp conflicts with the ruling classes.

The affluence of dollars, the fear of new uprisings and the impact of expansive policies in the region avoided the severe neoliberal adjustments that prevailed in other regions. The classic abuses suffered in the New World were transferred to the Old Continent, Europe. Greece’s surgery has had no parallel in Latin America nor have we suffered the financial agonies visited on Portugal, Iceland or Ireland.

This relief was also an effect of the defeat of the FTAA. The project to create a continental free trade area was suspended and this paved the way for a productive respite and social improvements.[2]

During the decade there was a serious limitation of U.S. interventionism. The Marines and the Fourth Fleet continued to operate but did not carry out the invasions typical of Washington. This restraint was confirmed in the decline of the OAS. That Ministry of Colonies lost influence while new organizations (UNASUR, CELAC) intervened in the major conflicts (as in Colombia).

U.S. recognition of Cuba reflected this new scenario. For 53 years the United States had been unable to vanquish the island. It now opted for negotiations and diplomacy, hoping to restore its image and regain hegemony in the region.

This cautious approach of the State Department contrasts with its virulence in other parts of the world. To note the difference, it is enough to observe the sequence of massacres suffered by the Arab world, where the Pentagon ensures U.S. control of oil, destroying states and upholding governments that crush the democratic springs. This demolition (or the wars of plunder in Africa) were absent in South America.

The progressive cycle allowed democratic conquests and constitutional reforms (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador) introducing rights that had been denied for decades by the ruling elites. And greater tolerance was displayed toward social protest. In this respect, the contrast with the more repressive regimes (Colombia, Peru) or with governments that have used the war on drugs to terrorize people (Mexico) is quite striking.

The progressive period also included the recovery of anti-imperialist ideological traditions. This reappropriation was visible in the commemorations of the independence bicentennials, now updated as the agenda of a Second Independence. In a number of countries this atmosphere contributed to the reappearance of the socialist horizon.

The progressive cycle involved transformations that drew international appreciation from the social movements. South America became a reference for popular agendas. But now the limits of the changes occurring during this stage have surfaced.

Frustrations with Integration

During 2015 Latin American exports declined for the third consecutive year. China’s slower growth, the lesser demand for agrofuels, and the return of speculation in financial assets tend to downgrade the market value of raw materials.

The fall in prices will be reinforced if shale co-exists with traditional oil and other substitute sources are developed for basic resources. This is not the first time that capitalism has developed new techniques to counteract the rise in prices of raw materials. These tendencies tend to seriously undermine all of the Latin American economies tied to agro-mineral exports.

The difficulties in the new situation are confirmed in the reduced growth. Since the public debt is lower than in the past the traditional collapses are not yet cause for concern. But fiscal resources are now declining and the margin for developing policies to reactivate the economy is narrowing.

The progressive cycle has not managed to alter regional vulnerability. This fragility persists in the expansion of raw materials deals to the detriment of integration and productive diversification. The South American association projects have been overcome again through national export activities that promote commercial balkanization and the deterioration of manufacturing processes.

After the defeat of the FTAA many initiatives were taken to forge common structures throughout the area. These included shared industrialization goals, energy loops and communications networks. But those programs have languished year after year.

The regional bank, reserve fund and coordinated currency exchange system have never materialized. Norms to minimize the use of the dollar in commercial transactions as well as priority regional infrastructure projects have remained on the drawing boards.

No concerted protection against the fall in export prices has been set in motion. Each government has opted to negotiate with its own customers, shelving plans to create a regional bloc.

This impotence is synthesized by the freezing of the Bank of the South. It was obstructed in particular by Brazil, which promotes instead its BNDES[3] and even a BRICS bank. The absence of any common financial institution has undermined the programs for exchange convergence and a common currency.

The negotiations with China reveal the same regional fracture. Each government unilaterally signs agreements with the new Asian power which monopolizes purchases of raw materials, sales of manufactured goods, and the granting of credit.

China prioritizes dealings in commodities and is grudging in transferring technology. The asymmetry that it has established with the region is surpassed only by the subordination it imposes in Africa.

The consequences of this inequality began to be noted last year, when China reduced its growth and its acquisitions in Latin America. Furthermore, it began to devalue the yuan in order to increase its exports and adapt its exchange parity to the exigencies of a global currency. Those measures accentuated its position as the source of cheap merchandise in South America.

Up to now China has been expanding without exhibiting geopolitical or military ambitions. Some analysts identify this conduct with friendly policies toward the region. Others see in it a neocolonial strategy of appropriation of natural resources. In any case the result has been a geometric increase in South American dependency on raw materials exports.

Instead of establishing intelligent links with the Asian giant as a counter to U.S. domination, the progressive governments have opted for indebtedness and trade restriction. In UNASUR or CELAC there has never been any discussion on how to negotiate with China as a bloc in order to sign more equitable agreements.

The failures in integration explain the new impetus that has been given to the Trans-Pacific Treaty. The FTAs reappear with an intensity rivalled only by the decline in South American cohesiveness. The United States has objectives that are clearer than they were at the time of the FTAA. It promotes an agreement with Asia (TPP) and another with Europe (TTIP)[4] in order to secure its pre-eminence in strategic activities (research labs, computing, medicine, the military). In the wake of the 2008 collapse it has been promoting free trade with renewed intensity.

South America is a market that is coveted by all transnational enterprises. These companies want treaties with greater labour flexibility and explicit advantages in litigating lawsuits over environmental pollution. The United States and China rival each other in their use of those tools to ease trade restrictions.

Chile, Peru and Colombia have already signed on to the free-trade requirements of the TPP in matters of intellectual property, patents and public procurement. They simply want to obtain better markets for their agro-mineral exports. But the big novelty is the readiness of the new Argentine government to participate in this type of negotiations.

Macri claims he will loosen up the agreement with the European Union and induce Brazil to participate in some way in the Pacific Alliance. He has noted that Dilma’s cabinet includes agribusiness representatives more responsive to trade liberalization than they are to the industrialism of MERCOSUR.

The FTAs will be put to the test in the bargaining over another deal being negotiated in secret by 50 countries, which contains far-reaching provisions for liberalization of services (the TISA, or Trade in Services Agreement). This initiative has already been rejected in Uruguay, but there are continuing attempts. The progressive cycle is directly threatened by the avalanche of free trade sponsored by the Empire.

Failures in Neo-Developmentalism

The limits of progressivism have been most visible in the national attempts to implement neo-developmentalist policies. Those efforts were aimed at turning again to industrialization using strategies based on greater state intervention, imitating the development of South-East Asia. Unlike the classic developmentalism they have promoted alliances with agribusiness and look to a long period in which to reverse the deterioration in the terms of trade.

After a decade, they have not managed to achieve any of the industrialization goals. The expectation of equalling the Asian advance has dissolved in the face of the higher profits generated by exploitation of workers in the Far East. The hope of entrepreneurship by local business people has faded as they continue to require state assistance. The promotion of an efficient civil service has been neutralized by the re-creation of inept bureaucracies.

The major neo-developmentalist attempt was carried out in Argentina during the decade that followed the social explosion of 2001. That experiment was eroded by many imbalances. Attempts to administer the agrarian surplus in a productive way through state management of foreign trade were abandoned. Instead, trust was placed in business owners who used the subsidies for capital flight rather than meaningful investment. Furthermore, they hoped for a virtuous circle of demand based on contributions of the capitalists, but the latter preferred to mark up prices.

The model preserved all of the structural imbalances of the Argentine economy. It heightened dependency on raw materials, fostered stagnation in energy supply, perpetuated a concentrated industrial structure and sustained a financial system that was hostile to investment. The maintenance of a regressive tax system stood in the way of modifying the pillars of social inequality.

The accumulated tensions led to a regressive turn that the Kirchnerist candidate (Daniel Scioli) eluded by losing the election. He proposed a gradual adjustment program through taking on new debt, devaluating the currency, reaching a settlement with the vulture funds claimants, and imposing higher fees and cutbacks in social spending.

In Brazil the debate has been over whether the PT government is managing a conservative variant of neo-developmentalism or a regulated version of neoliberalism. As it did not have to contend with the crisis and popular rebellion that convulsed Argentina, the changes in economic policy were more limited.

But at the end of a decade the results are similar in both countries. The Brazilian economy has stagnated and the expansion in consumption has not reduced social inequality or increased the size of the middle class. There is greater dependency on commodity exports and a major downturn in industry. Finance capital retains its privileges and agribusiness stifles any hope of agrarian reform.

Dilma introduced the conservative turn that progressivism avoided in Argentina. She won the election disputing the adjustment advocated by her rival (Aecio Neves) and then disowned those promises under pressure of the markets. She appointed an ultra-liberal Finance minister (Joaquim Levy[5]), a replay of the first Lula presidency that began with personalities of the same type (Antonio Palocci[6]).

During 2015 this orthodox management generated increased rates and fees. Dilma justified the cutback in social policies and maintained the advantages enjoyed by financiers as they build their fortunes. But as the new year opened she replaced the bankers’ man with a more heterodox economist (Nelson Barbosa) who promises a slower fiscal adjustment to cushion the recession. This turn does not portend an exit from the mess created by the conservative policies.

Ecuador has experienced the same regression from neo-developmentalism. Correa began with a reorganization of the state that strengthened the internal market. He increased tax revenues, provided improved social programs, and channelled part of the rent into public investment.

But later he faced all the limits of analogous experiments and opted for increased debt and export promotion. He signed a FTA with Europe, facilitated privatization of highways, and awarded fully developed oil reserves to the major companies.

The failings of neo-developmentalism have blocked the progressive cycle. That model attempted to channel export surpluses into productive activities. But it encountered resistance from the economic power and gave in to those pressures.

A New Type of Protests

During the last decade explosions of popular discontent have become more infrequent. All of the governments count on using increased fiscal revenues as a significant buffer in the face of social demands. The Right resorted to welfarism, the Centre-Left improved existing programs without affecting powerful interests, and the radical processes facilitated conquests of greater importance.

Throughout the region there was a relaxation in social tensions and the major conflicts were expressed in the political sphere, as in the big resistance mounted against rightist attempts to remove Left governments and the huge mobilizations backing candidates in election battles. But there were no uprisings equivalent to those in the preceding period. Only the heroic response to the coup in Honduras came close.

The fighting spirit of the masses was expressed in other fields, as in the mass demonstrations of Chilean students for free education, the outstanding general strike in Paraguay, or the energetic demands of the peasants, indigenous and environmentalists in Colombia and Peru.

But the principal novelty in this period was the social protests in the countries governed by the Centre-Left. In a context of strong political pressures from the Right, this outburst from below highlighted popular dissatisfaction.

The defiance was quite striking in Argentina. First there was the extended wave of strikes by teachers and public sector workers, followed by the refusal to pay a tax imposed on higher-income wage-earners. This discontent set off four general strikes in 2014-2015. The size of these actions surprised the leaders of the official trade unions, who opposed the protest.

In Brazil, the discontent emerged in the July days of 2013. The huge demonstrations demanding improvements in public transportation and education convulsed the major cities. These were not just “second generation” claims over and above what was already achieved; they expressed a frustration with the conditions of life. This discontent was manifested in the questioning of the superfluous expenditures associated with the financing of the World Cup that could have gone instead toward investment in education.

Finally, in Ecuador the social and indigenous mobilizations became more frequent in the streets and in the past year reached a peak in terms of numbers involved. Correa responded in a harsh and authoritarian manner, widening the rift separating the government from broad sectors of the masses.

Why is the Right Advancing?

Macri’s arrival in the presidency represents the first electoral overturn of a Centre-Left administration by its conservative opponents. This turn is not comparable to what occurred in Chile with Piñera’s victory over Michelle Bachelet. That was a substitution of government within the limits of the same neoliberal rules.

Macri is a crude exponent of the Right. He resorted to demagogy, depoliticization and illusions of concord. With vacuous promises he transformed the powerful cacerolazos [pot-banging street protests by predominantly middle-class sectors] into a surge of votes.

The new President has appointed a cabinet of managers to administer the state as if it was a business. He has initiated a drastic and regressive transfer of incomes through devaluation and increased prices. He is issuing decrees criminalizing social protest and is preparing to repeal recently won democratic rights.

Macri’s triumph was no accident. It was preceded by the Kirchner government’s refusal to accept many demands from below that the Right took up in a distorted and demagogic way. The Kirchner followers fail to acknowledge their responsibility.

Some progressives see the victory of the PRO, Macri’s party, as a transient misfortune and hope to retake the government in a few years. They do not understand the modifications in the political map that are probable in the interval. Others argue that the election was lost through bad luck or because of an erosion in support over 12 years, as if that weariness adhered to some fixed chronology.

Those who attribute the election outcome to the harangue – effective, no doubt – of the hegemonic news media do not accept that the alternative mounted by the official propaganda failed as well. This applies as well to those who banter about Macri’s “post-politics” discourse without noting the declining credibility of the Kirchner discourse. Macri’s victory is ascribable to the frustration with corruption, clientelism, and the Peronist culture of top-down control and loyalty.

The reactionary offensive in pursuit of Dilma has not achieved the results it did in Argentina, but it did disrupt the Brazilian government throughout 2015. The Rightists began with big demonstrations in March that they were unable to sustain in August, and even less in December. The social mobilizations against the institutional coup followed instead an opposite course and grew as time went by.

The Supreme Court has blocked the political trial for now, and the government has gained a respite that it is using to reorganize alliances in exchange for a certain fiscal relief. But Dilma has only achieved a truce with her opponents in the Congress and the media.

As in Argentina, the progressive forces evade any explanation of this retreat. They simply manoeuvre to secure the government’s survival through new agreements with the business lobby, the provincial elites and the partidocracia, the bureaucratic party structures.

They don’t bother to investigate the regression of the PT, which has eroded its social base by agreeing to the adjustments. In the last election Dilma won by a slim margin, compensating her losses in the south with votes in the northeast. Support from the old working-class base of the PT has declined and been supplanted by traditional clientelism.

Furthermore, the government is tarnished by serious corruption scandals. Shady deals with the industrial elite have come to light that portray the consequences of governing in alliances with the affluent. Instead of analyzing this tragic mutation, the theorists of progressivism repeat their timeless messages in opposition to conservative restoration.

A similar regression is observed in Ecuador. Correa’s management is marked by a big divorce between his belligerent rhetoric and his status quo administration. The President polemicizes against Rightists and is implacable in his denunciations of imperialist interference. But day by day he crosses a new barrier in his acceptance of free trade and his confrontation with the social movements.

Here too the analyses of progressivism are limited to redoubled warnings against the Right. They overlook the disillusionment created by a president who is compromised with the establishment agenda. This turn explains Correa’s recent decision not to seek a new mandate.

The Centrality of Venezuela

The outcome of the progressive cycle is at stake in Venezuela. What is happening there is not equivalent to what is going on in other countries. These differences are not appreciated by those who compare the recent triumphs of the Right in Venezuela and Argentina. The two situations are not comparable.

In Venezuela the election unfolded amidst an economic war, with shortages, hyperinflation, and smuggling of subsidized commodities. It was a campaign full of bullets, paramilitaries, conspiratorial NGOs, and criminal provocations.

The Right prepared its usual denunciations of fraud in order to discredit an adverse election result. But it won, and was then unable to explain how it could achieve this victory under a “dictatorship.” For the first time in 16 years it obtained a majority in the parliament and will now try to call a vote to revoke Maduro’s mandate.

Since they are unwilling to wait until 2018, when his term expires, a huge conflict looms with the Executive power. In the National Assembly they will promote unacceptable demands – free the convicted coup plotters, expose speculation, overturn the social conquests – explicitly aimed at harassing the President.

None of these features is present in Argentina. Not only does Capriles have priorities that are quite distinct from Macri’s, but Chavismo differs significantly from Kirchnerism. The first arose out of a popular rebellion and declared its intention to achieve socialist objectives. The latter limited itself to capturing the effects of an uprising and consistently glorified capitalism.

In Venezuela there was a redistribution of the rent, undermining the privileges of the dominant classes. In Argentina this surplus was distributed without significantly altering the advantages enjoyed by the bourgeoisie. The popular empowerment that Chavismo unleashed bears no comparison with the expansion of consumerism promoted by Kirchnerism. And the anti-imperialist project of the ALBA is quite unlike the conservatism of the MERCOSUR (Cieza, 2015; Mazzeo, 2015; Stedile, 2015).

But the principal singularity of Venezuela is derived from the place it occupies in the system of imperialist domination. The United States has targeted this country, hoping to regain control of the largest oil reserves in the continent. It maintains a strategy of permanent aggression.

The war the Pentagon waged in the Middle East – demolishing Iraq and Libya – is sufficient to show the importance it assigns to control of crude oil. The State Department may recognize Cuba and discuss with opposing presidents, but Venezuela is a non-negotiable prey.

That is why the hegemonic news media hammer away day and night against this country, portraying a disaster that must be rescued from afar. The coup plotters are presented as innocent victims of persecution, omitting the fact that Leopoldo López was convicted for the murders that were committed during the guarimbas [violent street protests]. Any U.S. court would have handed down much harsher sentences for such outrages. The media demonization is designed to isolate Chavismo and encourage further condemnation of it by the Social Democracy.

This campaign had been unsuccessful until the recent election victory of the Right. Now they are resolved to dust off the plans to overthrow Maduro, combining the erosion in support promoted by Capriles with the violent removal favoured by López. They are trying to push the government into a chaotic situation in order to stage a repetition of the institutional coup perpetrated against Fernando Lugo in Paraguay.

Macri is the international coordinator of this conspiracy. He heads up all the challenges to Venezuela, while he criminalizes protest in Argentina. He governs his own country by decree but demands respect for parliamentarians in another nation.

Macri has already called for sanctions against Venezuela, a new partner in MERCOSUR, but he does not talk about Guantánamo or mention the ordeals of the political prisoners in U.S. penitentiaries. He has postponed his call for sanctions in Venezuela as he waits for Dilma to take a firmer stance. But he will revert to a hard line if he thinks it fits well with the provocations of López.

Unpostponable Decisions

Chavismo has faced major assaults because of the radicalism of its process, the rage of the bourgeoisie, and the U.S. determination to control oil production. The contrast with Bolivia is striking. There too a radical anti-imperialist government prevails. But the Altiplano lacks the strategic relevance of Venezuela and drags with it a much higher level of underdevelopment.

Evo Morales retains political hegemony and has achieved significant economic growth. He has forged a plurinational state, displacing the old racist elites, and asserted for the first time the real authority of this organism throughout the territory.

Up to this point the Right has been unable to mount a successful challenge for government, but a battle has now opened over the issue of Morales’ re-election. In any case, Bolivia does not confront the unpostponable decisions that Chavismo must now make.

Since the fall in the oil price, Venezuela has suffered a drastic cutback in revenues that threatens its access to the imports required for the day-to-day functioning of the economy. Added to this are the huge surge in the fiscal deficit and the failure to control the foreign exchange rate, inflation and the money supply.

It’s not enough to simply note the existence of an economic war. It must also be said that the government has failed to confront these abuses. Maduro has lacked the firmness that Fidel displayed during Cuba’s “special period.” The economic sabotage is effective because the state bureaucracy continues to uphold with PDVSA dollars a foreign exchange system that facilitates the organized embezzlement of public resources (Gómez Freire, 2015; Aharonian, 2016; Colussi, 2015).

This lack of control accentuates the stagnation of the distributionist model that initially channelled the oil rent into social welfare programs but failed subsequently to jumpstart the creation of a productive economy.

The current situation offers a new (and perhaps final) opportunity to reorganize the economy. This unavoidably entails cutting off the use of U.S. dollars for the smuggling of merchandise and entry of overpriced imports. This fraud enriches the bourgeoisified civil service and infuriates the people. It is not enough to reorganize PDVSA, control the borders or jail a few offenders. Unless the corrupt officials are removed altogether, the Bolivarian process will condemn itself to decline.

Chavismo needs to counterattack if it is to regain popular support. Various economists have developed detailed programs to implement an alternative management of the exchange rate, based on nationalization of the banks and foreign trade. Since there are no longer enough dollars to pay for imports and pay the debt, there is a need as well to look into auditing those liabilities.

Maduro has declared he will not surrender. But in the present delicate situation measures from above are not enough. The survival of the Bolivarian process requires building popular power from below. Legislation already exists defining the attributes of communal power. Those institutions [the communal councils and communes] alone can sustain the battle against capitalists who frustrate exchange controls and recapture surplus oil profits.

The exercise of communal power has been impeded for some years by a bureaucracy that is impoverishing the state. That sector would be the first to be adversely affected by a democracy from below. Maduro has now installed a national assembly of communal power. But the verticalist functioning of the PSUV[7] and the hostility toward more radical currents [within Chavismo] impede this initiative (Guerrero, 2015; Iturriza, 2015; Szalkowicz, 2015; Teruggi, 2015).

Any boost given to communal organization will bring redoubled denunciations in the international media about the “violation of democracy” in Venezuela. That kind of propaganda will be spread by the likes of those who were behind the U.S. coup in Honduras or the institutional farce that overthrew Lugo in Paraguay.

These same personalities say nothing about the state terrorism that is rampant in Mexico or Colombia. They had to put up with Cuba’s membership in the OAS and CELAC, but they are not prepared to tolerate Venezuela’s challenge. Confronting that media establishment is a priority in the continent as a whole.

What the Rightists Conceal

The new situation in South America has emboldened the Right. It thinks its time has come and it promises to end the “populist” cycle and replace “interventionism” with “the market” and “authoritarianism” with “freedom.”

What these messages conceal is the Right’s direct responsibility in the devastation suffered during the 1980s and ‘90s. The progressive governments the Right is challenging came into being because of the economic collapse and the social blood-letting produced by the neoliberals. The Right not only portrays that past as a process unrelated to their regimes, it covers up what actually happened in the countries it governs.

It would seem that the only problems in Latin America are located outside of that radius. This deception has been constructed by the hegemonic news media, which overlook any information considered adverse to right-wing administrations.

The cover-up is shameless and most people are kept in ignorance of any news related to those countries targeted by the dominant press. The media describe the inflation and the currency tensions existing under these governments, but do not mention the unemployment and lack of job security prevalent in the neoliberal economies.

They also highlight the “loss of opportunities” caused by capital controls while remaining silent about the upheavals produced by deregulation. They rant against “mindless consumerism” but hide the damage caused by inequality.

But the grossest omission concerns the functioning of the state. The Right objects to the “discretionary paternalism” practiced by the progressive regimes but ignores the social collapse in the narco-states that has occurred in conjunction with free trade and financial deregulation. Three economies known for their openness and attractiveness to capital – Mexico, Colombia and Peru – are now suffering this corrosion of the state.

Mexico has the highest level of violence in the region. No high-ranking official has been jailed and many territories are controlled by criminal gangs. In Colombia the drug cartels finance presidents, parties and sections of the army. In Peru official complicity with drug trafficking has gone to the point that sentences have been commuted for 3,200 people convicted of that offence.

None of this information is reported with the persistence given to the reports of Venezuela’s misadventures. This duality in reporting extends to matters of corruption. The Right presents it as a gangrene typical of progressivism, overlooking the protagonistic participation of the capitalists in the major incidents of embezzlement in all countries.

The major media expose the dark details of the official handling of public money in Venezuela, Brazil or Bolivia. But they do not mention the more scandalous cases involving their protégés. The collective outrage that precipitated the recent resignation of Guatemala’s president did not make the headlines.

The Right resorts to the same media one-sidedness in embellishing Chile’s economic model, which is praised for its privatizations, with no mention of the stifling household debt, job insecurity, and miserable private retirement pensions, or the slowing growth and rising corruption that are jeopardizing the education reforms and social security promised by Bachelet.

The contrast between the neoliberal paradise and the progressive hell also entails silence about the only case of default in 2015. Puerto Rico ran out of money to finance the plunder of its human resources (emigration), natural resources (replacement of local agriculture by imported food), and economic resources (relocation of industry and tourism).

There is no space for the consequences of neoliberalism in the newspapers or news bulletins. The Right discusses the end of the progressive cycle while failing to mention what is happening outside of that universe.

A Post-Liberal Period?

The Right’s misleading view of the progressive cycle contrasts with the important debate now unfolding among Left theorists as to whether this cycle is continuing or is exhausted.

Those who support the continuity thesis point to the solidity of the transformations of the last decade. They emphasize the socio-economic accomplishments, the advances in continental integration, the geopolitical successes and the election victories (Arkonada, 2015a; Sader, 2015a).

The consistency that they see in the changes carried out is established through the use of the adjective “post-liberal” to describe this cycle. They hold that a “post” stage has left the preceding phase behind through the thoroughgoing nature of the changes registered. This is their focus in polemics against those who emphasize the decline in that process (Itzamná, 2015; Sader, 2016b; Rauber, 2015).

The triumph of Macri, the advance of Capriles-López, and the paralysis of Dilma or Correa have moderated these assessments and induced certain criticisms. Some cite the harmful effects of bureaucracy or shortcomings in the cultural battle (Arana, 2015; Arkonada, 2015b).

But in general they maintain their characterization of the period and emphasize the limitations of the conservative offensive. They highlight the weakness of that project, the transitory nature of its successes or the proximity of major social resistance (Puga Álvarez, 2015; Arkonada, 2015b).

This view fails to register the degree to which the deepening of the extractivist pattern has undermined the progressive cycle. The link between this economic pattern and right-wing governments is not extended to include its peers on the Centre-Left. These governments are adversely affected by the consequences of a model that reduces employment and inhibits productive development. This contradiction is much more serious in the radical processes.

The assumption of a post-liberal period omits those tensions. Not only does it forget that overcoming neoliberalism means beginning to reverse the region’s dependency on raw materials exports, it entails a serious lack of clarity in the characterization of the period. It is never explained whether post-liberalism is referring to the governments or to the patterns of accumulation.

It is sometimes suggested that what is involved is a period counterposed to the Washington Consensus. But in that case it is the political turn to autonomy that is emphasized, while ignoring the persistence of the pattern of raw materials exports.

Or it is argued that a more substantial change in the economic model would go beyond what it is possible to do in Latin America. Such a turn would involve more significant changes in the direction of a multipolar capitalist world that is said to be developing. However, no one explains how those transformations would alter the traditional physiognomy of the region. What occurred in the last decade illustrates a course of raw materials development counterposed to the steps that would have to be taken in the region to forge an industrialized, diversified and integrated economy.

Those sympathetic to progressivism defend the neo-developmentalist economic base of the last decade, noting its contrast with neoliberalism. But they do not register the many areas of complementarity between the two models. Nor do they note that no attempt at greater state regulation has reversed the privatizations, eradicated job insecurity or modified the payments on the debt.[8]

These insufficiencies do not constitute the “price to pay” for the development of a post-liberal scenario. They perpetuate dependency and primary export specialization.

In the last decade, of course, there have been social improvements, greater consumption and some growth. But that kind of recovery has occurred in other cycles of business recovery and higher export prices. What has not changed is the profile of regional capitalism and its adaptation to the current requirements of globalization.

When this fact is ignored there is a tendency to see advances where there is stagnation and enduring achievements where mistakes are prevalent. The backdrop to the problem is the sanctification of capitalism as the only feasible system. The theorists of progressivism rule out the implementation of socialist programs or at best concede their possibility in a distant future.

With that premise, they imagine the viability of heterodox, inclusive or productive schemas of a Latin American capitalism. Each proof of failure of this model is replaced by another hope of the same type, which ends in similar disappointments.

Unthinking Oficialismo

The real problems afflicting progressivism are frequently eluded, and criticism is focused exclusively on the bureaucracy, corruption, or inefficiency. It is forgotten that those problems can occur at any time in all economic models and do not constitute a peculiar feature of the last decade.

And since it is supposed that the sole alternative to those governments is a conservative return, conduct is justified that ends up facilitating the right-wing restoration.

This conduct has been exposed during the protests that have erupted under the centre-left governments. Their supporters respond with the allegation that the right wing is behind the protests. They question the “ungrateful ones” who have taken to the streets but ignore the mistakes made by the progressive governments.

During the Argentine strikes in 2014 and 2015, progressivism repeated the traditional establishment arguments. It decried the “political” nature of the strikes, as if that reduced their legitimacy. It attacked the “extortion by the picketers,” overlooking the fact that it is the bosses, not the activists, who engage in blackmail, and that gestures like these roadblocks are tactics used by workers in the informal sector, lacking the right to protest, in order to protect themselves.

Other progressives try to discredit the strikes, saying that “tomorrow everything will remain the same,” as if an act of force by the workers will not improve their bargaining power. And they present the strike as an act of “egotism” by the better-off workers, even though that advantage has helped to generate some of the biggest social acts of resistence in Argentine history.

In Brazil, the reaction of the PT was similar. It did not participate when the protests began in 2013. It expressed a lack of trust toward the demonstrators and only conceded the validity of the marches when they became a mass movement. The government limited itself to accusing the Right of encouraging discontent instead of noting the popular disillusionment with an administration that appoints neoliberal ministers.

This hostility toward the actions in the streets was a result of the PT’s regression. The party has lost its sensitivity to popular demands as a result of its close links with the business interests and bankers. Its leadership manages the economy in the interests of the capitalists and is surprised when its social base asks for what it has always demanded.

The same tensions emerged in Ecuador in the face of numerous petitions by the social movements in defense of the land and water. Since their marches coincided with the Right’s rejection of the government’s moves to tax the highest incomes, government officials pointed to the convergence of both actions as the same process of conservative restoration. Instead of favouring an approach to the social protesters in order to forge a common front in opposition to the reactionaries, progressivism blindly lined up with Correa.

What is happening in the face of the protests in these three countries governed by the Centre-Left illustrates how the progressive administrations distance themselves from the popular movement. That is how they pave the way for a return of the Right.

Enduring distinctions

Objecting to the post-liberal thesis are other authors who identify an exhaustion of the progressive cycle as a consequence of extractivism. In their view, mega-mining undertakings (Tipnis, Famaitina, Yasuni, Aratiri)[9] and the primacy of soy or hydrocarbons development have blocked reduction in social inequality. And they argue that all the governments in Latin America converge in a “commodities consensus” that accentuates dependency on raw materials production and export (Svampa, 2014; Zibechi, 2016, Zibechi, 2015a).

This is a correct description of the consequences of a model that privileges raw materials exports. But it is wrong in postulating the pre-eminence of a uniform physiognomy in the region. It fails to note the significant differences that separate the right-wing, centre-left and radical governments in all respects other than extractivism.

Venezuela has not eradicated its dependence on oil, Bolivia has not liberated itself from the centrality of gas production, and Cuba maintains its reliance on nickel production or tourism. But this dependency does not convert Maduro, Evo or Raúl Castro into leaders similar to Peña Nieto, Santos or Piñera. Raw materials exports prevail throughout the Latin American economy without defining the profile of the governments.

By highlighting the damaging effects of extractivism, the critics avoid the naive post-liberal perspective. But the limitations of progressivism cannot be reduced to the reinforcement of the agro-mining pattern, nor can neo-developmentalism be defined by this feature. If extractivism were to constitute the principal feature of that model, it would have no significant differences with neoliberalism.

The new developmentalists have tried to channel the agro-mining rents toward the internal market and industrial recomposition. They have failed in that objective, but they had a goal that is absent in their free-trade adversaries.

It is important to explain these distinctions if we are to develop alternatives. The answers do not emerge from a contrast with extractivism alone. Against the post-liberal capitalism promoted by the theorists of the continuity of the progressive cycle, these critics do not advance the socialist option. Instead, they issue generic calls for projects centred on increasing the number of self-managed communities.

This localist horizon tends to obviate the need for a state administered by the popular majorities, and which harmonizes protection of the environment with industrial development. Latin America needs to nationalize the mainsprings of its economy if it is to finance productive undertakings using the rent from agricultural production and mining.

The beneficiaries would then be the labouring majorities and not the capitalist minorities. There lies the main difference between socialism and neo-developmentalism.

The theoreticians of the decline of progressivism question the authoritarianism of the neo-developmentalist governments. They point to restrictions on public freedoms, assaults on the indigenous movement and the trend toward centralizing powers in the hands of presidents. And they denounce the substitution of dynamics of hegemony by coercive logics and the silencing of voices independent of the official discourse (Svampa, 2015; Gudynas, 2015; Zibechi, 2015b).

But none of these tendencies has converted a centre-left administration into a government of reaction. The only such case might be the President of Peru, Ollanta Humala, who posed as a Chavista but has operated as president with a heavy hand and neocolonial subordination.

It is important to recognize these differences if we are to take our distance from the messages spread by the Right against “authoritarianism” and “populism.” While the conservative politicians seek to amalgate criticism of progressivism in a deceitful common discourse, the Left needs to take its distance. Explicitly repudiating the arguments and posturing of the reactionaries is the best way to avoid that trap.

It is worth remembering that radicalizing the processes that are bogged down by the hesitations of progressivism is a task that is counterposed to the neoliberal regression. Areas of convergence with the Centre-Left can exist, but never with the Right. Confronting the reactionaries is a requisite of mass-based political action.

These distinctions apply in all respects and have particular validity in the exercise of democracy. Progressivism can adopt coercive approaches but repressive patterns are not part of its basic structure. That is why a passage from hegemonic forms of rule (by consensus) to dominant forces (coercion) in the administration of the state is usually accompanied by changes in the type of government. The differences between the Centre-Left and the Right that appeared at the outset of the progressive cycle persist today.

Concrete Controversies

All of these current debates now take on an urgent content in Venezuela. In that country the discussion is not about generic diagnoses of continuity or exhaustion of a stage but of specific proposals over radicalization or regression of the Bolivarian process.

The revolutionists advocate radicalization. They reject agreements with the bourgeoisie, promote effective actions against speculators and favour consolidation of the communal power. These initiatives reflect the audacity that characterized the successful revolutions of the 20th century. They call for going on the offensive before the Right comes out on top. (Conde, 2015; Valderrama, Aponte, 2015; Aznárez, 2015; Carcione, 2015).

The second approach is advocated by the Social Democrats and officials who are feathering their nests with the status quo. Their theorists do not advance a clear program. Nor do they openly dispute the radical theses. They simply emphasize the objectives, suggesting that the government will know how to find the correct road.

They tend to lay the blame on imperialism for all the difficulties Venezuela is experiencing, but they contribute no ideas on how to defeat those attacks. They call for renewed efforts to fight “inefficiency” or “lack of control” but do not mention nationalization of the banks, the expropriation of those engaged in capital flight, or an audit of the debt.

Merely defending the Bolivarian process (and the following it maintains) will not solve any problems in the present dilemma. Without an open discussion of why Chavismo lost votes among its supporters, there is no way to overcome the bigger predicament posed by the Right. Nor is there any point in elliptically noting that the government “did not or could not” adopt the appropriate policies.

It is even more unwise to blame the people for “forgetting” what Chavismo brought to them. This line of reasoning assumes that improvements paternally granted by a government should be applauded without hesitation. It is the polar opposite of communal power and the protagonism of workers who are building their own future.

The projects of post-liberal capitalism collide with the reality of Venezuela. This proves the fanciful nature of that model and the need to open anticapitalist routes in order to head off the conservative restoration. Rejecting that approach with a recipe book of impossibilities simply amounts to crossing one’s arms in futility.

Some thinkers agree with this characterization, but they think “the time has passed” to advance in that direction. But how is this timing determined? What is the barometer that can establish the end of a transformative process?

The loss of enthusiasm, the retreat to private life, and proclamations of “good-bye to Chavismo” are current today. But the people often react to situations of extreme adversity. It would not be the first time that divisions and errors of the Right precipitated a Bolivarian counter-attack.

Socialist Identity

The persistence, renewal or extinction of the progressive cycle in the region depends on the popular resistance. Without this dimension it is impossible to ascertain whether it is the continuation or the close of that period. It is a huge error to assess changes in governments without reference to the levels of struggle, organization or consciousness of the oppressed.

The Right has the initiative for now, but the nature of the period as a whole will be defined in the social battles that the conservatives themselves will surely precipitate. And the outcome of those conflicts does not depend solely on the preparedness to struggle. A key factor will be the influence of socialist, anti-imperialist and revolutionary currents.

In the last decade the traditions of these currents have been brought up to date through social movements and radical political processes. In particular, a new generation of militants has renewed with the legacy of the Cuban revolution and Latin American Marxism.

Chávez played a key role in this recovery, and his death severely affected the renaissance of socialist ideology. The impact was so great that it inspired a search for substitute references. An example is the centrality assigned to Pope Francis, which tends to confuse roles of mediation with roles of leadership.

Some personalities are of course useful for negotiating with enemies. The first Latin American to accede to the Papacy has a strong record as an intermediary with imperialism. His presence can serve to break the economic blockade of Cuba, oppose the sabotage of the peace negotiations in Colombia, or intercede against the criminal gangs operating in the region. It would be foolish to squander Francis’s usefulness as a bridge in any of those negotiations.

However, that function does not mean the Pope is a protagonist in the battles against neoliberal capitalism. Many people assume that Francis leads that confrontation thanks to his messages in opposition to inequality, financial speculation or environmental devastation.

They fail to note that these proclamations stand in contradiction to the ongoing lavishness of the Vatican and its financing through obscure banking operations. The divorce between sermon and reality has been a classic feature of ecclesiastical history.

The Pope also adopts various precepts of the social doctrine of the Church that promote models of capitalism with greater state intervention. Those schemes are designed to regulate markets, raise compassion among the wealthy and guarantee the submission of the dispossessed. They expand on an ideology forged during the 20th century in polemics with Marxism and its influential ideas of emancipation.

The Church’s conceptions have not changed. Francis is attempting to resurrect them in order to overcome the loss of members that Catholicism has experienced at the hands of rival creeds. The latter have modernized, are more accessible to the popular classes and are less identified with the interests of the ruling elites.

The Vatican’s campaign counts on the approval of the news media, which exalt the image of Francis, overlooking his questionable past under the Argentine dictatorship. Bergoglio maintains his old hostility to Liberation Theology, rejects sexual diversity, denies the rights of women and avoids the penalization of pedophiles. And he covers for bishops challenged by their communities (Chile), canonizes missionaries who enslaved indigenous peoples (California), and facilitates assaults on secularism.

It is an error to assume that the Latin American Left will be built in an environment shared with Francis. Not only is there a lasting and huge counterposition of ideas and objectives. While the Vatican continues to recruit believers in order to deter the struggle, the Left is organizing protagonists of the resistance.

It is as important to reinforce this combative attitude as it is to strengthen the political identity of the socialists. The Left of the 21st century is defined by its anticapitalist profile. Fighting for the communist ideals of equality, democracy and justice is the best way to contribute to a positive outcome of the progressive cycle.

References

• Aharonian, Aram, 2016. Venezuela, ejemplo cívico…, ¿y ahora qué?, 20-1.
• Arana, Silvia, 2015. Respuesta a los profetas del “fin de ciclo” latinoamericano, 1-10.
• Arkonada, Katu, 2015a. Fin del ciclo progresista o reflujo del cambio de época en América Latina, 8-9.
• Arkonada Katu, 2015b. Fin de ciclo? La disputa por el relato, 18-12.
• Aznárez, Carlos, 2015. Venezuela: Aún se está a tiempo de salvar la Revolución, 7-12.
• Carcione, Carlos, 2015. Una mirada desde Venezuela: Lo que viene en América latina, 16-12.
• Cieza, Guillermo, 2015. ¿Fin de ciclo o fin de cuento?, 2-10.
• Colussi, Marcelo, 2015. Un espejo donde mirarse, 20-9.
• Conde, Narciso Isa, 2015. Venezuela: causas, efectos y respuestas a un gran revés, 9-11.
• Gómez Freire, Gonzalo, 2015. Para los que le echan la culpa a la “guerra económica”, 7-12.
• Guerrero, Modesto Emilio, 2015. “La cuestión es que el gobierno bolivariano nunca se propuso…”, 11-12.
• Gudynas, Eduardo, 2015. La identidad del progresismo, su agotamiento y los relanzamientos de las izquierdas, 7-10.
• Iturriza, Reinaldo, 2015. Venezuela: Después del 6-D no hay chavismo vencido, 8-12.
• Itzamná, Ollantay, 2015. Latinoamérica emergente: ¿se acaba la esperanza?, 24-9.
• Mazzeo, Miguel, 2015. Hay que sembrarse en las experiencias del pueblo, 5-10.
• Puga Álvarez, Valeria, 2015. América Latina en disputa: Contra la tesis del fin de ciclo, 22-11.
• Rauber Isabel, 2015. La clave del protagonismo popular Gobiernos populares de América, 4-12.
• Sader Emir, 2015a. El final del ciclo (que no hubo), 14-9.
• Sader, Emir, 2016b. La izquierda del siglo XXI, 4-1.
• Stedile, João Pedro, 2015, “O imperio passou a jogar máis duro”, 24-11.
• Szalkowicz, Gerardo, 2015. Venezuela: golpe de timón o peligro de naufragio, 9-12.
• Svampa, Maristella, 2014. Cristina, el maldesarrollo y el progresismo sudamericano, 13-11.
• Svampa Maristella, 2015. Termina la era de las promesas andinas, 25-8.
• Teruggi Marco, 2015. Venezuela: Recalculando (para vencer), 10-12.
• Valderrama, Toby; Aponte, Antonio, 2015. Venezuela. El presidente Maduro y la revolución, 8-12.
• Zibechi, Raul, 2015a. Raúl Hacer balance del progresismo, 4-8.
• Zibechi, Raul, 2015b. Las tormentas que vienen, 27-11.
• Zibechi Raul, 2016. Crisis de los gobiernos progresistas, 20-1.

Haiti’s densely populated greater Port-au-Prince area is seismically more active than previously thought, and there will be another earthquake there.  

It is impossible to predict when this will happen.

A study by a team of French scientists helps to understand that some exceptional forces caused Haiti’s extremely destructive magnitude-7.0 earthquake on January 12, 2010 and that there is continuing seismic risk to the city of Port-au-Prince and its surroundings. In an article in Geophysical Research Letters, Nathalie Feuillet and her colleagues identified the faults that were involved in the earthquake, and they proposed an unusual model for the seismic rupture that well fits the available observations.

Haiti’s January 12, 2010 earthquake has been difficult to map in detail, because it left no trace of surface rupture. The general public was made to understand that stresses on the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden Fault (EPGF), a major left-lateral strike-slip through Haiti’s southern peninsula, were generally the source and location of the earthquake. To those who study seismo-tectonics, however, the epicenter of the earthquake was not adequately mapped. Typically, earthquakes along the EPGF leave offsets of several meters in the landscape. There therefore arose the notion that Haiti’s 2010 earthquake had ruptured one or more previously unmapped blind thrusts (faults that show no sign on the earth’s surface) north of the EPGF.

Active fault through the city of Carrefour, west of Port-au-Prince (red) (Credit: Newdeskarl Saint Fleur et al. GRL, 2016.).

By combining data from aerial images, high-resolution topography, bathymetric maps (maps of the submerged terrain), and geological observations, the researchers managed to map a sizeable set of active blind thrusts running northwest through Haiti’s southern peninsula toward the bay, many of them right in the plain that includes Port-au-Prince. They singled out one of these, called the Lamentin thrust, which connects to the EPGF to the east, near Pétion-Ville, and runs northwest through the city of Carrefour and into the bay, as having been involved in the earthquake.

Based on the above physical measurements, plus maps of the aftershocks, the scientists built a model of the earthquake that fit “the surface deformations recorded by geodetic (GPS and radar interferometry) data and micro-atolls type of corals.”

Active faults and seismicity in the southwestern part of Haiti. Red star = epicenter of the main shock of the earthquake of 2010. Blind thrusts are shown (black lines), as well as the EPGF (red line). Note the connection of the Lamentin thrust to the EPGF (Credit: Newdeskarl Saint Fleur et al GRL, 2016).

They concluded from their model that what happened in Haiti on January 12, 2010 was probably an exceptional event: a coupled rupture of two faults. In other words, there were two earthquakes in quick succession, with the first one causing the second. Specifically, both the Lamentin thrust and the EPGF, which connect at depth, were ruptured on that day, and the rupture probably started with a strong sliding along the Lamentin thrust before it spread along the EPGF. A huge drop in the perpendicular compression on the EPGF is apparently what promoted its rupture.

On one hand, Haiti’s 2010 earthquake relieved stresses that had accumulated over more than 20 decades. On the other hand, after the earthquake, the stresses increased at both ends of the rupture zone, according to the researchers. Furthermore, the presence of many active blind thrusts in the greater Port-au-Prince area could represent additional earthquake risks. Some scientists even suggest that the area’s earthquakes tend to come in series. For example, the last recorded major earthquake in Port-au-Prince, around magnitude-7.5, was in 1770, but 10 earthquakes of magnitude 6.0-6.9 preceded it, between 1765 and 1770, and there were two earthquakes of magnitude-6.5 to 6.7 in 1751 alone.

The greater Port-au-Prince area hosts about three million people. It includes, not only the capital city, but also the suburbs of Carrefour, Pétion-Ville, Delmas, Tabarre, Cité Soleil, and Kenskoff, plus the neighboring cities of Léogâne, Miragoâne, and Gressier. Therefore, it is prudent to build new structures with the area’s seismic activity in mind and generally practice earthquake preparedness.

Block diagram showing a north-south cross-section of the geology and aftershocks of the main earthquake and fault system (Credit: Newdeskarl Saint Fleur et al GRL, 2016).

Dr. Dady Chery is a Haitian-born poet, playwright, journalist and scientist. She is the author of the book “We Have Dared to Be Free: Haiti’s Struggle Against Occupation.” Her broad interests encompass science, culture, and human rights. She writes extensively about Haiti and world issues such as climate change and social justice. Her many contributions to Haitian news include the first proposal that Haiti’s cholera had been imported by the UN, and the first story that described Haiti’s mineral wealth for a popular audience.

The US Navy dispatched several ships to the South China Sea, to the area which is territorially disputed between several states in the region.

The Navy Times reported Thursday that the US sent the USS John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet to the South China Sea.

Earlier, it was reported that China had sent fighter jets to the Woody Island, which is one of the disputed Paracel Islands (Xisha) in the South China Sea.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hua Chunying in response to media reports said that the deployment of the Chinese fighters to the disputed island is absolutely legitimate as the area falls under the sovereignty of China.

The US is trying to prevent military activities in China in the South China Sea under the pretext of freedom of navigation.

Last October, the Pentagon conducted its first FON in the South China Sea, sending the USS Lassen within the 12-mile territorial limit of Beijing’s artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago. The move elicited outrage from Chinese officials.

The coast is the object of territorial disputes between several states in the region. Nearly a third of the world’s marine cargo passes through the South China Sea and the offshore islands located there are rich in oil.

Apart from China, the islands are claimed by members of ASEAN, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that food and agriculture across the world is in crisis. Food is becoming denutrified, unhealthy and poisoned with chemicals and diets are becoming less diverse. There is a loss of plant and insect diversity, which threatens food security, soils are being degraded, water tables polluted and depleted and smallholder farmers, so vital to global food production, are being squeezed off their land and out of farming. A minority of the global population has access to so much food than it can afford to waste much of it, while food poverty and inequality have become a fact of life for hundreds of millions.

This crisis stems from food and agriculture being wedded to power structures that serve the interests of the powerful agribusiness corporations in the Western countries, especially the US. Over the last 60 years or so, Washington’s plan has been to restructure indigenous agriculture across the world. And this plan has been geopolitical in nature: subjugating nations by getting them to rely more on US imports rather and grow less of their own food. What happened in Mexico under the banner of ‘free trade’ is outlined further on in this article.

Agriculture and food production and distribution have become globalised and tied to an international system of trade based on export-oriented mono-cropping, commodity production for the international market, indebtedness to international financial institutions (IMF/World Bank) and the need for nations to boost foreign exchange (US dollar) reserves to repay debt (which neatly boosts demand for the dollar, the lynch pin of US global dominance). This has resulted in food surplus and food deficit areas, of which the latter have become dependent on (US) agricultural imports and strings-attached aid. Food deficits in the global South mirror food surpluses in the West.

Whether through IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programmes related to debt repayment, as occurred in Africa, bilateral trade agreements like NAFTA and its impact on Mexico or, more generally, deregulated global trade rules, the outcome has been similar: the devastation of traditional, indigenous agriculture.

Integral to all of this has been the imposition of the green revolution. Farmers were encouraged to purchase seeds from corporations that were dependent on petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides to boost yields. They required loans to purchase these corporate inputs and governments borrowed to finance irrigation and dam building projects for what was a water-intensive model.

While the green revolution was sold to governments and farmers on the basis it would increase productivity and earnings and would be more efficient, we are now in a position to see that it served to incorporate nations and farmers into a system of international capitalism based on dependency, deregulated and manipulated commodity markets, unfair subsidies and inherent food insecurity.

As part of a wider ‘development’ plan for the global South, millions of farmers have been forced out of agriculture to become cheap factory labour (for outsourced units from the West) or, as is increasingly the case, unemployed or underemployed slum dwellers. And many of those who remain in agriculture find themselves being steadily squeezed out as farming becomes increasingly financially non-viable due to falling incomes, the impact cheap subsidised imports and policies deliberately designed to run down smallholder agriculture.

Aside from the geopolitical shift in favour of the Western nations resulting from the programmed destruction of traditional agriculture, the corporate-controlled, chemical-laden green revolution has adversely impacted the nature of food, soil, human health and the environment. Sold on the promise of increased yields, this has been overstated. And the often stated ‘humanitarian’ intent and outcome (‘millions of lives saved’) has had more to do with PR rather than the reality of cold commercial interest.

Moreover, if internationally farmers found themselves beholden to a US centric system of trade and agriculture, at home they were also having to cater to the needs of a distant and expanding urban population whose food needs were different to local rural-based communities. In addition to a focus on export oriented farming, crops were being grown for the urban market, regardless of farmers’ needs or the dietary requirements of local rural markets.

Impacts of the green revolution on the farm

In an open letter written in 2006 to policy makers in India, farmer and campaigner Bhaskar Save summarised some of the impacts of green revolution farming in India. He argued that the actual reason for pushing the green revolution was the much narrower goal of increasing marketable surplus of a few relatively less perishable cereals to fuel the urban-industrial expansion favoured by the government and a few industries at the expense of a more diverse and nutrient-sufficient agriculture, which rural folk – who make up the bulk of India’s population – had long benefited from.

Before, Indian farmers had been largely self-sufficient and even produced surpluses, though generally smaller quantities of many more items. These, particularly perishables, were tougher to supply urban markets. And so the nation’s farmers were steered to grow chemically cultivated monocultures of a few cash-crops like wheat, rice, or sugar, rather than their traditional polycultures that needed no purchased inputs.

Tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains, but these very replaced with dwarf varieties, which led to more vigorous growth of weeds and were able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight. As a result, the farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding, or spraying herbicides. Moreover, straw growth with the dwarf grain crops fell and much less organic matter was locally available to recycle the fertility of the soil, leading to an artificial need for externally procured inputs. Inevitably, the farmers resorted to use more chemicals and soil degradation and erosion set in.

The exotic varieties, grown with chemical fertilisers, were more susceptible to ‘pests and diseases’, leading to yet more chemicals being poured. But the attacked insect species developed resistance and reproduced prolifically. Their predators – spiders, frogs, etc. – that fed on these insects and controlled their populations were exterminated. So were many beneficial species like the earthworms and bees.

Save noted that India, next to South America, receives the highest rainfall in the world. Where thick vegetation covers the ground, the soil is alive and porous and at least half of the rain is soaked and stored in the soil and sub-soil strata. A good amount then percolates deeper to recharge aquifers or groundwater tables. The living soil and its underlying aquifers thus serve as gigantic, ready-made reservoirs. Half a century ago, most parts of India had enough fresh water all year round, long after the rains had stopped and gone. But clear the forests, and the capacity of the earth to soak the rain, drops drastically. Streams and wells run dry.

While the recharge of groundwater has greatly reduced, its extraction has been mounting. India is presently mining over 20 times more groundwater each day than it did in 1950. But most of India’s people – living on hand-drawn or hand-pumped water in villages, and practising only rain-fed farming – continue to use the same amount of ground water per person, as they did generations ago.

More than 80% of India’s water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. For example, one acre of chemically grown sugarcane requires as much water as would suffice 25 acres of jowar, bajra or maize. The sugar factories too consume huge quantities. From cultivation to processing, each kilo of refined sugar needs two to three tonnes of water. Save argued this could be used to grow, by the traditional, organic way, about 150 to 200 kg of nutritious jowar or bajra (native millets).

The colonisation of Mexico by US agribusiness

If Bhaskar Save helped open people’s eyes to what has happened on the farm and to ecology as a result of the green revolution, a2015 report by GRAIN provides a wider overview of how US agribusiness has hijacked an entire nation’s food and agriculture under the banner of ‘free trade’ to the detriment of the environment, health and farmers.

In 2012, Mexico’s National Institute for Public Health released the results of a national survey of food security and nutrition. Between 1988 and 2012, the proportion of overweight women between the ages of 20 and 49 increased from 25 to 35% and the number of obese women in this age group increased from 9 to 37%. Some 29% of Mexican children between the ages of 5 and 11 were found to be overweight, as were 35% of the youngsters between 11 and 19, while one in 10 school age children suffered from anaemia. The Mexican Diabetes Federation says that more than 7% of the Mexican population has diabetes. Diabetes is now the third most common cause of death in Mexico, directly or indirectly.

The various free trade agreements that Mexico has signed over the past two decades have had a profound impact on the country’s food system and people’s health. After his mission to Mexico in 2012, the then Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, concluded that the trade policies in place favour greater reliance on heavily processed and refined foods with a long shelf life rather than on the consumption of fresh and more perishable foods, particularly fruit and vegetables.

He added that the overweight and obesity emergency that Mexico is facing could have been avoided, or largely mitigated, if the health concerns linked to shifting diets had been integrated into the design of those policies.

The North America Free Trade Agreement led to the direct investment in food processing and a change in the retail structure (notably the advent of supermarkets and convenience stores) as well as the emergence of global agribusiness and transnational food companies in Mexico. The country has witnessed an explosive growth of chain supermarkets, discounters and convenience stores. Local small-scale vendors have been replaced by corporate retailers that offer the processed food companies greater opportunities for sales and profits. Oxxo (owned by Coca-cola subsidiary Femsa) tripled its stores to 3,500 between 1999 and 2004. It was scheduled to open its 14 thousandth store sometime during 2015.

De Schutter believes a programme that deals effectively with hunger and malnutrition has to focus on Mexico’s small farmers and peasants. They constitute a substantial percentage of the country’s poor and are the ones that can best supply both rural and urban populations with nutritious foods. Mexico could recover its self-sufficiency in food if there were to be official support for peasant agriculture backed with amounts comparable to the support granted to the big corporations.

In Mexico, the loss of food sovereignty has induced catastrophic changes in the nation’s diet and has had dire consequences for agricultural workers who lost their jobs and for the nation in general. Those who have benefited include US food and agribusiness interests, drugcartels and US banks and arms manufacturers.

The writing is on the wall for other countries because what happened in Mexico is being played out across the world under the banner of ‘free trade’.

GMOs a bogus techno quick-fix to further benefit global agribusiness

Transnational agribusiness has lobbied for, directed and profited from the very policies that have caused the agrarian/food crisis. And what we now see is these corporations (and their supporters) espousing cynical and fake concern for the plight of the poor and hungry (and the environment which they have done so much to degrade), and offering more (second or third generation… we have lost count) chemicals and corporate-patented GM wonder seeds to supposedly ‘solve’ the problem of world hunger. GM represents the final stranglehold of transnational agribusiness over the control of seeds and food.

The misrepresentation of the plight of the indigenous edible oils sector in India encapsulates the duplicity at work surrounding GM. After trade rules and cheap imports conspired to destroy farmers and the jobs of people involved in local food processing activities for the benefit of global agribusiness, including commodity trading and food processer companies ADM and Cargill, the same companies are now leading a campaign to force GM into India on the basis that Indian agriculture is unproductive and thus the country has to rely on imports. This conveniently ignores the fact that prior to neoliberal trade rules in the mid-1990s, India was almost self-sufficient in edible oils.

In collusion with the Gates Foundation, these corporate interests are now seeking to secure full spectrum dominance throughout much of Africa as well. Western seed, fertiliser and pesticide manufacturers and dealers and food processing companies are in the process of securing changes to legislation and are building up logistics and infrastructure to allow them to recast food and farming in their own images.

Today, governments continue to collude with big agribusiness corporations, which seek to eradicate the small farmer and subject countries to the vagaries of rigged global markets. Agritech corporations are being allowed to shape government policy by being granted a strategic role in trade negotiations and are increasingly framing the policy/knowledge agenda by funding and determining the nature of research carried out in public universities and institutes.

Bhaskar Save:

“This country has more than 150 agricultural universities. But every year, each churns out several hundred ‘educated’ unemployables, trained only in misguiding farmers and spreading ecological degradation. In all the six years a student spends for an M.Sc. in agriculture, the only goal is short-term – and narrowly perceived – ‘productivity’. For this, the farmer is urged to do and buy a hundred things. But not a thought is spared to what a farmer must never do so that the land remains unharmed for future generations and other creatures. It is time our people and government wake up to the realisation that this industry-driven way of farming – promoted by our institutions – is inherently criminal and suicidal!”

At the end of the above quote, Save is referring to the near 300,000 farmer suicides that have taken place in India over the past two decades due to economic distress resulting from debt, a shift to (GM)cash crops and economic ‘liberalisation’ (see this report about a peer-reviewed study, which directly links suicides to GM cotton).

The current global system of chemical-industrial agriculture, World Trade Organisation rules and bilateral trade agreements that agritech companies helped draw up for their benefit are a major cause of structural hunger, poverty, illness and environmental destruction. By its very design, the system is parasitical.

Agroecology as a credible force for change

Across the world, we are seeing farmers and communities continuing to resist the corporate takeover of seeds, soils, water and food. And we are also witnessing inspiring stories about the successes of agroecology: a model of agriculture based on traditional knowledge and modern agricultural research utilising elements of contemporary ecology, soil biology and the biological control of pests.

Reflecting what Bhaskar Save achieved on his farm in Gujarat, the system combines sound ecological management, including minimising the use of toxic inputs, by using on-farm renewable resources and privileging endogenous solutions to manage pests and disease, with an approach that upholds and secures farmers’ livelihoods.

Agroecology is based on scientific research grounded in the natural sciences but marries this with farmer-generated knowledge and grass-root participation that challenges top-down approaches to research and policy making. It can also involve moving beyond the  dynamics of the farm itself to become part of a wider agenda, which addresses the broader political and economic issues that impact farmers and agriculture (see this description of the various modes of thought that underpin agroecolgy).

Last year the Oakland Institute released a report on 33 case studies which highlighted the success of agroecological agriculture across Africa in the face of climate change, hunger and poverty. The studies provide facts and figures on how agricultural transformation can yield immense economic, social, and food security benefits while ensuring climate justice and restoring soils and the environment. The research highlight the multiple benefits of agroecology, including affordable and sustainable ways to boost agricultural yields while increasing farmers’ incomes, food security and resilience.

The report described how agroecology uses a wide variety of techniques and practices, including plant diversification, intercropping, the application of mulch, manure or compost for soil fertility, the natural management of pests and diseases, agroforestry and the construction of water management structures. There are many other examples of successful agroecology and of farmers abandoning green revolution thought and practices to embrace it (see this report about El Salvador and this from South India).

Various official reports have argued that to feed the hungry and secure food security in low income regions we need to support small farms and diverse, sustainable agro-ecological methods of farming and strengthen local food economies (see this report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and this (IAASTD) peer-reviewed report).

Olivier De Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food:

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live especially in unfavorable environments.”

De Schutter’s report indicated that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest. The report calls on states to implement a fundamental shift towards agroecology.

The success stories of agroecology indicate what can be achieved when development is placed firmly in the hands of farmers themselves. The expansion of agroecological practices can generate a rapid, fair and inclusive development that can be sustained for future generations. This model entails policies and activities that come from the bottom-up and which the state must invest in and facilitate.

Proponents of agroecology appreciate that a decentralised system of domestic food production with access to local rural markets supported by proper roads, storage and other infrastructure must take priority ahead of exploitative international markets dominated and designed to serve the needs of global capital. Small farms are per area more productive than large-scale industrial farms and create a more resilient, diverse food system. If policy makers were to prioritise this sector and promote agroecology to the extent ‘green revolution’ practices and technology have been pushed, many of the problems surrounding poverty, unemployment, rising population and urban migration could be solved.

While many argue in favour of agroecology and regard it as a strategy for radical social change, some are happier for it to bring certain benefits to farmers and local communities and see nothing wrong with it being integrated within a globalised system of capitalism that continues to centralise power and generally serve the interests of the global seed, food processing and retail players. And that is the danger: a model of agriculture with so much potential being incorporated into a corrupt system designed to suit the needs of these corporate interests.

But there is only so much that can be achieved at grass-root level by ordinary people, often facilitated by non-governmental agencies. As long as politicians at national and regional levels are co-opted by the US and its corporations, seeds will continue to be appropriated, lands taken, water diverted, legislation enacted, research institutes funded and policy devised to benefit global agribusiness.

When future historians sit down to write the history of the Syrian conflict there is a simple test that will determine whether their objective is to mine and reveal the truth, or whether it is merely to shovel more dirt onto the mountain of the stuff that’s been erected over the course of its five long years as a monument to propaganda.

The test will be their depiction of the Syrian Arab Army and its role in the conflict. If said historians credit it with holding the line against the forces of hell that were committed to the country’s destruction as a secular, non sectarian, multi-religious and ethnic state, enduring the kind of losses and casualties placing it among the most courageous, resilient, and heroic of any army of any nation that has ever existed, then people will know that truth rather than propaganda has prevailed.

The glorification of war and conflict is difficult to resist for those living safely many miles away from its horrors and brutality. Those who do glorify it should ake a moment to study and imbibe the words of Jeannette Rankin, who said: “You can no more win a war than you can win and earthquake.”

The war in Syrian confirms the abiding truth of those words when we consider the epic nature of the destruction it has wrought, the tragic human cost, and how it has shaken Syrian society to the very limits of endurance. It means that while the country’s survival as an independent non sectarian state may by now be certain, its ability to fully recover from the earthquake Rankin describes is something that only time will tell.

But the fact the country has managed to achieve its survival and, with it, the opportunity to recover is predominately the achievement of the Syrian Arab Army, whose complexion is a microcosm of the very society and people it has defended – Sunnis, Shia, Druze, Christians, Alawites, etc. In the process of doing so, as these words are being written, it has lost over 60,000 men according to the latest report by Robert Fisk, one of the more estimable Western correspondents based in the region. This is without factoring in the 1000-plus Hezbollah fighters who’ve been killed, along with Kurds and members of the various government-allied militia groups. It also does not include the tens of thousands who’ve been wounded or maimed.

But just think about this staggering statistic of 60,000 killed for a moment. In a country with a population before the conflict began of 25 million, and an army numbering in the region of 220,000 at full strength, the loss of 60,000 troops places the epic nature of the conflict in which they perished on a par with the Eastern Front during the Second World War.

Russian aid and solidarity has of course been a key factor in turning the tide of the Syrian conflict. But all the aid and solidarity in the world amounts little without a people and army’s will to resist the invasion of the country by thousands of extremists whose passions for butchering human beings in the most heinous ways imaginable qualifies their labelling as barbarians.

The salient point lost in the countless columns, reports, and op-eds that have been written and published, equating these barbarians with the Syrian government and its military, is that the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian people are one and the same in that one begins where the other ends and vice versa. The ability and willingness of the army to endure the battering it has, and which no other army in the region could have withstood, has been contingent on the support from the Syrian people. This support has been constant even in the midst of the huge external pressure arrayed against the country from Western powers that at one point were convinced that the army’s collapse and total defeat was only a matter of when and not if.

The current ceasefire, brokered by Russia and supported by Washington, takes place at a time when the conflict has turned emphatically in the government’s favour. During an offensive operation that began in early February, the SAA has smashed its way across the north of the country. Combined with an offensive launched by the multi-ethnic SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) in northern Aleppo province, it has effectively succeeded in encircling Aleppo city and cutting the main supply routes to the opposition forces in control of a large part of the city from Turkey. Given the number of armed factions involved in the conflict, the lack of any central command structure directing its activities, the fact that the ceasefire has thus far held with only a few minor violations is testament to the changed reality on the ground.

The machinations and plotting and mendacity of the Saudis and Turks – not forgetting their Western allies – have all come to naught in a country where every town and street, every hill, village, and road has been touched by war. It is proof that in the last analysis history is made not by governments, diplomats, or functionaries in palatial staterooms and chancelleries. It is made by ordinary men and women willing to fight and die in defence of their people, homes and communities, and whose honour in doing so contrasts with the dishonour of those who made the mistake of regarding Syria as just another piece on their geopolitical chessboard.

No one should ever underestimate the human cost of protecting Syria’s sovereignty and integrity. Do so and you denigrate those who have fallen and those who will undoubtedly fall as and when the fighting resumes. Neither should we underestimate the size of the mountain to climb before Syria is put back together when the guns eventually fall silent.

For just as one struggle ends another will begin.

John Wight‘s work appears regularly at RT, Counterpunch, the Morning Star, and he is a regular commentator on BBC Radio Scotland.

The imperialist agenda of NATO has been suffering significant setbacks in Syria over recent months as the SAA – with the help of the Russians, the Iranians, and Hezbollah – has been steadily defeating terrorist forces and liberating areas previously held by them. A steady stream of victories in the two weeks leading up to the bad faith ceasefire agreement, encouraged by Western powers and agreed to by Russia, has also served to drive yet another nail into the coffin of the morale of the NATO terrorist proxies.

Clearly, the United States, NATO, the GCC, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are all beginning to realize that it is much harder to defeat a united front, particularly when the unity is between regional and international power players like Iran and Russia. Thus, the most reasonable strategy (aside from abandoning immoral and unwise imperialist adventures) is to break up that united front both on the diplomatic and on the military plane.

An attempt has already been made to disrupt the Lebanese government by means of a color revolution some months ago. However, recent reports have revealed a possible plan by Turkey and Saudi Arabia (in concert with the rest of the anti-Syrian powers) to open up a second front of terrorist destabilization in northern Lebanon. The result of such a plan would not only be to increase instability on southwestern Syrian borders and eliminate a friendly state (or at least a non-hostile one) from any positive diplomatic or state-to-state action between Syria and Lebanon but it would also draw Hezbollah back into the Lebanese borders and out of the fight in Syria.

In addition, a destabilization of Lebanon and the creation of a “northern front” in Lebanon manned by terrorist forces would effectively cut supply lines, communications, and reinforcement capabilities from its Syrian counterparts. Likewise, the supply lines and reinforcement shipments coming from Iran would severely be hampered.

Fabrice Balanche, a French professor and visiting fellow at the Washington Institute (formerly known as WINEP), recognized as much when he wrote about the possible geopolitical chess moves that might be made by both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. He wrote,

Yet Turkey and Saudi Arabia may not remain passive in the face of major Russian-Iranian progress in Syria. For example, they could set up a new rebel umbrella group similar to Jaish al-Fatah, and/or send antiaircraft missiles to certain brigades. Another option is to open a new front in northern Lebanon, where local Salafist groups and thousands of desperate Syrian refugees could be engaged in the fight. Such a move would directly threaten Assad’s Alawite heartland in Tartus and Homs, as well as the main road to Damascus. Regime forces would be outflanked, and Hezbollah’s lines of communication, reinforcement, and supply between Lebanon and Syria could be cut off. The question is, do Riyadh and Ankara have the means and willingness to conduct such a bold, dangerous action?

Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. But it is not only Riyadh and Ankara who are invested in the destruction of Syria and the isolation of Hezbollah. The Israelis have always had a vested interest in the strategy of weakening Assad and Hezbollah while NATO is clearly the overarching strategist behind the implementation of the actual policy as it has been realized over the last five years in Syria.

With that in mind, such a strategy appears to be underway or, at least, in the preparatory stages. For instance, it was reported by both Greek and Turkish sources that, on February 28, 2016, a vessel loaded with weapons was seized off of Turkey’s West coast by Greek authorities. The vessel, which left out of an international port in Izmir, was headed to Lebanon.

The reports were subsequently confirmed by Chief International Correspondent and Analyst for Kuwaiti newspaper, Al Rai in a series of tweets.

News and commentary website Moon Of Alabama commented that, while the Turks seem to be the most obvious participant in an apparent attempt to destabilize Lebanon, the Saudi’s should not be ignored. The website states,

It is unlikely that this is a purely Turkish operation. The Saudis do have enormous influence in Lebanon due to their frequent bribes paid to the various actors there. The general Saudi influence is now somewhat diminished. None of the major Lebanese followed the Saudi’s demand to take its side and to seek conflict with Syria or Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shia party that supports the Syrian government. But there are still groups in Lebanon, especially Salafis, which the Saudis essentially command.

MOA also points out that, only weeks ago, a Saudi prince was arrested and imprisoned in Lebanon after being caught smuggling two tons of captagon onto his private plane. Captagon is a drug commonly used by terrorist death squad fighters battling the Syrian and Iraqi governments.

On February 19, despite being locked in a power struggle with Iran over influence in the Mediterranean nation, Saudi Arabia announced that it was slashing $4 billion worth of military aid to Lebanon. While KSA has, for years, attempted to bribe and buy influence in Lebanon (part of which is accomplished through military aid) it appears that Saudi Arabia is simply walking away, leaving Iran to fill the vacuum. Such a move would be abject foolishness from a geopolitical standpoint if KSA truly wanted to influence the nation and direct its affairs through bribery and king making. That is, unless the goal of KSA is no longer to influence but to destroy.

Certainly, the Saudis are preparing for something on the horizon since KSA, UAE, and Bahrain announced in late February that they were urging their citizens not to travel to Lebanon. KSA cited only unspecified “security concerns.” UAE went so far as to announce that it was removing most of its diplomats from Lebanon.

Some have posited that the abrupt cut of funding and discouragement of travel to Lebanon came from the Saudis as a result of Lebanon’s tepid siding with Iran over its recent spat with the Saudis over Lebanon’s refusal to condemn attacks on KSA’s embassy in Iran. Others, however, point to the possibility that the Saudis are either planning something in Lebanon or, at the very least, they know that something is coming soon. That “something” may very well be the disintegration of the Lebanese state or the destabilization of the entire country.

What is more telling is a report by Stratfor, a private geopolitical intelligence and consulting firm closely related to U.S. intelligence and a firm player in the military industrial complex, suggesting that Saudi Arabia is looking to exploit Syrian refugees in Lebanon for the purpose of creating “sunni militias” in the country as a way to combat and distract Hezbollah.

The report states,

According to a Sunni politician in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia is reportedly courting Syrian refugees in Lebanon with the goal of establishing an anti-Hezbollah Sunni militia. The politician said Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sees Sunni Syrian refugees with military training as a way to harass Hezbollah, and he may be using Saudi philanthropic organizations that provide aid to refugee camps as a way to court potential militia recruits. Though Stratfor could not verify the politician’s claims, it is clear that Saudi Arabia is using Syria’s convoluted battlespace as a way to expand its regional clout.

Note also the potential use of Saudi “philanthropic organizations” as a way to identify potential foot soldiers in the newly formed “militias.”

Attempted destabilization of Lebanon is certainly within precedent. Even recent events demonstrate the fragile and targeted nature of the Mediterranean nation. Indeed, these recent events also demonstrate the role in which “philanthropic organizations” play in the implementation of color revolutions.

Recent Color Revolution

The protests that originally took place in Lebanon as part of the YouStink! Movement surrounded an entirely legitimate issue – the lack of effective implementation of a trash pickup plan and the potential for privatization. However, those protests soon turned violent with the original issue having taken a backseat to issues such as that of “government corruption.”

This type of focus is one hallmark of the color revolution, i.e. that legitimate issues are subsumed by shadowy ideals that have no concrete demands to back them up. Government corruption is generally the go-to ideal since everyone hates government corruption and since the likelihood of stopping it is so low. Once the standing government is brought down, a perceived change in the power structure tends to alleviate social protest.

The lack of concrete demands is also a hallmark of the color revolution. After all, the goal of the color revolution is regime change, social tension, and distraction, not real progress. A lack of demands precludes the ability of the masses to actually bring about positive tangible change. It does, however, allow for a steam valve of public anger.

During those times when the ultimate goal of the color revolution is regime change, the results are unfortunately that the individuals whom the backers of the color revolution desire to assume power are able to do just that.

It is also important to point out the marketing capabilities behind the hordes of people in the streets of Beirut. A seeming coalition of individual citizens and opposing organizations were all assembled – the world’s people were told organically – under one name for the purposes of achieving their unstated goals. The YouStink! movement may now join a number of other movements who were “branded” with a catchy name to popularize itself as a political force just as Americans saw the Occupy Movement, Ukrainians saw the Euromaidan Movement, Pora Movement, and the Orange Revolution. In Serbia, it was Otpor! In Lebanon, it was the Cedar Revolution.

These slogans and symbols are the product of mass marketers employed by State Departments and intelligence agencies for the sole purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing a democratically elected or unfavorable (to the oligarchy)government.

The YouStink! Movement was also known as a “youth movement.” While it is must granted that most social protest movements tend to be driven by younger people, it is also true that movements that represent populist sentiment tend to be more diverse in terms of age and support. That question aside, however, color revolutions generally rely on “swarming adolescents” and “hordes of youth” in the streets using the energy, anger, and pent-up aggression of young people out of work and devoid of hope with which to provoke violent actions between police and protesters and to create more tension on the political and social scene.

This is precisely the population from which the overwhelming majority of the YouStink! Movement was drawn.

It is also important to point out that the YouStink! Movement is called for the resignation of Prime Minister Salam, a demand that, if enacted, would through the country into the middle of a Constitutional crisis.

Why Would Foreign Elements Want To See A Color Revolution In Lebanon?

Many may be rightly confused with any suggestions that the West would like to see the government of Lebanon (separate from Hezbollah) destroyed or destabilized, especially when that government was largely placed in power by a Western-backed color revolution to begin with.

However, there are a number of ways in which the collapse of the fragile government and governing structure in Lebanon would not only benefit the West, but also hurt Assad in Syria.

Andrew Korybko describes the political governing structure of Lebanon in the following way:

The tiny Middle Eastern state of about four and a half million people is marked by a demographic and political complexity that could hinder a speedy resolution to the current crisis. It’s necessary to be aware of some of its specifics in order to better understand the origins of the current stalemate and where it might rapidly be headed.

Unilaterally sliced out of Syria during the early years of the French mandate, the territory of Lebanon hails what is generally recognized as the most diverse population in the Mideast. Eighteen religious groups are recognized in the country’s constitution, including Alawites, Druze, Maronite Catholics, Sunnis, and Shiites.

This eclecticism of religious communities is presided over by something referred to as the National Pact, an unwritten understanding that the President will always be Maronite, the Prime Minister will be Sunni, and the Speaker of Parliament will be Shiite, among other stipulations (and with a few historical exceptions). Complementary to this concept is the country’s unique political system called confessionalism, whereby Christians and Muslims share equal seats in the unicameral parliament, but each group’s respective composition is determined proportionally by sect. Originally meant to be a temporary solution when it was first enacted in the 1920s, it was later refined by the 1989 Taif Agreement that ended the lengthy civil war and has remained in place to this day.

With the governing foundations of the Lebanese state in such fragile shape, one can see just how easily Lebanon might fall into chaos if just the right amount of pressure is applied. But, again, the question is “why?”

First, causing chaos in Lebanon, if the chaos is great enough, will force Hezbollah to remove its forces fighting ISIS is Syria and bring them back to deal with the lack of social order at home. The removal of forces from Syria will greatly relieve pressure on terrorist forces and deprive Assad of a very important ally. The SAA would thus find it a greater challenge to defend the Lebanon-Syria border, possibly even creating a situation where ISIS/”rebel” forces would be able to push deep into Lebanon.

Likewise, if Hezbollah forces are withdrawn from Syria, the Beirut/Damascus highway is likely to become a target of Western-backed terrorist forces. If so, it would make one and eventually both of the “lifelines” to the Syrian capital significant targets with attempts being made to cut these highway routes. Already, the Latakia-Damascus highway, the second “lifeline” to the capital,” finds itself in danger from attacks coming from Western-backed terrorists.

Aside from Syria, the weakening of the political order in Lebanon would be problematic for Hezbollah in the short run and devastating in the long run. If Hezbollah is forced to concern itself only with the political situation in Lebanon, its own influence and ability to assist in fighting terrorism in Syria as well as on its own borders will be diminished, all leading to a net reduction in the fighting capability of the true anti-ISIS coalition. The result of drawing Hezbollah away from Syria and back into Lebanon will effectively isolate both Hezbollah and the SAA, weakening the resistance to Western-backed terrorism and also severing the Western end of the “Shi’ite Arch of Influence” from the central and Eastern ends (Syria and Iran).

The intention to destroy Hezbollah has been known since the early days of the destabilization and, indeed, as far back as 2006 when Seymour Hersh reported in his now famous article, “The Redirection,” that,

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Conclusion

While Lebanon has largely been able to survive the Syrian crisis intact, despite its fragile power sharing agreement, it appears that it is always teetering on the edge of being more valuable to the NATO/GCC/Israeli bloc as a heap of rubble than a functioning country. If recent events and developments are anything to go by, it appears Lebanon is beginning to reach the end of the line when it comes to Western tolerance. Hezbollah’s assistance to the Syrian government and its ever present threat to Israeli dominance in the region has thus made Lebanon as a whole the target of NATO treachery. If NATO cannot destroy Syria because of Hezbollah or if it cannot destroy Hezbollah in Syria, it may very well try to destroy Lebanon in order to do so, whether it is by “hordes of youth” in the streets or armed death squads on the war path.

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

Yesterday, European Council President Donald Tusk issued a blunt warning that the European Union (EU) intends to seal off its borders and summarily deport masses of desperate refugees fleeing imperialist wars that are devastating the Middle East.

Speaking from Athens after meeting with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Tusk said:

“I want to appeal to all potential illegal economic migrants, wherever you are from. Do not come to Europe. Do not risk your lives and your money. It is all for nothing. Greece, or any other European country, will no longer be a transit country.”

Tusk then traveled on to Turkey. At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Ankara, he called for setting up a system for summary mass deportations of refugees from Europe. “We agree that the refugee flows still remain far too high,” Tusk said. “To many in Europe, the most promising method seems to be a fast and large-scale mechanism to ship back irregular migrants arriving in Greece.”

Tusk’s attack on refugees as “irregular” or “illegal economic migrants” is a slander against hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children fleeing bloody conflicts stoked by the US and European powers. Such attacks are designed to allow the EU to shift far to the right, adopting policies previously associated with neo-fascistic forces. Fundamental democratic rights, like the right to asylum, are to be trampled, and extrajudicial deportations based on racial or national origin are to become EU policy.

The flow of refugees from war-torn Syria and Iraq is continuing to increase, with 131,724 arriving in Greece in the first two months of 2016 alone. This is more than the number that fled to Europe in the first six months of 2015. Under these conditions, the hostility of all factions of the European bourgeoisie to the refugees is coming fully into the open.

Tusk’s comments came a day after NATO commander General Philip Breedlove accused refugees of being enemies of NATO in the service of Russia and Syria, which are “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

No fabrication is too grotesque for the EU powers. A conference organized by Austria and nine Balkan countries agreed to designate all refugees fleeing Afghanistan, a country devastated by an ongoing civil war and NATO military occupation, as “economic migrants.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who at the beginning of the refugee crisis tried to falsely align herself with popular sympathy for refugees by stating that Berlin would welcome large numbers of them, signaled her agreement with a hard line against immigrants on Tuesday. (See: German chancellor demands end to “waving refugees through the borders”)

“There is not a right for a refugee to say: ‘I want to get asylum in a particular country in the European Union,’” she declared. Berlin’s support for the Schengen treaty of free movement of people inside Europe is based on Greece not allowing refugees into Europe in the first place, she stressed: “When I say we have to return to the Schengen system, then that means of course that Greece has to protect the borders.”

Tens of thousands of refugees seeking to travel north towards Germany are now trapped in Greece, as Austria and the Balkan states refuse to admit more than a handful of refugees through the border each day. Greek authorities estimated that the number of refugees trying to reach central Europe but trapped in Greece could soon rise to 70,000.

Thousands of refugees have arrived at the Greek-Macedonian border since Macedonian police brutally cracked down on migrants trying to cross the border on Monday. Approximately 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants are therefore blocked at a camp near the border crossing at Idomeni.

“This is a makeshift camp. The transit camp is already at full capacity so people are setting up their tents wherever they can,” Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid reported from Idomeni. “They’re going to the woods to set up fires when the temperatures fall dramatically. … People are frustrated with each day that passes, they’re getting more and more tired.”

A class gulf separates the chauvinist reaction to the refugee crisis by the European ruling elites from the sentiments of masses of working people. In Athens, workers are donating food and toys, and unemployed workers are donating their time in soup kitchens.

Ethnic conflicts and resentments inside the EU are continuing to build, however, as each national government is seeking to block as many refugees as possible from arriving on its territory and is attempting to send as many of them as possible to other countries.

Greece’s Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) government, which last year imposed a savage austerity package on Greek workers at the behest of the EU, is again playing a reactionary role.

Greek officials are forcing refugees stopped at the Macedonian border to head south to camps in Athens. Media coverage of the camps has been blocked as the government deploys the army to build them and police the refugees trapped there.

After Greece took the unprecedented step of withdrawing its ambassador to Austria to protest Vienna’s role in preventing refugees from leaving Greece, divisions are now erupting over a German-led plan to deploy warships to stop the flow of refugees from Turkey across the Aegean Sea to Greece.

The deployment, which threatens to cut off Russian access to the Mediterranean, was announced early in February in the context of NATO’s broader military buildup against Russia over the Syrian and Ukraine crises. It came only weeks after a Turkish fishing vessel nearly rammed a Russian warship in the Aegean Sea.

While it was aimed at Russia, the deployment has run afoul of escalating divisions among the NATO powers themselves. Last week, NATO officials were still trying to determine the parameters of the naval deployment, amid bitter territorial disputes between Greece and Turkey. After violations of Greek air space by Turkish fighters, during which Greek and Turkish planes engaged in mock dogfights, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that “Greek and Turkish forces will not operate in each other’s territorial waters and airspace.”

On Wednesday, AFP cited multiple anonymous diplomatic sources as stating that Turkish authorities were blocking the deployment to the Aegean. One said that “the Turks refused” to allow NATO vessels into their territorial waters, demanding that the operation’s German commander, Rear Admiral Jorg Klein, “go to Ankara to determine the area where [NATO warships] might deploy.”

The source also denounced Turkey for “showing little to no interest” in taking back migrants picked up by NATO warships at sea as they attempt the crossing to Greece.

Turkish and German government sources denied the AFP report.

The Republican presidential nominee in 2012, Mitt Romney, denounced the party’s current presidential frontrunner, billionaire Donald Trump, in a remarkable speech Thursday at Utah State University. In the 20-minute address, broadcast by all the cable networks to a national television audience, Romney called Trump a fraud, a threat to democracy and a man grossly unfit to be president.

The speech lays bare deep divisions within the US ruling class as a whole, which are ripping apart the Republican Party.

Romney, who made his fortune in private equity investing, focused his criticism on Trump’s positions on economic and foreign policy. Trump’s nationalistic economic policy “would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America,” he said.

Significantly, he criticized Trump from the right on the question of cutting Social Security and Medicare, which Trump claims to oppose. Romney declared that Trump’s “refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt.”

Romney ridiculed Trump’s claims that he would put his business acumen to work for the US economy as a whole. He asked, “And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.”

In terms of foreign policy, Romney warned that Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric was alienating US allies in the Middle East and helping ISIS, and he attacked Trump’s professed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

His language was particularly scathing on Trump’s persona, “the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics.”

Romney concluded with a warning of the authoritarian and antidemocratic direction Trump would lead the country, although he stopped short of using the word “fascist”:

“Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”

It is unprecedented in US history for the titular leader of one of the two major capitalist parties to go on national television to denounce his likely successor in such terms. With this declaration, Romney would seem to have burned any bridges to supporting Trump if he goes on to win the Republican nomination.

Trump’s rise has been fueled by his demagogic and empty appeals to widespread anger, under conditions in which the Democratic Party and what passes for the “left” in American politics, no less than the Republicans, have pursued a policy entirely dedicated to the enrichment of Wall Street. The immense tensions within the United States are provoking sharp conflicts within the ruling class itself and threatening to break apart political institutions that have existed for generations.

Romney’s remarks followed the issuing Wednesday of an open letter signed by 95 Republican foreign policy experts denouncing Trump and declaring they could not support him in the November election if he won the nomination. The group consists of some of the most ruthless defenders of the interests of American imperialism, but they attacked Trump for advocating trade war and torture, and for using “hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.”

The signatories include former Bush administration officials like Michael Chertoff, Eric Edelman, Peter Feaver, Frances Townsend, Philip Zelikow and Robert Zoellick, as well as academic and media advocates of the war with Iraq like Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Niall Ferguson and Robert Kagan.

As this list of war criminals and their apologists demonstrates, those figures in the Republican Party opposed to Trump are just as reactionary as the billionaire demagogue. They object to his social demagogy, however limited, because the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic, will be tasked with the destruction of what little remains of a social safety net in the United States.

They fear that by his inflammatory language and bullying tactics, a Trump nomination, let alone a Trump presidency, could provoke political explosions both internationally and within the United States.

Romney’s critique of Trump notably leaves out entirely the long history of Republican Party collaboration with and encouragement of racist and antidemocratic forces, going back to the southern strategy of Richard Nixon, which sought to co-opt the George Wallace movement—the political figure whom Trump most closely resembles in his style and political focus, if not biography.

Romney called on Republican voters to support any of the remaining three candidates opposing Trump—Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio or Ohio Governor John Kasich—voting tactically for whichever was best positioned to defeat Trump in their state. In effect, he was calling for the decision on a nominee to be thrown into the Republican National Convention set for July 15-18.

Romney’s denunciation of Trump received immediate support by leading figures in the Republican Party establishment, including Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. There was a wave of approving commentary in the American media.

Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan have declared that they would support Trump if he wins the nomination. Most big financial backers of the Republican Party have held back from any direct confrontation with Trump, led by the Koch brothers, the billionaires who have already poured $400 million into Republican campaigns for 2016. A Koch spokesman reaffirmed after Romney’s speech that they would take no position in the presidential primaries.

Romney’s speech dominated media coverage leading up to the debate Thursday night in Detroit, where the four remaining Republican candidates took the stage in the Fox Theatre. The first question posed to Trump was to respond to Romney’s remarks, which he did in typical fashion, attacking Romney as a “failed candidate…who should have beaten President Obama” very easily.

Neither his three rivals nor the trio of moderators from Fox News sought to press the issue, and Romney went unmentioned for the rest of the debate. But the final question posed to all the candidates was whether they would commit themselves to support the Republican nominee. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich all pledged to support Trump if he won, while Trump pledged to support the eventual nominee if he lost.

The entire debate consisted of efforts by the four candidates to strike the most right-wing possible posture on every question raised—immigration, terrorism, social issues like gay marriage and abortion and military spending. There was little or no discussion about the actual conditions of life facing hundreds of millions of working people.

When, after 90 minutes of a debate in Detroit, the interviewers finally asked the obligatory question about the lead poisoning of children in Flint and the mass unemployment and deindustrialization throughout southeast Michigan, the candidates had difficulty disguising their lack of interest in the subject. They either made perfunctory statements of sympathy, or, in the case of Cruz, took the opportunity to launch into a diatribe against any interference with the operation of the market.

In their prepared summations at the end of the debate, Trump, Rubio and Kasich repeated familiar, empty phrases. Cruz, however, again struck the most openly right-wing stance, making an extraordinary appeal to soldiers in the military and to police officers to support his campaign, pledging to end all restrictions on their use of force, and, in the case of the police, to “have their backs” against any criticism of the wave of police killings of unarmed citizens.

Central Banks are complicit in the manipulation of financial markets including stock markets, commodities, gold and currency markets, not to mention the oil and energy markets which have been the object of a carefully engineered “pump and dump” speculative onslaught.

Who controls the central banks? Monetary policy does not serve the public interest.

The article below by Washington Blog quotes three influential central bankers: Mark Carney, Meryl King and Alan Greenspan.

The current governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney (image right) is a former Goldman Sachs official.

He went from Goldman to heading the Bank of Canada before being appointed Governor of the Bank of England.

At the time of his appointment he was not a citizen of the United Kingdom. A precedent was set: Mark Carney was the first foreigner to occupy that position since the founding of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England in 1694.

The issue was barely mentioned by the British media.

While Carney was appointed by Her Majesty, unofficially, he still has “links” to Goldman Sachs.

Is he in conflict of interest in relation to Goldman Sachs’ recent insinuations regarding the stability of the British Pound Sterling were the UK decide to exit the EU?

Insinuations of this nature combined with inside information are the basis for large scale speculative operations:

Daily Mail, February 2, 2016

Was Goldman Sachs’ claim really undermined by Bank of England Mark Carney as suggested by the British media?  (See above) Carney served 13 years for Goldman Sachs.

Alan Greenspan, quoted below, largely served Wall Street. Lest we forget The Federal Reserve is a private banking institution.

The abstract views provided by Mark Carney, Mervyn King and Alan Greenspan focus on weaknesses of the real economy. What they fail to mention is that market manipulation and financial fraud –which are  now an integral part of neoliberalism– are largely responsible for the crisis of the real economy.

In this regard, central banks share a large burden of responsibility in creating a “regulatory” environment which favors the “institutional speculators”.

Real economy explanations presented by Carney et al are in many regards misleading.

The price of crude oil did not collapse as a result of  supply and demand considerations. The price of crude was pushed up and then pushed down through a carefully designed speculative  undertaking involving Wall Street and the Anglo-american Oil conglomerates. The impacts of  this instability in oil prices on the real economy are devastating.

Michel Chossudovsky, March 4, 2015

*     *     *

Central Bankers Admit that Central Banks Have Failed to Fix the Economy.

by Washington’s Blog

March 2016

Washington’s Blog

Between 2008 and 2015, central banks pretended that they had fixed the economy.

In 2016, they’re starting to admit that they haven’t fixed much of anything.

The current head of the Bank of England (Mark Carney) said last week:

The global economy risks becoming trapped in a low growth, low inflation, low interest rate equilibrium.  For the past seven years, growth has serially disappointed—sometimes spectacularly, as in the depths of the global financial and euro crises; more often than not grindingly as past debts weigh on activity ….

This underperformance is principally the product of weaker potential supply growth in virtually all G20 economies.  It is a reminder that demand stimulus on its own can do little to counteract longer-term forces of demographic change [background] and productivity growth.

***

In most advanced economies, difficult structural reforms have been deferred  [true, indeed]. In parallel, in a number of emerging market economies, the post-crisis period was marked by credit booms reinforced by foreign capital inflows [including from central banks themselves], which are now brutally reversing….

Since 2007, global nominal GDP growth (in dollars) has been cut in half from over 8% to 4% last year, thereby compounding the challenges of private and public deleveraging ….

Renewed appreciation of the weak global outlook appears to have been the underlying cause of recent market turbulence.  The latest freefall in commodity prices – though largely the product of actual and potential supply increases – has reinforced concerns about the sluggishness of global demand.

***

Necessary changes in the stance of monetary policy removed the complacent assumption that “all bad news is good news” (because it brought renewed stimulus) that many felt underpinned markets [Zero Hedge nailed it].

***

As a consequence of these developments, investors are now re-considering whether the past seven years have been well spent.  Has exceptional monetary policy merely bridged two low-growth equilibria?  Or, even worse, has it been a pier, leaving the global economy facing a global liquidity trap?  Can more time be purchased?  If so, at what cost and, most importantly, how would that time be best spent?

***

Despite a recent recovery, equity markets are still down materially since the start of the year.  Volatility has spilled over into corporate bond markets with US high-yield spreads at levels last seen during the euro-area crisis.  The default rate implied by the US high-yield CDX index is more than double its long-run average [background here and here].  And sterling and US dollar investment grade corporate bond spreads are more than 75bp higher over the past year.

Similarly, the former head of the Bank of England (Mervyn King) is predicting catastrophe:

Unless we go back to the underlying causes [of the 2008 crash] we will never understand what happened and will be unable to prevent a repetition and help our economies truly recover.

***

The world economy today seems incapable of restoring the prosperity we took for granted before the crisis.

***

Further turbulence in the world economy, and quite possibly another crisis, are to be expected.

***

Since the end of the immediate banking crisis in 2009, recovery has been anaemic at best. By late 2015, the world recovery had been slower than predicted by policymakers, and central banks had postponed the inevitable rise in interest rates for longer than had seemed either possible or likely.

There was a continuing shortfall of demand and output from their pre-crisis trend path of close to 15pc. Stagnation – in the sense of output remaining persistently below its previously anticipated path – had once again become synonymous with the word capitalism. Lost output and employment of such magnitude has revealed the true cost of the crisis and shaken confidence in our understanding of how economies behave [Correctomundo].

***

Almost every financial crisis starts with the belief that the provision of more liquidity is the answer, only for time to reveal that beneath the surface are genuine problems of solvency [We told you].

A reluctance to admit that the issue is solvency rather than liquidity – even if the provision of liquidity is part of a bridge to the right solution – lay at the heart of Japan’s slow response to its problems after the asset price bubble burst in the late 1980s, different countries’ responses to the banking collapse in 2008, and the continuing woes of the euro area.

Over the past two decades, successive American administrations dealt with the many financial crises around the world by acting on the assumption that the best way to restore market confidence was to provide liquidity – and lots of it.

Political pressures will always favour the provision of liquidity; lasting solutions require a willingness to tackle the solvency issues.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said today that the Dodd-Frank financial bill didn’t fix anything [d’oh!], that we’re in real trouble, and that he’s been pessimistic for a long time:

We’re in trouble basically because productivity is dead in the water…Real capital investment is way below average. Why? Because business people are very uncertain about the future.

***

The [Dodd-Frank] regulations are supposed to be making changes of addressing the problems that existed in 2008 or leading up to 2008. It’s not doing that. “Too Big to Fail” is a critical issue back then, and now. And, there is nothing in Dodd-Frank which actually addresses this issue.

***

 I haven’t been [optimistic on the economy] for quite a while.

And the world’s most prestigious financial agency – called the “Central Banks’ Central Bank” (the Bank for International Settlements, or BIS) – has consistently slammed the Fed and other central banks for doing the wrong things and failing to stabilize the economy.

If the central bankers’ words aren’t clear enough for you, their actions reveal their desperation.

Inside the Takedown of Bernie Sanders’s Civil Rights Record

When the history of the 2016 presidential race is written — if it is written well — it will note the remarkable role played by the African American vote.

It will also note the role of the establishment, including well-placed allies and a significant portion of the media, in keeping the African American vote in a pre-ordained slot: Hillary Clinton’s camp.

Hillary Clinton had a fact, an opportunity, and a problem. Bernie Sanders was surging in national polls, but she was managing to hang on to a huge majority of the black vote, which plays a large and increasingly important role in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Young Bernie Sanders speaks to students on the first day of a sit-in at the University of Chicago in 1962. Photo credit: Photographer Danny Lyon’s official blog: BLEAK BEAUTY / Bernie Sanders / YouTube

If she could retain the black vote in overwhelming numbers, she could hold back Sanders’s surge.

But there were a few big problems. Bernie Sanders’s issues go to the heart of what ails much of Black America. The Bill-and-Hillary record on a number of critical matters, from the incarceration of black youth to the best way to aid struggling black families, youths, single mothers and the unemployed, was at best mixed.

In contrast to Sanders, she is saddled with her closeness to the financial community that has wreaked havoc with the lives of African Americans who are struggling economically. This coziness with representatives of the One Percent goes well beyond delivering well-paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.

Clinton also has been a pumped-up, eager hawk on military action — a position generally unpopular with African Americans, for whom military service has often been a job opportunity of last resort, with the obvious consequences to life and limb. Many other reasons for African Americans not to identify closely with Clinton can be found. She knows this: that’s why she worked so hard to publicly associate herself with President Barack Obama and his policies — though in reality she and the president differed on a number of key points, including her avidity for foreign intervention.

The clincher, though, was surely the revelation that, at the same time the young Hillary Clinton was a proud Goldwater Republican in the early-mid sixties, the young Bernie Sanders was getting arrested as a supporter of civil rights.

The contrast between the candidates’ history on this issue posed a potential disaster for Clinton: if she could not hold onto the African American vote, according to almost all calculations, it was hard to see how she could win the nomination.

And so the Clinton PR apparatus, as formidable as any, went to work.

***

The media keeps saying that “Black folks just love Hillary.” And the Super Tuesday returns from certain southern states seemed to bear this out. Yet these victories in states that Clinton is unlikely to carry in the general election may not necessarily carry over to potential battleground states such as Virginia, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, where African Americans are a sizable part of the Democratic electorate .

If a big turnout of African American voters did not materialize for Clinton in those states, her candidacy would be in deep trouble indeed.

So instead of just repeating the blacks-love-Hillary mantra, the media should look deeper into the question of what each of these candidates offers to African American voters. And such an examination might begin with their respective relationships to the civil rights movement of the early 1960s

The record shows that young Bernie Sanders was a dedicated civil rights activist. He gave speeches in the freezing Chicago winters, he demonstrated for desegregated schools, he participated in Martin Luther King’s march on Washington. And, in 1963, he was arrested while protesting segregated housing at the University of Chicago.

The Perfect Iconic Moment

Let’s focus for a moment on that arrest — which happened at a time when Hillary Clinton was a Republican, and would soon be supporting Barry Goldwater for president

Here’s the background to Sanders’s arrest, as summarized by Kartemquin Films, a Chicago-based maker of socially conscious documentaries:

Education protests in Chicago have been making national headlines for the past few years, but the roots of these protests can be traced back to the early 1960’s and the citywide school boycott that emptied half of Chicago’s schools. It was one of the largest Civil Rights demonstrations in the north. Despite the mandate of Brown vs. the Board of Education, Chicago Public Schools remained segregated and inadequately resourced. Overcrowded black schools sat blocks away from white schools with empty classrooms. To deal with the overflow but avoid integration, CPS Superintendent Benjamin Willis ordered the installment of mobile unit classrooms on the playgrounds and parking lots of these schools. Dubbed “Willis Wagons,” they outraged the community, leading to a massive boycott by 250,000 students. Other cities soon planned similar demonstrations.

It’s not hard to imagine the impact that news of Sanders’s front-line presence in the great civil-rights confrontations of the 1960s might have on African American voters who, until now, have had no reason to think of him as involved in that arena. Nor is it hard to imagine how important it would be to Clinton backers to neutralize that impact.

Here is a blow by blow account of the dispute over Sanders’s civil rights credentials:

June, 2015: The Sanders campaign puts out a video with an image of the young Sanders leading a sit-in at the University of Chicago to protest segregated housing for students (the campaign ad was premiered in June/July to Iowans but published online July 25th).

November 12, 2015: Time publishes “Exclusive: College Alumni Raise Doubts About Bernie Sanders Campaign Photo.”

February 11, 2016: Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart writes a piece titled: “Stop sending around this photo of ‘Bernie Sanders’” (with Sanders’s name in quotes to emphasize the idea that the photo was not Sanders). That same day, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a legendary civil-rights leader (and close to the Clintons), also questionswhether Sanders was involved with the civil rights movement (see below).

February 11, 2016: Clinton-supporter Lewis is asked about Sanders’s involvement in civil rights. He replies, “Well, to be very frank… I never saw him, I never met him… But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.”

February 11, 2016: Mother Jones publishes an article with photos of vintage news articles from The Maroon (University of Chicago) and the Chicago Tribune, confirming Sanders’s arrest.

February 13, 2016: Time is forced to reverse itself (it couldn’t have been very happy about that) — and publishes an article titled: “Photographer Says 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders.” (Of course, in such battles, the initial denial or claim that something is false often resonates the loudest, and many people may have already tuned out.)

February 13, 2016: The CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) PAC publishes a reversal from Lewis: “The fact that I did not meet him in the movement does not mean I doubted that Sen. Sanders participated in the Civil Rights Movement, neither was I attempting to disparage his activism.”

February 21, 2016: Boston.com publishes “Newly found video shows Bernie Sanders getting arrested in 1963.” You can view it here.

This reminds me of something I covered in my book Family of Secrets: how the Bush family reacted when backers of Vietnam War hero-turned-peacenik John Kerry attacked George W. Bush, architect of the Iraq invasion, for having disappeared when he was supposed to be doing his (safe, stateside) military service during the Vietnam War.

The Bush campaign — with brilliant dirty tricks performed at a safe distance for deniability — turned around a difficult situation and buried an inconvenient fact about W. that could have cost him key support in battleground states. Is the Clinton campaign doing the same thing?

This little skirmish over a 52-year-old photograph may seem inconsequential on its face. But it touches on an issue that is central to the nomination fight. If Sanders did protest on behalf of the interests of black people while Clinton was a young Republican supporting the subtly racist campaign of Barry Goldwater, and if Sanders’s lifelong crusade on behalf of the poor and the oppressed was fully communicated to black and Latino voters, Hillary Clinton might find her base not so dependable.

And, as reported by the New York Times, although African Americans are turning out for Clinton in very high percentages in the primaries, high enough to damage Sanders, they are not turning out in high numbers — heralding a crisis that could devastate the Democrats in November.

Expect even greater efforts by the Clinton camp to prevent Sanders from getting this story out as the campaign reaches break-point. But will the media provide the analysis voters deserve?

Following the announcement by the Saudi Defense Ministry on Saturday February 14th that the kingdom intended to commit both air and ground forces to the fight against ISIS in Syria, the first four Royal Saudi Airforce F-15S strike fighters arrived at Incirlik air base on Friday February 26th. These jets were immediately proceeded by approximately thirty officers and men and supporting equipment aboard two C-130 transports. It is obvious that Saudi Arabia is sending air forces and possibly ground forces not to combat ISIS and Al- Nusrah Front, having funded them for years, but to ensure that the Syrian government is not able to regain sovereignty of the entirety of the nation.

Saudi Arabia has one of the most modern and well-equipped air forces in the region and has invested heavily in this military tool for over two decades and fields an impressive inventory of strike aircraft. The Saudi air force uses a mix of both U.S. and European aircraft, from the venerable F-15C and Tornado, to the relatively new Typhoon. The F-15Cs and Tornados have all recently been modernized and 48 units of the Typhoon have been delivered to the Kingdom from Britain. The F-15S is the Saudi version of the F-15E Strike Eagle strike fighter. It is planned to upgrade all of these units to the latest F-15SA standard over the next few years.

The Saudi Air Force has ordered a total of 72 Typhoon T-2 and T3A variants from BAE of the UK. Although this is a modern fighter with strike capabilities, it is rather unproven in combat compared to the F-15s and Tornados historically operated by the Saudis. Saudi aircraft will most likely only operate from Incirlik airbase, along with U.S. and other NATO air forces. This air base has the infrastructure and logistics in place to handle the aircraft of various NATO types. The base is also close to the proposed area of operations (Northern Syria) and is guarded by modern air defenses.

Any Saudi force would most likely only go into battle with the backing of a U.S. or NATO mandate, and the employment of U.S. and NATO aircraft in preliminary strikes. It remains to be seen if the United States and NATO will decide to support Turkey and Saudi Arabia in such an escalation of hostilities. Saudi Arabia’s threat of direct military intervention in Syria also signals the failure of their war by proxy. Their armed gangs of Islamic zealots and terrorists have largely collapsed as a viable threat on the battlefield and face a certain defeat. A failure in Syria along with a stalemate in Yemen may prove to be one failure too many for a Saudi monarchy that is suffering from internal division amongst itself and the hundreds of clans whose loyalty ensures their legitimacy.

It is very clear that any air campaign engaged upon by Turkey and Saudi Arabia alone will be met with a swift and effective Russian response with both ground and naval-based air defenses as well as the most modern and capable air superiority fighters in the region. Russia has made it extremely clear, in diplomatic yet unambiguous terms that it will not allow any outside forces to invade Syria to topple the government and secure their own aims in violation of Syrian sovereignty. Additionally, Russia has international law on its side in any dispute. It is carrying out military operations within Syria at the request of the legitimate government of that nation.

While the assets of the RSAF are modern and capable, they do not represent a technological or combat experience advantage over the forces that Russia can bring to bear in response. Russian air force and air defense forces based in Syria alone present a strong deterrent to any outside power seeking to violate the airspace of Syria without the expressed permission of the Syrian government. It is understood that any direct military confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Russia will further complicate and expand a costly regional conflict into a global one. The arrival of the first Saudi combat aircraft immediately prior to the start of the U.S.-Russia brokered ceasefire sends a clear message that neither Saudi Arabia nor Turkey desire a cessation of hostilities any time soon.

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

“Nós temos bombas nucleares”: foi o que declarou em 19 de fevereiro à Russia Today o analista político saudita Daham al-Anzi, de fato um porta-voz de Riad, repetindo em um canal árabe.

A Arábia Saudita já tinha declarado (The Independent, 30 de março de 2015) sua intenção de adquirir armas nucleares ao Paquistão (que não aderiu ao Tratado de  não proliferação), cujo programa nuclear militar ela financia.  Agora, por intermédio da al-Anzi, ela faz saber que começou a comprá-las há dois anos. Bem entendido, segundo Riad, para enfrentar a “ameaça iraniana” no Iêmen, no Iraque e na Síria, onde “a Rússia ajuda Assad”. Ou seja, onde a Rússia ajuda o governo sírio a libertar o país do chamado Estado Islâmico e outras formações terroristas, financiadas e armadas pela Arábia Saudita no quadro da estratégia da dupla EUA/Otan.

Riad possui mais de 250 caças-bombardeiros com dupla capacidade convencional e nuclear, fornecidos pelos EUA e pelas potências europeias. Desde 2012 a Arábia Saudita faz parte da “Nato Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency”, a agência da Otan que administra os caças europeus Eurofighter e Tornado, que Riad comprou à Grã Bretanha em quantidade que é o dobro do que tem toda a Royal Air Force. Nesse mesmo quadro entra o iminente mega-contrato de 8 bilhões de euros – graças à ministra  Pinottti, eficiente representante de comércio de armas – para o fornecimento ao Kwait (aliado da Arábia Saudita) de 28 caças Eurofighter Typhoon, construídos pelo consórcio de que faz parte a Finmeccanica com indústrias da Grã Bretanha, Alemanha e Espanha. É a maior encomenda jamais obtida pela Finmeccanica, em cujos cofres entrará a metade dos 8 bilhões. Garantida com um financiamento de 4 bilhões por um pool de bancos, entre os quais Unicredit e Intesa Sanpaolo, e pela Sace do grupo Cassa Depositi e Prestiti.

Assim se acelera a reconversão armada da Finmeccanica, com resultados exaltantes para aqueles que se enriquecem com a guerra: em 2015 o valor da ação da Finmeccanica registrou na bolsa um crescimento de 67%.  À margem do “Tratado sobre comércio de armamentos”, ratificado pelo parlamento em 2013, no qual se estipula que “nenhum Estado parte autorizará a transferência de armas no caso em que este saiba que as armas poderão ser utilizadas para ataques dirigidos contra objetivos ou pessoas civis, ou para outros crimes de guerra”. Em face da denúncia de que essas armas fornecidas pela Itália são utilizadas pelas forças aéreas sauditas e kwaitianas realizando massacres de civis no Iêmen, a ministra Pinotti responde : “Não transformemos os Estados que são nossos aliados na batalha contra o EI em inimigos, isto seria um erro muito grave”. Seria sobretudo um “erro” fazer saber que sauditas e kwaitianos são  “nossos aliados”: monarquias absolutas onde o poder está concentrado nas mãos do soberano e de seu círculo familiar, onde partidos e sindicatos são proibidos; onde os trabalhadores imigrantes (10 milhões na Arábia Saudita, cerca da metade da força de trabalho; 2 milhões, em 2,9 milhões de habitantes no Kwait) vivem em condições de superexploração e escravismo, onde aquele que reivindica os mais elementares direitos humanos é enforcado ou decapitado.

É nessas mãos que a Itália “democrática” põe os caças-bombardeiros capazes de transportar bombas nucleares, sabendo  que a Arábia Saudita já as possui e que elas podem ser utilizadas também pelo Kwait.

Na “Conferência de Direito Internacional Humanitário”, a ministra Pinotti, depois de sublinhar a importância de “respeitar as normas do direito international”, concluiu  que “a Itália, nesse aspecto, é um país enormemente credível e respeitado”.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo Publicado em Il Manifesto 

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo.

Jonathan Cook is an independent journalist based in Nazareth and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. You can read all Jonathan’s recent reports and commentaries on his website, the View from Nazareth: www.Jonathan-Cook.net  and on his blog: www.Jonathan-Cook.net/blog/ . Reader comments and discussions are encouraged and take place on Jonathan’s Facebook page. Please visit: www.facebook.com/Jonathan.Cook.journalist

“My delight is at the prospect of the court striking down the enactment and telling the grubby politicians how to enact a recent reform.” – Malcolm Mackerras, ABC, Mar 1, 2016

It is one of the oldest tricks in the book of democracy: minimise it on the pretext that the majority needs to do a better job with its inflated and overrated mandate.  That majority rule comes with its dangers.  As Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America so colourfully questioned, “politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I then, in contradiction with myself?”[1]

Australia possesses, in the blood of its political system, a curious range of anomalies on that subject. On the one hand, it is a political scientist’s dream. Preferential voting means that votes, rather than being exhausted at first instance in a “first past the post” system as employed in the UK, are stored up and counted.  This can lead to curious results, given that “preferences” will carry the second best party or candidate across the line.  Those with more primary votes will come up on the day as losers.

This brings us to that more curious of beasts in Australia known as the Senate.  A bicameral legislature, the Australian Commonwealth operates as other political systems with a lower house and upper senate.

The Senate is supposedly a house representing the interests of Australian states.  In practice, it has often become the target of voices skeptical about its impediment to the workings of the majority which comes from the lower house. Its 76 senators are not all elected at the same time, an aberration which has caused troubles in the past.  How they have been elected, however, has been the source of some consternation.

During the Whitlam years in the 1970s, that hybrid pseudo-American inspired body proved the greatest of stumbling blocks to the reformist agenda of the newly elected Labour government.  The blocking of supply, instigated by the conservative opposition, eventually led to the demise of the prime minister, Gough Whitlam. Others have argued that the CIA lent more than a helping hand in the endeavour.

Suspicion by the major parties, in other words, is rife about the Senate.  Fruit salad selections to the upper house are made because of an assortment of extraordinary preference swaps and a system known as “voting above the line”.  This system was introduced by the Hawke government in 1983 to the Commonwealth Electoral Act to make voting easier.  If you wished to avoid numbering 100 or so boxes in consecutive (yes, consecutive) order, you could mark one box above the haze inducing number of blanks. This would mean a speedier exit from the polling booth, though not necessarily an easier outcome at the count.  The more diligent, and one might say pious Australian voter, continues to number each and every box.

Extraordinary mathematical permutations would result with each Australian election, assisted by those nearest and dearest computers that have become the mainstay of the Australian Electoral Commission.  Australia’s supposedly smooth electoral system, however, has suffered hiccups, with 1,375 votes going missing in the 2013 election in the West Australian senate race.  This necessitated a re-run in 2014.

In the 2013 election, the Australian Senate resembled a motley yet fascinating collective.  The problem, argued critics, was that such candidates as Senator Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party might garner a seat on a paltry number of primary votes, while nabbing the preferences from other candidates.  The preference deal had become sovereign.

The recent changes advocated by the Turnbull government hope to end such perceived aberrations.  Under the changes, parties will not be able to swap preferences. Voters would also be allowed to number more than one box above the line of the ballot.

This seeming garble of suggestions should draw some suspicions. For one, it comes from the incumbent government, and a major party.  Each time reform to the electoral system is touted by a major party, notably one in government, an effort to eliminate variation and opposition is in the pipeline.

The psephologists are not at one on this.  The changes, suggests the ABC’s election analyst Antony Green, “are weighted in favour of candidates that campaign for votes, and it is weighted against candidates who do no more than campaign for preferences.” In contrast, Malcolm Mackerras smells the rat of unconstitutionality.  “I look forward to the inevitable High Court case, with both fear and delight.”[2]

It is, in a sense, no accident that the Turnbull government is proposing such measures. The previous Abbott government struggled in several areas to implement a range of policies that perished rather noisily in the Senate.  Tony Abbott went so far as to deem those Senators “feral” for their obstructionist tactics.[3]  If they disagree with you, demean them as violators of the democratic spirit.

The response from Senator Zhenya Wang of the Palmer United Party did much to demonstrate the gap between a government that believes it can govern without cooperation and discussion, and a system that operates to encourage scrutiny.  “The crossbench plays less politics – or in plain words, most of the crossbench do not oppose for the sake of opposing.”[4]  Ever so often, Australian commentators assume that unobstructed governance is good for democracy, when it is actually its greatest poison.

Democracy is an untidy business, punctuated by moments of chaos and a series of cooperative measures.  The tyranny of the majority, however, persists as a lurking menace.  Any electoral change that serves to embolden that sentiment, thereby eliminating the eccentric, the populist and the peculiar, risks further homogenising an already absurdly centrist political environment.

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

Notes:

1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2216858/posts
2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/senate-voting-reform-q-and-a/7211632
3. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/17/tony-abbott-tells-party-room-its-time-to-look-on-the-bright-side-of-life
4. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/10/crossbenchers-insist-tony-abbotts-feral-senate-is-simply-doing-its-job

With the aid of it’s allies Syria continues to make dramatic advances on the battlefield while the terrorist death squads are in a panic.  The shift has become so dramatic that even in Washington perpetually disconnected from reality they began to realize that they have lost this war. Of course the Empire of Chaos has already shown that it will never actually give up it’s efforts to destroy Syria an important front in it’s endless war on the planet.

For the moment however it has decided against backing the plans of Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria which would probably have resulted in a humiliating defeat. Instead they have accepted Russia’s face saving offer of a “ceasefire.” I was initially shocked by the news fearing a repeat of  2014’s Minsk Agreement which stopped the NAF (Novorossiyan Armed Forces) from exploiting their hard fought victory over the Ukrainian forces by liberating any more territories from the fascist Kiev Junta. However those fears proved groundless as this “ceasefire” excludes al Nusra and ISIS allowing the Syrian Arab Army to continue their efforts to liberate the country from terrorist death squads. Instead this “ceasefire”  is intended to be the initial stage of surrender for some of the smaller groups of terrorist death squads. It is mean to neutralize some groups while allowing the Syrian Arab Army to concentrate on destroying other groups.

Of course it is only the first stage and so long as the Axis of Chaos (US-NATO-GCC-Israel) continues to flood the terrorists with weapons and supplies the war will never actually end. In addition the Empire of Chaos will doubtless use the ceasefire to regroup their forces and plan to smuggle in vast amounts of weapons to the death squads. However Russia, Syria, and the rest of the 4 + 1 (Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah) are well aware of the treacherous intentions of the Axis of Chaos and will keep guard against such schemes. The tide of the war has already decisively turned the death squads desperate recent counter offensives have again ended in disaster. Turkey continues to shell Syrian territory but doesn’t dare to invade. The “Ceasefire” will not alter the direction of the war. The SAA continue house by house, village by village to liberate their country.

First the “Ceasefire” the ominously named Munich agreement. It basically boils down to an agreement with 97 groups (the number is constantly changing) They agree to stop fighting and in exchange Russia agrees not to bomb them. A system has been set up where the Russians and Americans have set up separate headquarters with hotlines to monitor the ceasefire. The Russians are based in Hmeimim Syria since unlike the Empire of Chaos they are there at the invitation of the Syrian Government. The Americans are based in Jordan one of their major terrorist launching pads into Syria as Sibel Edmonds revealed a year before anyone else. Jordan created as a British puppet state  has somehow managed to escaped the infamy of it’s allies the Saudi’s and Turks as sponsors of terrorist death squads. An amusing part of the ceasefire agreement is that it exposes this Jordanian role but even more so that of the United States as the prime backer of these death squads. It likes to blame it’s friends for the endless atrocities of the terrorist death squads and is now officially responsible for their good behavior. For now Russia and Syria are turning a blind eye to the many ceasefire violations 7 on the first day, 15 on the second, 21 on the the third. (Syria 360 Publishes a daily report)

For after 5 years of war the people in Syria are doubtless happy to experience even relative calm. It also allows supplies to enter long besieged towns and helps spare the lives of civilians trapped in terrorist occupied areas. And after 4 months of heavy losses even some of the death squads are relieved and in fact they are surrendering in increasing numbers. 1,200 agreed to lay down their arms in Hama a couple days ago for example. Others have decided to switch sides and fight their former allies. In the chaotic war the death squads have often battled each other for the right to loot Syria and Syrian and Russian intelligence doubtless have plans to use the ceasefire to infiltrate and manipulate the death squads against one another.

The recent string of successful assassinations of top death squad commanders demonstrates they are already having some success in placing spies and buying traitors within the death squads. This has the added bonus of inducing paranoia in the terrorists ranks as they begin to execute each other on suspicion of treachery. The ceasefire will help to neutralize some groups, subvert others, while freeing the SAA up for it’s planned offensive to liberate the eastern half of the country from ISIS. Meanwhile  it’s current string of victories in Latakia and  in Aleppo will cut off the flow of supplies to the death squads meaning that the terrorists will be in a much weaker position when the ceasefire eventually collapses. Clearly the ceasefire not only marks a major victory in the Syrian war it also offers many opportunities to spread demoralization and confusion in the ranks of the NATO death squads.

Despite or perhaps because of the announcement that the “Ceasefire” was soon to come into effect the terrorists launched major counter offensives. They launched yet another failed attempt   to seize the Deir Ezzor a government held territory deep in ISIS controlled eastern Syria a vital strategic point. The Heroic City and airabase of Deir Ezzor so long as it survives foils the long held schemes to break off the lightly populated but oil rich area and join it with a chunk of western Iraq to create a saudi style Al Qaeda state between the two allies. I should mention that Iraq has also been making major gains in forcing ISIS out of it’s territory. Obviously one of the most important details of the “Ceasefire” is that it allows the war on ISIS and Al Nusra to continue hopefully the SAA and it’s allies in the air Russia, and on the ground Russian and Iranian advisers along with the legendary Hezbollah, and the feared Iraqi Militias will be able to liberate the entire eastern half of the country, before the US can try to recognize any future “wahabistan”. Thankfully even the outrageous liars in corporate media would have trouble selling the idea of ISIS as moderate rebels after spending years hyping them up as a major threat to justify their launching of a third Iraq war and an expanded war on Syria back in the fall of 2014. Yet that fact hasn’t stopped them from stubbornly refusing to abandon these plans to break up Syria. Instead it is the heroic defenders of Deir Ezzor who have withstood years of siege and attacks to maintain a presence in the area. Recently they sent hundreds of ISIS terrorists to their graves as they smashed yet another major attack. I look forward to the day when the siege of Deir Ezzor is finally lifted after the SAA liberate the territory that separates  them.

The SAA also foiled a major counter-attack meant to slow their offensive in Aleppo province. The terrorists siezed the strategic town of Khanaasir temporarily cutting off the road to Aleppo slowing the progress in evicting the terrorists who have been laying siege to the city for years. Luckily the terrorists achieved only a temporary victory and the SAA and it’s allies managed to retake the town killing hundreds of terrorists in the process. As South Front recently revealed while the worlds attention was focused on the Russian airstrikes Russian advisers were secretly providing valuable assistance in rearming and retraining the Syrian Arab Army. Thus this counter offensive was smashed by the SAA with much greater ease then the counter-offensives last fall that also seized strategically important roads but which took longer to evict. Thus their earlier counter offensives stalled things for weeks while this latest attempt was foiled in mere days. The terrorists were caught between two SAA pincer movements and were slaughtered by Syrian Special forces who ambushed them as they attempted to flee. This is a major sign that the tide has irrevocably turned in this war. Of course the axis of chaos continues to pour men and weapons into the country but the SAA is getting more effective with every passing day.

With their series of defeats on the battle field the death squads cowardly response has been to step up their terror attacks on civilians a long series of car bombings continue to take a heavy toll in civilian lives. Sadly Syria has been a victim of these attacks for so long that what would be front page news if it happened anywhere else is quickly forgotten when it happens in Syria. In any case hundreds of Syrian civilians were killed in senseless bombing attacks no doubt ordered, by the Empire of Chaos and it’s allies in a spiteful revenge for the terrorists losses. Turkey is also launching attacks in it’s impotent rage over the defeat of it’s terrorist proxies and of course their covert forces disguised as terrorist proxies. It has been shelling Syria from across the border harassing the YPG/SDF with Russian air support and weapons from their Syrian allies have been attempting to close the border into Aleppo. The Kurds have stubbornly continued to advance despite the shelling. Maybe that’s why the turks escalated towards nearly killing 30 foreign journalists covering the conflict who of course caught the whole thing on video tape. According to Pepe Escobar the US saved the turks and the saudis from themselves by forbidding an invasion. This must be why the turks are starting to go a bit crazy. An amusing detail according to Syrian Perspective a bunch of Saudi generals wrote in to their mad king begging him not to launch an invasion of Syria given that they were already losing badly in Yemen. Rumor has it Turkey’s generals also had to explain to Erdogan the Sultan of Chaos why an invasion would be disastrous in the face of overwhelming Russian air superiority. This whole episode has exposed yet again why NATO must be disbanded before it plunges the world into disaster one crazed NATO member could easily drag the world into a nuclear war. Especially as Washington insists on installing fanatical anti-Russian  governments throughout eastern Europe some with openly fascist sympathies.

Thus despite the ceasefire the war will continue. The SAA is on the offensive throughout the country. Once Aleppo is liberated they will begin the offensive on Raqqah. They are also preparing to liberate the ancient city of Palmyra once home to Queen Zenobia during roman times. Although Turkey and Saudi Arabia have not been allowed to invade they will continue to try to desperately flood the country with weapons and terrorists. Meanwhile the Empire of Chaos will continue to plot some new strategy to keep the war going. However there is every reason to believe that these plans will end in humiliating defeat. Thanks to the tremendous courage of the SAA, Hezbollah, Iranians and the Iraqi Militias, and thanks to the timely intervention of Russia the course of the war has irrevocably changed. There is good reason to hope that the death squads will in the end be forced to flee, surrender or die. Long Live Syria!

Two years after the “disappearance” of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 the families and loved ones of the passengers and crew on board the disappeared Flight MH370 and the downed Flight MH17 demand decisive actions to answer their questions and for justice. On Sunday March 6, the bereft families and loved ones of those who disappeared or perished on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 and Flight MH17, respectively, will hold a public event the Square in Publica, in the Malaysian capital Kuala. The event is scheduled for Sunday from 3pm to 5pm and has been organized by Voice370, the advocacy group for the families.

In late February Voice370 cried foul over the Malaysian government’s and parliament’s adoption of legislation that practically exempts a re-organized Malaysian Airlines from liabilities with regard to compensation for the bereft families and loved ones. In what is described as a corporate “shell game”, the so-called Malaysian flag carrier was re-structured from MAS to MAB, rendering MAS as an empty shell company without any assets that could be used to compensate the bereft.

Geopolitical Chess Games About MH17 Continue.

The geopolitical chess games about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 continue, with both Russia and the USA claiming to possess “evidence” that allegedly proves that their respective perceived opponent was responsible for having shot down the Boeing 777-200 over Ukraine. nsnbc international contacted Malaysia Airlines, all of the governments involved in the investigation that was led by the Dutch Safety Board as well as the Dutch Safety Board. Non of the above mentioned governments and their respective ministries and authorities would provide any independently verifiable evidence to nsnbc international or other media. nsnbc international requested a certified copy of the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) file from MH17s flight data recorder, a copy of the recording on the cockpit voice recorder, certified copies of audio recording from the cockpit voice recorder and from communications between the flight crew and air traffic controller, as well as certified copies of the radar data.

Ultimately, it was Sara Vernooij, Spokeswoman for the Dutch Safety Board who went as far as she could go after months of communication between her and nsnbc international.  In early July 2015 Sara Vernooij implicitly provided the key to the puzzling question why non of the involved parties is forthcoming with regards to independently testable and verifiable data and evidence by stating to the author:

“The Dutch Safety Board is financed from the national budget via the Department of Security and Justice, but national legislation guarantees the Dutch safety Boards independence. The department has no access to the investigations conducted by the Board and the department cannot influence the investigations….”

“The investigation information is protected by Dutch law (Dutch Kingdom Act) . This act determines that only the information issued in the Final Reports is public, sources and files containing investigation information are not publicly accessible. In case of the investigation into the cause of the MH17 crash, the Dutch Safety Board works by the international ICAO agreement, annex 13”. (emphasis added)

“In the Netherlands it is possible to register a WOB (Open Government Act) with the body involved. But I point out the fact that the Kingdom Act concerning the Dutch Safety Board excludes investigation information from the WOB. There is no possibility to get any access to investigation information by the Dutch Safety Board if you are not a member of the investigation team”. (emphasis added)

By implication, and due to the fact that the governments of Australia, Ukraine, USA, the UK, Malaysia and Russia have delegated investigators and become party to the DSB-led investigation, they have thus agreed to work within the framework of the Kingdom Act. That is – no independently testable and verifiable information will be made available to the public. All that investigative journalists can do is to encourage whistle-blowers from within the relevant ministries and other authorities in Australia, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, UK, USA and The Netherlands to show the integrity that the worldwide flying public should be entitled to expect from all of the involved parties.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MAS370 and Painful Questions

On Sunday, March 6, 2016, 2 years after the disappearance of Flight MH370, Voice370, the bereft, and those sympathetic with their demands for answers and for justice, gather in Kuala Lumpur to stress that they demand answers to painful questions. In a press release issued by Voice370, the organizers of the event stress that:

“The families and friends of passengers on board MH370 have endured a long wait of two years for reliable news on the whereabouts of MH370 and the fate of our loved ones on board. Every step to envisage life without a loved one who was on board the flight has been agonising and the festering wounds of loss and ‘not knowing’ have made the task of initiating even the first steps towards ‘moving on’ practically impossible for family members.”

The families also stress that the lack of a more intense search for MH370 and the lack of transparency and answers has led to numerous theories and speculations about the whereabouts and the fate of those on board MH370. They stress the need for answers to find closure, stressing that:

“With no word from anyone about the investigations over the last year, we wonder if the authorities hope that if they stop updating us we will eventually stop asking and this will lead to an uneventful end to any serious ongoing inquiry. Public memory they say is short. It’s been two years but to the press and to the general public the counting of the years is not a noteworthy milestone. But for the MH370 families this 2nd year is just as painful, if not more painful than the first year and this absence of our loved ones is a daily reminder that we still do not have a clue of the fate of our loved ones.

It is hoped that the report rumored to be due for release by Malaysia this week is a sincere step in the right direction, and begins to provide a fuller and up-to-date narrative on MH370’s disappearance that addresses key questions such as what really happened, why it happened and where and when we should expect to find the plane. It appears that the concerned parties – Malaysia, Australia and China – are preparing to bring the curtains down on the search for MH370. We believe that this would be truly unfortunate. Voice 370 urges authorities to press on and search on in the current search area, we believe that they should not throw in the towel, close this case and simply chalk it up as an unsolvable mystery. At the very least the relevant authorities should seriously consider going back to the drawing board and re-investigating, reevaluating and re-starting.”

The families stress that the drying up of funds to wind down the investigation and the the search is unacceptable to them and that the search should, if necessary, be continued beyond 2016.  The families also stress that:

“The best outcome can only be achieved if there is credible and comprehensive disclosure of information by the relevant authorities. It stands to reason that the search effort be more broadly funded and financial commitments of more countries be solicited. Voice 370 urges large entities like Boeing to come forward and contribute to the search efforts given they are directly impacted by this incident. At the very least, the 14 countries whose nationals were on board MH370 owe a contribution. Voice 370 is aware that this is not the norm. But for an incident that has been repeatedly labeled as unprecedented, we believe it would not out of place to seek non-standard initiatives and contributions from Malaysia and the international community. Countries would ultimately help themselves by contributing to the search. The latest news reports indicate that another possible MH370 part has been found off the coast of Mozambique. This requires that the coastlines of Mozambique, Madagascar and substantial distances to the North and South be scoured thoroughly to ensure all the debris are collected and analysed. As we all know, debris fields, though subject to some degree of dispersal by the elements, generally tend to make landfall in close proximity. We urge states with assets in the East Coast of Africa to support such an effort. We also seek support from naval powers to supply search assets that allow searches closer to uninhabited/swampy portions of the coast be searched effectively. Every time someone we know boards a flight, we pray that they are spared the fate of our loved ones. It is worth remembering that we do not have any assurance from aviation authorities, manufacturers, ICAO, and the like, that there will not be another MH370 scenario in future. We must find out what needs to be fixed in order to fix it, and we are nowhere near a solution. Recently, ICAO passed a new rule banning Lithium batteries as cargo on passenger planes and most airports have banned the carriage of Lithium Batteries in checked in baggage. Whilst it has not been mentioned anywhere, we are left wondering if MH370 prompted this quick decision.”

Nsnbc international, meanwhile, reiterates that there is a need for full disclosure in all air tragedies. The cases of MH370 and MH17 underpin that there is an urgent need to give independent media full and unimpeded access to certified copies radar data, black box data, Air Traffic Control communications, passenger and cargo manifests, technical data, and any other evidence that could help disclose the facts behind air disasters. Underhanded non-disclosure agreements as the one pertaining the Dutch Safety Board and all of the parties who delegated investigators are not only unacceptable, but fuel unnecessary speculations and painful questions – questions that are especially painful for those who are left behind and left in the dark.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) launched a military operation to liberate at the strategic village of Kabani controled by Al-Nusra and its allies. Thus, the SAA’s 103rd Brigade attacked the southern flank of Kabani and the Syrian Marines continued an advance along the Aleppo-Latakia Highway (M-4). If Kabani is captured, the SAA will be able to advance on the Jisr Al-Shughour’s southern countryside. This town is a mid-term goal of the ongoing advance.

The SAA stormed the ISIS positions at the village of Fah and forced the terrorist group to pull forces back from the village and nearby farms in the Aleppo province.

Heavy clashes between the Kurdish militias and ISIS have been observed in the area between the border town of Tal Abyadh and al-Kantari and near the Raqqa-Turkey highway.

Meanwhile, the Syrian troops reportedly deployed in Southeastern and Northeastern areas of Aleppo and Hama provinces respectively are preparing to launch a joint anti-terrorism operation to free more lands in the province of Raqqa.

On Mar.2, ceasefire agreements were signed with four commanders of moderate rebel units, which control Kafar, Shams and Gabagib in the Daraa province. Total number of signed agreements has reached 40, talks with 11 more are underway.

The Russian centre for reconciliation of opposing sides also delivered 6 tons of humanitarian aid to the settlements of Kineiba, Vali-Sheikhan and Hansjaus.

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

It is hard to believe anything more catastrophic could befall Iraq with perhaps three million dead, between the strangulating 1990 onward embargo and the illegal 2003 invasion. Nearly five million displaced since 2003, destruction of the UNESCO Award winning education system, as access to electricity, safe water – access to normality.

Destroyed or damaged by ISIS have been the eye wateringly haunting ancient sites in or near Mosul (dating back to 25^th century BC), 3^rd or second century BC in Northern Iraq: Hatra, 3^rd or 2^nd century BC; Nineveh, the Assyrian Capital; Nimrud, founded 3,500 years ago; Khorsabad, built between 717 -706 BC; the 4^th century Mar Behnam Monastry. The 1226 CE (AD) Mosque of the Prophet Yunus (Jonah) and his tomb are no more and numerous other wonders are erased, as are museums and ancient literary treasures.

 Featured image: the Mosul Dam (AFP/Getty)

Before ISIS, under US-UK occupation there was equal decimation under their bombs – and looting at their hands or under their watch.

Now though comes a truly apocalyptic warning – that Mosul itself, Baji, Tikrit, ancient Samarra whose ninth century, golden domed Mosque was destroyed under US eyes (literally, since they were stationed there) on 22^nd February 2006 and Baghdad, the “Paris of the 9^th century” could be engulfed in a flood of literally biblical proportions.

“Iraqi engineers involved in building the Mosul Dam thirty years ago have warned that the risk of its imminent collapse …” (1) All cities, towns, villages on trajectory of the great Tigris river below the Dam would be swamped, with Mosul engulfed within four hours in an estimated sixty five feet (twenty metres) of water. Estimates are that it is possible one million people could die by the time the tsunami reached Baghdad.

The US is taking the threat seriously enough to have warned, on 29^th February, all American citizens to leave the country should the Dam be breached. (2) How precisely the approximately 15,000 Baghdad US Embassy staff, a reported 16,000 mercenaries, plus other various spooks, special services, would make it from where ever they were to Baghdad airport before the deluge – and whether in the face of it flights would anyway risk coming in – seems not to have been addressed. Perhaps they could be helicoptered off the Embassy roof as in Vietnam.

Incidentally the US Baghdad Embassy, the largest in the world, has swallowed up 104 acres of Baghdad and is nearly as large as Vatican City. It is situated beside the Tigris. Before it was built (completed in 2009) Embassy staff squatted in one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces. Those believing in natural justice might be pondering on Saddam’s revenge.

The Mosul Dam (formerly the Saddam Dam) was built in 1984. Swiss designed, it was constructed by a German-Italian consortium. A fatal design flaw was the fact that it was built on porous bedrock.

“Water began seeping through in 1986, when it became apparent that the geological issues were worse than the consultants had predicted. From then on it required constant maintenance to fill the caverns being hollowed out by water running through the soluble bedrock. A total of 95,000 tonnes of grout of different types (have been) used over the dam’s lifetime”, states The Guardian’s detailed article (see 1.)

Nasrat Adamo, the Dam’s former Chief Engineer told the paper that only twenty four hour maintenance with constant grouting of the bedrock kept the Dam stable: “We used to have 300 people working 24 hours in three shifts but very few of these workers have come back. There are perhaps 30 people there now,” he said.

“The machines for grouting have been looted. There is no cement supply. They can do nothing. It is going from bad to worse, and it is urgent. All we can do is hold our hearts.”

Added to the increasing instability of the foundations due to lack of constant maintenance, “the bottom outlets are jammed”, this as the snows melt further north bringing a further deluge of liquid tonnage. As Nadir al-Ansari another engineer with the Dam at the time of construction put it:

“ … the Dam is not as before. The caverns underneath have increased. I don’t think the Dam will withstand that pressure.”

Moreover:

“If the Dam fails, the water will arrive in Mosul in four hours. It will arrive in Baghdad in 45 hours. Some people say there could be half a million people killed, some say a million. I imagine it will be more in the absence of a good evacuation plan.”

The Iraqi government’s farcical “evacuation plan” is to simply advise everybody the entire length of the Tigris river, from Mosul to Baghdad (355.45 km) to abandon their homes, farms, businesses and move 6 km away, just like that. How? To where?

The solution to the pressure on the Dam is to build a second one downstream as a further barrier, gigantic “filter”, in case of the catastrophic collapse.

Ironically, under Saddam Hussein’s government a second one, the Badush Dam was speedily started – in 1988 – as environmental insurance just two years after the problems with the first Dam came to light, 20 km downstream. With the implementation of the US-UK driven UN embargo in August 1990 and Iraq importing about 70% of everything, the building materials were no longer available and the work on the Dam ceased. It has lain about 40% completed since.

The Mosul Dam was taken over by ISIS on 7^th August 2014, adding to fears of a catastrophe, it was looted, but regained by the Peshmerga and Iraqi forces on August 19^th. In “assistance” the US-led coalition made nine airstrikes in the vicinity of the Dam. What further damage, fissures to the fragile, endangered foundations have been created from the massive vibrations of such brainless recklessness is not known.

The bombing was in spite of a September 2006 report by the US Army Corps of Engineers warning: “In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world.” On 30th October 2007 another report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) said that the Dam’s foundations could give way at any moment. Is there no intelligence, communication, joined up thinking amongst the US’ lethally armed forces?

In spite of all, no US puppet Iraqi government since the fall of Saddam Hussein nearly exactly thirteen years ago, has done anything meaningful and apparently, in spite of countless $millions going missing, have had no money to address a danger of such enormity. Those struggling to maintain the Dam were at one point reportedly not paid for months.

Finally after repeated warnings from experts and now $200 million from the World Bank, in December the government signed a contract with an Italian company, the Trevi Group, to address the massive technical problems, erosion and cavities under this vast structure with it’s current holocaustal potential. Italy has also agreed to send over four hundred troops to protect the site.

The government is remarkably sanguine, with Mehdi Rasheed of Iraq’s Water Ministry quoted as saying that: “Downstream we can do many things.” (What exactly?) However: “In the current situation that is not possible for the people in Mosul city.” (3) The population of Mosul was around two and a half million, now with ISIS there and the current disaster the exact number is unknown – and clearly uncared about by the Baghdad regime.

In April, in Rome, an international Conference is to be held to ponder on ways to avert this impending catastrophe. By then it might already have happened.

As Nasrat Adamo, the Dam’s former Chief engineer told The Guardian: “Nobody knows when it will fail, it could be a year from now. It could be tomorrow.”

Time for America’s latest proxy’s in Baghdad to get going and the Italians to get on ‘planes – pronto, before a great swathe of “The Cradle of Civilization” makes the unthinkable tragedy of the New Orleans’ floods of 2005 look like a paddling pool.

 Notes:

1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/02/mosul-dam-engineers-warn-it-could-fail-at-any-time-killing-1m-people
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-dam-idUSKCN0W21X6
3. http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21692903-most-dangerous-dam-world-watery-time-bomb

Featured image: Hezbollah resistance movement combatants in a military parade.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) designated the Lebanese Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, several GCC member States, most prominently Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Israel use Jabhat Al-Nusrah to weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Syrian government responded to the GCC’s decision to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, stating that the decision reflects Saudi confusion and represents an attempt to hijack the will of the Arab people in the Gulf countries who reject normalization and establishing ties with Israel. Iran likewise condemned the decision to designate Tehran’s strongest ally in Lebanon as terrorist organization. The Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Ministry commented:

“In a step that is in line with Israeli policy, the GCC issued a decision classifying Hezbollah a terrorist organization because it is confronting the Zionist project in the region and the Israeli enemy through its great sacrifices which have resonated across the Arab and Muslim nations.”

Confusion of Principles?

Image: The UNDOF withdrawal leaves a 12 – 16 km wide corridor uncontrolled by the UNDOF. In 2013 it transpired that Israel is providing support for Jabhat al-Nusrah, which includes a joint intelligence and military operations room in the Israeli occupied Golan, logistic support, weapons, field hospitals, and direct combat support. (Map plotting by Christof Lehmann) Click on map to view full size.

Hezbollah is a lawfully registered political party in Lebanon that maintains a militia that is lawful according to Lebanese law. Hezbollah is operating in parts of the Syrian Arab Republic with the permission of the Syrian government. It coordinates its military operations in the Syrian Arab Republic with the lawful government, with the Syrian Arab Army and with the Syrian National Self Defense Forces. It does so, arguably, not because Hezbollah or Iran necessarily endorse a secular government in Syria, but because Syria constitutes an important strategic ally for Hezbollah and for Iran.

Ironically, Hezbollah is being threatened by the Qatari and Saudi Arabia sponsored Syrian Al-Qaeda franchise Jabhat Al-Nusrah, which has been declared as a terrorist organization by the UN Security Council. Jabhat Al Nusrah is also being supported by Israel, which facilitates Jabhat Al-Nusrah’s access to the Lebanese Bekaa Valley via the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Saudi Arabia intensified its support of Jabhat Al-Nusrah’s presence in Lebanon in 2013. On Monday, October 14, 2013, the Chairman of the Lebanese Arab Democratic Party, Rifaat Eid, warned that Saudi Arabia was planning to “burn Lebanon in retaliation is Hezbollah intervened in the battle for the Qalamoun region”. Lebanon´s Arab Democratic Party maintains close ties to the Syrian Arab Baath Party. During a news conference, Rifaat Eid said:

“Saudi Arabia is running the battle in Qalamoun and we have information that it (Saudi Arabia) has warned Hezbollah against participating in the battle (because) it will cost (Hezbollah) a lot in the Bekaa and even in the North of Lebanon”.

Israel also chose to upscale its support of Jabhat Al-Nusrah in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights under humanitarian cover, designating them as Syrian freedom fighters.

Tel Aviv pursues three strategic goals with the support of Jabhat Al-Nusrah via the Golan Heights.

1. To weaken Syria.
2. To weaken its most potent adversary in Lebanon, Hezbollah.
3. To weaken Iran and Iranian regional influence.

Also in 2013, Israeli machinations resulted in the withdrawal of UNDOF troops from a 12 – 16 kilometer-wide corridor in the buffer zone in the Golan. (see map) The move provided access to both Syria and to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley via the likewise Israeli occupied Lebanese Sheba Farm area.

Originally published on Global Research in February 2015:

During the recent measles outbreak, the mainstream media blamed the epidemic solely on non vaccinated children, even though people who were vaccinated caught the disease and some vaccines have proven to be inefficient in the past. Without the slightest nuance, the mainstream media constantly portrays people reluctant to accept just any vaccine as “anti-vaxers”, irresponsible and misinformed people, relying on irrational fears and the one and only “fraudulent” Andrew Wakefield study linking autism to vaccines. (Watch Lina B. Moreco’s documentary Shots in the Dark, which features Dr. Wakefield and thankful parents of his young patients with autism.)

In reality, many so-called “anti-vaxers” are not ALL totally against vaccines. While some people may be totally against any kind of vaccination, many, including doctors and health specialists, question certain vaccines, ingredients in the vaccines and/or the vaccination schedule. This is not based on a survey but on my own perception resulting from the fair amount of articles on vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry that I’ve read over the last five years as a journalist. There are a large number of doctors and health specialists who have done truly independent research and who criticize vaccination based on scientific studies and solid evidence.

Why is the media so keen on portraying Big Pharma critics as crazy, uneducated, unscientific and irresponsible people?

Dr Marcia Angell worked for over two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.  She was fired after criticizing the pharmaceutical industry, which had exerted an overriding and negative influence on the scientific literature. She said:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published.”

Numerous journalists say the same goes for the mainstream media.

We bring to the attention of our readers 25 facts which constitute only part of a larger body of independent scientific research and articles on vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry. Some mainstream articles have been included as well to show how the media overlooks stories it has published in the past because they don’t fit with their “anti-vaxer” portrait.

The objective of this list is to provide independent research and sources of information on vaccination and Big Pharma, which is what the mainstream media fails to do and instead blindly promotes the narrative and agenda of Big Pharma.

(All emphasis added. Most titles are quotes from the articles they are linked to.)

25 Facts About the Pharmaceutical Industry, Vaccines and “Anti-Vaxers”

1- China has measles outbreaks but 99% are vaccinated

A recent study published in PLoS titled, “Difficulties in eliminating measles and controlling rubella and mumps: a cross-sectional study of a first measles and rubella vaccination and a second measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination,” has brought to light the glaring ineffectiveness of two measles vaccines (measles–rubella (MR) or measles–mumps–rubella(MMR) ) in fulfilling their widely claimed promise of preventing outbreaks in highly vaccine compliant populations. (Sayer Ji, Why Is China Having Measles Outbreaks When 99% Are Vaccinated?, GreenMedInfo 20 September 2014)

2- Mandatory Chickenpox Vaccination Increases Disease Rates, Study Shows

Varicella, or the chicken pox vaccination, has been mandated in South Korea since 2005. Infants from 12 to 15 months are required by law to receive a vaccination. By 2011, the country reached a near universal compliance rate, however, varicella patients did not decrease; they have increased since reaching this mandated level of vaccination.

The number of chicken pox patients reported to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) has increased from 22.6 cases per 100,000 in 2006 to 71.6 cases per 100,000 in 2011.  That’s a huge difference and ample proof that the vaccination program isn’t working to control the spread of the disease. (Christina Sarich, With 97% Compliance Chicken Pox Vaccine Still Causes Outbreaks, Natural Society, January 08, 2015)

3- In a 2012 measles outbreak in Quebec (Canada) over half of the cases were in vaccinated teenagers

An investigation into an outbreak in a high school in a town that was heavily hit by the virus found that about half of the cases were in teens who had received the recommended two doses of vaccine in childhood — in other words, teens whom authorities would have expected to have been protected from the measles virus.

It’s generally assumed that the measles vaccine, when given in a two-dose schedule in early childhood, should protect against measles infection about 99 per cent of the time. So the discovery that 52 of the 98 teens who caught measles were fully vaccinated came as a shock to the researchers who conducted the investigation. (The Canadian Press, Measles among vaccinated Quebec kids questioned, CBC, October 20, 2011)

4- In 1987 a measles outbreak was documented among a fully immunized group of children

In 1987, for example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) documented a measles outbreak that occurred in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985. Fourteen adolescent-age students, all of whom had been vaccinated for measles, contracted the disease despite having been injected with the MMR vaccine. Researchers noted that more than 99 percent of students at the school — basically all of them — had also been vaccinated, with more than 95 percent of them showing detectable antibodies to measles. (Ethan A. Huff, Measles Outbreak Documented Among Fully Immunized Group of Children, Natural News 15 February 2015)

5- Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Own Data Shows Links Between Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

What happens when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine policies?

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,”Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013,” wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine. (Sayer Ji, Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Own Data Shows Links Between Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), GreenMedInfo 23 January 2015)

6- Japan banned the MMR vaccine in 1993 “after 1.8 million children had been given two types of MMR and a record number developed non-viral meningitis and other adverse reactions.”

The Japanese government realised there was a problem with MMR soon after its introduction in April 1989 when vaccination was compulsory. Parents who refused had to pay a small fine.

An analysis of vaccinations over a three-month period showed one in every 900 children was experiencing problems. This was over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate of one child in every 100,000 to 200,000. (Jenny Hope, Why Japan banned MMR vaccine, Daily Mail)

7- A study concluded nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.

The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs [Infant Mortality Rates]

Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”

These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates. (Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?,  U.S. National Library of Medicine, September 2011)

8- The U.S. has a vaccine court apparently designed to “Shield Manufacturers from Liability”

For years, the corporate media was reluctant to admit that it even existed. But the special court system designed to handle vaccine injury cases — and ultimately sweep them under the rug as quickly as possible — has hit the mainstream news for its failure to adequately and propitiously compensate families of vaccine-injured children. (Ethan A. Huff, Secretive Vaccine Court Exposed: Designed to Shield Manufacturers from Liability, Natural News, November 19, 2014)

9- Beyond admitting to fraud in a 2004 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study that exonerated the MMR vaccine, Dr. William Thompson, a CDC scientist, asserts there is a connection between mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines and autism. (Jon Rappoport, U.S. Centers for Disease Control Whistleblower: Mercury (Thimerosal) in Vaccines Causes Autism, No More Fake News, September 05, 2014)

10- Back in 2002, William Thompson was already aware of study results linking the MMR vaccine to a very large increase in autism risk among African-American children. See Brian Hooker’s published paper here, with a full analysis of the CDC’s own data revealing a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine. (Mike Adams, Autism Links to Vaccines: Whistleblower Reveals Evidence of Criminal Coverup by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Natural News August 26, 2014

11- According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines — thimerosal — appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. (Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity. Government Cover-up of a Mercury / Autism Scandal Rollingstone.com, 20 July 2005)

12- Instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives [discussed] how to cover up the damaging data. (Ibid.)

The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism.

It withheld Verstraeten’s findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

11- Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants […] the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold [in 2005], from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.(Ibid.)

Here is the CDC chart available today on its website:

An MIT researcher has linked autism to glyphosate, the chemical herbicide used in Monsanto Roundup.

12- Vaccine manufacturers […] continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year [2004].

The CDC and FDA [bought] up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowed drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines — including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds. (Ibid.)

13- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. (Ibid.)

14- Seasonal Flu Shots still contain thimerosal.

Look at the monographs. For example the one from Vaxigrip from Sanofi Pasteur states on page 4 the mercury-based preservative is in its multidose vial:

“Clinically Relevant Non-medicinal Ingredients: thimerosal* , formaldehyde, Triton® X-100†, neomycin”

15- Dr. Scott Reuben former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau published dozens of fake study in medical journals

Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005… His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. .. No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs… [T]he peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben… 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted. (Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion), Mike Adams,  NaturalNews.com, February 18, 2010)

16- To this day thimerosal is still used in flu vaccines

For example, in the Vaxigrip monograph says: “The multidose vial of this vaccine contains thimerosal as a preservative. Thimerosal has been associated with allergic reactions.”

17- There are at least 97 studies showing links between vaccines and autism.

18- The CDC claims “there is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines”, but that health authorities “agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.”

On thimerosal, the CDC website states:

“Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930’s. except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure. “

19- Industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors 

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors —largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.” – Marcia Angell, MD (Dr. Gary G. Kohls, Beware the Drug Companies, How they Deceive Us: “Criticizing Big Pharma” Global Research, February 16, 2015)

20- Nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contain findings that are false. (Dr. Gary G. Kohls, Beware the Drug Companies, How they Deceive Us: “Criticizing Big Pharma”Global Research, February 16, 2015)

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious.

21- Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.” — Helen Epstein, author of “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies” (http://aaci-india.org/COI/Flu_web_final.pdf) (Dr. Gary G. Kohls, Beware the Drug Companies, How they Deceive Us: “Criticizing Big Pharma” Global Research, February 16, 2015)

22- The FDA’s own web page admits that the drugs it certifies as safe contribute to over 100,000 deaths per year. (Constitutional Attorney on US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Corruption, Disinformation and Cover Up of Health Dangers, Activist Post,  8 February 2015)

23- The FDA routinely approves drugs over objections from its own medical reviewers. (Ibid.)

24- The FDA does zero independent medical testing of its own.

It is a system built upon conflicts of interest that leaves consumers completely in the dark about the true consequences of taking Big Pharma products. (Ibid.)

25- In 2012 GlaxoSmithKline Pleaded Guilty and Paid “$3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data”

According to the US Justice Department:

The resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history and the largest payment ever by a drug company. ..

GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal information, including two counts of introducing misbranded drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and one count of failing to report safety data about the drug Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Over the years in my own articles, I have used the terms “creeping fascism,” “growing police state,” and “descent into totalitarianism” among others to describe the domestic situation in which we find ourselves. I have often written that, if Americans do not stand up to the myriad of laws being passed by federal, state, and local governments we will soon wake up to find ourselves in an Orwellian police state nightmare.

Now, however, I cringe whenever I read those words in contemporary articles. This is because such warnings are so far past their time they are utterly useless. In fact, they may do more to hurt any potential for change in American society than they do to promote it.

These warnings work on the supposition that the U.S. is not a police state yet but, if things do not change, it will become one in the future. Thus, the readers are left with the impression that, while their freedoms are being taken away, the police state is somewhere down the road – in the future – and they have plenty of time to entertain themselves until it comes knocking on their door with a uniform and a bright flashing neon sign that says “ATTENTION!!! POLICE STATE!!!”

But the police state is not coming – it is here.

The United States is a police state.

Americans may not be able to admit it to themselves but the military soldiers parading on the streets as police officers, police-operated tanks, and horrifying number of imprisoned citizens have spoken for them. The number of Americans brutalized physically and mentally by those who are sworn to “serve and protect” are speaking clearly enough.

The relatively recent concept of “pain compliance,” “rough interrogation,” and “rough rides” coupled with the long held tradition but fast increasing commonality of direct beatings, shootings, murders, and “on-site executions” by police in America have had the final say. Since 2003, police have killed more American citizens than were killed by “insurgents” in Iraq, a country whom the US invaded illegally and subsequently imposed a reign of terror upon.

The United States is now a country where millions of people are locked away in inhuman conditions of confinement, the overwhelming majority of them for crimes in which there was no victim.

From the federal, state, and local levels, behavior previously considered normal and innocuous is now mandated and regulated by a tangled web of government agencies. Of course, any disagreement or defiance of those mandates will result in a clash from the militarized police forces mentioned above and an eventual confinement to a cage where the offender is treated like an animal at best.

In the United States of 2016, children are regularly removed from parents by the State simply because of the parents’ economic status, political beliefs, or methods of upbringing. Surely no country that imprisons as many people as America, “enforces” oppressive law with military-style troops, and snatches children away from loving homes simply because those homes are not the ideal model of what the state desires can be called a free country.

With the recent increase of PC fascism enveloping the nation, even free speech and expression, no matter how ineffectual, is becoming regularly silenced by the long arm of the law.

Children are being routinely arrested for acting out in elementary school while citizens learn that their first “duty” in America is to “obey” police authority lest they be subject to brutal takedowns, torture, and possibly death.

This is the America many warned about years ago when they protested the militarization of police but were met with responses citing “officer safety” and “growing crime rates.” It is the America they warned about when they opposed the drug war but were met with programmed responses of a “drug-addicted youth” and “drug-related crimes.” It is the America many could see coming a mile away when the State-sponsored threat of terrorism was used to justify any and all means of “keeping us safe” and providing “security” to the frightened citizens of the world empire.

Those warnings were ignored and now we have the result.

It is now time to call the United States what it is – a police state.

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

The U.S. duopoly electoral structure is in deep crisis, as Donald Trump consolidates his appeal to the unapologetic racist core of the Republican Party and Hillary Clinton rides the Black vote to inevitable victory in the Democratic camp. Both parties, as presently constituted, are inherently unstable, and the GOP is already imploding. If there are two “Republican” parties in orbit, then the “Democratic” half of the duopoly will also lose its moorings and equilibrium, even though triumphant in November. Thanks, Donald Trump.

Although the Democrats may avoid an open rupture with the Sandernistas in Philadelphia this summer, Hillary Clinton’s corporate machine will move quickly to reposition the party to the right in November so as to absorb the white “moderate” exiles from the Republican rubble – thus, further alienating Bernie’s insurgents. Black voters, who are fully aware that they saved Clinton from ignominious defeat in the early primaries, will in very short order be pushed back in their “place”: the captive constituency. But this, too, is unsustainable if even half of the duopoly comes undone, because the duopoly system is the cage that traps Blacks inside the Democratic Party.

As long as there is a monolithic GOP playing the role of the White Man’s Party – as has been the case since 1968 – Blacks will feel compelled to huddle within the Democratic half of the duopoly. The impending GOP split would not create a new Republican-type brand that would be attractive to Black Democrats: rather, it would be a haven for whites that cannot support Trump. The Democrats are hoping that the Trump phenomenon will give them the opportunity to create a kind of “super-party” that would corral almost everyone except the most racist elements of the white electorate. In practice, that means Clinton and her corporate crew are already gearing up to lure hordes of panicked white “conservatives” that cannot, for one reason or another, stomach Trump, into the Democratic “big tent.” That’s why, in the near term, the split in the GOP will result in a more pronounced attempt by the Democratic Party leadership to shift to the right, which is their intention in all seasons.

The Democrats don’t “drift” rightward; their modus operandi is to hug as closely as possible to the Republican troglodytes, keeping just enough to the “left” of the GOP to give the appearance of an ideological contest. Under a new electoral configuration – Trump Party vs Old GOP vs Democrats – the natural inclination of corporate Democrats would be to woo the more polite conservatives of the Old GOP to their tent.

If recent history is any guide, Black Democrats will still be reveling in their status as saviors of Hillary’s career, President Obama’s “legacy,” and the whole world – from the demonic Trump. The Black Misleadership Class will take credit for the meltdown of the GOP-as-we-have-known-it, even as Clinton schemes to accommodate displaced and disoriented white Republicans in the Democratic fold.

The Dem-Rep duopoly might, however, soon start to collapse at both ends. Once the two-party arrangement has been fractured on the Right – as has already begun – it will likely splinter on the Left, as well. Bernie Sanders’ troops are keenly aware that the polls show he runs better against the Republicans than Clinton; that he is the most trusted of all the candidates, while Trump and Clinton are the least; and that majorities of Democrats favor Sanders for the nomination. The senator from Vermont may fully intend to endorse Clinton in Philadelphia, but his followers despise her. If Clinton is perceived as insulting the Sandernistas or their leader, there could still be a revolt on the Democratic side of the duopoly. Both conventions might resemble Chicago in 1968 – and it couldn’t happen to two nicer parties.

If the Republicans split in two, they won’t seem so formidable that Black folks will feel it necessary to cower under the Democratic umbrella, in search of protection from the White Man’s Party. The Black Misleadership Class, whose allegiance and fortunes are tied to the Democrats, would begin to lose its leverage within the community, and the Black Radical Tradition could once again find its voice.

So please, white Sandernistas, strike a blow for Black liberation. Trash the Democratic Party! Down with the Duopoly!

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected]

The commander of NATO armed forces said Tuesday that Russia, Syria and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) were using the refugees streaming out of Syria into Europe as weapons against European countries.

Using more restrained language than Donald Trump or European neo-fascists attacking refugees from Syria, US General Philip Breedlove voiced a similar opinion, declaring, “Europe faces the daunting challenge of mass migration spurred by state instability and state collapse, a migration that masks the movement of criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters.”

“Within this mix,” he continued, ISIS “is spreading like a cancer, taking advantage of paths of least resistance, threatening European nations and our own with terrorist attacks.”

No evidence has actually been provided of refugees from Syria engaging in terrorist actions within Europe. Most of those who staged the terrorist attacks in Paris last November, for example, were citizens of Belgium and France, some of them returned from fighting as part of US-backed forces in the Syrian civil war.

Breedlove discussed this movement of European-born Islamists from their home countries to the Syrian civil war and back again, saying, “As many as 9,000 fighters have gone, and as much as 1,500 fighters have returned back to Europe.”

But he made no reference to the fact that these Islamists went to fight on the side of the US-backed insurgency against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, most of them with the encouragement of their own governments, and in some cases with the active collaboration of the intelligence services.

Breedlove was appearing at the Pentagon after testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he warned that Russia posed an “existential threat” to the United States, reviving language not used in public discussion by the US military since the height of the Cold War. In his remarks, both to the Senate panel and to the Pentagon press corps, Breedlove accused Russia and Syria of “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

He claimed that the unguided “barrel bombs” used by the Syrian military had no military usefulness, but were intended to spread fear and drive local populations out of targeted Syrian towns and cities. “It is a weapon of terror, and it is a weapon to get people out of a location, on the road moving, somewhere else, and make them someone else’s problems,” he said.

In answer to follow-up questions at the press conference, Breedlove claimed that there were three dangerous components within the refugee flow from Syria to Europe, “criminality, terrorists and foreign fighters,” the last referring to European citizens who fought in Syria and then returned to their own countries.

In an unusual detour into American politics, Breedlove was asked about the furor over the open defense of torture by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his call for the resumption of waterboarding and “much more.” Several retired military commanders, including the former head of the National Security Agency, General Michael Hayden, said last week that the military would have to refuse orders to carry out torture in violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions.

General Breedlove declined to respond directly on the torture issue, but he said there was widespread discussion in NATO circles about the US elections. “I would just tell you that I get a lot of questions from our European counterparts on our election process this time in general,” he said. “And I think they see a very different sort of public discussion than they have in the past, and I think I’ll just leave it at that.”

When a journalist asked directly who these “counterparts” were, he acknowledged they included military officers from other NATO member countries.

In the lead-up to the National People’s Congress (NPC) starting on Saturday, the Chinese government has announced massive layoffs in state-owned enterprises in coal and steel. Further sackings in other basic industries are being foreshadowed in moves that will result in millions of workers losing their jobs and heightened political and social tensions.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership has delayed taking steps to deal with huge overcapacities in heavy industry and so-called zombie companies—state-owned enterprises (SOEs) kept on life support via low-interest bank loans—for fear of triggering widespread social unrest. However, amid a slowing economy and concerns about mounting debt, the regime has signalled a swathe of sackings.

Premier Li Keqiang told top economic advisers in December: “We must summon our determination and set to work. For those ‘zombie enterprises’ with absolute overcapacity, we must ruthlessly bring down the knife.” Li will present his yearly work report to the NPC which will also deliberate on the 13th Five-Year Plan that sets the economic guidelines for the government.

On Monday, the employment and welfare minister Yin Weimin announced that capacity in the coal and steel industries would be drastically reduced with 1.8 million workers losing their jobs—1.3 million coal miners and 500,000 steel workers. The figure was a sharp increase from just a few days before when industry minister Miao Wei declared that one million jobs would go in coal and steel.

A Reuters report on Tuesday based on unnamed government sources indicated that the government is planning to slash capacity in as many as seven sectors, including cement, glassmaking and ship building leading to around six million jobs being destroyed in the next three years.

The emergence of huge overcapacities in China’s basic industries is intimately bound up with the continuing worldwide economic slump that has followed the 2008-09 global financial crisis. The CCP leadership reacted to the collapse of exports and the loss of 20 million jobs with massive stimulus packages and a flood of cheap credit that fuelled a speculative property bubble.

Like governments around the world, Beijing calculated that the crisis was temporary and export growth would resume once the major capitalist economies recovered. Basic industry expanded, spurred on by infrastructure projects, construction and a continuous supply of cheap credit. However, export markets have stagnated, property and infrastructure investment is slowing and the much vaunted “transition” to a service economy has failed to prop up growth rates.

The slowing Chinese economy, now the world’s second largest, is already reverberating internationally. Falling Chinese demand for basic industrial inputs has contributed to the collapse in world commodity prices which is now severely impacting on commodity exporting countries such as Brazil, Russia, South Africa, Australia and Canada.

The excess capacities in China are enormous. Estimated steel overcapacity jumped from 132 million tonnes per year in 2008 to 327 million tonnes in 2014—a figure that is more than three times greater than the total output of Japan, the world’s second largest producer. Over the same period, overcapacity for cement nearly doubled from 450 to 850 million tonnes, for oil refining leapt from 77 to 230 million tonnes and for flat glass jumped from 76 million to 215 million weight cases.

According to the Financial Times, 42 percent of all SOEs lost money in 2013. Total profits for such groups fell in absolute terms last year for the first time since 2001. The gap in return on assets between SOEs and private firms is now the largest in two decades. Government intervention to slash overcapacity could place further stresses on the financial and banking system as SOEs account for an estimated 50 percent of all commercial debt.

Already there are deep concerns about mounting bad loans. A report last month by the European Chamber of Commerce in China stated that non-performing loans (NPLs) had risen by $US76 billion during the first ten months of 2015 to about $291 billion, a 35 percent increase.

The Chinese government’s plans to slash overcapacities and jobs will hit some areas of the country much harder than others, exacerbating regional tensions. Provincial and local governments have often kept “zombie” SOEs afloat through the provision of loans so as to avoid mass layoffs and rising social unrest. The so-called rust-bucket region in the northeast of the country where unemployment is already high will be particularly badly affected.

The CCP is seeking to forestall widespread resistance in the working class by providing funds for retraining and job seeking. Industry minister Miao Wei announced last week that 100 billion yuan ($US15.3 billion) would be provided to support displaced steel and coal workers. However, steel worker Gao Jianqiang told the China Daily last week: “There are just too many factories that are not doing well. One-hundred billion yuan sounds like a huge sum, but I do not think it will solve problems for everyone.”

Many of those who lose their jobs will simply not find work elsewhere. In January, China International Capital Corp (CIIC), the country’s largest merchant bank, predicted that 30 percent of the 10 million people employed in the coal, steel, electrolytic aluminium, cement and glass industries would lose their jobs in the next two years.

The CIIC report concluded that a million of these workers would not find a new job. That estimation was based on the results of the last round of mass job losses in SOEs in the late 1990s when 21 million workers were sacked. Only two thirds found work or were transferred to other jobs.

China’s growth rate in the 2000s, however, averaged 10 percent and peaked at over 14 percent in 2007. Now, however, it is officially 6.9 percent and slowing. Jobs are being destroyed not only in heavy industry but also in the manufacturing export sectors. The official unemployment rate is 4 percent but some estimates, such as research by the National Bureau of Economic Research, put the real figure at close to 10 percent.

The Business Insider last week reported that millions of migrant workers were returning after the New Year break to an uncertain future, “as smaller factories in particular struggle to cope with anemic orders and rising inventories.” Exports from Guangdong province, one of China’s major manufacturing hubs, are predicted to grow by just 1 percent this year.

There are already signs of growing opposition among workers to plans for mass retrenchments. Figures produced by the Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin have shown a sharp rise in the number of strikes for 2015 to 2,774, twice as many as for 2014. In January, 504 strikes were recorded. The statistics are only a partial record as they rely on media and social media reports as well as local contacts.

Significantly on Tuesday, the day after the announcement that 1.3 million mining jobs would be destroyed, hundreds of coal miners in Anyuan in southeastern China marched through the city of Pingxiang. The local state-owned mining company has cut back production, laid off workers and told others to stay home on drastically reduced pay. As reported by the Washington Post, up to 1,000 workers from three mines carried banners declaring: “Workers want to survive, workers need to eat.”

Europe is continuing to get bogged down in a political swamp. Contradictions between the national interests of the EU member states and the political course of a supranational bureaucracy have turned into a phase of sharp struggle.

Today the EU gets struck by:

Huge immigration flow from Arab countries, North Africa, Eastern Europe and the Balkans;

The economic and trade crisis, which has caused unemployment and the reduction of incomes;

US political pressure and the financial dictate of the US-controlled international financial institutions;

Threats to basic civil rights and freedoms.

However, EU citizens are being intentionally misguided and mislead in both identifying and dealing with all of these challenges by their governments.

In the pursuit of upholding the interests of the international banking cartel and the geopolitical machinations of a few in the US elite, the Euro bureaucracy leads the EU to an inevitable collapse.

Calls for reasonable policies and the step-by-step development of the EU espoused by a number of European political forces cause only a hysterical reaction by Brussels and fierce criticism from the European mainstream media.

Critics are marginalized as a minority, meanwhile, real social and economic situations are suppressed.

The next striking example of the conflicts of interests of European peoples and the supranational European bureaucracy is the case of the Dutch referendum on the approval of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, which will be held in the Netherlands on 6 April 2016.

Recently a similar Association Agreement was signed with Moldova. The economic and social situation in the country has deteriorated dramatically after the signing of the agreement. After the EU visa-free regime was proclaiming, every third adult citizen of Moldova went to work in EU countries or had already done so prior to the agreement. Almost all of them are employed in unskilled labor.

The current migration situation in the EU is disastrous, both because of the mass influx of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, and the flow of migrants from Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile Brussels aggressively promotes an Association Agreement with the Ukraine, where more than 42 million live with an average monthly wage of $ 120, and monthly pension of $ 40. Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have already faced the problem of an acute influx of Ukrainian migrants.

When a visa-free regime is adopted, a large mass of working age Ukrainian people will rush to Western Europe to find any opportunity of a better living. If we look at the Moldovan precedent, where the standard of living is higher than in the Ukraine, it is possible to predict the flow of Ukrainian immigration at the level of 5-8 million people in the first 3 years after the visa free regime is established.

This fact is well understood by a number of social and political movements of various European countries.

Maybe the European Union bureaucracy is striving to replicate the US immigration experience, and we are observing the conscious behavior aimed at bringing into the EU as many able-bodied immigrants as possible, in effect a kind of social global engineering program.

Dutch civil society has risked an initiative to contest the issue through a public discourse, its passage dependent upon the results of a national referendum. In the event of a valid vote against the Association Agreement, the Netherlands Parliament has to enact a new law to repeal the Agreement or provide for its entry into force.

Opinion polls in the Netherlands show that between 50% and 75% of pollees are against a hasty border opening for one more depressed Eastern economy.

In its turn, the European bureaucracy, which has taken the full political responsibility for the fate of the Ukrainian regime, has no other way but to push the Association Agreement with Ukraine.

The situation becomes more complicated, because the Ukrainian regime has shown a complete failure over the past 2 years.

• No signs of a crackdown on corruption. The state and law enforcement bodies are still unreformed.
• Ukrainian authorities demonstrate total ineptitude in foreign policy.
• The economic crisis has put the country on the brink of default, despite the multimillion-dollar infusions from numerous sources. The EU money was simply stolen through various corruption schemes
• A “worm’s-eye-view” in resolving issues of fuel and energy acquisition have endangered the security of the European energy supply.

Under these ambiguous circumstances, the European authorities have found only one way out – to launch a broad propaganda campaign in the Netherlands against the referendum with the full complicity and resources of the mainstream media. They refused to listen to the masses of the people, and thus propose a phased plan for EU integration with the Ukraine, taking into account the existing unsolved problems, whether they be in the Ukraine or the EU.

Pro-referendum rights activists are unable to express their views in any of the mainstream or state-backed media. The referendum initiators are under stiff psychological and physical pressure, however; the upcoming parliamentary elections in 2017 in the Netherlands, as well as a tough stance on the part of the referendum activists, are stifling European Union bureaucracy initiatives.

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

According to reports, about 400 ISIS terrorists were killed and many injured during the clashes in the area of Khanasser and along the supply road linking Hama and Aleppo. In turn, the Syrian forces have reportedly lost some 87 fighters in this area. Such difference in casualties has become possible due to the pro-government forces’ advantage in fire power, intelligence, coordination and logistics grounded of the Russian military grouping in Syria.

The control off the Aleppo-Khanasser road allows the Syrian forces to continue anti-terrorist efforts in the area of Aleppo City and press the advance in the direction of Raqqa.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have reportedly captured the hilltop of Tal Musharafah in the Aleppo province. Tal Musharafah is located along the road of Al-Castillo which is used by the militant groups to resupply their fighters inside Aleppo City. Thus, Al Nusra and its allies are no more able to use this supply route.

About 80 militants formerly fighting in the al-Ghadam region of the Damascus province surrendered to the Syrian government on Mar.1. The Syrian Air Force has been dropping leaflets over the militant-held part of Eastern Ghouta giving the militants a chance to lay down arms and surrender to the government forces.

We remember, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has offered amnesty and an opportunity to return to peaceful life to militants of the opposition groups who lay down the arms.

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

President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria declined business overtures from former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, Tony Blair, an extract from the explosive new biography by investigative journalist, Tom Bower has revealed.

According to the book, Blair benefited from classified British security information while touting for lucrative business contracts from foreign governments.

Bower, whose account is based on exclusive interviews with Cabinet ministers, mandarins and other senior sources, said Blair made an attempt to sell Israeli drones to Nigeria.

Tony Blair and President Muhammadu Buhari during his visit to Nigeria

“Upon leaving office in 2007, Mr Blair set up several charities, including the Faith Foundation and the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI),” the book said.

In May 2015, Mr Blair flew to Nigeria to meet the new president, Muhammadu Buhari, on a jet chartered by Evgeny Lebedev, the son of a former KGB colonel who owns the London Evening Standard newspaper.

The next day, he visited the British High Commissioner for a comprehensive security briefing on the threat posed by the Islamic terror group Boko Haram.

Tony Blair shake hands with vice president, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo as President Muhammadu Buhari looks on

Armed with this secret information, Mr Blair then visited Mr Buhari’s offices, ostensibly for AGI to set up a so-called Delivery Unit for the president.

But at one stage, Mr Blair told everyone in the room: “Could you all leave us alone now? I have a personal message for the president from David Cameron.”

In fact, says Bower, he spent 20 minutes touting for business on behalf of his private company, Tony Blair Associates – offering to sell the president Israeli drones and other military equipment to help defeat Boko Haram. Mr Buhari is said to have complained: “Blair is just after business”.

Mr Blair is said to have als

Tony Blair shake hands with vice president, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo as President Muhammadu Buhari looks on

o sought security briefings in other British embassies – as well as accommodation for the night.

Last night a spokeswoman for Mr Blair said the claim he used classified security information to tout for business was “utterly without substance”.

She said Mr Blair’s work in Nigeria was for his charities, adding that: “He has never sought a business contract from the government of Nigeria.

“Yes, he certainly has had briefings on Boko Haram. He is very interested in Boko Haram because it concerns directly the work of his foundation which is about countering extremism.

“He didn’t “demand” a salary from J P Morgan. His work as chairman of their International Advisory Council is a matter of public record.

“It is true that some of those around the Palestinian leadership have been critical of Mr Blair. That is because he disagrees strongly with them over their political strategy. However, there are many other Palestinians with whom he works closely and well.

“He has said exactly why he tried to bring about a peaceful resolution of the Libya crisis – to avoid the danger of chaos after Gaddafi fell.”