Global Research

As is known, on February 20, 2016 the United Nations Security Council did not accept the Russian proposal for a resolution on the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.

Against it voted six of its fifteen members, including three (out of five) having veto power: these are the United States, Britain, France, Ukraine, New Zealand and Spain. That is, it turns out that these six countries openly oppose the protection of the territorial integrity of another country which, like themselves, is a full member of the UN.

The situation is paradoxical, since such a position is in obvious contradiction with the very Constitution of the World Organization, i.e. the UN  Charter.

The vote in the Security Council could only be interpreted as openly encouraging aggression against Syria, related to the desire of a number of regional and global players for the dismemberment of this country within the launched by the US project to reformat the entire Greater Middle East. Firstly, it comes to Turkey because it is precisely Ankara which is trying to gradually “absorb” some sections of northern Syria, formally under the pretext to create there the so-called “Security zone” and in practice to realize the neo-Ottoman ambitions of the ruling tandem Erdogan-Davutoglu.

Besides Turkey, however, in the dismemberment of Syria is highly interested also Saudi Arabia, which announced on February 13^th that its warplanes are sent to Turkey ostensibly to help it in the fight against the Islamic State. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom Adel bin Ahmed al-Dzhubeyr and the adviser to the Defense Minister Prince Salman, Brigadier General Ahmed al-Assir did not exclude the participation of Saudi special forces in a joint ground operation with the Turkish army on the territory of Syria (setting as a precondition its approval by the US).

In fact, the truth is that at the moment Riyadh is in even more severe situation than Ankara. The ruling there dynasty is facing very many problems – from low oil prices that ravaged the Treasury of the Kingdom (the budget deficit in 2015 reached almost 100 billion dollars) to the ongoing civil war in Yemen in which Saudis are up to their necks and which also devours huge resources and involves a large part of the army of the country.

However, the plans of the Saudi authorities for armed intervention in Syria remain relevant, support for the armed Syrian opposition does not weaken, not to mention that on February 19^th, the Foreign Minister al-Dzhubeyr said that they must be equipped with means of antiaircraft defense to be able to successfully oppose air forces of the regime in Damascus and the Russian aviation supporting it. Calls for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad do not stop either – if not by negotiations then by force (despite the adopted by Saudi Arabia commitments to support the negotiation process on the basis of the Geneva communiqué of June 2012 and the Vienna Declaration of the International Support Group on Syria of November 2015 ).

If Turkey, in the face of the tandem Erdogan-Davutoglu does not hide its dreams of a new Ottoman Empire, the Saudis would like to create something like “legitimate Sunni caliphate” (the so called “Sunnistan”) rather than the odious and apparently unacceptable for everybody Islamic State. According to many experts, precisely for this purpose at the end of 2015 was created the so called Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, formally including 34 Muslim countries. Saudi strategists plan this acceptable to the international community “caliphate” to include Syria, or at least its “Sunni” part, i.e. the eastern part of the country, where is also located the current “capital” of the Islamic State Rakka that Saudis plan to seize using the special forces. It is clear that, given the explicit unacceptance of the regime in Damascus by Saudi Arabia, the possible control over the Islamists capital will hardly suggest its subsequent rendition to Assad. Not surprisingly, both in Damascus and Tehran, this plan was flatly rejected stating that if Saudi special forces enter Syrian territory they will leave it in coffins.

After refusing to approve the Russian draft resolution on Syria on February 20^th it is clear that all these irrational plans of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which cannot be realized without a major war in the region, are in practice approved by Washington, London and Paris which probably rely on that the ambitious leaders in Ankara and Riyadh, carried away by their illusory plans to create in the region their own mini-empires, will collide frontally with the Russians in Syria and thus will allow all these forces to destroy each other, which in turn would solve geopolitical problems of the West for decades.

What are the real possibilities before the Saudis

In his speech to the European Parliament on February 16^th (during his visit to Belgium) Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif warned Saudi Arabia not to send ground forces into Syria, as this would violate international law. Most analysts rated the warning as a veiled threat against Riyadh. In this connection interesting is the question is full participation of the Saudi army in such a military operation at all possible. As is known, until 2015, it was involved in only one major armed conflict – operation Desert Storm, carried out in 1990-1991 by the US-led coalition against Iraq. But although Saudi Prince Khaled bin Bandar was formally among the commanders of the half a million army of the coalition, the whole operation was led solely by US General Norman Schwarzkopf. As for Prince Bandar, he became best known with the giant deals for supply of US arms to Saudi Arabia, as some data show that only his own commissions amounted 4 bln. dollars, forcing the then Saudi King Fahd to fire the Prince from the post of Minister of Defense and order an investigation against him.

The second major international operation of the Saudi army was invading Yemen, launched in March 2015. As a result thereof, only direct victims among civilians in the country reached 2,500, and the economy and infrastructure of this poorest Arab country were completely destroyed. As for the military successes of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, experts appreciate them as more than modest. The last of them was seizing the southern capital of the country Aden in July 2015. The Saudis failed to put under their control even the regional center Ta’izz, although the local population is hostile to the rebels houthi supported by Iran.

If the Saudis knew better the history they would probably remember the failures that endure in this part of the world the Portuguese in the sixteenth century, the Turks – in the seventeenth and nineteenth century, the British and Egyptian army – in the twentieth century, would unlikely so frivolously get involved in Yemen’s civil war. At the background of its protraction and furiousness, possible attempt of Riyadh to engage in military operations on land in Syria seems doomed to failure.

Bu the way, the lack of combat experience and military strategy is not the only problem of the Saudis. A major war requires a lot of money, but because of the decline in oil prices the Kingdom is experiencing very serious financial problems. After the start of the so-called. “Arab Spring” in 2011, the then King Abdullah announced the launch of grandiose social programs totaling 72 bln. dollars. These included the creation of a state pension system, construction of a large number of affordable housing, creation of 90,000 new jobs (mainly in the state apparatus and power structures) and development of the most backward regions. The main objective was to ensure the loyalty of the masses to the regime, given the realistic threat of a large-scale anti-government protests.

About the extent to which the Saudi economy depends on oil speaks the fact that the budget of the Kingdom for 2016 is planned with whole 60 billion dollar deficit. Besides the social programs, this also calls into questions the help of Saudi satellites in the Arab world, allowing Riyadh to buy allies in the geopolitical struggle with Tehran. According to unofficial data, the aid amounts to 30 bln. dollars annually. It includes favorable loans to the military regime in Egypt, loans to Pakistan, subsidies paid to the monarchs of Bahrain and Jordan (allowing them to preserve their fragile power) and the bribery of tribal leaders in Yemen. Apart from this amount stands the help for the Islamists in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the Kingdom can rely on its stabilization fund of 652 billion dollars, but at the current spending rates it will be emptied within the next 8-10 years. And then?

Realizing that he could not rely on its own forces in December 2015 Riyadh announced the creation of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, including 34 countries. But although formally announced as “anti-terrorist”, this rather formal coalition is not directed against Al Qaeda or Islamic State, but against the main geopolitical adversary of Saudis – Iran. But even within its framework Riyadh has problems with its most battle worthy partners. Thus, very early in the Yemeni campaign, Pakistan and Egypt refused to participate. The first has to deal with too many internal problems, including its extremely troubled Northwestern province. Besides Islamabad does not want to spoil its relations with neighboring Iran. Egypt on the other hand is engaged in the fight against terrorists on the Sinai Peninsula and in the attempts to incorporate the floundering in chaos Libya in its sphere of influence. As for the Kings of Jordan and Morocco, who are formally willing to accept the proposals of Riyadh and rely on Saudi financial aid, they did not rush to send their militaries as cannon fodder in Syria. Thus, Riyadh is left with only such exotic allies as Sudan, Somalia and the Comoros, but they practically have no real military potential.

Therefore, statements about possible involvement of Saudi Arabia in the ground operation in Syria are assessed by many as a bluff. Indeed, Riyadh succeeded in gaining dominant influence over the Syrian armed opposition. The Kingdom has allies in almost all groups of opponents of the regime: from the relatively moderate Syrian Revolutionary Front to Al-Nusra Front (although the latter was officially announced by Riyadh terrorist organization and the subjects of the Kingdom are not allowed to fight on its side, without Saudi help its fighters would not have been able to seize the strategic Syrian town of Idlib in May 2015). Meanwhile, recent successes of the Syrian army have seriously shaken the opponents of Assad. They surrender their positions one after the other and can no longer dream of the conquest of new territories, but only of the retention of the current ones. Moreover, military defeats limit the opposition’s chances for success in the negotiations. Against this background, their Saudi patrons are left with nothing else but to threaten with direct military intervention. Time, however, will tell whether this tactic will be successful.

Riyadh as a factor for destabilization of the Middle East

The undertaken by Riyadh steps in foreign policy in the recent weeks, confirm the quoted by the British “Guardian” conclusions contained in a report by German intelligence (BND) from the end of 2015 (1), which emphasize the growing role of Saudi Arabia for the destabilization of the Middle East. Analysts of BND connect this to the renunciation of the cautious diplomacy of the former King Abdullah and the orientation to “impulsive policy of intervention” lead by the son of the current King and Defense Minister of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman, by deepening the confrontation with Iran, continuation of the war against the houthi in Yemen and support for the jihadists in Syria in their fight against the Assad regime.

The declared by Riyadh intention to send his ground forces into Syria within the international coalition against IS, led by the US, which is supported by Turkey and the UAE, not only illustrates the adventurous mind of the Saudi leaders, but also their endeavors by all means to engage Western countries in the realization of their regional ambitions.

Thus Riyadh is doing everything in its power to fail the started in Geneva consecutive round of negotiations to solve the Syrian problem (finished with the Decision for cease fire of February 27^th) using the formed under its control Islamist opposition delegation (the so called High Negotiations Committee, including militants from Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh-al-Islam), which insists that Syrian army ceased their advance as a precondition for further talks. Obviously, after not seeing any material chances for success either on the battlefield or in the negotiations, the patronized by Riyadh “implacable opposition” (as opposed to the Syrian opposition group Moscow-Cairo, representing the secular democratic opposition in the country), sees the only way out in shifting the blame for the failure of the peace process on Damascus and provoking military intervention of Western countries, Turkey and the Gulf monarchies in Syria.

Declarations of Riyadh and Ankara’s readiness to start ground operation became more frequent amid successes of government forces and Kurds, and the emerging possibility of failure of the plans of the Sunni groups to seize Syria, and transform it into an Islamic state. Obviously, the purpose of such an intervention is not to combat ID, but rather saving the patronized by Turkey and Saudi Arabia jihadists. That is, counting on the possibility that under the guise of the US-dominated international coalition, Turkish and Saudi forces would participate jointly with insurgents in a battle against the Syrian army and the Kurds, which will undoubtedly escalate hostilities.

Such attempt to provoke local conflict, however, may have unpredictable consequences. Given the lack of relevant UN sanctions, the emergence of Turkish and Saudi troops in Syria will be reasonably interpreted by opponents as blatant aggression and Assad will be able to rely on additional support, including on the part of the current opposition. With this transformation of the Syrian conflict into a regional and the growing danger of an outbreak of a global conflict (in view of the Turkish membership in NATO) they stand the risk to make the EU a hostage to the adventurous policy of the tandem Erdogan-Davutoglu and their Saudi allies, in the face of King Salman (for whom the British magazine “The Economist” says that he suffers from senile dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (2)) and his son – Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman (qualified by “The Independent” as naive and arrogant, and by other analysts as “mentally unbalanced” (3 ))

Thus, while Turkey concentrates along its border with Syria and Iraq a 150-thousand (with the rear units) expeditionary force, Saudi Arabia (according to BBC) probed the possibility to dislocate on Syrian territory as many troops of Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (4) where, according to “The Guardian” Riyadh itself is preparing to send there only a few thousand of its special forces and relies the main burden of fighting the forces of the regime and its allies to be taken by Turkey, Egypt Jordan and UAE. In Cairo and Amman are however convinced that overthrowing Assad by force will only further destabilize the region.

Against this background, now it became clear why in December 2015 Riyadh announced the creation of the aforementioned Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, and then jointly with Ankara formed the High Saudi-Turkish Strategic Council. The Saudi initiative for unification within the coalition of 34 mainly Sunni countries (luring them mostly with promises of generous financial aid) actually aims to make the Kingdom’s neighbors do the dirty work in its own battle against the Iranian influence in the region.

According to most analysts, the fact that a country participating in the US-led international coalition to combat Islamic State forms its own coalition, which supposedly will pursue the same objectives as Washington, can only mean that Saudi Arabia actually places other than the US tasks in the fight against the Islamic State. Proof of this are the words of Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself that Islamic Coalition will not be limited to this fight only. In other words, the battle against terrorism is used by Saudi Arabia to get the approval of the international community to intervene in neighboring countries, especially in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The true objectives of Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism “raise questions even among the leading countries in it. Egyptian leadership for example believes that instead of Turkey being admitted in the coalition, it should be declared a state-sponsor of terrorism, as well by the way as Qatar, which “is also directly responsible for the spread of terrorism in Syria and Iraq.”

As is known, the establishment of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism was a personal initiative of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is literally obsessed with the idea of forming an “Arab NATO”. However, in Brussels suggest that the recent actions of the Saudi elite – from the creation of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism to the execution of 47 people accused of being terrorists (early January 2016) are connected, in addition to everything else, with the rivaling for power official crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and the son of the present King Mohammed bin Salman to prove themselves as decisive politicians who do not hesitate to take tough decisions to ensure the security of the country. Intensification of the struggle for power in Saudi Arabia and anti-Iraq hysteria in Riyadh show that Saudi Arabia itself has become a generator of crises (both internal and external) and will continue its policy of pumping tension in the region. In this way, however, the Saudis themselves are driving to rebellion repressed Shiite minority in the country.

It is obvious that neither the US, nor EU have an interest to succumb to the provocations of Riyadh and Ankara, as the objectives of the two countries differ from those of the West, including in the fight against terrorism. Instead, they should require Turkey and Saudi Arabia to strictly comply with resolution 2170 of the Security Council of the United Nations from 2014 requiring discontinuation of support for jihadists in Syria. Instead of closing their eyes, they should put straight on the table the issue of respecting human rights in the Kingdom, as well as of violations on the Saudi side of international humanitarian law in Yemen, where its aircrafts regularly bomb various civil projects, including hospitals of Doctors Without Borders. Given that Riyadh continues to practice mass executions, including beheading in style Islamic State, the question should be put forward of the possible exclusion of Saudi Arabia from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Iran’s reaction to the Saudi plans

As might be expected, the declaration of Riyadh from early February, that it may very soon launch a ground operation in Syria, provoked a sharp reaction of Tehran. So the Deputy Chief of the Iranian General Staff, Brigadier General Massoud Dzhezayeri officially declared that his country strongly opposes any Turkish-Saudi operation in Syria and threatened that if this happens, Iran will sharply increase the size and armament of its military housing in the country so that it “can defeat the aggressors.” According Dzhazayeri: “we will not allow an even greater threat to security to occur in an already destroyed country. I am convinced that Saudi Arabia has already exhausted its military capabilities. Syria is not Yemen, and if they had the opportunity, Saudis long ago would have attacked the army of Assad”. He also believes that without Riyadh, Ankara is unlikely to undertake a major operation in Syria. Classifying Turkey and Saudi Arabia as “rogue states” in the Middle East, General Dzhezayeri predicts that they will probably continue working to destroy Syria, but at the same time be aware that Iran and Russia are ready to immediately react and unload all their might upon them.

A little earlier, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammed Ali Jafari also expressed the view that “Saudi Arabia will not dare to send its army into Syria. It has no chance against the regular Iranian troops, which will be supported from the air by the Russian aviation”. In this regard, he predicted that if they still dare to take ground operation in Syria, the Saudis will provoke a very difficult internal conflict that would prejudge the fate of the Kingdom.

In turn, during their meeting in Tehran with the Greek Prime Minister Tsipras, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamhani expressed the view that “the claims of Saudi Arabia and Turkey did not match their military potential” and warned Europe that he expects even more massive migrant crisis if Ankara and Riyadh still take ground operation in Syria.

However, it seems that all this is realized by the Saudi military too. In this aspect, the Arab site NTHNews.net has published a letter from a group of senior Saudi military to Crown Prince and Interior Minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, in which they oppose to sending ground troops into Syria, assessing such a decision as extremely dangerous (in the same letter, they determine the Saudi operation in Yemen as a “failure”) (5).

According to that group of generals, virtually all opposition groups backed by Riyadh and Ankara are controlled by people who are citizens of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which applies to many military commanders of the Islamic State, Al-Nusra Front and other extremist organizations professing Wahhabism (i.e. the state religion of Saudi Kingdom). In addition, hundreds of Saudi clerics are also in the ranks of these terrorist organizations. Incidentally, Wahhabism is the only subject that is taught in schools in the “capital” of the Islamic State – the Syrian city of Rakka, besides, textbooks are the same as those in Saudi schools.

This means that on the one hand, troops of Riyadh (if still enter Syria) will find themselves in an extremely difficult situation, and the other – the political situation in Saudi Arabia itself will come out from under the control of the authorities. Saudi opposition-minded generals argue that the fragmentation of the military situation in Syria practically excludes warfare against only the army of Assad. In this regard, they point out that if the Saudi army decided to attack the troops of the Islamic State, it would be inadmissible support to Shiite militiamen and Iraqi army, and the army of Iran and the Russian aviation. On the other hand, if they decide to confine to only act against Assad, Riyadh risks becoming an official ally of the Islamic State. In a similar development, the US will be forced to raise their hands of the Saudis and let things be decided by Moscow and Tehran. That is, as stated in the commentary NTHNews.net, both internal and external political situation is not conducive to Riyadh.

On the other hand, as the Tehran-based international news channel Alalam News Network, stated: “Syria, Iran and Russia already headed firm warning to Riyadh, indicating that Saudi Arabia virtually intends to save the terrorists who recently suffered a series of heavy defeats, but they will not allow it”. (6)

Notes:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12029546/Saudi-Arabia-destabilising-Arab-world-German-intelligence-warns.html
2. http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21638134-generational-change-looms-ail-King
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/Prince-mohammed-bin-salman-naive-arrogant-saudi-Prince-is-playing-with-fire-a6804481.html
4. https://gloria.tv/media/LiovfSVQzZE
5. http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941129000604
6. http://en.alalam.ir/news/1789285

Ostensibly, universal voting is the ideal of a free and democratic republic; however, barriers have been placed between many citizens and the ballot box ever since the creation of the United States. Many of these obstacles, such as property ownership and the racially-biased poll tax, have been removed. They are, however, being replaced by voter identification (ID) laws and other voter suppression schemes designed to discourage and prevent many, otherwise eligible voters from participating in elections. Voter suppression takes many forms and—in its aggregate—could allow the election of a president in the November 2016 election who is not the choice of the American People.

Voter Suppression

Approximately one quarter of all qualified voters are not registered, and many state laws and administrative practices are aimed at blocking—rather than encouraging—their enrollment. These include the imposition of arbitrarily short deadlines for the submission of voter registration forms; imposing harsh penalties for administrative errors; and even requiring the forms to be printed on very specific weights of paper. On the other hand, some states such as California, automatically register all eligible voters when they apply for driver’s licenses, and a number of states now allow online registration.

Other devices to suppress voting involve the unnecessary purging of registration rolls to remove qualified people; the deliberate misallocation of election resources resulting in long lines in low-income and college precincts; misleading voters regarding procedures and locations for voting; and “caging,” which involves sending certified letters to voters and striking registrations for those whose letters are returned as undeliverable. Scandalous as these plots may be, they verge on criminal conspiracies when they are directed by politically partisan secretaries of state and other officials who have the responsibility to ensure elections are fair and unbiased.

Although some suppression dirty tricks are bipartisan—four Kerry supporters were convicted of vandalism for slashing the tires of vans intended to transport Republican voters to the polls in 2004—it is primarily Republicans and other conservatives who engage in voter suppression. Many of these individuals and groups consider voting to be a privilege, instead of a right, and they are untroubled by efforts to reduce the voting participation by certain groups, such as racial minorities, students, and the poor, who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.

The most successful electoral subversion results from voter ID laws passed in many states in the past 15 years. These laws have been enacted—purportedly— to prevent voter fraud, in which an ineligible voter impersonates an eligible voter. Typically, these laws require the presentation of photographic identification, such as a driver’s license or passport in order to vote. In truth, these laws are a blatant stratagem to prevent the political opposition from voting.

As the less popular party, many Republicans unabashedly admit the purpose and consequence of these laws. One Republican legislator in Michigan warned, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election;” Another legislator believed the Pennsylvania voter ID law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state,” while another bragged that the Pennsylvania laws “cut Obama by five percent” and that “voter ID helped a bit in that.” The former head of the Florida Republican Party acknowledged that “We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us.” Presidential candidate Governor John Kasich agreed: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.” Prior to dropping out of the presidential race, Governor Chris Christie said that Republicans need to win gubernatorial races so they can control the “voting mechanism” in the presidential election.

There are millions of otherwise eligible voters in the United States (as many as ten percent) who do not possess acceptable photographic identification. If the reason is a lack of money to pay the licensing fee, voter ID laws have the same effect as the Jim Crow poll tax did in the South. The laws disproportionately affect the young, disabled, seniors, minorities, and the poor and disadvantaged of every race. One rigorous academic study conducted at UC San Diego concluded, “We find that strict voter identification laws do, in fact, substantially alter the makeup of who votes and ultimately do skew democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right.”

The reality is that voter fraud is very rare, and when it does occur, it would not be prevented by voter ID laws. An in-depth study by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University involved travel to 40 cities, 21 states, interviews of more than 1,000 people, and reviews of nearly 5,000 public documents. The effort identified only 10 cases of voter impersonation in more than a decade. There were more cases of absentee ballot fraud and registration fraud, which would not have been prevented by the voter ID laws.

The conservative political bias of suppression laws is indicated by the fact that more than half of all state photo ID legislation resulted from the efforts of the conservative, corporate-sponsored, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Sixty-two bills based on the model ALEC Voter ID Act have been introduced in state legislatures. Of the 22 states in which new voting restrictions have been passed, 18 have Republican-controlled legislatures.

The underlying racial basis of these laws was revealed by the Brennan Center for Justice which determined that of the 11 states with the highest numbers of African American voters in 2008, seven have since passed voter suppression laws. Of the 12 states with rapidly growing Hispanic populations, nine have enacted new restrictions. Finally, nine of the states formerly supervised by the Voting Rights Acts because of past racial discrimination have passed new voter suppression laws.

With Congress and the state legislatures and judiciaries increasingly controlled by corporations and the financial elite, there is little hope for legislative action or judicial relief to reduce the scandal of voter suppression. In 2008, a conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law—even though it had a partisan basis—because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. The decision followed an earlier one in 2000 in which the Court affirmed that the Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Amazingly, the Court shortly thereafter admitted in Bush v. Gore that “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote.”

A Voters’ Bill of Rights

The only way to assure the voting power of the American People and to ensure the United States continues as a representative democracy is to amend the constitution to include a Voters’ Bill of Rights. The United States Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA) not only specifically guarantees a right to cast effective votes in all elections, but it also includes specific provisions regarding voter participation and suppression.

Any lingering doubt about the necessity of a constitutional amendment was quashed by another opinion of the Supreme Court rendered immediately prior to the 2014 midterm elections. The decision reversed a Federal District Court in Texas, which had ruled that the state’s voter ID law unconstitutionally prevented more than 600,000 registered Texans from voting. The lower court had found the law was adopted “with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose” and that it placed “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.” The conservative majority of the Supreme Court disagreed—directly cutting off the access of more than a half million Texans to the polls and challenging the votes of millions of other Americans subject to similar laws in other states.

Previously, the Texas voter ID law had been blocked by the Voting Rights Act, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to obtain permission before changing voting procedures. That provision of the Act was earlier struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, and Texas officials announced they would begin enforcing the state’s new voter ID law.

In her dissent to the 2014 decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African American or Hispanic.” She added that “racial discrimination in elections in Texas is no mere historical artifact.”

Whether affected by strict photo ID rules or other forms of voter suppression, the turnout for the 2014 midterm elections was the lowest since 1942. The effect was shown by the difference between Texas—with the most restrictive rules and a 33.6 percent turnout—and Colorado, Washington and Oregon, which permit everyone to vote by mail, and their participation rates of 53, 54, and 69 percent, respectively.

The United States Voters’ Rights Amendment is a broad-spectrum treatment regimen specifically formulated to cure a variety of illnesses currently infecting representative democracy in America. Voter encouragement and suppression is covered by Section Three:

The States shall ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote are registered to vote.

In balancing the public benefit of maximum voter participation with the prevention of voting fraud, Congress and the States shall not impose any unjustifiable restriction on registration or voting by citizens.

The intentional suppression of voting is hereby prohibited and, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law, any person convicted of the intentional suppression of voting shall be ineligible for any public office for a period of five years following such conviction.

Universal voting is also encouraged by Section Eleven, which requires that “Federal elections conducted every second year shall be held on a national voters’ holiday, with full pay for all citizens who cast ballots.”

Voting Fuels the Flame of Freedom

The scandal of voter suppression corrupts the core of representative democracy, and the quality and effectiveness of political representation is directly related to the percentage of voter participation. Unless representatives are selected by the greatest number and broadest range of voters possible, the processes of government will not reflect the true will of the People. Indeed, if the current trend continues, the United States government will become an irrevocable plutocracy instead of a democracy; government of, by, and for the People will cease to exist; and the flame of freedom—no longer fueled by effective voting—will be extinguished.

William John Cox is a retired public interest lawyer. His new book, “Transforming America: A Voters’ Bill of Rights” presents the United States Voters’ Rights Amendment. He can be reached through his website, http://www.williamjohncox.com.

Featured image: Courtesy of weheartit.com

Did you know that if you are an American under 18 years old and you use your cell phone to send a nude “selfie” of yourself to a friend, you can be convicted of manufacturing and distributing “child pornography” and sent to prison? In case you are too old to be in the loop, a “selfie” is a photo that one makes of oneself.

This is how expansively prosecutors, whose main purpose in life is to ruin as many people as possible, interpret laws passed to protect children from sexual exploitation.

Sexting—the exchange of nude photographs—is now a big thing among the 14-17 year old set, especially among females. They have transitioned from children to women and find the extraordinary change in their bodies an interesting phenomenon. Under the expansive interpretation of child pornography laws, for an under 18-year old to even possess a nude photo of herself or himself is a violation of the law. Thanks to the illegal, unconstitutional surveillence of every communication of every American sanctioned by the US government and the corrupt Supreme Court that serves the government and not the Constitution, a naked photo sent by an under-18 year-old can be intercepted and the sender prosecuted for possessing, manufacturing, and distributing child pornography.

Teenagers can have their life ruined by the government “protecting” them.

In the state of New Mexico, awareness that kids faced the prospect of being ruined by sending explicit images of themselves to one another got the attention of New Mexico state senator George Munoz, a Democrat, and Steven Robert Allen of the American Civil Liberties Union. They got a bill passed that exempts consensual photograph sharing from prosecution. However the Republican Governor Susana Martinez and the state attorney general, Hector Balderas, oppose the new law.

When I was in high school, the female age of sexual consent was 14 years old, regardless of the age of her sexual partner. Today to engage in consensual sex with a 14 year-old male or female is a felony. In some states if both sexual partners are underaged, it is a misdemeanor.

I don’t know when the age of consent was raised from 14 to 18 and whether it progressed upward in stages or happened all at once. I suspect it was the product of conservatives who objected to welfare payments to unmarried black female teenagers for whom liberals made it possible to escape parental control via childbirth and possession of an apartment of their own. I think that US Senator Patrick Moynihan’s study published in the 1960s is correct that liberal welfare destroyed the black family. In the 1950s black families were as stable as white families.

People are born into their time. As they grow and mature they have no awareness of what it was like living in previous times. Whatever they are born into is their normal. If their society has descended from liberty into tyranny, they don’t know it. They never experienced liberty.

In my lifetime I have experienced an enormous intrusion into personal life by the state. If the laws of today had applied to the generation during the 1950s practically the entire generation would have been imprisoned. As children were routinely spanked, today an act of “child abuse,” an entire generation would have grown up in Child Protective Custody while their parents rotted in prison.

Moreover, in the 1950s people controlled their lives in ways that they are no longer permitted to do. Cars didn’t beep. Construction sites didn’t beep. Quiet was normal, not a luxury. Cars with manual transmissions would start without having to push in the clutch pedal. Fights between boys were normal, and no police were called. The Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) provided parental input into the school system. Teachers and parents handled the problems that now become jail records. There was the occasional bully with a badge, but overall police were courteous and helpful to the public. People did not fear the police as every sensible person does today. Regulated natural monopolies gave good service at low prices. Children could be out of sight all day without danger or parental concern for children’s safety or concern that the parents would be investigated for child neglect.

Communities had neighborhood schools. You went to school with your own class. In the South you were segregated by economic class. Parents and teachers cooperated in producing educated students aware of citizenship responsibilities, which included holding public officials accountable, not worshipping at their feet.

It was a different world, and a better one.

Today’s culture is totally different. Today childhood hardly exists. It has been compressed into a few years. At an early age females are enculturated into projecting a sexual persona. Makeup comes at an early age. Girls dress provocatively. They are constantly exposed to sexual images. They see the attention that scantily attired women and porn stars receive. They learn that this is the way to get attention. They sexually mature at an earlier age today than in the 1950s. Yet the age of sexual consent has been raised to 18. This is an absurdity. The stupidity of legislators discredits democracy and paves the way for the emerging dictatorship.

I used to believe in progress, in improvements in society and its care, as that is what I initially experienced. But change set in. What I see now is re-enserfment of the bulk of the population. Reforms during the 1930s that made capitalism functional have been repealed.

The opposition to re-enserfment is weak. In place of revolutionary leaders and thoughts, there is acceptance of domination by the state. It is called Patriotism. And Patriotism means support of the oppressive government. Anyone who choses the Constitution over the government is an unpatriotic anti-American, an incipient domestic extremist if not a terrortist.

The best way to get beat up or murdered by the police is to assert your constitutional rights. Like prosecutors and the executive branch, the last thing police want to hear is that there are limits on their power. Thus the objection of the New Mexico governor and attorney general to the legislation that protects teenagers from expansive interpretation of child pornography laws.

Pollinators worldwide, from bees and butterflies to beetles and bats, are facing a grim state of affairs.

Factors such climate change and land use changes are driving many pollinator species—including 16 percent of vertebrate pollinators—towards extinction. For invertebrate pollinators like bees and butterflies, over 40 percent of species may be be threatened locally, a new report shows.

And this all adds up to very bad news for humans, the report details, as it poses risks to the global food supply.

The assessment released Friday is from the four-year-old Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a UN-formed body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPBES came to its first ever analysis based on a body of existing scientific studies.

“Pollinators are important contributors to world food production and nutritional security,” said Vera Lucia Imperatriz-Fonseca, co-chair of the assessment and senior professor at the University of São Paulo. “Their health is directly linked to our own well-being.”

Describing their critical role, IPBES says that three-quarters of the “leading types of global food crops” rely at least in part on pollination by some of the 20,000 species of wild bees or other pollinators. In terms of monetary impact, that translates to as much as $577 billion worth of annual global food production.

“Without pollinators, many of us would no longer be able to enjoy coffee, chocolate and apples, among many other foods that are part of our daily lives,” said Simon Potts, Ph.D., the other co-chair and professor of biodiversity and Ecosystem Services at the University of Reading in the UK.

In addition to climate change and land use changes, the report also cites the decline of practices based on indigenous and local knowledge and insecticides like neonicotinoids as contributing to pollinators’ decline.

Among the strategies to protect pollinators suggest entail promoting sustainable agriculture, including reducing exposure to pesticides and bumping up diversity in pollinator habitats.

As far as a real impact from the group’s report, Dave Goulson, author, bumblebee expert, and professor of biology at the University of Sussex, is skeptical.

“I would question whether any practical on-the-ground action to help pollinators will happen as a result of this document. We are in the midst of the sixth global mass-extinction event, and we sit around spending thousands of hours writing documents about biodiversity, but we do not take action to address the fundamental issues that are causing this ecological catastrophe,”

Nature reports him as saying.

In what has developed from a cursory spin-off issue from the Benghazi catastrophe in which US Ambassador to Libya and terrorist liaison Chis Stephens was killed, Hillary Clinton’s use of her private internet server and the server of the Clinton Foundation for emails that contained sensitive and confidential material has now ballooned into a major controversy in true Clinton fashion. 

Judge Andrew Napolitano summed up the gist of the controversy in a few short paragraphs in his article “Hillary Lies Again,” where he wrote,

It now appears that Mrs. Clinton was managing her war using emails that she diverted through a computer server owned by her husband’s charitable foundation, even though some of her emails contained sensitive and classified materials. This was in direct violation of federal law, which requires all in government who possess classified or sensitive materials to secure them in a government-approved venue.

The inspector general of the intelligence community and the inspector general of the State Departmenteach have reviewed a limited sampling of her emails that were sent or received via the Clinton Foundation server, and both have concluded that materials contained in some of them were of such gravity that they were obliged under federal law to refer their findings to the FBI for further investigation.

The FBI does not investigate for civil wrongdoing or ethical lapses. It investigates behavior that may be criminal or that may expose the nation’s security to jeopardy. It then recommends either that indictments be sought or the matter be addressed through non-prosecutorial means. Given Mrs. Clinton’s unique present position — as the president’s first secretary of state and one who seeks to succeed him, as well as being the wife of one of his predecessors — it is inconceivable that she could be prosecuted as Gen. David Petraeus was (for the crime of failing to secure classified materials) without the personal approval of the president himself.[1]

Napolitano himself has analyzed a number of the emails that are now in the public domain as a result of the Freedom of Information Act. He states,

I have not seen the emails the inspectors general sent to the FBI, but I have seen the Clinton emails, which are now in the public domain. They show Mrs. Clinton sending or receiving emails to and from her confidante Sid Blumenthal and one of her State Department colleagues using her husband’s foundation’s server, and not a secure government server. These emails address the location of French jets approaching Libya, the location of no-fly zones over Libya and the location of Stevens in Libya. It is inconceivable that an American secretary of state failed to protect and secure this information.[2]

In an interview with Republican blowhard Sean Hannity, Napolitano reiterated his disgust with Clinton’s email scandal and stated that, if she truly believed the statements she has made in her defense or that the material contained in the emails was not sensitive enough to be damaging to US national security, she was unfit for office.

Napolitano stated,

I saw emails, not the ones that the inspectors general saw, I saw emails that have been revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. And in them, she is discussing the location of French fighter jets during the NATO bombardment of Libya, how big the no fly zone is, where the no fly zones are, and are you ready for this? – the location of Ambassador Stevens, who of course was murdered, in Libya.

If that is not classified, if she didn’t think that was classified, she has no business being in public office.[3]

Yet, not long after Napolitano made his statements, the number of emails being considered jumped from a few dozen to 60.[4]

As mentioned earlier, the Clinton “emailgate” scandal erupted as a result of the Congressional investigations into the Benghazi incident. As investigations, already built upon the shaky premise that the killing of Stevens was a tragic accident, began to take place, Clinton stalled Congressional investigators, provided obstinate statements, and did everything possible to avoid providing documents and, obviously, emails that may have been pertinent to the investigation.

After refusing to turn her email over to an independent third party, Clinton then announced that she had gone through her email and determined which emails were private and which were public. She then deleted the emails which she claims were private – all 30,000 of them.[5]

As Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times wrote in March, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to turn her email server over to an independent third party and claims she has wiped the server clean, dealing a setback to the special investigative committee looking into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, the probe said late Friday.

. . . . .

“Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest,” Mr. Gowdy said in a statement excoriating Mrs. Clinton’s actions.

Mr. Gowdy said Mrs. Clinton’s response to his subpoena was to re-transmit several hundred pages of emails that the State Department has already turned over.

. . . . . . .

Mrs. Clinton said at a press conference earlier this month that she culled through more than 60,000 emails from her time as secretary and decided about 30,000 of them were public records that should have been maintained. She said the rest were private messages relating to her daughter’s wedding or her yoga class schedule, and she didn’t keep those.
But Mr. Gowdy said Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers informed him Friday that she “unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails” from it.

He said it wasn’t clear when Mrs. Clinton made the final decision, but he said it appeared to have happened after the State Department asked her to turn over her government business messages in late October.

Mrs. Clinton rejected use of a government-issued email account during her four years as secretary, first relying on an account she used while a senator and then later setting up an email server at her home in New York and using an account on that to conduct all of her business, both public and private.

She insists she followed the law, which at the time didn’t require officials to use government-issued accounts but did require them to turn over all official records to be stored. Mrs. Clinton didn’t turn over those records until last December, after the Benghazi probe noticed she had used a private email and requested those records from the State Department, which then asked Mrs. Clinton for them. The law doesn’t set a date for turning over records.

Open-records experts, however, question Mrs. Clinton’s designation of her server as private, saying it was set up in order to do government business, and so it and the emails on it arguably belong to the government.

In August, 2015, Hillary finally handed over the keys to her server as well as three thumb drives. Unfortunately, all of the material had apparently been wiped clean in a professional data elimination job.[6] The thumb drives contain only what Clinton had poured through and approved to be left on the drives.[7] The rest of the data was unusable.[8]

There is much more to the story of Benghazi than mere incompetence or lack of consideration for lives Clinton may have put at risk by using a personal internet server. Without attempting to detail the history of the US/NATO destabilization and destruction of Libya and Syria, the fact is that Ambassador Chris Stevens was acting as a coordinator, facilitator, and arms dealer for terrorists in Libya who were tasked with mopping up the rest of Ghaddafi’s forces as well as shipping those weapons to terrorists operating in Syria.

With that in mind, one must wonder whether or not the whole email affair is itself – while a real enough issue- a red herring designed to cover up the fact that the Ambassador was tasked with acting as an agent of terrorism and a Sherpa of weapons and funds to terrorists. After all, the entire investigation is premised on the idea that what happened at the US embassy in Benghazi was either a random act of terrorist violence or a random act of terrorist violence made possible and more potent by incompetency in Washington.

Webster Tarpley disagrees with the premise of the investigation, arguing that the killing of Stevens was actually a bonapartist coup designed to produce an October surprise in September. Tarpley writes in his article, “Benghazi Attacks Linked To CIA Mormon Mafia,”

As the London Daily Mail reported on September 19, 2012, all signs suggest that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi and the murder of Ambassador Stevens were carried out by forces under the command of Sufyan Ben Qumu (or Kumu), a notorious terrorist leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. Qumu, who once worked as Bin Laden’s chauffeur, is a native of Derna, Libya, the city which US Army files suggest has produced more violent terrorists per capita than any other in the world. The US government knows everything about Qumu, who spent about five years as a prisoner in detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Qumu was then sent back to Libya in September 2007, where he was set free by Gaddafi in an amnesty in 2010. Qumu currently heads the Ansar al-Sharia brigade, also an al-Qaeda affiliate.

Clearly, the likely way somebody like Qumu could be released from Guantanamo would be if he had become a double agent working for the CIA in the overthrow of Qaddafi. We therefore have a situation in which a reputed CIA asset has carried out the assassination of the US ambassador.[9]

Nevertheless, Clinton’s role must be investigated and punished to the fullest extent. Emails, while an important issue in regards to national security and the rule of law, are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this aspect of the story. The entire incident must be investigated fully, encompassing all aspects and following all leads. Any individual either so treacherous or incompetent to act so recklessly with sensitive information is clearly incapable of serving in the position of the Presidency.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 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 atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Notes:

[1] Napolitano, Andrew. “Hillary Lies Again.” Washington Times. July 29, 2015.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-lies-about-email/ Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[2] Napolitano, Andrew. “Hillary Lies Again.” Washington Times. July 29, 2015.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-lies-about-email/ Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[3] Tyler, Taylor. “Hillary Clinton Sent Unsecured Emails Revealing Location Of Ambassador Chris Stevens And NATO Fighter Jets, Reveals Judge Napolitano.” HNGN. August 6, 2015.http://www.hngn.com/articles/116807/20150806/judge-napolitano-clinton-sent-emails-revealing-location-of-ambassador-chris-stevens-nato-fighter-jets.htm Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[4] Solomon, Jon. “Number Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Flagged For Classified Data Grows To 60 As Review Continues.” The Washington Times. August 16, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/ Accessed September 7, 2015. 

[5]Dinan, Stephen. “Hillary Clinton Wiped Email Server Clean, Refuses To Turn It Over.” Washington Times. March 27, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/27/hillary-clinton-wiped-email-server-clean-refuses-t/Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[6] Schmidt, Michael S. “Hillary Clinton Directs Aides To Give Email Server And Thumb Drive To The Justice Department.” New York Times. August 11, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-directs-aides-to-give-email-server-and-thumb-drive-to-the-justice-department.html?_r=0 Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[7] Powell, Sidney. “The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now.” Observer. August 13, 2015. http://observer.com/2015/08/the-countless-crimes-of-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor-needed-now/ Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[8] Dinan, Stephen. “Hillary Clinton Wiped Email Server Clean, Refuses To Turn It Over.” Washington Times. March 27, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/27/hillary-clinton-wiped-email-server-clean-refuses-t/Accessed on September 7, 2015. 

[9] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. “Benghazi Attacks Linked To CIA Mormon Mafia.” Press TV.http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/14/266560/benghazi-attack-cia-mafia-in-action (link broken) Article reproduced here http://www.boxingasylum.com/showthread.php?t=47451&s=de5eb660458f23d197f8431939586521#.Ve44lRFVikp Accessed on September 7, 2015.

Finance ministers and central bankers from the world’s biggest economies met in Shanghai, China over the weekend to discuss many of the problems for which they alone are responsible. Leading the list of issues, was the steady deceleration in global growth which, to great extent, is the result of experimental monetary policies central banks implemented following the recession in 2009. Surprisingly, the group admitted that their “easing strategies” had failed to produce the durable recovery that they sought, but at the same time,  they made virtually no effort to correct their mistake by making the changes necessary to shore up flagging global output. Here’s a brief recap from Bloomberg:

“Finance chiefs from the world’s top economies committed their governments to doing more to boost global growth amid mounting concerns over the potency of monetary policy.

In a pledge that will prove easier to write than deliver and may disappoint investors looking for a coordinated stimulus plan, the Group of 20 said “we will use fiscal policy flexibly to strengthen growth, job creation and confidence.” After a two-day meeting in Shanghai, finance ministers and central bank governors also doubled down on a line from their last gathering that “monetary policy alone cannot lead to balanced growth.”

This is complete gibberish. Finance chiefs from the world’s top economies did not commit their governments to do more to boost global growth. Quite the contrary, they didn’t lift a finger to change anything.  That’s why Wall Street has its knickers in a twist, because they didn’t get the lavish handouts they were hoping for. You see, now that stocks are on the ropes and corporate profits have been dropping for two consecutive quarters (which is a sign of impending recession), the big money guys want more favors from Uncle Sugar, this time in the form of fiscal stimulus and “structural reforms”  which is an opaque “pro-business” buzzword that refers to the further slashing of workers wages, additional tax cuts for voracious corporations, and more lifting of government regulations to make it easier for Wall Street to fleece We the People.

What the markets were hoping for was some indication that more government freebies were on the way. But the finance ministers couldn’t agree about anything, so the whole issue of stimulus was scrapped. In other words, Wall Street got zilch. That’s why they’re so upset.   Check this out from Financial Review:

“Investors burned by turmoil in global markets are looking for signs the world’s top finance officials are ready to take action to bolster growth and calm currency moves…. Citigroup’s Steven Englander said a failure to include more explicit support for fiscal stimulus in the closing statement from policy makers would be taken badly by investors. For Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Capital Markets in New York, a commitment to fiscal expansion and clarity on China’s currency policy will send equities higher next week, while stocks will slide if those issues aren’t addressed….

“Keeping the previous language would be very disappointing and would be viewed as either complacent or reflecting policy paralysis,” Englander, Citigroup’s head of currency strategy for major developed economies, said in a February 25 report. He urged the G-20 to “man up and tell member countries that monetary policy should be accompanied by fiscal expansion”. (“G-20 needs to ‘man up’ to avert more market turmoil, says Citigroup’s Englander“, Financial Review)

Can you see what’s going on? There is general acceptance of the fact that monetary policy has lost its effectiveness, so now Wall Street wants fiscal giveaways. And they don’t care how they get them either. Notice how carefully Mr Englander phrases his comments: “Keeping the previous language would be very disappointing and would be viewed as either complacent or reflecting policy paralysis.” In other words, if Wall Street doesn’t get more government handouts it’s going to stomp its feet and have another big hissyfit.

Reuters tells the same story. Check it out:

“Investors could trim back positions on equities given a failure by a weekend meeting of the G20 group of leading economies to come up with concrete, new measures to boost growth, analysts said…..

“The fact that the G20 is going to do more of the same is likely to be greeted with a big yawn and a likely fall on stock markets,” said Richard Edwards, managing director at trading and research firm HED Capital.  Others felt equally discouraged.

“Some people will be disappointed that there are no concrete measures,” said Francois Savary, chief investment officer at Geneva-based investment and consultancy firm Prime Partners.” (Reuters)

“Some people will be disappointed”, says Savary?? Well, boo-fu**ing-hoo!  I mean, how long are we going to continue to shape policy so it suits the exclusive needs of the bloodsuckers on Wall Street? It’s insanity!

Central banks and finance chiefs don’t give a rip about growth, jobs or even the overall state of the economy. It’s a joke. What matters them is profits and stock prices. That’s it. All this rubbish about “doing more to boost growth”  or “using fiscal policy to increase job creation and confidence” is enough to make you puke.  Here’s a short clip from the G-20 communique:

“The global recovery continues, but it remains uneven and falls short of our ambition for strong, sustainable and balanced growth….While recognising these challenges, we nevertheless judge that the magnitude of recent market volatility has not reflected the underlying fundamentals of the global economy.”

Fundamentals? What fundamentals? Global central banks have purchased more than $10 trillion in various distressed assets since the end of the recession in 2009. Do you think that that reduction in supply might have a affected the price of stocks and bonds a bit?  Maybe just a titch?

Investors know its all a mirage. They know that soaring stock prices are strung together with chewing gum and duct tape. That’s why they’re on bailing out at the first sign of trouble. And that’s what makes the G-20 confab a such momentous occasion, because the finance honchos and bank brainiacs brought nothing to the table. They basically told Wall Street to “pack sand”. They even shrugged off an emotional appeal from the IMF to take “bold action” to stimulate growth and avoid more damage to the fragile financial system.

Here’s what the IMF said:

“The G20 must plan now for co-ordinated demand support using available fiscal space to boost public investment and complement structural reforms…a comprehensive approach is needed to reduce over-reliance on monetary policy. In particular, near-term fiscal policy should be more supportive where appropriate and provided there is fiscal space….The global economy needs bold multilateral actions to boost growth and contain risk.”

That’s quite a turnaround for the austerity-promoting IMF, don’t you think?

But the fund is just being pragmatic. Now that monetary policy is kaput, fiscal stimulus is the only game in town. That’s just the way it is. Either the finance ministers accept that fact and push for additional government spending on infrastructure programs and the like, or stocks and profits are going to face a savage reckoning. It’s that simple.

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

A NATO convoy under German leadership is to begin operations in the Aegean Sea in the next few days, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday.

The official goal of the mission is the complete closure of the Aegean to refugees, militarily strengthening “Fortress Europe” against refugees from the war zones in the Middle East. The dispatch of warships to the strategic Aegean Sea also heightens the risk of NATO intervention in the Syrian civil war and war with Russia.

Stoltenberg said in a press release that the goal of NATO was “the disruption of the routes used by smugglers and for illegal migration in the Aegean.” He boasted that the ships of the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG 2) had already arrived in the mission area 48 hours after the decision of NATO defence ministers was taken two weeks ago. Now it was a matter of collectively finding “solutions” for the “crisis.”

By “solutions” of the refugee crisis, Stoltenberg and NATO mean the military strengthening of the Greek and Turkish coast guard and the European border protection agency Frontex in order to detect and stop refugee boats, also possibly forcing them back.

Stoltenberg said,

“Our ships will provide information for the Greek and Turkish coast guard and other national authorities, allowing them to act even more effectively against illegal trafficking networks. We will also establish direct connections to European Frontex … so that it can do its ‘job’ more effectively.”

In other words, Frontex, supported by NATO warships, should conduct its notorious “push-back” operations more intensively, i.e. a refugee boat being tracked should be “towed back where it came from—for example, to Turkey”. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière demanded this last December in an interview with Die Welt. Now it is official EU and NATO policy. Stoltenberg said, “If people are rescued who have come through Turkey, they will be returned to Turkey.”

The operation comes from an initiative by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, agreed at a meeting of NATO defence ministers on 11 February. Berlin is taking over the management of the NATO alliance. In a statement last Thursday, von der Leyen praised the NATO decision “under German leadership” as being “quick and clear”. Last Friday, the German supply ship Bonn, which will lead the naval group, set off from the NATO base at Souda in Crete. On board was the German Commodore Jörg Klein, commander of SNMG 2.

With the military mission, the German government wants to “drastically and sustainably” reduce the number of refugees coming to Greece via Turkey, as de Maizière declared on the periphery of an EU meeting in Brussels. This should happen by March 7. Then a special EU summit would take place attended by Turkey.

The official goal of the Merkel government is to commit the Erdogan regime to a dirty deal on fully closing the borders for refugees and to detain refugee boats before they can even leave Turkey. As “compensation”, the German government will provide financial support to Ankara. Last week in a government statement, Merkel reaffirmed her support for a no-fly zone in Syria, a central demand of the Erdogan government and an important condition for Ankara’s military invasion of Syria.

The NATO mission in the Aegean not only entails increased support for Turkey’s war drive against the Kurds and the Syrian government, but is a direct part of the NATO war preparations against Russia.

An official NATO report indicates that the SNMG 2 force had conducted “intensive operations with the Turkish Navy” in early February. This included carrying out air defence operations, submarine war operations and live firing exercises (GUNEX). Turkish F-16 fighter jets were also involved in the exercise.

According to Klein, the aim was to develop the force’s “own abilities” and “to consolidate a team” out of the units. As well as the German flagship, the “team” that he is currently leading in the Aegean includes two heavily armed frigates, the Canadian vessel HMCS Fredericton and the Greek ship Salamis (F-455), and a Turkish warship. The SNMG 2 group is part of the NATO Response Force (NRF), the NATO rapid reaction force, which was systematically upgraded last year against Russia.

The location and organisation of the exercise alone underscore what NATO is preparing. Russia is currently the only power that is active in the region with larger naval units and warplanes, and is considered as an enemy by NATO. The Russian Air Force is supporting Syria’s Assad regime being combatted by the West, and warships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet regularly transit the Aegean between their home ports in the Crimea and Tartus in Syria, where the only Russian naval base is located in the Mediterranean Sea.

The increasing NATO presence in the Aegean heightens the risk of a direct clash between NATO and Russia. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, there was a near-collision off the Greek island of Lemnos in December, between a Turkish fishing boat and the Russian destroyer Smetliwij. Russia regarded the incident as a deliberate provocation by the Turkish Navy, and summoned the Turkish military attaché in Moscow. Since the shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by Turkey on November 24, 2015, tensions between Turkey and Russia have steadily increased.

In its latest edition, news weekly Der Spiegel describes the consequences, including those unintended, of the NATO mission. It says of the growing “risk of war between Russia and Turkey”:

“It is the year in which the world stands as close to a nuclear war as never before in the history of the Cold War. Provocations, red lines, which are crossed, airspace violations, a shot-down aircraft. A missile fired in error or a submarine commander who loses his nerve can trigger a world war.”

The G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central bankers held in Shanghai over the weekend has failed to come up with any coordinated plan of fiscal stimulus to revive the global economy. In fact such a plan was not even considered because of the deepening divisions among the major economic powers.

The communiqué from the meeting said downside risks to the global economy had increased, amid volatile capital flows and a large drop in commodity prices, but did nothing to initiate coordinated fiscal policies to boost growth. This was despite calls for a move in this direction from the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in the lead-up to the meeting.

The closest it came was an acknowledgment in the communiqué that “monetary policy alone cannot lead to balanced growth.” Anything more than that was ruled out as each of the major powers insisted it was up to others to take action.

In the words of French Finance Minister Michel Sapin: “We are absolutely not talking about a global fiscal stimulus package. In France we don’t have the capacity to do this just yet. Other countries have more capacity and they can use this capacity to continue to support global growth.”

Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, speaking before the meeting, said the space for using monetary policy had been exhausted and using debt to fund growth just leads to “zombifying” companies. “Talking about further stimulus just distracts from the real tasks at hand,” he said. Policymakers in Germany did not agree with a “G-20 fiscal stimulus package, as some argue, in case outlook risks materialise.” He said the fall in oil prices had given a “huge” stimulus to demand and expansive fiscal policies could lay the groundwork for a future crisis.

The attitude of the British government was exemplified by Chancellor George Osborne. He made it clear that instead of increasing spending in the face of a worsening global economic outlook, the Cameron government was considering still further spending cuts following the release of figures which showed that the British economy grew by just 0.5 percent in the last quarter of 2015.

“The storm clouds are clearly gathering in the world economy and that has a consequence for lots of countries, including Britain,” he said. The latest figures had revealed that expansion in Britain was not as big as had been hoped “so we may need to undertake further reductions in spending because this country can only afford what it can afford and we will address that in the budget.”

Summing up the summit, financial analyst David Loevinger, a former China specialist at the US treasury, told Bloomberg “hopes of coordinated policy actions proved to be pure fantasy. It’s every country for themselves.”

In the face of deep divisions among the leading members of the G-20, it appears the drafters of the communiqué decided to paper over the worsening situation confronting the world economy.

After pointing to a series of risks, it stated:

“While recognising these challenges, we nevertheless judge that the magnitude of recent market volatility has not reflected the underlying fundamentals of the global economy. We expect activity to continue to expand at a moderate pace in most advanced economies, and growth in key emerging markets remains strong.”

In fact, data issued on the eve of the meeting point to a worsening of the “underlying fundamentals.”

According to the World Trade Monitor, compiled by the Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis, the value of world trade fell by 13.8 percent in 2015, in the first contraction since the depths of the financial crisis in 2009, with indications the situation will worsen this year.

The Baltic Dry Index, which measures global trade in bulk commodities, has been reaching historic lows. One of the most significant indicators is the 60 percent fall in container exports from China to Brazil, the world’s ninth largest economy, last year. The Maersk Line, the world’s largest shipping company, has reported that container imports to Brazil halved in the past year.

Global trade as a whole grew by 2.5 percent last year, below economic growth of 3.1 percent, reversing the situation which prevailed before 2008 when trade expanded at more than twice the rate of increase for global output.

As for the claim that growth in key emerging markets “remains strong,” the Chinese economy is slowing, with indications that its real growth rate is closer to 4 percent than the 6.5 percent rate claimed by the government, and Brazil is in a severe recession.

Excluding China, emerging markets, according to the IMF, grew by only 1.92 percent last year, lower than the rate for advanced economies which expanded by 1.98 percent.

The head of emerging markets research at Citi, Guillermo Mondino, told theFinancial Times lower growth for emerging markets “should be a particular cause of concern” and, with the very sharp fall in oil prices, capital flows to these countries “are in a state of collapse.”

At the same time, the global financial order is becoming increasingly unstable. Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013 has warned that another financial crisis is “certain” and will come “sooner rather than later.” While greedy bankers and incompetent policymakers contributed to the crash 2008, “the crisis was a failure of a system,” he stated in a just-published book.

The downturn in the global economy is driving the growing discord among the major economic powers. The only area in which money is being spent is on the military as each of them boosts preparations for war.

In the immediate wake of the financial crisis, the G-20 meeting in London, held at the beginning of April 2009, saw verbal commitments to co-ordinate economic policies claiming the lessons of the 1930s had been learned and there would be no repeat of the conflicts which marked the Great Depression. Now even these words have gone.

As the World Socialist Web Site explained at the time, “inter-imperialist antagonisms were manifest throughout the summit and will inevitably sharpen as the economic crisis worsens” and that,

“far from having laid down a globally coordinated program to rescue world capitalism, the London summit has only demonstrated the irreconcilable contradiction between the globally integrated economy and the nation-state system, and the impossibility of the rival nation states adopting a genuinely international approach to the crisis.”

That analysis has been confirmed many times over in the past seven years.

In an article previewing the latest meeting, the New York Times noted that since London, G-20 meetings have been “known mostly for agreeing on generalities and making few changes, culminating in an unproductive series of meetings in Turkey last year.” As the well-known international economist, Ken Courtis, put it: “The Turkish presidency of the G-20 led to no progress on any front.”

Each of the major powers is pushing for its own interests. Britain managed to secure a reference to Brexit in the communiqué expressing concern any UK exit from the European Union would be a contributing factor to downside risks to the global economy.

The communiqué reaffirmed previous commitments not to engage in competitive currency devaluation and that exchange rates would not be targeted for “competitive purposes.” However, it added the phrase that “we will consult closely on exchange markets” following the devaluation of the Chinese renminbi last year, and fears that it could fall further, and the shift by the Bank of Japan to negative interest rates.

Pointing to the growing tensions, Eurogroup chief official Jeroen Dijsselbloem said the renminbi was not the only cause for concern. “The debate was also about Japan, to be honest—there was some concern that we would get into a situation of competitive devaluations” and that once one country devalues “the risk is very large that another follows and we get into competitive devaluation.”

However, he ruled out proposals for co-ordinated fiscal policies, saying: “I don’t think there is any need for a big plan, there is no crisis.”

The continued flow of negative data on the world economy, the lack of agreement on any concrete measures, the mounting instability of the financial system and the deepening conflicts between the major powers give the lie to such assertions.

Another type of material has been found by researchers that is tied to the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi. We have reported extensively over the years on the finding of “black stuff” around mainland Japan. This is a highly radioactive black sand like material that had gathered in gutters and roads as far away as Tokyo. Analysis of materials of that type has linked them to the meltdowns inside the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. This new finding is also linked directly to the reactor meltdowns.

Researchers in Japan found new materials they described as tiny spherical glass particle that was highly radioactive. These glass particles are structurally quite different from the “black stuff” but they also bear a link back to the reactor meltdowns. A glass particle labeled NWC-1 was collected from Nihonmatsu in 2011 after the initial disaster. Nihonmatsu is roughly 40-45 km directly west of Fukushima Daiichi. The town area sits south of Fukushima City and north of Koriyama. This area is well outside the evacuation zone and is currently occupied without restriction.

These glass particles include high levels of radioactive cesium.

Researchers found that the radioactivity was highest in the center of the particle, indicating the cesium was incorporated into the glass particle during the molten phase of the meltdown. The glass particle also contains materials that indicate it includes either concrete from the containment vessel or seawater that was injected. This is significant as it shows this material was formed after the melted fuel burned through the reactor vessel and had begun burning the containment vessel concrete floor, or it formed after seawater was injected. The seawater injections were fairly late in the meltdown progression and newer research shows all or most of that water flowed the wrong direction and didn’t make it to the reactor vessels. The timing of the creation of these glass spheres would be between the time of the first reactor vessel failure and the start of seawater injection then thereafter. This may help in the future to identify the specific reactor and event that may have created these spheres.

 

The location of the found particle in Nihonmatsu is unexpected. A second glass sphere was found on a cedar leaf in Fukushima, specific area not mentioned. Nihonmatsu is directly west of the plant and not in the documented plume paths that developed north-west and south of the disaster site. This appears to indicate that materials from the reactors themselves were transported far further than initially claimed. These glass particles are small enough in size to potentially be inhaled. Right now researchers do not know the extent or geographic spread of this material. It does show that direct materials from inside the reactors did leave the buildings and were distributed over a long distance. Due to the high radioactivity within these glass spheres they could pose a significant health risk.

We put together a rough comparison of the properties of the two reactor meltdown byproducts. This is not a definitive list. Please refer to the original studies for further information.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RAbsClYl3KIZkHeI1don3Zfe_AYBKF_vW3C7tWlIpXw/edit?usp=sharing

Full Study:
Yamaguchi, N. et al.
Internal structure of cesium-bearing radioactive microparticles released from Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Sci. Rep. 6, 20548; doi: 10.1038/srep20548 (2016).

Black Stuff Analysis:
Radiological Analysis of Namie Street Dust
Marco Kaltofan

Since October 1, Israel extrajudicially executed well over one Palestinian on average daily, numbers approaching 200 murders, including women and children – defenseless victims of its killing machine.

In tandem Washington provides tacit support: Reports indicate Obama increased US aid to Israel this year by $800 million – a $4 billion US taxpayer handout. Israel wants more annually, claiming nonexistent security threats.

State terror stalks Palestinians daily. The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) reported providing emergency medical services for over 5,000 victims of Israeli violence monthly since last October 1.

Its soldiers, police and extremist settlers assaulted PRCS teams and ambulances hundreds of times. Nearly 150 of its paramedics and other staff members were wounded.

Almost 100 ambulances were damaged or rendered inoperable. Western and Israeli media ignore daily atrocities – an entire Palestinian population at risk, viciously terrorized.

Days earlier, the Stop the Wall campaign against Israel’s apartheid encirclement of Palestinians into isolated bantustans reported how extremist settlers are taking over more territory in Beit Ummar.

They’re “bann(ing) Palestinians from what they define as ‘their zone,’ “ protected by Israeli security forces – part of longstanding official state ethnic cleansing, wanting maximum Jews and minimum Arabs.

Extremist settlers patrol with firearms visible, ready to use for any contrived reason, able to get away with murder with impunity.

Rare exceptions prove the rule. Palestinians are being systematically terrorized, Israeli officials supporting what demands world community action to stop.

On Sunday, Israeli forces critically shot and wounded middle-aged Palestinian dentist Hisham Muhammad Atwan Sbeih and 16-year-old Yasan Omar Salah – in harm’s way threatening no one during a raid targeting al-Khader village.

They’re both hospitalized, at risk of being forcibly dragged from their beds and arrested, despite guilty of no crimes.

From February 22 through late April, Israeli Apartheid Week 2016 is taking place in over 150 cities and universities worldwide – each act of resistance lasting a week or longer in the following locations:

Britain from February 22 – 28

Other European countries from February 29 – March 7

Palestine from March 1 – 10

South Africa from March 1 – 10

Arab world countries from March 6 – 26

US cities from March 27 – April 3

Latin American countries from April 10 – 24

Canadian cities during weeks throughout March

Activities include panel discussions, film screenings, and actions promoting vital BDS support – the most important and effective resistance initiative.

An official Israeli Apartheid Week 2016 statement says the movement is “(i)nspired by the ongoing popular resistance across historic Palestine…hop(ing) to make (this year’s events) a powerful contribution to the Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice.”

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

 

The announcement of the establishment of an Arab Court of Human Rights, indeed any Court devote to Human Rights, should be an internationally welcomed initiative.

The fact that the initiative has come from the Shoura Council of Saudi Arabia, the formal one hundred and fifty strong legislative advisory body, unelected and all appointed by the King, raises many unanswered questions:

 The Shoura Council is giving final touches to the draft statute of the Arab Court of Human Rights.

To be based in Bahrain, the court will have independent judges and provisions enforceable in all member states. …

The amendments also involve adding an article that empowers the Court to impose temporary or transitional measures for the protection of complainants in urgent cases to prevent irreparable damage from being inflicted on victims.

… According to official sources, the Court will seek to promote the human dignity, justice, equality and the rule of law in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.

The court will consist of seven judges comprised of nationals from the member states, and a president will be elected for a term of four years.
The employees of the Court will enjoy the privileges granted to the representatives of the member States of the Arab League.

According to its bylaws, the Court will consider and resolve all disputes arising from the application and interpretation of the Arab Charter on Human Rights or any other Arab agreement in this regard. (Arab News, Feb 23, 2016)

 

“Promote the human dignity, justice, equality and the rule of law”

The main question might be, will any Saudi official involved  in human rights violations not to mention State support of terrorist organizations in Syria, Iraq, be called to account to the Court?

Today, just five days after the announcement, below, added to Saudi’s woeful human rights record, has been the sentencing of a twenty eight year old man to ten years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism on Twitter.

Last August Amnesty International’s Report “Killing in the Name of Justice” concluded that in twelve months, on average one person was put to death every two days. The majority of executions are carried out by beheading. Last year posts for eight extra executioners were advertised to help cope with the increasing number of death sentences

The role, posted on the civil service jobs portal, was described as “executing a judgment of death” – as well as performing amputations on those convicted of lesser offences. Executed bodies are sometimes displayed in public. Execution is also carried out for adultery.

In spite of this chilling record, last June Saudi Arabia was elected as Chair of a key Panel on the UN Human Rights Committee. It seems unlikely they might be called to account by their new creation any time soon.

What are the positions of U.S. presidential candidates on NSA domestic spying, personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment?

Putting the debate in perspective, we begin with the Snowden affair.

In May 2013, explosive details about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance programs were revealed in documents provided by Edward Snowden to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman, and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras.

Investigators claim Snowden began downloading government documents in 2012 while working with Dell, an NSA contractor. In March, 2013 – three days after what he later called his “breaking point” of “seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress” – Snowden quit his job at Dell and began work for Booz Allen Hamilton where his downloading resumed.

Initial Snowden documents published in June 2013 by the Washington Post and The Guardian revealed the extent and expansive reach of the agency’s dragnet spy programs worldwide.

In the same month, the U.S. Department of Justice charged Snowden of two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and theft of US Government or foreign government property.

Documents estimated to range from 250 thousand to 1.7 million disclosed NSA’s collection of domestic email, telephone metadata and revealed a top secret data mining and information sharing program named PRISM.

Shock value was high leading calls for Congressional hearings and changes to the U.S. surveillance law. European reaction reached a zenith upon learning that the cell phone of Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had been bugged. “Spying among friends” is unacceptable, she said.

Leaked documents published by Der Spiegel in 2014 appeared to show that the NSA had targeted 122 “high ranking” leaders.

Responding to public outcry, in June 2015 the U.S.A. Freedom Act was passed by Congress. It restored in modified form several provisions of the Patriot Act while imposing some limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication data on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies.

Given this history, what are the positions of presidential candidates on NSA domestic spying and privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment?

Donald Trump would be “fine” with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow the NSA to once again collect American phone metadata in bulk.

Ted Cruz has denounced hoarding tens of billions of records of ordinary Americans. “When the focus of law enforcement and national security is on ordinary citizens rather than targeting the bad guy, we miss the bad guys while violating the constitutional rights of American citizens,” he said.

However, while Cruz publicly defended Snowden in 2013, he now says: “Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason.”

Marco Rubio, who considers the U.S.A. Freedom Act an anti-intelligence law, laments the loss of the metadata program and has accused other candidates of weakening national security.

“If ISIS had lobbyists in Washington, they would have spent millions to support the anti-intelligence law (the USA Freedom Act) that was passed with the help of some Republicans now running for president,” he charged.

Ohio governor John Kasich promotes balancing civil liberties and national security in a mixture that is “not too hot and not too cold.” He feels encryption is a “major problem” that Congress has to deal with “and so does the president to keep us safe.”

Ben Carson told ABC “This Week”: “In the larger capacity, we should monitor anything – mosques, church, school, you know, shopping centers – where there is a lot of radicalization going on.”

Hillary Clinton‘s position has been characterized as “fuzzy”. Other than advocating for a balance between civil liberties and national security which she failed to formulate, her position has been vague on ending NSA surveillance. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and its renewal in 2006 and insists the bill was necessary to insure security.

In the first presidential debate, Bernie Sanders said he would absolutely end the NSA’s sweeping surveillance powers. “Yes, we have to defend ourselves against terrorism, but there are ways to do that without impinging on our constitutional rights and our privacy rights,” he maintained.

Sanders, who voted against the Patriot Act and the U.S.A. Freedom Act, stated in a Time article last year: “Do we really want to live in a country where the NSA gathers data on virtually every single phone call in the United States – including as many as 5 billion cellphone records per day? I don’t.”

Arguing against the U.S.A. Freedom Act in 2015, Sanders wrote: “Do we really want our government to collect our emails, see our text messages, know everyone’s Internet browsing history, monitor bank and credit card transactions, keep tabs on people’s social networks? I don’t.”

“The Intercept” (theintercept.com) funded by billionaire Pierre Omidyar teamed with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and former Nation writer Jeremy Scahill, has become the custodian of Snowden’s immense archive of classified documents, which it continues to mine for stories.

Edward Snowden is living in asylum in Russia and currently in negotiations with the U.S. Justice Department. In February, he told a libertarian forum he will return home if he is guaranteed a “fair trial” and “can make a public interest defense of why this was done and allow a jury to decide.”

In 2013, former CIA Director David Petraeus said:

“Every byte left behind reveals information about location, habits, and, by extrapolation, intent and probable behavior. The number of data points that can be collected is virtually limitless.”

On February 9, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reaffirmed how intelligence services might use a new generation of smart household devices to increase their (intel’s) surveillance capabilities, “for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.”

Over the last three years through a combination of growing indifference and arguable amnesia, the subject of NSA, the security state and onerous losses to personal privacy have drifted from general public focus.

In light of the fact that by 2020 there will be 21 billion connected devices in a global Internet of Things, Americans need to reexamine and debate the legality of government and corporate surveillance versus Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.

In November, they will vote for a pro-security state president or one who puts personal privacy first.

Sources:

“Here’s what the presidential candidates have to say about NSA spying, the USA Freedom Act, and government surveillance”. Catherine Craig. InfoWorld.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3032543/security/all-the-presidents-spies-which-candidates-back-the-nsa.html 

February 12, 2016.

“Bernie Sanders: It’s Time To End Orwellian Surveillance of Every American.” Sen. Bernie Sanders. Time. May 7, 2015.

http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/

“Edward Snowden would be willing to return to US for fair trial”. Jamie Grierson. Guardian. February 21, 2016.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/21/edward-snowden-willing-to-return-to-us-fair-trial

“Remarks by Director David H. Petraeus at In-Q-Tel CEO Summit”. CIA. March 1, 2012.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2012-speeches-testimony/in-q-tel-summit-remarks.html

“An Internet of Things that will number ten billions”. Julia Boorstin. CNBC. February 1, 2016

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/an-internet-of-things-that-will-number-ten-billions.html

“US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you”. Spenser Ackerman. Guardian. February 9, 2016.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper 

Michael T Bucci is a retired public relations currently residing in New England. He has authored nine books on practical spirituality 

Russia is making consequent its decision last fall to ban the commercial planting of Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO in its agriculture acreage. The latest decision, effective February 15, 2016 does not at all please Monsanto or the US Grain Cartel.

On February 15, a Russian national import ban on soybeans and corn imports from the United States took effect. The Russian food safety regulator Rosselkhoznadzor announced that the ban was because of GMO and of microbial contamination and the absence of effective US controls on soybean and corn exports to prevent export of quarantinable grains, also known as microbial contamination. The Russian food safety regulator added that corn imported from the US is often infected with dry rot of maize. In addition, he said, corn can be used for GMO crops in Russia. The potential damage from import and spread of quarantinable objects on the territory of Russia is estimated at $126 -189 million annually.

Striking the heart of the GMO cartel

The Russian decision is a huge blow to USA agribusiness. For decades, the US grain cartel companies–ADM, Cargill, Bunge–have dominated the global trade in soybeans and corn, the most widely used animal feed for cattle, pigs, chickens because of its high protein content.

Today, the contamination of national agriculture and the food chain in different countries, even those banning planting of GMO crops, typically comes in through a back door, namely, the free import of GMO contaminated corn and soybeans. I’ve been told by people in a position to know that EU agriculture policy is determined less by European farmer organizations, for example, than by the large US agribusiness lobby of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Cargill and friends. Similarly, though until recently the Chinese government officially banned planting or licensing of GMO crops inside China’s commercial agriculture, GMO has inundated the country via a loophole that allows unrestricted import of GMO soybeans. Today more than 60% of all soybeans consumed in China or used for animal feed is GMO. The Russian decision, to my knowledge is the first blow to be struck against the powerful GMO agribusiness cartel. Thank US sanctions in effect that the crisis created the opportunity.

As a long-term two year independent laboratory rat experiment has demonstrated, a diet of GMO soybeans or GMO corn over a period of more than six months produces virulent tumors in the GMO-fed rats and excessive early mortality. Were we to eat a diet of McDonald GMO-contaminated hamburgers for a six month period, I shudder to imagine the human damage that would wreak. McDonalds hamburger patties, I was told by an insider in the grain trade, contains beef supplemented with up to 30% GMO soybeans. Today almost 100% of soybeans on the world market are GMO, most from Monsanto.

With this latest ban, the Russian authorities almost make complete their decision, announced September 2015, to rid the country of GMO for consumption by humans or animals.

That decision still left a gaping loophole by not also banning GMO soybeans and GMO corn. After this latest decision, now the only loophole remaining, which is still significant, to rid Russian agriculture entirely of GMO contamination, is to extend the GMO soybean and GMO corn import ban to all countries which cannot conclusively demonstrate their corn or soybeans are GMO free, using the same criteria used for US soybean and corn imports.

Today the USA is the world’s largest followed by Argentina and Brazil. The three countries produce 85% of all world soybeans. And almost all of that, aside from pockets of certified GMO-free acreage in Brazil, is GMO contaminated.

Then come India and China, each with around 5% of the world total. China recently changed its GMO policy and seems intent on the dubious policy of becoming a leading GMO soybean and maize producer with the $43 billion ChemChina takeover bid last month of Swiss GMO and pesticide giant, Syngenta.

Soybeans are high protein and are used in almost every industrial food product today from chocolate bars (lecithin) to the feed for KFC fried chicken, to soy drinks. Because of the power of the GMO lobby over the past two decades, almost all that soybean food is GMO. As well, the GMO comes into the food chain via so-called high protein “power feed,” a mix of soybeans and corn. Soybean meal and soybean hulls are widely used in animal feeds. This 44% – 48% protein meal is the most common source of protein in feed used in poultry, hog and dairy rations. Corn Gluten Meal, made from processing corn, has a 60% protein content and is used widely for poultry and dairy cattle feed in the USA, Canada and the EU.

Despite the fact that a majority of EU member countries, including Germany, have chosen to ban planting of GMO, a Brussels loophole permits ADM and Cargill unlimited import of soybeans or corn that is GMO. That way the food chain is contaminated via GMO in the animal diet.

Since near 93% of USA corn today and 94% of its soybeans are GMO today, a safe rule-of-thumb is the precautionary principle–ban it unless proven GMO-free, which is precisely what Russian authorities have done. The Precautionary Principle is simply that, if regulatory authorities are not 100% certain it is GMO-free, prohibit it.

The US-based agribusiness cartel, led by Cargill and Monsanto, ensured that the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture, written by a former Vice President of Cargill, Daniel Amstutz, prioritized the right of free trade above that of national food health and safety. The latest move by the Russian Federation authorities shows that a major food-producing nation, today surpassing the USA as world’s largest grain producer, in part thanks to the foolish US sanctions on Russia, is prioritizing the health and safety of its citizens above the corporate interests of agribusiness. That’s a healthy development.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Dr. Hudson discusses his paper, The IMF Changes Its Rules To Isolate China and Russia; implications of the four policy changes at the International Monetary Fund in its role as enforcer of inter-government debts; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative military alliance to NATO; the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace the IMF and World Bank; the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty; the China International Payments System (CIPS); WTO investment treaties; Ukraine and Greece; different philosophies of development between east and west; break up of the post WWII dollarized global financial system; the world dividing into two camps.

Dr. Michael Hudson.  is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, a Wall Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972 book, Super Imperialism is a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank. His latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Today we discuss his article, “The IMF Changes Its Rules to Isolate China and Russia.”  

TRANSCRIPT

Suppose a country owes money to another nation’s government or official agency. How can creditors collect, unless there’s an international court and an enforcement system? The IMF and the World Bank were part of that enforcement system and now they’re saying: ‘We’re not going to be part of that anymore. We’re only working for the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. If the Pentagon tells the IMF it’s okay that a country doesn’t have to pay Russia or China, then now they don’t have to pay, as far as the IMF is concerned.’ That breaks up the global order that was created after World War II. The world is being split into two halves: the U.S. dollar orbit, and countries that the U.S. cannot control and whose officials are not on the U.S. payroll, so to speak.

 

This article was first published in December 2015

Russian Defense Ministry held a major briefing:

“A whole team of bandits and Turkish leadership [Erdogan’s family as well] stealing oil from their neighbors and are involved in illegal oil trade with ISIS” ~

[Full Video and Transcript of the Briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defence, 2 Dec. 2015]

.

FULL VIDEO REPORTS

There will be 715 superdelegates at the Democratic Convention selecting the Party’s Presidential nominee, and none of them will have been voted there by any of the state primaries. In their capacity as a superdelegate, they don’t actually represent the people of their state; they represent instead the Democratic Party (and the meaning of that will become clear in this article).

On February 23rd, CNN’s Political Commentator, Sally Kohn, headlined, “Democratic Party Superdelegates Are Undemocratic,” but that’s a narrow and perhaps overall false characterization of the matter; and here is why:

Hillary Clinton won the South Carolina Democratic primary on February 27th by an enormous 76% to 24% margin over Bernie Sanders, but that’s a state which is certain to be 100% (all of its Electoral College votes) for the Republican nominee in the Electoral College: all of its Electoral College votes will be going to the Republican nominee; so, the relative attractiveness of any Democratic candidate in SC is actually meaningless in the ultimate election, which will be the general election in November. That primary, SC, is therefore meaningless to Democrats’ ability to win the White House in November. It’s a throw-away, purely-show, ‘primary.’

By contrast, Sanders won 60% of the votes in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, and Clinton won only 38% of them, and that primary does mean something in helping to determine whether the ultimate Democratic nominee will win the White House, because NH is a state that’s not a predetermined win for either of the two Parties on Election Day — it’s a state that will actually be in play, it could go either way. During the 2000 election, it was so close that if Ralph Nader hadn’t drawn more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, NH would have gone (and clearly gone) to Gore in the Electoral College, and, “Had Gore won in New Hampshire, he would have therefore won the presidency,” and there would never even have been any possibility of the Supreme Court case, “Bush v. Gore.” This year, too, New Hampshire could go either way, Republican or Democratic, in the November Presidential Election. So: that primary (NH) does really count; it’s not purely for show. (Likewise, Iowa counts as a real contest, and so does Nevada, and both of those went, though just barely, for Clinton.)

Each one of the 715 superdelegates will be focused, above all, on doing whatever he or she can to maximize the probability that the next President will be a Democrat, not a Republican. If the next President is a Republican, then each one of those 715 people will be considerably less powerful during the following four years than if the next President is a Democrat — any Democrat. Those 715 people are there at the Convention for only one reason: to maximize the probability of the Party’s winning in the Electoral College.

If CNN’s headline hadn’t been “Democratic Party Superdelegates Are Undemocratic,” but instead “The Electoral College Is Undemocratic,” then it would have been correct, not false. But the superdelegates are an intelligent accommodation to that undemocratic feature of the U.S. Constitution: the Electoral College.

So: what Sanders is trying to do is to perform better than Clinton does in the states that could go either way in the November general election. He’s virtually ignoring the states that everyone knows will be overwhelmingly likely to be in the Republican column on Election Day, no matter who the two Parties’ nominees are. He knows, for example, that Wyoming will vote for the Republican Presidential nominee, and that Massachussetts will vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee, no matter what, in the general election. So: those states have mainly show-value for him, not real value.

Success, for him, will be beating Clinton in the toss-up states, because those will be the states that will determine which Party will win the White House — in the Electoral College.

If he succeeds at that goal, then here is what he’ll be telling each one of those 715 superdelegates: Don’t you want to be powerful not weak during the coming four years? I am the candidate who increases those odds for you; Clinton is the candidate who decreases those odds for you.

Everyone knows that if Clinton beats Sanders in the toss-up states, then she will have earned the Democratic Party’s nomination. But the same is true for Sanders: If he beats Clinton in the toss-up states, then he will have earned the Party’s nomination.

And the purpose of the 715 superdelegates is simply to maximize the probability that the next President will be a Democrat — their purpose is to measure each of those two candidates’ relative performances in the toss-up states, and to represent THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY — not any particular one state. Their function is purely a national one, and purely a Party one.

Here’s a rational way to think of those superdelegates: they exist for the sole purpose of maximizing the probability of a Democrat winning the White House in November.

Almost all of those superdelegates started out thinking that Clinton would have the strongest likelihood of being able to win in the Electoral College. (So, they are nominally Clinton superdelegates.) Senator Sanders is trying to persuade them that that original belief was wrong, and that he has the higher likelihood of winning the White House for the Party. His basic argument will be: look at the performance by me and by Clinton in the toss-up states, and then make your choice on the basis of your own self-interest during the coming four years. Go with the winner — of the toss-up states.

If Sanders fails to beat Clinton in the toss-up sates, then he won’t have any case to present to those superdelegates — and he knows it. They’ll then stay with their original choice.

Here are the toss-up states — the states where the Presidential primaries are for real, not merely for show:

Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida.

Only those 10 states are holding meaningful Presidential primary elections; all the other 40 state Presidential primaries are for show. And the reason for those 715 superdelegates is to put that truth into practice when they cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention. And, of course, if there is no clear winner of the toss-up states, then the decisions that those superdelegates will be making will be decided by factors other than the main factor (which factor is to increase the likelihood of the Party winning the Presidency), and personal preferences will instead sway, and the likelihood that the superdelegates will have unity as a bloc at the Convention will then diminish proportionately. That could produce a brokered Convention.

And, so: this is how to keep score with the primaries.

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.

 

You will rarely read a book written in a more courageous, intelligent, and blunt manner about profoundly pressing world problems than this one.  Paul Craig Roberts is a phenomenon; no issue, no matter how controversial, escapes his astute analysis.  He writes with a tornadic power and logic that convinces as it challenges. Driven by a passionate concern for the horrible direction of the world – especially the United States government’s responsibility for so much of its wretchedness – he is relentless in roiling the waters of ignorance and complacency in which so many Americans float.

A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts (image right) has escaped all easy labels to become a public intellectual of the highest order.  He is a prolific critic of U.S. foreign and domestic policies, with a special emphasis on the nefarious influence of the neoconservatives from the Reagan through the Obama administrations.  A savage critic of the mainstream corporate media – he calls them “presstitutes” – he dissects their propaganda and disinformation like a truth surgeon and penetrates to the heart of issues in a flash.

To Order Dr. Roberts’ Book from Clarity Press, Click Here 

The Neoconservative Threat To World Order is a compendium of his essays written between February 2014 and July 2015.  Most of them deal with Washington’s destabilization of Ukraine and its ongoing threats against Russia.  Roberts sees this new Cold War as rooted in the neoconservative doctrine of world hegemony.  He correctly argues that this is based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, written in 1992 by neoconservative Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (a signatory of the 1997 Project for the New American Century), which became the blueprint for NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders and the growing threat of nuclear war that we are faced with today. In the preface he writes:

Once in place the Wolfowitz Doctrine resulted in the Clinton regime abandoning the guarantees that the George H. W. Bush administration had given to Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch to the East.  In violation of the U.S. government’s word, former Warsaw Bloc countries were incorporated into NATO.  Then NATO was used to attack Yugoslavia and Serbia.  Then the George W. Bush regime withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and began locating anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders.  Washington orchestrated “color revolutions” in the former Russian provinces of Georgia and Ukraine.  When the Orange Revolution failed to deliver Ukraine into Washington’s hands, Washington spent $5 billion cultivating Ukrainian politicians and creating pro-American Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that were used in Washington’s 2014 overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine.

Read chronologically, these essays reward a careful reader with an understanding of the progressively menacing steps taken by the Obama administration, including the announcement that the United States is sending battle tanks, heavy equipment, and thousands of troops to be permanently stationed in Eastern European countries surrounding Russia.  If the shoe were on the other foot and Putin was sending the same to Canada, Cuba, and Mexico, one would hear howls of outrage emanating from the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post, etc., media stenographers for Washington.

In essay after essay Roberts’ analyses give the lie to the Western media’s misleading reporting on Ukraine and its demonization of Russia.  He sees these developments as leading to war unless the neoconservatives are “removed from foreign policy positions in the government and media …. The warmonger neoconservatives must be removed from Fox ‘News,’ CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, and in their places independent voices must replace propagandists for war.  Clearly none of this is going to happen, but it must if we are to escape Armageddon.”

So the reader is enlightened but not encouraged.  But this is not Roberts’ fault.  He is being truthful.  He is a Cassandra warning of future disasters if people don’t awaken from “a false reality created for them by their rulers.”  He admits that he struggles with people’s reluctance to seek truth every time he writes a clarifying essay.  Yet he is of two minds – hopeless and hopeful. He intimates that even if people awaken, the neoconservatives will maintain their power in government and media.  Yet he stalwartly soldiers on, hoping to change minds, which suggests he believes at some level that changing minds has a chance of changing structures of power and ideology. His vacillation in this regard is understandable.

“People ask for solutions,” he writes, “but no solutions are possible in a dis-informed world.  Populations almost everywhere are dissatisfied, but few have any comprehension of the real situation.  Before there can be solutions, people must know the truth about the problem. For those inclined to be messengers, it is largely a thankless task …. Aspirations and delusions prevail over truth.”

Thankless as the task may be, Roberts elucidates many issues besides Ukraine, so these essays can also be read as self-standing analyses: 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, the case for impeachment of U.S. presidents, war crimes by U.S. officials, American “exceptionalism,” Operation Gladio, “Washington’s Iraq ‘Victory’,” European governments’ collusion with the U.S., the CIA and its media control, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the war on terror, false flag attacks, etc.   His reach is capacious and his analysis penetrating.  He questions, probes, presents facts, and admits when facts are not conclusive.  Impeccably logical – and straightforward – he forces the reader to reevaluate their understanding of these issues. And he references other fine writers and researchers who support and extend his points.

While correct about the rise in power and evil influence of the neoconservatives over the past thirty years or so, I think Roberts’ understanding of the machinations of secret deep state forces going back to Operation Gladio and the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, suggests he knows that the neocons are but a recent example of an old problem. The US drive for hegemony has deep roots and a long history.  Wall Street, the banks, and the CIA have been entwined for many, many decades. Overthrowing governments, propaganda, assassinations, and instigating wars are their specialty. None of this is the exclusive bailiwick of neoconservatives; they are just a current, execrable example. Behind them, and liberals and conservatives of all stripes, sit powers that transcend nomenclature. I’d like to see him give more emphasis to U.S. strategy as a long-standing continuum, though this does not detract from his astute analysis of the neoconservatives.  After all, these essays were written on the fly as the neocons policies were being carried out by the “liberal” Democrat Obama.

Dr. Roberts is a truth teller and a genuine patriot. Truth is his country. In a speech he gave in Mexico while accepting the International Award for Excellence in Journalism, he said, “In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and the corporations…. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.”

So if you want truth, read The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.  It’s journalism at its best.

Political establishments are constantly in search of excuses for their existence. Since the tax payer is constantly asked to provide funding for them, one of the most pertinent questions tends to be what use a military-security establishment tends to have, apart from creating rivals of the same ilk. More weapons, more armaments, and a bloated defence security complex suggests an escapade rather than a sober assessment on self-interest and security.

The Cold War was one such example, a vicious confrontation masquerading as a morally clear conflict. The ones to profit enormously from it were, as ever, those working in defence and beavering away on the next murderous device for the next lethal, preferably bogged down conflict. It produced false enemies in search of a fiction, leading to bloody proxy wars, long-ended engagements with lasting consequences, and trillions of dollars in waste. That there are still individuals who maintain that a victor could be found by this episode of orgiastic violence is not merely contestable but laughable.

Australia’s equivalent of an illusory search for enemies it does not have but desperately wants comes in the form of white papers, or more specifically, the Defence White Paper. It heralds Australia’s intention, as the ABC described it, to join “Asia’s arms race”.

What such Defence Papers do is stimulate the fiction of a threat, but do so in such a way that it becomes real. Self-prophesising doom is an enduring habit in such documents – a terror that is inflated in order to render it credible.

The document resorts to such statements that have a familiar ring to them: if other countries are choking themselves in search of more weapons, Australia must do the same thing. “Asia’s defence spending,” the white paper declares solemnly, “is now larger than Europe’s.”

There are fears about the relocating of influence, with half the world’s submarines finding their areas of operation in the Indo-Pacific region, along with a similar percentage of combat aircraft, over the next 20 years.

This is the ingredient for the perfect storm and Australia is ever willing to wade into it. The military market bazaar is something Canberra cannot avoid, because it is being frequented by other countries. How the Guns of August, as Barbara Tuchman so eloquently described the catalysing moments of World War I, seem so pertinent in such times.

This leads to such tarot card readers as Peter Jennings of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to insist that “mentalities” had to be updated to confront new threats. Jennings, being an advisor in the authoring of the paper, was enthusiastically alarmist to focus on various moves from China, which had embraced the “might is right approach”. “When we started working on this white paper two years ago, there was no island construction. There were no missile deployments or air craft developments.”

This “updated” approach would need to place Australia’s neck further out, not from Perth, Sydney or Darwin, but at the forefront of south-east Asia and the Pacific. This recipe for aggression, according to Jennings, would see the Australian navy move “much, much further forward into the region than we had a generation ago”.

Given that the worth of the Royal Australian Navy these days centre on towing back boats filled with asylum seekers to Indonesia, this hardly looks promising, let alone credible. What the white paper instead resembles is a proxy neo-colonial binge, directed from Washington.

Australia’s generally useless defence force, which tends to only double as a mercenary outfit to deploy for the next US president, persists in this document. This is a hope in search of a purpose, and it comes to $195 billion over the next 10 years. But more to the point, it is one that commences with the illusion that Australia’s defence force is a technical miracle that is losing its lustre.

The various new acquisitions range from an additional 2,500 defence personnel, 12 new E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, 12 supposedly “regionally superior” submarines costing $50 billion to be built between 2018-2057, 9 anti-war submarine warfare frigates, 72 F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, and two fleets of drones.

This is when defence-speak sounds much like the promise of a real estate agent. Things are going to “turn”; the market is bullish now for sellers, so, well, sell. Alternatively, if good for buyers, then throw in your lot with the others and purchase.

Former Australian Prime Minister, the very aggrieved Tony Abbott, has a tendency to simplify, but such simplicity does throw up the odd insight that sears through strategic obfuscation. Australia’s China policy, which finds awkward voice in the defence paper, tends to be characterised by one of “fear and greed”. These views, expressed to Germany’s Angela Merkel, are not without truth. As Abbott noted to President Xi Jinping in his welcoming speech to Parliament House on November 17, 2014, “It is a joy to have friends from afar.”

All of this sets the scene for the next bit of theatre, this time from the Chinese side. Chinese military strategists worth their salt will have a far better sense of Australian capabilities than the Australians themselves. They know that the packed punch is only ever going into thin air, unless it has Washington’s reassuring hand.

Nonetheless, Beijing got stroppy at the suggestions inherent in the document, expressing “serious concern” about the white paper’s approach to the South China Sea maritime dispute. “We urge the Australian side to cherish the hard-won good momentum of development in bilateral relations,” warned a Chinese Ministry of National Defence spokesman, “and don’t take part in or conduct any activities that may compromise the stability of the region.”

The problem with a country with no external threats is that something needs to be invented. This not a case of necessity so much as envy, the sense of cascading irrelevance. The Asia-Pacific, ever the source of so much historical angst for Australia, continues to supply the perfect alibi for the next, unnecessarily dangerous arms race.

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

 

Since the Civil War Africans have been on the frontline of the movement against oppression and economic exploitation

This year represents the 50^th anniversary of the Black Power Movement emanating from the struggle for Civil Rights largely centered in the South of the United States.

1966 marked a turning point in efforts that had lasted for over a century aimed at winning full equality and self-determination for the descendants of enslaved Africans. Since the demise of chattel slavery as an economic system the capitalist ruling class has maintained its grip on the U.S. and indeed large swaths of territory throughout the world.

What role did African people play in both building the system of capitalism and challenging its hegemony? At what stage is the renewed campaign against racism and the extent to which it will hopefully take the struggle for self-determination, social justice and socialism aimed at transforming the state and society?

In this presentation we will examine some aspects of the Post-Civil War period including the issuance and passage of a series of Civil Rights measures such as: General William Sherman’s Order No. 15; the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the 14th and 15th Amendments. These developments will be placed in their social and political context.

The African American struggle against national oppression and economic exploitation has continued through the 20th century with the anti-segregation and women’s movements of the 1950s through the 1970s up until the anti-racist struggles today against police terrorism and for self-determination in the workplace, public service, education and cultural affairs. With 2016 being an election year it is important that we review some of the important historical developments that are continuing to shape the politics of the second decade of the 21^st century.

The Historical Importance of the Civil War

By 1860 there were nearly four million Africans living in slavery and another half-million designated as free human beings. Altogether 11 states seceded from the United States by early 1861.

African labor was indispensable in the growth and profitability of the European, Latin American and North American economic systems. This fact has been examined by numerous historians including Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, C.L.R. James, Dr. Eric Williams, Dr. William A. Hunton, Walter Rodney, Prof. Gerald Horne, and many others.

The desire to maintain the economic system of slavery resulted in a split within the U.S. and a horrendous Civil War that resulted in over 600,000 deaths, over a million injuries and the displacement of millions more resulting in the large-scale social destruction of the slaveholding South which lasted for well over a century. After the war industrial capitalism, whose growth was fueled by the profits from the Atlantic Slave Trade, became the dominant economic system in the U.S. and internationally.

Sentiments towards secession escalated rapidly after the election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln as president in November 1860. The Republicans were considered the party of abolition and consequently the Southern ruling class felt threatened that the economic basis of their existence was being systematically undermined.

Only two days after the national elections, the state legislature in South Carolina called for a special convention on December 20. During this gathering the representatives voted unanimously for separation from the Union. In the following six weeks other states—Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas—also voted to secede from the U.S.

Later Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee had decided to leave by June of 1861 some two months after the war had begun with the attack by Lincoln’s forces on Fort Sumter in South Carolina. The state of Tennessee was the last to withdraw from the Union when Gov. Isham D. Harris, a proponent of the Confederacy since early 1861, utilized the request for volunteers by Lincoln as a rallying cry for the white settlers to support secession. Harris said in response to Lincoln’s request for recruits, that “Tennessee will not furnish a single man for the purpose of coercion…but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights and those of our Southern brothers.”

By the conclusion of the summer of 1862, the Confederate armies were on the march towards capturing Washington, D.C. Africans who had run away from the plantations and taken refuge in Union military camps began to receive training. A regiment of African troops were prepared for battle in Indiana yet Lincoln was reluctant to deploy them.

Soon enough Confederate General Robert E. Lee crossed the Potomac River at Leesburg, Virginia. This dramatic march north created panic in the capital while ships were placed on standby to transport Lincoln and his Cabinet out of Washington to an undisclosed location. General George B. McClellan was given command of the 90,000 men in the Army of the Potomac.

Facing an escalating military crisis, on September 22, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, set to go into effect on January 1, 1863, saying “And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.”

By the conclusion of the war some 186,000 African troops had served in the Union army and contributed to its ultimate victory. Nonetheless, the question of what was to become of the former enslaved and their free counterparts was yet to be settled.

Even with the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution in January 1865 and its ratification by December, it did not grant the right to vote to the African people. General William Sherman’s Field Order No. 15 aimed at the redistribution of 400,000 acres of land to freed slaves living on the coast of the southeast states of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, was designed to assist in building loyalty to the Union as well as facilitate the building of some semblance of an independent existence for those who were freed from bondage.

Nonetheless, after Lincoln’s assassination the order was rescinded by President Andrew Johnson and the seized Confederate land was returned to the Planters. Africans gained land in the South as a result of the unstable social and political conditions facing the region during and after Reconstruction.

A series of Civil Rights legislative measures were enacted from 1866-1875. These included:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866—“mandated that ‘all persons born in the United States, with the exception of American Indians, were ‘hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.’ The legislation granted all citizens the ‘full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.’” (history.house.gov)

The Reconstruction Act of 1867—divided the South into five military districts initiating the period of greater African American participation in local, state and federal government including legislative branches.

14^th Amendment—was passed in 1866 and ratified two years later in 1868. It also said that all persons born in the U.S. were citizens. Therefore, ostensibly granting citizenship rights to freed Africans.

15^th Amendment—granted African American men the right to the franchise. Saying “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1875—often referred to as the Enforcement Act or Force Act, was passed in an atmosphere of rising reaction throughout the U.S. The bill was “introduced by one of Congress’s greatest advocates for black civil rights, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, in 1870. The original bill outlawed racial discrimination in juries, schools, transportation, and public accommodations. Republican leaders were forced, however, to chip away at the legislation’s protections in order to make it palatable enough to pass in the face of growing public pressure to abandon racial legislation and embrace segregation.” (history.house.gov)

During this period African Americans were elected to Southern state governmental structures, appointed as civil servants and were placed as well as voted into the Congress and the Senate. Nevertheless, the former Confederates fought these reforms with a vengeance forming the Ku Klux Klan in 1865 leading to a reign of terror that extended into the mid-1960s.

History.com website summarizes this period noting “Under the administration of President Andrew Johnson in 1865 and 1866, new southern state legislatures passed restrictive ‘black codes’ to control the labor and behavior of former slaves and other African Americans. Outrage in the North over these codes eroded support for the approach known as Presidential Reconstruction and led to the triumph of the more radical wing of the Republican Party. During Radical Reconstruction, which began in 1867, newly enfranchised Blacks gained a voice in government for the first time in American history, winning election to southern state legislatures and even to the U.S. Congress. In less than a decade, however, reactionary forces–including the Ku Klux Klan–would reverse the changes wrought by Radical Reconstruction in a violent backlash that restored white supremacy in the South.”

1966 and the Rise of Black Power

Consequently, the next century would be one of strife and struggle for the African American people. Not only did the Compromise of 1877 effectively end Federal Reconstruction, although it did continue at the local and state levels in several Southern states until the conclusion of the 1890s, it also prevented the question of the rights of women to become a focus of debate within official political channels.

African American women and men had supported women’s suffrage even during the period of slavery and its immediate aftermath. Frederick Douglass was a proponent of abolition and full voting rights for all women long before the 19^th amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1920.

Organizational expression of the women’s movement took on forms through African American churches and civic groups. A women’s club movement grew exponentially during the 1890s coinciding with the anti-lynching campaign of Ida B. Wells-Barnett and others.

Women were involved in the early phase of the Pan-African Movement in Europe and the United States between 1893 and 1927. Wells-Barnett was a co-founder of the NAACP in 1909 acting in her capacity as a journalist, researcher, publisher, an advocate for women’s rights and other issues.

Two World Wars brought millions of African Americans into the military services and the industrialization process catapulted by global conflict fostering the migration of millions from the rural and urban South to the North and West. Other migration trends out of the South during the late 19^th century took thousands to Kansas, Oklahoma and as far away as Liberia in West Africa.

The modern day Civil Rights Movement gained a mass character in December 1955 with the commencement of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. By 1960, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) had been formed out of the sit-ins. The 1961 Freedom Rides to break down segregation in interstate commerce emboldened the students and workers to expand mass demonstrations in Albany, Birmingham, Selma, Cambridge, Danville, and other areas.

In June 1963, Detroit mobilized hundreds of thousands in the largest Civil Rights march in U.S. history led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. C.L. Franklin, Rev. Albert B. Cleage and other leaders. Two months later the March on Washington gained international attention for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who emerged during the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56 forming the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957.

President John F. Kennedy had announced the introduction of yet another Civil Rights Bill, the first since 1957, in June 1963. Limited progress had been made towards its passage by the time Kennedy was assassinated on November 22.

Even with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the concrete conditions of African Americans remained oppressive. Rebellions erupted in Watts in 1965 and later in Chicago, Cleveland, and other cities in 1966.

The first effort to organize an independent political party under the symbol of the Black Panther took place in Lowndes County, Alabama in 1965-66. It was out of this project that Stokely Carmichael gained even more notoriety and was elected as chairman of SNCC in May of 1966.

In 1966 the term “White Backlash” entered into the political lexicon of the U.S. An attempt to pass a Civil Rights Act of 1966 failed in Congress due in large part to the perception by many whites within the ruling class and their allied political parties that the advent of militant Civil Rights demands, the Black Power Movement, urban rebellions and growing opposition to the President Lyndon B. Johnson’s escalation of the war in Vietnam exemplified that year by SNCC, went beyond what was considered acceptable demands.

By March-April 1967, King would join SNCC and other progressive forces in public opposition to the war sealing his fate with the U.S. government. When he was assassinated in April 1968, rebellion erupted in 125 cities across the country. Just in the prior year of 1967, 164 rebellions were recorded as discontent with the system of national oppression, capitalism and imperialism accelerated.

These developments in the U.S. coincided with a broader worldwide revolutionary movement in various regions of Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. The advent of the socialism in the former Soviet Union, China, Democratic Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc., provided a political and economic alternative to capitalism and imperialism. Many of the liberation movements in Africa moved towards Marxist ideology along with the most advanced states emerging from colonial rule.

A concerted government policy to reverse the gains of the Civil Rights, Black Power, Anti-War, Anti-Imperialist and revolutionary movements was well underway by the Johnson administration in 1967. Widespread demonstrations, civil unrest and rebellion severely damaged the image of the U.S. as a “democratic” state concerned with human rights both domestically and internationally. As the U.S. lost more battles in Vietnam, other liberation fronts throughout Southeast Asia and internationally observed that Washington and Wall Street were not invincible.

Imperialism and capitalism could be defeated and a completely different method of organizing society was proving to be not only possible, but viable. The socialist and independent states began to outstrip the West in areas of science, healthcare, the elimination of racism and gender discrimination, and by also empowering the working class, national minorities and peasants.

With specific reference to our interest is the notion of revolutionary organization to transform the racist, capitalist and imperialist system. Reforms initiated during the 1950s-1970s were reversed in a similar fashion as the events which unfolded after 1877.

After forming the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in October 1966, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, set the stage for further armed confrontations with law-enforcement. Police brutality had been common practice in the U.S. even in the rural and urban South where agents worked in close cooperation with the agricultural and industrial bosses along with the bankers.

Another major theoretical contribution of the BPP was its position on the women’s question. The Party encouraged women to take leadership positions in the areas of political education, mass organizing and military defense. There were at least two women that served on the Central Committee of the Party while others ran offices, the free breakfast programs and conducted political education classes.

The U.S. government under both Johnson and President Richard M. Nixon, who took office in January 1969, had as one of its primary objectives the defeat of the armed resistance to occupation by the Vietnamese and the eradication of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. From its earliest period the Party sought to form alliances on an international level with the socialist countries and national liberation movements.

By August 1969, Eldridge and Kathleen Cleaver of the BPP among others had established an International Section in the North African state of Algeria while attending the Pan-African Cultural Festival. Cleaver had attended an international journalist conference in the DPRK where relations were established. Meetings were held earlier with the Vietnamese in 1967 when Carmichael consulted Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi and later after the International Section was established.

There were other revolutionary organizations founded during this period, including the two most significant being formed right here in Detroit. These organizations are the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM) and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW), established in 1968-69 as well as the Republic of New Africa formed in March 1968. The LRBW and its affiliates operated in the plants and other workplaces in addition to the schools, universities and neighborhoods.

In Detroit ideas related to the building of alternative centers of power whether they were in the plants, on the campuses and in the communities, took on broader dimensions than in other cities. The efforts of the revolutionary movement led directly to the creation of viable reforms including affirmative action programs, the election of African Americans to public office including the state legislature, city council and the mayor’s office in 1973 with the ascendancy of Coleman A. Young.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) along with other tactics utilized by the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. military and the corporate community, attacked the Black Liberation Movement with a ferocity that was unparalleled in the history of the country. Hundreds of the principal organizers of the movement were arrested on trumped-up and politically motivated charges. Many would spend years in prison or in forced exile as is the case with Albert Woodfox, Assata Shakur, Mutulu Shakur, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Nehanda Abiodoun, Sundiata Acoli, Leonard Peltier, Oscar Lopez Rivera, to name only a few.

Dozens of others were assassinated such as Bobby Hutton, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Ralph Featherstone, Che Payne Robinson, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., George Jackson, 11 MOVE members, Hugo Pinnell, etc. Moreover, the COINTELPRO project was designed to discredit the revolutionary movement and prevent it from gaining respectability among youth and the broader working class. A revolutionary culture was counter-posed with materialism and individualism. The liberation of women, gender equality, LGBTQ emancipation were projected as “wedge issues” contrasted with purportedly other more important questions such as corporate profitability, national security for the capitalist system, military hegemony for the imperialist military structures and unbridled control of the media where ruling class propaganda is disseminated around the clock in an attempt to both confuse and demoralize the masses.

Within the area of jurisprudence, legal decisions have been rendered since the late 1970s which have in essence reversed the trajectory of Civil Rights law that emerged from the 1940s through the 1960s. Affirmative Action has been virtually outlawed in numerous states including Michigan and California. Right-to-work legislation has been passed in Michigan, the birthplace of automotive unionism, along with Wisconsin where labor rights and social democracy found a base for over a century.

State governments and local entities at the will of the corporate and banking elites abrogate fundamental laws of self-rule, due process and the right to vote. The imposition of emergency management in its most brutal form was carried out in contravention of the electorate. The forced bankruptcy of Detroit, the largest in municipal U.S. history, was conducted without a vote of the people or their representatives. The transfer of administration, ownership and control of public assets such as the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department, the Detroit Public Schools, Belle Isle, the Detroit Institute of Arts, etc. never faced public scrutiny on an official level or were done without the approval of voters.

As we have stated before, the contradictions within the current capitalist crisis does not permit even the purported “sanctity” of bourgeois democratic practice. The U.S. political system routinely violates its own laws and regulations since the capacity for the changing of legal codes often lags behind the imperatives of the exploitative system.

Objectively the conditions of African Americans, Latinos, working class women, and the proletariat as a whole have worsened over the last four decades. Despite the official jobless rate being calculated at less than five percent, the labor participation rate is the lowest since the mid-1970s. Half of the people in the U.S. are either living in poverty or near this level. Discontent runs deep with the system as is exemplified in the current phase of the struggle.

Black Power and the White Backlash in 2016

Since this is an election year the question of race and economics are coming to the fore once again. The situation in Flint is indicative of what the future of the U.S. may look like. In actuality, Flint is by no means the only city in the country where tap water is undrinkable. What has distinguished the crisis in Flint is that the people have spoken out against these crimes and are demanding that the state and federal governments do something to correct it immediately.

Despite months of press coverage and visits by a host of activists, politicians and celebrities, the holding of a hearing in Congress and the donations of millions of bottles of water, not one pipe has been dug up and replaced in the city. The “assistance” provided by the state and federal government has more to do with covering up the crimes of those responsible than holding them accountable in the overall process of rebuilding and seriously addressing the burgeoning healthcare and human services crises.

Then of course we have the intervention of Hillary Clinton who speaks to African Americans in a church and places this as the main focus of campaign ads. The mayor of Flint is seen in a commercial telling people they should vote for Clinton.

Now the African American people are called upon to rally behind the Democratic Party ostensibly to stave off the potential horrors of a Donald Trump presidency. Nonetheless, how did African Americans really fair under the Clinton administration of the 1990s?

For those with historical amnesia we wish to remind you to take a cursory view of such measures as the “elimination of welfare as we now it”; the ominous crime bill; the effective death penalty act; the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); placing a hundred thousand of new cops on the streets; the further deregulation of the financial industry leading to predatory lending as official policy resulting in the loss to millions of their homes to the banks; the building of prisons and increasing mass incarceration to lock up the so-called “super-predators.”

On a foreign policy level we must recount the continuation of the war and sanctions program against Iraq resulting in the deaths of a million people, many of whom were children; the bombing of Sudan destroying a pharmaceutical plant under the false allegation that it was a chemical weapons factory; the institution of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) which may sound good but in practice perpetuates imperialist interference and control of the economic affairs of the continent; fostering globalization, which is just a modern term for imperialism through the World Trade Organization and the Free Trade Area of the Americas; just to name some of the most well-known policies of the Clinton era.

After eight years of the Bush administration and the expansion of the “war on terrorism” along with the maintenance of the prison-industrial and military-industrial complexes, the current administration of President Barack Obama must be analyzed objectively as well. The failure of the administration to address the special oppression of African Americans has been exposed through the outrage prompted by blatant police and vigilante killings of youth across the country.

African Americans remain disproportionately impoverished, imprisoned, socially marginalized and susceptible to political manipulation. Clinton stands in the pulpit of a Flint church as if to say “these are my people”; yet when she served as the Secretary of State in the first Obama administration the North African state of Libya, the most prosperous and stable on the continent, was destroyed by Pentagon bombs, naval blockades, the expropriation of national wealth and the funding of counter-revolutionary militias acting as ground troops of the imperialist system.

Today Libya not only lies in ruin but has become a haven for the Islamic State, the dreaded “terrorist organization” which Clinton and Trump are saying they will destroy. How can they destroy IS when U.S. imperialism created it as a bulwark against Iranian influence in Iraq and Syria?

The regime-change policy towards Libya and Syria has contributed immensely to the worse humanitarian and displacement crisis since the conclusion of World War II. Some 60 million people have been displaced both within and outside their borders. Millions are trafficked through Libya to other states and regions including across the Mediterranean into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe. Racism and xenophobia are escalating inside Europe dividing the EU and fueling ultra-right wing fascist organizations and parties.

Inside the U.S. mass demonstrations and urban rebellions against racist violence have occurred over the last three years in response to the brutal unpunished vigilante murder of Trayvon Martin as well as the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York and Freddie Grey in Baltimore . The Black Lives Matter Movement, by no means a uniform organization, which has its own contradictions stemming from this reality, is still subjected to a renewed form of COINTELPRO.

Spontaneity and the Mass Struggle: The Need for a Revolutionary Party

There is no doubt that anger is mounting in the city of Detroit and throughout the U.S. This unease exists outside the fact that organizations similar to the Black Panther Party and other revolutionary groups are not in evidence nationally in the current period.

Consequently there is an important role to play for a Marxist-Leninist Party committed to organizing the working class and the nationally oppressed. The character of the oppressive state must be laid bare before the masses. The systematic oppression of the African American people and the working class in general lies at the heart of the crisis, which derives from the contradictions between the ownership of capital and the means of productions with the actual relations of production.

We have worked for substantial reforms not as end unto themselves but as a method of exposing the need for revolution by illustrating the character of the state as a reflection of the inherently exploitative system of capitalism. African Americans and other oppressed nations can only win genuine liberation through socialist revolution. The state must be transformed as a mechanism to ensure the right to self-determination, independence, social justice and full equality. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can bring total freedom since they are controlled by the same class forces representing the owners of capital.

This is why we need a revolutionary party independent of the bourgeoisie which is willing to organize the people based on their national and class interests. We are not opportunists who go before the masses and tell them if they vote for ruling class allied politicians that conditions will improve for their communities.

We must fight for the fundamental political and economic rights of the people while at the same time emphasizing consistently that the system is rotten to the core. As V.I. Lenin stressed in 1903 in “What Is to Be Done?– The Burning Issues of Our Movement”, “we have become convinced that the fundamental error committed by the ‘new trend’ in Russian Social-Democracy is its bowing to spontaneity and its failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands a high degree of consciousness from us Social-Democrats. The greater the spontaneous upsurge of the masses and the more widespread the movement, the more rapid, incomparably so, the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organizational work of Social-Democracy.”

Lenin goes on to say that “The spontaneous upsurge of the masses in Russia proceeded (and continues) with such rapidity that the young Social Democrats proved unprepared to meet these gigantic tasks. This unpreparedness is our common misfortune, the misfortune of all Russian Social-Democrats. The upsurge of the masses proceeded and spread with uninterrupted continuity; it not only continued in the places where it began, but spread to new localities and to new strata of the population (under the influence of the working class movement, there was a renewed ferment among the student youth, among the intellectuals generally, and even among the peasantry). Revolutionaries, however, lagged behind this upsurge, both in their ‘theories’ and in their activity; they failed to establish a constant and continuous organization capable of leading the whole movement.”

These words ring true today. Our task before us today is to build a revolutionary party with the capacity to continue the struggle against all odds. Please join us in this challenge.

Note: This keynote address by Abayomi Azikiwe was delivered at the Annual African American History Month public meeting held on Saturday February 27, 2016 and sponsored by Workers World Party Detroit branch.

The program was chaired by Debbie Johnson of Workers World while greetings were delivered by Stacey Rogers of the International Longshoreman and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10, who discussed a resolution passed recently by her local in the Bay Area of California in solidarity with the people of Flint poisoned through their water services by the state of Michigan; Clarence Thomas, the former Secretary-Treasurer of the ILWU Local10, who is in the area for a solidarity mission with the city of Flint.

We would like to share some troubling information with you that comes from those who sincerely desire to help Ukraine to become a prosperous and democratic country. Several institutions in Canada have welcomed in the past few days a person who is known as one of the founders of the modern (Neo-Nazi) far-right party in Ukraine. Canada does no favour to Ukraine by such actions.

We are talking about, the former Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and the current First Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament. He was invited to speak on February 22 at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto. The next day, he visited the Canadian Parliament. Parubiy’s political curriculum vitae looked impeccable on the Munk School’s website

(http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/event/20005).

However, there was not a word about Parubiy’s active participation in the Ukrainian extreme right movement since the early 1990s.

Andriy Parubiy was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social National Party of Ukraine in 1991 which was officially registered in 1995.

The official doctrine of this party was “social nationalism”, apparently inspired by German National Socialism (Nazism). The party proclaimed its program as revolutionary and ultra-nationalist. It blamed Russia for all of the Ukraine’s misfortunes. The official symbol of SNPU is Wolfsangel, a slightly modified Wolf’s Hook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Party_of_Ukraine), used by the German SS division Das Reich which is recognized as a war criminal organization.

The same symbol is now placed on the flag of the infamous ultra-nationalist Azov Battalion, a far-right paramilitary battalion which together with other similar formations has committed war crimes during the nearly two-year civil war conflict in eastern Ukraine.

This has been recognized by international organizations such as Amnesty International

(https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/0001/2015/en/).

The founder of this battalion, Andriy Biletsky, is the disciple of Andriy Parubiy.

Parubiy is a close political ally of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the far-right (neo-nazi) nationalist party Svoboda. In 2004, Tyahnybok was excluded from the ‘Our Ukraine’ faction in the Ukrainian parliament after giving a speech at the grave of the commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). UPA was a World War II ultra-nationalist paramilitary partisan army that fought against the Soviet army, Canada’s ally in WWII. The UPA carried out ethnic cleansing of Poles, Jews and pro-Soviet Ukrainians.

Tyahnybok stated in that speech:

They [UPA fighters] were not afraid and we should not be afraid. They took their automatic guns on their necks and went into the woods, and fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state…You [UPA veterans and their followers in modern Ukraine] are the ones that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears most.

In 2004, Parubiy began to create a more moderate image of himself as a public figure, but his ultra-nationalist views have not changed. In 2010, he protested against the European Parliament resolution regarding the decision of the then President of Ukraine to declare Stepan Bandera a National Hero of Ukraine (Bandera was the head of the OUN-UPA, a far-right nationalist organization which collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and was involved in carrying out acts of genocide against Poles, Jews, Russians, Ukrainians and others).

The resolution of the European Parliament reads:

“[The European Parliament] deeply deplores the decision by the outgoing President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, posthumously to award Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) which collaborated with Nazi Germany, the title of ‘National Hero of Ukraine’; hopes, in this regard, that the new Ukrainian leadership will reconsider such decisions and will maintain its commitment to European values”.

During the Euromaidan movement of late 2013 – early 2014, Parubiy was the “commander” of various paramilitary units. They took oaths of allegiance to him as commander. Thus, the ultra-nationalist paramilitary groups, which had joined together under the umbrella of the Right Sector (Pravyi Sektor), were operating under Parubiy’s authority.

Allegedly, Parubiy was directly involved in the Maidan sniper shootings which claimed the lives of dozens of Maidan protesters and police. Although, the official version of events by the Ukrainian authorities which replaced the overthrown government of President Victor Yanukovych, was that the ‘Berkut’ special police fired at the protesters, University of Ottawa researcher Ivan Katchanovski has conducted thorough investigations, showing that bullets were fired from the Hotel Ukraina which at the time was under the control of the Maidan paramilitary forces.

The investigation of the Maidan sniper massacre has been criticized in Ukraine and abroad for procrastination and lack of results (see, for instance, the European Council report). As the then secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy played a key role in launching the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation against the people of Donbas in the spring of 2014. This quickly became a civil war, imposed on the people of Donbas, because they rejected the overthrow of President Yanukovych in late February 2014 and they did not approve of the Ukrainian ultra-nationalism expressed by the Euromaidan movement and the new governing authorities in Kyiv. You can find more on the genesis of the conflict in Donbas in the article here

(http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/28067-a-very-difficult-task-of-reconciling-donbas-and-euromaidan-ukraine-an-academic-viewpoint).

The current conflict in eastern Ukraine exploded precisely because a large part of southeastern Ukraine rejects the ethnic nationalism and ultra-right wing politics represented by such figures as Andriy Parubiy. Canada, by extending an official welcome or support to persons like him, grants legitimacy to Ukrainian politicians who are destroying Ukraine by actively imposing their ultra-nationalist ideology on the Ukrainian population.

Ukraine is not an ethnic nationalist enclave. It is a multi-ethnic country where Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Greeks, Tatars, and other nationalities lived peacefully, side by side, during the 25 years of post-Soviet Union independence. Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism is a distinctive feature of this society in all its richness. Imposing a mono-ethnic and monolingual version of “democracy”, as championed by Andriy Parubiy, is essentially destroying Ukraine.

As Canadians of Ukrainian and Russian origin who respect Canada’s multicultural values, it saddens us to see how Canada has been blindly supporting this initiative. We strongly believe that Canada can do much better by helping Ukraine to elaborate a form of political arrangement in Ukraine that would accommodate diversity, not its destruction.

We hope this letter will inspire you to reflect more on Canada’s involvement in Ukraine.

Syria’s triumph over terrorism and maintaining the secular identity of Syria is what will bring back a good relationship with Europe.  It will also solve the problem of refugees and it will restore peace. Nothing can be achieved without getting rid of terrorism. ~ Dr Ali Haider

Following my meeting with the Minister of Tourism, I was taken to meet with Dr. Ali Haider, the Minister of Reconciliation.

Dr. Haider is a wise and gentle man who is passionate about the need for reconciliation, peace and reform.  He is leader of an internal opposition party, whilst also being in the Government, as Minister of Reconciliation.

In previous visits to Syria, I have seen some of the profound work achieved by local faith leaders working ‘on the ground’ amongst all parties in the midst of conflict.   Several have lost their lives, including a dear Sheikh with whom I spent time in 2014.  The Ministry for Reconciliation has been responsible for a significant number of ceasefires around the country, and for the rehabilitation of fighters into their communities, or their peaceful removal if they choose not to stay.

I don’t shy away from difficult questions and had a particularly fascinating conversation with the Minister for Reconciliation on the issue of reconciliation initiatives throughout Syria and sieges. The following is a transcription of the recording I made of our conversation [with his permission].  I am not commenting on the truth or otherwise of what is said, but this is a voice and a perspective which should be heard:

I first asked the Minister if he could tell me something about the situation in Aleppo.  He replied:

The truth in Aleppo is completely the opposite of what is being reported in the west. The besieged part of the city is in fact the one loyal to the Syrian Government, and this part was under siege for a very long time.  The army had to fight many battles to secure an alternative road in order to bring food and other supplies into that part of the city.

 [Most of the population remaining in Aleppo are in the Government-controlled area of the city.  Most of the population from the remaining part of the city have already fled, mainly to government-controlled areas in Syria].

What is happening now in Aleppo is that the families of the terrorists are fleeing, and there is an attempt to create a counter propaganda in order to terrify people and make them leave their houses so that they can say that civilians are fleeing the bombing of Syrian and Russian air forces.

The Syrian army in all the battles they fought were aiming to break the siege of many areas. When the Syrian army managed to break the siege of Nubol and Zahara, Aleppo became a bit safer. The army is trying to make the terrorists get away as much as possible from Aleppo. Till now the Syrian army hadn’t entered into any area inhabited by civilians and hadn’t made any humanitarian mistakes. In the media they speak about people fleeing their houses and they never spoke about massacres committed by the Syrian army because there were not any.

Of course we have heard much about the situation in Madaya, and the blockade by the Syrian Government, I asked Dr Haider for his opinion:

The agreement that was known as the Zabadani- Madaya and Kfraya and Foua agreement  is nine months old.

 [Kafraya and Foua are two Shia villages under US NATO backed terrorist siege, partially since 2011 and full siege since March 2015.]  

The first phase of the agreement was that  the terrorists would leave from Zabadani to Beirut in exchange for civilians leaving from Kfraya and Foua into Turkey. 

The final exchange of people would take place in the airports of Beirut and Ankara.  It was the Turkish government that delayed the first phase for more than 8 months, and that is why the suffering that took place in Kfraya and Foua and Madaya and Zabadani.  It was the Turkish Government that delayed the implementation of the agreement.

Despite all of this, the Syrian government in October 2015, delivered food aid which the IRCR acknowledged would be sufficient for the people in Madaya for many months.  But the armed group called Al-Shamia Front took control of the distribution of the food items.  The Shamia Front Head Quarter is in Idlib and their references are in Turkey. The food items were stored in two main warehouses.  One of the warehouses was set in the house of one of the leaders of the front his name is Ziad Darwish;   and the second one was set in a house opposite to a medical point in Madaya.  It is they who restricted the aid to the residents.  And no one was allowed by the fighters to deliver any aids into Kfraya and Foua.

Later on, when we initiated the first phase of the agreement, we managed to achieve the exchange. But when we moved to the second phase which meant to deliver food aids and medical aids and other supplies into the four mentioned towns, all the needed help were successfully delivered into Madaya , but the ICRC and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent ( SARC)  were able to deliver aid for one time only.

In Madaya, the UN went in four times and witnessed the situation from within, whereas the terrorists would not allow us to go into Foua. We had an experience yesterday  (Wednesday Feb 10 2016), when SARC went into Madaya to bring  out three injured civilians.  The terrorists targeted the convoy, and the cars  and one of the drivers were hit:, yet SARC brought out the three civilians and they are now being treated in a Damascus hospital.

Also, Deir Azzor city is completely besieged by ISIS and no one can go there .  Now the Syrian government with the help of Russian Air Force deliver food aids using Parachutes. We have sometimes done the same in Kfraya and Foua.

In areas under the control of armed groups where there are still civilian, the government allows food aids to enter these areas.  For example  in the past two weeks alone,  we have delivered food to  Madaya, Tall, Ma’adamia and Douma, which are under the control of armed groups.   They all received aids.

The suffering of the civilians inside these areas is caused because the armed groups confiscate the aids and control the distribution. They also control the movement of the civilians and have checkpoints that don’t allow the civilians to leave.

Now, there is a campaign against Syria politicizing the humanitarian issue. Why does this campaign always start whenever there is any progress whether politically or militarily?   I have to mention here that whenever there have been peace talks, the humanitarian issues (made worse by the terrorists) are highlighted to hinder progress; to gain sympathy. And  to justify any intervention in Syrian under the pretext of Humanitarian help.

I then asked Dr Haider for clarification of the much reported upon situation in Yarmouk, the Palestinian suburbs often described as a Camp situated to the south of Damascus:

There are about 18,000 people still inside Yarmouk.  [It was over 150,000 before the crisis, but most have been allowed to leave and are being looked after safely in areas under Government control.]  We are now working on a reconciliation project in Yarmouk.  if the project succeeds a big problem will be avoided, and it will have a positive impact on the people in many areas.  

The counter propaganda to this project is because it will affect the existence of ISIS and Nusra in these areas. The reconciliation project aims to make 1800 fighters from ISIS and Nusra get out of the area. Some of the fighters have already left in a clandestine agreement.  The Syrian forces had to provide protection for their exit because other terrorists did not want them to leave.  Our aim is to free people from those fighters.

I asked what Dr. Haider would want to say to British MPs if he could meet them. He said:

My message is still the same:  Syria is the wall that protects Europe, I think that the main battle is a battle for civilization, and humanity. Europe has started to feel the threat that is coming because of what is going on in Syria. 

My message to all the Europeans is:  Syria’s triumph over terrorism and maintaining the secular identity of Syria is what will bring back a good relationship with Europe.  It will also solve the problem of refugees and it will restore peace. Nothing can be achieved without getting rid of terrorism.  Attaching a political demand will make Syria suffer in the same way that Iraq has suffered.  Finally, Europe is closer to Syria than the US not only geographically, but in terms of civilization and history.

The Minister for Reconciliation is someone with whom we really ought to be engaging. He is a wise and gentle man and is in every way a moderate.  Like most people in the country, he desires the well-being and unity of Syria, unlike the terrorists whom the west euphemistically label ‘moderate’.

It is shocking that the West is talking with leaders of extremist terrorist groups, and not with people who are genuinely seeking peaceful engagement with all Syrians.

Conclusion

I have spent the last 6 weeks in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, the fourth such visit in 2 years – talking to numerous people, including refugees, from all segments of Syrian society. Assad has very strong support within Syria across the whole spectrum of Syrian society, the majority of whom are Sunni.

Sunnis in fact make up the majority of the Syrian Army. Just a few weeks ago, 70 Sunni Syrian Army soldiers were executed by ISIS at Deir Ezzor, largely ignored by the mainstream media.  A huge number of the population support Assad personally, though everyone has criticisms of the regime, especially about corruption and the security apparatus.

Many refugees, even if they don’t support the regime, say that Assad is better than the chaos that would ensue if the sectarian ‘rebels’ were to win. Talking to Kurdish Refugees from Syria at a camp in Iraq 2 weeks ago, all of them were united in their belief that though they didn’t like the regime they support Assad personally, and do not want to see him defeated.

Even the government’s opponents inside Syria acknowledge that Assad did try to undertake reform, and I saw plenty of evidence of this in my travels to Syria immediately prior to the conflict. It is popularly believed that Assad was deeply constrained by the powerful forces within sections of the regime. The regime structure is profoundly complicated, and Assad does not have direct control of every part of it. I have not only experienced aspects of this myself in a small way, but have heard about it from individuals who have been political prisoners as well.

It is true Assad made mistakes at the begining of the uprising, but the details of the uprising have entered the realms of exaggeration and fiction. I have spoken with people who participated in the uprising and who witnessed the violence perpetrated by armed outsiders against the army very early on. An opposition leader even told me that he was told by an opposition figure in Turkey in 2010:

There is going to be a war in Syria. It is coming soon and has all been planned.

In some cities, the army only opened fire after they had first been attacked. This is now well documented.

I don’t think I’ve met anyone who gives unqualified support to the regime. Barrel bombs and torture chambers are a fact [cf the actions of USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Israel in Gaza, and most of our allies]. However, little has been said of the constant killing and destruction perpetrated against civilians by the moderate rebels Hell Cannon mortars and shells that are randomly killing and maiming civilians in large numbers.

As for the refugee crisis. The largest numbers of refugees are within Syria itself, having fled the rebel-controlled areas to the comparative safety of the government-controlled areas. Most that I have spoken to in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq say they did not flee the regime. Rather they were fleeing the violence caused by the conflict on both sides,  the brutality of the ‘rebels’ towards those not of their religious or political persuasion and the bombing of rebel areas by the government,  and the economic hopelessness that now exists in the country.

All narratives contain a degree of truth. But in the Syrian war, the truths have been brutally twisted into a narrative to fit the political interests of the west and gulf countries. It is infinitely more complex than the simplistic good-guy-bad-guy western media narrative.

My experience across Syria is that much of the narrative that we are fed is grossly distorted. Incidentally the only places which feel in any way vaguely like the secure pluralistic society that existed before the uprising [many Syrians say they want Syria to be ‘safe like it was’] are the government-controlled areas where people live together in comparative safety.

When I walked the streets of Homs in November, people were coming up and saying how glad they were the ‘rebels’ had been removed, and now the city could begin to recover. As I mentioned previously, two of my friends had to flee their homes in Homs because of the ‘rebel’ occupation. Their homes were destroyed in the government bombardment, but each of them said:

If it took bombing my home to destroy the terrorists, I accept that.

Now however, the economic situation caused by the war and the sanctions is creating tremendous hardship for all Syrians, and is creating the grounds for a further exodus. Anyone who blindly accepts the media narrative frankly is a bit of political fool!  Perhaps my biggest lesson in this past six weeks in the region is just how profoundly complex and multi-layered the situation is.

It is not nearly as clear-cut as the media and politicians are making out and western policies, actions and alliances are without doubt making it infinitely worse. What is contributing to the continuation of the conflict is the refusal of the international community to speak to people within Syria, and to listen to what their wishes are and our on-going support for extremist Islamic groups who wish to see the sectarian partitioning of Syria. Most Syrians I have spoken to across the region, have no wish for them to take charge of the country.

Lastly, as Christians, what is our response to the Christian community in the region, whose very existence is threatened? 

The wishes of the Christian communities have been made clear again and again.  And every single Church leader in Syria has spoken out against western policies.  On the ground, local Christian and Muslim leaders work together to bring healing and reconciliation amongst profoundly fractured and suffering communities.  They feel abandoned by the international community.

Their voices are ignored by political and religious leaders alike.  In this conflict, there are no innocent parties.  And we ourselves must take our share of the blame for the catastrophe that has befallen this country that was a cradle of faith and civilisation.  And if western Church leaders are silent in response to the cries of our fellow Christians in the region, then we must share responsibility for their catastrophic demise and the sectarian disaster that could follow.

End of Part III

ALSO READ:

 Part I – Reports from Inside Syria by Rev. Andrew Ashdown

Part II  – Syria’s Secularism and Pluralism Cannot Survive without President Bashar al Assad

Reverend Andrew Ashdown is an Anglican priest in England.  He has been visiting and leading groups to the Middle East for over 25 years, and has visited Syria four times since April 2014, both as a member of faith delegations, and more recently independently.  Andrew is undertaking research into Christian/Muslim relations in the region. 

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — The Gaza government’s Disaster Response Committee announced late Friday that Israeli authorities had opened up dams just east of the Gaza Strip, flooding numerous residential areas in nearby villages within the coastal territory.

Committee chairman Yasser Shanti said in a press conference that Israeli authorities had opened up dams just to the east of the border with the Gaza Strip earlier in the day.

He warned that residential areas within the Gaza Valley would be flooding within the coming hours.

He said that the move by Israeli authorities would flood areas in Moghraqa and other parts of Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, and he called upon residents of areas near the Gaza Valley to evacuate their homes in preparation for the anticipated flooding.

The Gaza Strip is currently under a state of emergency due to severe weather conditions caused by a historic storm front moving south across the Levant.

Fuel shortages have caused daily life in the Gaza Strip to grind slowly to a halt since early November, as power plants and water pumps are forced to shut down, cutting off access to basic necessities for Gaza residents.

Lack of diesel fuel is a result of the tightening of a seven-year-long blockade imposed on the territory by Israel with Egyptian support.

The Gaza Strip has been under a severe economic blockade imposed by the State of Israel since 2006.

He’s a duopoly power anomaly, a billionaire, demagogic business as usual aspirant, coming across to supporters as populist.

Yet nothing in his campaign suggests it, other than his anti-establishment rhetoric.

A previous article said he appeals to voters against bipartisan politics they deplore, business as usual campaigning and governance, promising change, delivering betrayal, ignoring popular needs in office.

He seems impregnable despite expressing outlandish views, including wanting a wall built on America’s southern border, calling Mexicans “rapists,” wanting Muslims banned from entering the country, saying he’ll close mosques, and surviving a flap with Pope Francis unscathed.

He’s the only presidential aspirant able to win support with inflammatory rhetoric on hot button issues, saying what other candidates won’t dare.

Nothing in his background or business record suggests he’ll govern differently from other candidates as president. People needs aren’t his concern. Social justice is off-the-table.

Endless wars and corporate favoritism will continue on his watch. If Republican party bosses undermine his campaign, he doesn’t rule out running as an independent.

His support is ideologically deep and intense. Campaigning against the grain works for him, saying things voters don’t hear from other candidates.

Bashing works to his advantage – from rival aspirants and media scoundrels supporting them. Party bosses are desperate, searching for a way to stop him, blasting what they call his divisive brand of politics.

A New York Times feature story cited Republican strategist Karl Rove, warning his “nomination would be catastrophic, dooming the party in November,” at the same time saying it’s not too late to stop him.

The Times indicated Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has a plan to have party members break with him in November’s election.

Other Republicans call for uniting behind a single Trump opponent in a last-ditch effort to stop him. Everything tried so far “sputtered and stalled at every turn,” said The Times.

Despite dark party forces lined up against him, he gained strength heading into Super Tuesday on March 1 with smashing New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada triumphs – saying perhaps he could “run the table” in upcoming primaries, outspoken to a fault as always.

Modesty and restraint aren’t his attributes. Media scoundrels relentlessly attack him, trying to dent his impregnability.

The Times claims his nomination would “serious(ly) damage…the country (and) its reputation overseas.”

It’ll “represent a rout of historic proportions for the institutional Republican Party, and could set off an internal rift unseen in either party for a half-century…”

Nothing in prospect seems able to derail his seemingly unstoppable road to his party’s nomination.

At the same time, anti-Trump resistance runs deep. Party bosses call his candidacy unacceptable – except to millions of voters supporting him, way more than any of his rivals.

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.

 

Bees and other pollinators are in trouble — so much so that many of them are facing extinction, according to a new report.

The report, released Friday by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), is a two-year assessment of the threats facing pollinators — both vertebrates, such as birds and bats, and invertebrates, such as bees, butterflies, and other insects. It noted that, in some regions, 40 percent of invertebrate pollinator species are so threatened by myriad environmental impacts that they’re facing extinction, with butterflies and bees seeing the highest risk. Among vertebrates, 16.5 percent of species are threatened by extinction worldwide. Pollinators are a major group: there are 20,000 species of wild bees across the globe, the report notes, and many of them haven’t been identified yet.

Pollinators are also a hugely important group of animals. Almost 90 percent of wild flowering plants depend on pollination by animals, and 75 percent of food crops around the world depend on pollination. Globally, $235 – $577 billion worth of global crops are affected by pollinators each year, the report found.

“Without pollinators, many of us would no longer be able to enjoy coffee, chocolate and apples, among many other foods that are part of our daily lives,” said Simon Potts, co-chair of the assessment, said in a statement.

IPBES, which looked at existing research to compile the report, cited pesticides and disease as two threats posed to pollinators, especially managed honeybees. Varroa mites, for instance, have become a plague on honeybee colonies. They attach themselves to bees and suck out their circulatory fluid, weakening the bees and spreading dangerous diseases. Pesticides, especially the widely-used neonicotinoids, have been found to damage bees’ brains and contribute to bee losses. The Environmental Protection Agency in January released findings on one neonic pesticide, imidacloprid, the most commonly-used neonic in the United States. The agency found that, when applied to certain crops, the pesticide was harmful to bees. The EPA is still looking into three other neonicotinoids.

The organization also listed land use changes, climate change, and invasive species as threats to pollinators. Land use changes can turn wildflower-covered fields into fields of just one or two crops, a switch from a high-nutrition landscape to a lower-nutrition one. And climate change can lead to a shift in peak nectar flow for flowering plants. If managed honeybees miss this nectar flow — if they’re delivered to beekeepers too late, for instance — the hive can be weakened. The report also found that climate change has already shifted distribution of bumblebees and butterflies and pollinator-dependent plants.

The report lists several approaches to help protect pollinator populations, including creating more pollinator-friendly landscapes, with diverse flowering plants, and reducing use of pesticides by finding more pollinator-friendly forms of pest control. There are efforts to do some of these things already: last October, for instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture set aside $4 million to help farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners plant wildflowers, native grasses, clover, buckwheat, and other pollinator-friendly plants on their lands. Scientists and beekeepers are also researching new ways to protect bees against varroa mites and other threats: beer hops have been found to repel the mites, and mushroom juice, too, could help protect bees against diseases.

A summary of Hillary Clinton’s role in the recent history of African Americans.

Follow me on Twitter at @JeanetteJing

Video features:

Yvette Carnell is at @YvetteDC and http://www.yourblackworld.net/ as well as Yvette Carnell YT channel.

Ben Dixon (voiceover) is at @TheBPDshow and YouTube Channel “The Benjamin Dixon Show”

Professor Michelle Alexander is on Twitter at @thenewjimcrow

Last year on Twitter, Monsanto Vice President Robert Fraley provided a link to an article that implied those who are suspicious of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), among other things, are confused, motivated by ideology or misinformed as a result of access to the ‘university of Google’, or they are simply conspiracy theorists. Fraley asked why people doubted science and seemed to be taking a swipe at critics of GMOs, who the GM sector and its mouthpieces like to depict as dealing in fear mongering and relying on ‘pseudo-science’.

The industry and its assortment of pro-GM activists in science and the media have a view of the world that requires the public to bow to some kind of scientific priesthood whose knowledge and opinions should never be questioned (listen to this recent presentation from the Oxford Real Farming Conference – from 17:00). They require us to have unquestioned belief in science’s ability to solve humanity’s problems. Deference and faith are key to the creed.

The problem is that rich corporations and individuals have manipulated the idea of science and have been able to distort scientific research. They have translated their vast financial influence into political clout and the control of science and scientific institutions. The result is that science institutes, research programmes and practitioners now too often willingly serve the interests of powerful corporations. Far from liberating humankind the control of science and scientific research and media-led rational debate in the public sphere have become a tool of deception.

The reason why so many people doubt science is because they can see how science is corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations. It is because they regard these large corporations as unaccountable and their activities and products not properly regulated by governments.

Sociologist Robert Merton highlighted the underlying norms of science as involving research that is not warped by vested interests, adhering to the common ownership of scientific discoveries (intellectual property), promoting collective collaboration and subjecting findings to organised, rigorous critical scrutiny within the scientific community. Secrecy, dogma and vested interest thus have no place.

The reality is, however, careers, reputations, commercial interests and funding issues all serve to undermine these norms.

Twisted science, altered truth

In 2014, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called for “sound science” to underpin food trade between the US and the EU. Consumer rights groups in the US are pushing for the labelling of GMO foods, but Vilsack said that putting a label on a foodstuff containing a GM product “risks sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue.”

Despite what Vilsack would have us believe, many scientific studies show that GMOs are indeed a big safety issue and what’s more are also having grave environmental, social and economic consequences (for example, see this about GM and pesticides in Argentina, this on how GM agriculture is drive ecocide and death in South America and this about the overall efficacy and impacts of GM).

By not wanting to respond to widespread consumer demands to know what they are eating and risk ‘sending a wrong impression’ (doublespeak to English translation: sending out the right impression about GM being a fundamentally flawed and corrupt endeavour), Vislack is trying to close down debate about issues that his corporate backers find unpalatable: labelling would allow consumers to reject the GMOs being fed to them. By attempting to side-line any genuine open discussion of GM in this way, the aim is to conveniently shut down any criticism of this technology and suppress scientific, political and public debate about it.

And have little doubt that the term ‘corporate backers’ applies in this case: big agribusiness has captured, or at the very least seriously compromised, key policy and regulatory bodies in the US, Europe, India and in fact on a global level (see this regarding control of the WTO).

The concept of ‘sound science’ is being manipulated to deceive and disguise the underlying agenda: GM as a strategy by global agribusiness to control intellectual property and global supply chains.

At the same time that Vilsack and others refer to some high-minded notion of ‘sound science’, they are actively striving to debase it along with its actual practice. The industry carries out inadequate, short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’, while there is enough research that highlights the dangers and potential harmful effects of its products (see this and this). It has also engaged in fakery in India, bribery in Indonesia and smears and intimidation against those who challenge its interests, as well as the distortion and the censorship of science (see this and this).

With its aim to modify organisms to create patents that will secure ever greater control over seeds, markets and the food supply, the GM sector is only concerned with a certain type of science which supports these aims. If science is held in such high regard by these corporations, why in the US don’t they label foods containing GMOs and throw open their studies open to public scrutiny, instead of veiling them with secrecy, restricting independent research on their products or resorting to unsavoury tactics?

If science is held in such high regard by the GM sector, why in the US did policy makers release GM food onto the commercial market without proper long-term tests? The argument used to justify this is GM food is ‘substantially equivalent’ to ordinary food. This is wrong (see this as well). Substantial equivalence is a trade strategy on behalf of the GM sector that neatly serves to remove its GMOs from the type of scrutiny usually applied to potentially toxic or harmful substances.

The reason why no labelling or testing has taken place in the US is not due to ‘sound science’ having been applied but comes down to the power and political influence of the GMO sector and because a sound scientific approach has not been applied.

The sector cannot win the scientific debate (although its PR likes to tell the world it has) so it resorts to co-opting key public bodies or individuals to propagate various falsehoods and deceptions. Part of the deception is based on emotional blackmail: the world needs GMOs to feed the hungry, both now and in the future. This myth has been taken apart (see this, this and this). In fact, in the second of those three links, the organisation GRAIN highlights that GM crops that have been planted thus far have actually contributed to food insecurity.

Research, peer review and vested interests

People’s faith in science is being shaken on many levels, not least because big corporations have secured access to policy makers and governments and are increasingly funding research and setting research agendas.

“As Andrew Neighbour, former administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, who managed the university’s multiyear and multimillion dollar relationship with Monsanto, admits, “There’s no question that industry money comes with strings. It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by”.” Kamalakar Duvvuru

The reality is Monsanto is funding the research not for the benefit of either the farmer or the public, but for its own commercial interests.

Ultimately, it is not science itself that people have doubts about but science that is pressed into the service of immensely powerful private corporations and regulatory bodies that are effectively co-opted and adopt a ‘don’t look, don’t find approach’ to studies and products (see this and this) or are simply being pressured by the GM industry to come up with findings that it finds acceptable; or in the case of releasing GMOs onto the commercial market in the US, bypassing proper scientific procedures and engaging in doublespeak about ‘substantial equivalence’ then hypocritically calling for ‘sound science’ to inform debates.

We need look no further than the report Seedy Business to see how science is swayed, bought or biased by agribusiness. This is done by, for example, suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent US-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.

This is a point that Claire Robinson develops:

“It’s no surprise that many public scientists and organizations ally themselves with the GMO industry, as they rely heavily on industry funding. GMO companies have representatives on university boards and fund research, buildings and departments. Monsanto has donated at least a million dollars to the University of Florida Foundation. Many US universities that do crop research are beholden to Monsanto. Some academic scientists own GMO patents and are involved in spin-off companies that develop GM crops… Universities have become businesses and scientists have become entrepreneurs and sales people.”

The same interests are moreover undermining the peer-review process itself and the ability of certain scientists to get published in journals – traditionally, the benchmark of scientific credibility. Powerful interests increasingly hold sway over funding, career progression as a scientist, journals and peer review (see this and this, which question the reliability of peer review in the area of GMOs).

Consider what The Lancet Editor in Chief Richard Horton said in 2015:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Peer-review is often referred to as the ‘gold standard’ by with which we should measure the validity of knowledge. As a result, non-peer-reviewed articles, reports or research is too often cast aside in favour of a process that, despite what some would like us to believe, is massively distorted by commercial and career-related interests.

As already noted, powerful corporations fund research programmes and institutions and, by implication, provide a mapped-out career progression for individual scientists.

Through funding, they can shape the research agenda: which issues are to be examined and which are not, as well as how research is to be carried out. They are also able to divert funds to certain scientists and can suppress certain findings and bring pressure to bear on institutions and individual scientists. Corporations may also fund or hold sway over journals, as the Seralini affair showed, and peer reviewers themselves often have career or funding interests and have a stake in pushing a certain technology and thus side-lining certain findings or individual academics.

Scientist as priest: uninformed personal opinion masquerades as fact

Scientists do themselves or science no justice when they spout rhetoric in support of GM. Although they may be respected within their own particular discipline and are highly qualified, they seem to think it is therefore legitimate for them to offer uniformed personal opinion on virtually any other issue – and to be regarded as expert sources.

Regardless of the fact that scientists may know about genetic manipulation and the impacts on a particular organism in a laboratory, we should hold them to account when they say that Greenpeace should be held accountable for crimes against humanity because it is resisting GM technology. We should hold them to account when they attack agencies or individuals on the basis that they are acting like totalitarian political regimes that were responsible for the deaths of millions merely because they disagree with GM and offer credible arguments and science to support their claims about the negative impacts of this technology.

Since when did having a PhD in molecular biology or an associated field make someone an expert on political systems or the history of Cambodia, the USSR or some other country, which they are implicitly referring to when making such a ridiculous statement?

Since when did a molecular biologist become an expert in political economy and, more specifically, on trade and development, commodity markets, debt repayment, land speculation, export-oriented oil-dependent agriculture, sustainable agriculture, the dynamics of structural inequality and poverty or any of the other issues that impact on global and regional food security and create food deficit areas?

When they talk about feeding the world and attack critics of GM in the way they do, they want to promote the notion that a bogus and flawed techno quick-fix GMO solution is paramount and will suffice. Or perhaps it is highly convenient for them to overlook all of the above issues, which in reality, not in the fantasy world of the pro-GMO scientist, determine humanity’s ability for feeding itself effectively and properly.

The reality is that this rhetoric is an attempt to shut down any criticism. It is also designed to side-line legitimate analyses of the root causes of hunger and poverty, genuine solutions for productive, sustainable agriculture that can feed humanity and those who argue for them.

Readers might want to peruse this entertaining take-down of pro-GMO activist-scientists who seem to think they are experts on everything. The author states:

“… they are in fact not scientists at all but corporate propagandists. They do nothing but knowingly tell lies, claim knowledge where they have none, and… confuse the nature of every issue. All the while they sanctimoniously insist that anyone who lacks formal scientific credentials is unqualified to speak about GMOs. (This of course… doesn’t apply to corporate executives or pro-GMO politicians and media flacks.) The best proof of this… is that literally none of them… stays within the bounds of their own disciplines when pontificating about GMOs… every credentialed pro-GM activist evidently feels free to spew the most ignorant, idiotic opinions on any subject imaginable, no matter how unqualified they are according to their own credentialist standard.”

Although the flamboyant style is done to maximise impact, the writer is making some key, valid points. For example, see this for a more sober account of Kevin Folta’s utterances on issues beyond his expertise.

And yet, people like Richard John Roberts, Anthony Trewavas, Shanthu Shantharam and others like pro-corporate/GM media mouthpiece Jon Entine (‘The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger‘) or pro-corporate/GM political mouthpiece like the UK’s Owen ‘Green Blob‘ Paterson seem to think some emotive talk about critics of GM engaging in crimes against humanity, stealing food from the poor, engaging in pseudo-science or some other sound bite designed for public consumption is fine.

If there is one thing these pro-GMO activists are truly expert at is passing off ill-informed rhetoric for expert opinion, while hiding behind a science PhD. This is nothing but spin that is designed to blur the lines between fact and fiction, science and propaganda.

Some people seem quite incredulous that people could doubt science.

Perhaps Robert Fraley should try to convince us why we should not. And while he’s at it, he might want to contemplate why we should take anything he or his company says, does or promotes as ‘science’ given its decades-long history of deceptions, cover ups and criminality.

 

“The left governments began to fall between two chairs. They weren’t able to revive, they weren’t interested in reviving a mass movement. On the other hand they had lost significant support among their middle class and lower middle class and even popular support put off by the corruption and the long kind of arrogance of power.” –Professor James Petras,  in this weeks interview.

LISTEN TO THE  SHOW

Length (59:04)

Click to Download audio (MP3 Format)

In December, hard right-wing leader Mauricio Macri takes power in Argentina after more than a decade of centre- left rule in the country.

The same month, the Right wing Democratic Unity Roundtable party defeated Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela, founded by the late popular Bolivarian leader Hugo Chavez.

Brazil’s Workers party under President Dilma Rousseff is struggling in the midst of a recession and corruption charges. And just this last week, the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, lost a referendum bid that would have allowed him to run for office for a fourth consecutive term.

All over South America, it seems that the left of centre political parties are losing their popular appeal.

Do these developments signal the left’s fall from grace as a recent Economist article put it? What do they mean for the socially progressive gains made over the last decade?

This week’s Global Research News Hour focuses on South American politics, particularly the gains and losses of the Left of Centre political parties and movements.

In the first interview, prominent commentator, and award-winning author, Professor James Petras outlines the background that led to this situation and the efforts needed moving forward to preserve the gains of the left.

A Bolivian activist, Sara Paulina Jauregui, joins us next to talk about why many Bolivians rejected the constitutional changes championed in a recent referendum.

The show concludes with a return appearance by John Ahniwanika Schertow, editor and founder of Intercontinental Cry. He talks about the ways these leftist governments have failed Indigenous peoples, even comparing the Morales Government at one point to the government of former Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper!

LISTEN TO THE  SHOW

Length (59:04)

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.

 

Foreign policy is both economic and military. An interpretation of U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy will be presented here that explains both his economic and his military decisions to-date, and that shows he’s been carrying out the policies of his predecessors in office.

On economic matters, he has turned out to be the most ambitious ‘free-trader’ of any U.S. President: he has proposed three gigantic international-trade treaties, two with North Atlantic countries (TTIP for products and TISA for services), and one with Pacific countries (TPP), not only in order to serve America’s aristocracy at the public’s expense (an international “race-to-the-bottom” in terms of workers’ wages, and race to the top in terms of stockholders’ profits and executive pay) (like NAFTA on steroids), but in order to extend the NATO military alliance against Russia, to include now these trade treaties as a companion economic alliance against Russia (to reduce Russian trade with Russia’s biggest market, which is Europe).

Obama’s economic initiative with North Atlantic countries is even more intensive than his one with Pacific countries, because his TTIP & TISA would be economic treaties that would extend the North Atlantic Treaty, or NATO, directly from the military realm into the economic realm. With his TTIP & TISA, Obama is pursuing, essentially, a NATOeconomic  alliance to complement the military one — virtually the same members as NATO. TPP is less important, because that treaty attempts to isolate China, not Russia — and Russia is to be conquered before a conquest of China can be even seriously considered (in some future U.S. Presidency, though Obama is also ratcheting-up the military hostility against China).

NATO was formed in the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty as being nominally an anti-communist mutual-defense treaty against the Soviet Union. But when the Soviet Union and its communism, and that communist group’s equivalent of the NATO mutual-defense treaty, their Warsaw Pact, all disbanded in 1991, NATO continued on, now as being a purely anti-Russian military alliance. In 1990, the representatives of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had told Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward toward Russia, wouldn’t try to do to Russia what Nikita Khrushchev had tried to do to the U.S. in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 (place nuclear missiles right next door), and Gorbachev accepted those assurances and disbanded the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact on that basis, but GHW Bush had actually lied there, and NATO not only continued on, it went right up to the very borders of Russia — exactly what the GHWB Administration had promised that the U.S. would never do.

U.S. President Bill Clinton continued this GHWB policy of conquering Russia bit-by-bit by bringing into NATO the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland — a direct violation of Bush’s verbal promise to Gorbachev. However, Bush had actually intended  this violation: Bush had told both Helmut Kohl of Germany and Francois Mitterrand of France that the promise made to Gorbachev was only a lie, and that as far as fulfilling it, “To hell with that — we prevailed, they didn’t!” Clinton — and his successors — merely followed through on Bush’s lie. Bush’s son George, in 2004, brought into NATO: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

And that brought us to Obama’s Presidency, which is increasing this assault and threat against Russia to reach now a red-hot, no longer merely Cold, War. The bloody battlefields in this war so far have been in the countries that had been allied with Russia: Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. But the Cold War against Russia became hot in Ukraine first. That’s where Obama crossed Vladimir Putin’s red line.

Russian leader Putin had long set as his red line that the U.S. mustn’t extend its NATO to include Ukraine, which has the longest border with Russia of any European country: 1,576 kilometers. If the U.S. is going to attempt a blitz-attack against Russia from next door, then Ukraine would be the most-dangerous country from which to launch it, and NATO membership for Ukraine would be the key to such success.

In February 2014, Obama arranged a coup that overthrew the Russia-friendly and democratically elected President of Ukraine and replaced his government by one that’s headed by the rabidly anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Obama’s operative who selected Yatsenyuk, Victoria Nuland, during the buildup to the coup, explained that, “Since 1991 [the breakup of the Soviet Union] .. we’ve invested over five billion dollars to assist Ukraine” to “build democratic skills and institutions” (which Ukraine already had, and which Obama — via her — was now tearing down). When she mentioned “1991,” she was thereby acknowledging  that GHWB had actually begun the overthrow of Ukraine. It was an exceedingly bloody coup d’etat in Ukraine, and Putin had always said that if Ukraine were to be added to NATO, that would be totally unacceptable — but now it was already in the process of happening.

Immediately, the nuclear-arms race was resumed. This was very good for America’s ‘defense’ contractors such as Lockheed Martin, but not only for them. Right behind Nuland on the platform when she spoke of “1991” (see that video) was the “Chevron” sign; and Chevron was the American oil-and-gas company that bought the rights to explore for oil and gas in western Ukraine — the area of Ukraine that had voted the most strongly against  the man whom Obama overthrew. (Chevron thus bought the safest  gas-rights. The locals there were happy to have a U.S. company exploring there.) Subsequently, a son of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden became appointed by the Ukrainian owner of Ukraine’s largest gas-exploration company in eastern Ukraine, to become a board-member. (That area was extremely hostile towards the United States, angry against the overthrow, and the residents there demonstrated against that company’s fracking and wanted to shut them down.) The American VP didn’t object that his son might become a billionaire from America’s Ukrainian coup — this was considered acceptable by the Obama regime and the aristocracy that it served (most of the U.S. public were never even informed of the now-booming Ukrainian-U.S. corruption).

The overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President (who had been corrupt himself, just as all  of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders had been) was an effort by Obama not only to take over Ukraine but to further isolate Russia, virtually all of whose former Warsaw Pact allies were by now now firmly in the anti-Russian NATO camp.

However, Obama had actually been preparing for a renewed war against (now) Russia (no longer against the Soviet Union and communism), ever since he first became President in 2009, when his Administration responded to Syria’s drought-provoked 2008 request for food-aid not with food but with scheming to overthrow also that ally of Russia. And, then, Obama dusted off an old CIA plan from 1957, which had been drawn up by the mastermind of the successful 1953 overthrow of Iran’s freely and democratically elected progressive President Mohammed Mossadegh (replacing him with the brutal Shah); and, in this 1957 plan for Syria, the secular Ba’athist Party that ruled Syria was to become replaced by Saudi-allied Sunni fundamentalists — but this plan was placed on-hold until an appropriate time, which finally arrived during the Obama regime, when the widespread ‘Arab Spring’ demonstrations added fuel to the fires of Syria’s drought.

That 1957 plan was itself a part of a longstanding CIA program.

After Putin responded to those recent foreign invasions of Syria by Saudi-backed jihadists, by Russia’s starting on 30 September 2015 an all-out bombing-campaign against those tens of thousands of foreign invaders, Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist-Sunni ally Turkey tried to draw the United States directly into an all-out invasion of Syria against both the Assad government and its now-committed Russian ally.

In response, the Saud family teamed up with their Sunni-fundamentalist ally-and-NATO-member Turkey, to seek Obama’s support for an all-out ‘Western’ invasion of Syria to defeat both Assad and Russia, as well as to defeat two other allies of Assad: Iran and its Hezbollah ally in Lebanon.

President Obama then reached out to the leaders of various European NATO member-nations, to seek at least one of them to join with the U.S. in making this not only a fundamentalist-Sunni invasion to overthrow and replace Syria’s Ba’athist government — the only remaining secular government in the Mideast. Thus far, Obama has failed to find any; and he seems unwilling to join the Sunni-Islamic countries as the only non-Islamic invader. However, Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, is threatening to complete the 1957 CIA plan without Europe’s participation, if there’s no other way to do it. And the aristocracy’s Council on Foreign Relations recently headlined, “Divide and Conquer in Syria and Iraq; Why the West Should Plan for a Partition.” That ‘partition’ or breakup of Syria is the 1957 CIA plan. But that threat seems likely to be pure bluff from Kerry. After all, Kerry himself also says, “What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?” He doesn’t want that. And he wasn’t bluffing when he said that he doesn’t. And Obama seems to recognize that the U.S. and NATO need at least several more years in order to have all the pieces in place for it to be launched.

As regards Ukraine, Obama seems to have given up there, too. Ukraine is being left to rot, into perhaps sequences of regime-replacements and spiraling chaos: it’s a wrecked country.

The end-result of Obama’s foreign policies, thus far, is to turn Russia’s allied nations into failed states. Whether his successor as the U.S. President will be satisfied with that (after all: it does hurt Russia), or else will ‘go for the gold’ (as Obama has thus far unsuccessfully tried to do) and resume the active quest to conquer Russia, might depend upon whether Obama can get his ‘trade’ deals passed and implemented; because, if that effort fails, then one would be hard-pressed to see any way in which the 1990-Bush-initiated war against Russia will be won, short of some sort of desperate nuclear invasion, for which Russia might be sufficiently well prepared so that whomever the survivors of that war would be (including even the top stockholders in firms such as Lockheed Martin) would wish they weren’t survivors.

After all: what would any currency be worth then? Maybe enough to buy a gun and bullet to finish oneself off. Even for those corporate CEOs, their golf-days would be over, and only grim days would remain. But that’s when the true stature of such American Presidents as GHWB, Clinton, GWB, and Obama, would likewise become clear — to those survivors, or at least to the ones that don’t have the gun, or the bullet, or otherwise haven’t yet expired. It’s like the recognition-of-truth that people such as Palestinians, or Auschwitz-victims, or ISIS-victims, might have in their final moments. But here it would be happening even to the few aristocrats who cause such things to occur. Wouldn’t that be “a refreshing change”? After everything is said and done, and no one is around to enjoy it? But, anyway: it would be a change, and it would also be ironic. However, no one would be around to enjoy even the irony of it.

Obama has been carrying out a bipartisan Republican-and-Democratic foreign policy; it’s the policy of America’s aristocracy. Its results have been horrible for the world, but they’ll be even worse if it succeeds. Not only will there then no longer be democracy (but instead a global government by international corporations), but if it succeeds all the way, there won’t even be much of anything except universal misery and mass-death. It is, unquestionably, an extremely ambitious foreign policy. Thus far, it seems to be entirely in accord with the foreign policy of the Saud family. However, that may be about to change: perhaps Obama, and the United States, will simply quit its alliance with the Sauds, and separate from them. But, will Europe separate from NATO? If not, then the anti-Russia policy will continue even if the Sauds’ alliance with the U.S. comes to an end.

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.

 

“The lies and fabrications which sustain the war agenda must be uncovered.” ~ Michel Chossudovsky

Ultimately, all control and enforcement comes back to physical force, whether real or threatened. This is why I always say that the value of the US dollar is a military question. To delve into what is happening in the nuts-and-bolts of military operations globally and the evolving state of the central-banking warfare model, Michel Chossudovsky is one of my “go to” sources.

Chossudovsky is a professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and the director of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He has the intellectual capacity and personal fearlessness required to track how force is applied on the ground and in a multitude of places.

Historical tidbit: it was Chossudovsky who persuaded me to write up my description of the centralized global model as “the tapeworm.”

I just finished Michel Chossudovsky’s new book: The Globalization of War: America’s Long War Against Humanity.  It is an invaluable review of some very tough stuff. I recommend it to you.

---

The Globalization of War

America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2015

Special Price: US$14.00

Click here to order directly from Global Research

REVIEWS:

“Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He is a model of integrity in analysis, his book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that U.S. hegemonic neoconservatism poses to life on earth.”

Washington created and supports virtually all well-known terrorist groups and offshoots operating in Syria and elsewhere – used as imperial foot soldiers.

They couldn’t exist without foreign backing, supplying arms, financing, training and other material support.

Hours into Syria’s cessation of hostilities, a car bomb exploded in Salamiya in Hama province, south of Aleppo.

It killed at least four, injured others, and showed the fragility of ceasefire straightaway after its implementation, indicating the illusion of achieving a durable cessation of hostilities and peace – impossible as long as Washington and its rogue allies want war.

Heavy fighting continues. No letup is envisioned. Government forces continue battering ISIS and other terrorist groups, greatly aided by Russian air power – both countries committed to keep combating a universal scourge vital to eliminate.

Citing unnamed Western and Israeli intelligence officials, the NYT expressed concern about cessation of hostilities “hav(ing) the unintended consequence of consolidating (Assad’s) hold on power at least for the next few years.”

Former Obama Middle East advisor Philip Gordon said don’t expect Russia to respect ceasefire. Its forces “can’t (be) trust(ed) (to) limit their military action to specific terrorist groups.”

Obama insists Syria’s future “cannot include Bashar al-Assad.” Fighting won’t stop until he’s “out of power,” indicating US regime change plans remain firm.

It continues supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups. Hostility towards Russia remains intense.

Two US ICBM test launches in the past week signal Washington’s preemptive use of nuclear weapons remains an option, on the phony pretext of defending national security.

Lunatics infesting Obama’s administration and Congress consider Russia America’s top strategic threat. So does NATO commander General Philip Breedlove, calling Moscow an “existential threat” to the West, a reckless, saber-rattling statement.

In Thursday testimony before House Armed Services Committee members, he lied claiming Russia intends “rewrit(ing) the agreed rules of the international order” – choosing to be an anti-Western “adversary.”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said he questions Moscow’s “commitment to strategic stability,” accusing its military of “brandishing nuclear weapons.”

America “will defend our interests” against a nonexistent Russian threat, he blustered.

He, Obama, Breedlove and other hawkish US officials show desperation in claiming Russia’s effective war on terrorism in Syria made things worse, not better.

It changed things dramatically on the ground for the better, shifted momentum, achieved remarkable results in a short time.

It’s preserving Syrian sovereign independence, at the same time foiling Washington’s regional imperial agenda – US policymakers frantic to find a way to counter its successes strategically.

Russia is a force to be reckoned with. Its commitment to defeat the scourge of terrorism is the only chance for regional peace and stability.

In a show of good faith, its military halted airstrikes against armed groups in areas agreeing to cessation of hostilities.

Expect resumption if violations occur. Given America’s wage for war and regime change, it’s just a matter of time.

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.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

When asked about Russian operations in Syria, most people would immediately mention the Russian fighter-bombers, attack aircraft, combat helicopters, and cruise missile volleys. Few would mention the quiet work behind the scenes that was performed by a large group of highly dedicated professionals who helped transform the Syrian military that was on the brink of defeat, into a force that could once again begin liberating Syria’s territory. Without denying the importance of the air campaign, the air strikes alone would not have turned the tide of the war.

When the Russian military began its intervention in Syria, the situation at the front demanded a rapid provision of specialized military support in order to offset the jihadist numerical superiority by superior firepower. That was quickly provided by supplying the Syrian Arab Army with T-90 tanks and TOS-1A self-propelled thermobaric rocket launchers which are highly effective at reducing fortifications.

However, in order to allow the Syrian army to resume the offensive, both its equipment and personnel would have to be replenished and retrained. Unfortunately, the Syrian military was in a state of serious neglect when the rebellion broke out, and large-scale combat operations quickly revealed this sad state of affairs. Much of its equipment was sidelined for lack of maintenance, units were understrengthed and short of specialist personnel.

At the time, the Syrian soldiers were poorly trained, even ones assigned to crew sophisticated weapon systems like tanks and self-propelled artillery weapons. Equipment maintenance systems were sufficient to cope with peacetime demands, but quickly broke down as soon as the Syrian military attempted large-scale operations. Syrian military’s large pool of equipment also created an attitude of neglect toward maintenance and evacuation of damaged machines.

To help, the Russian Ministry of Defense utilized the Syrian Express supply route to send a large number of T-72B tanks, BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, and rocket artillery weapons to Syria. Russian advisers then got to work training Syrian troops both on the use of the new vehicles and operating them as part of tactical combat teams. Even more equipment found its way into the Syrian units thanks to Russian specialists restoring Syria’s armored vehicle repair workshops, which quickly returned hundreds of broken-down or long-term storage armored vehicles to service. Syria’s air force returned to the skies thanks to Russian specialists and timely deliveries of spare parts.

The Russian advisers also established training courses for the specialist personnel without which no military can effectively conduct large-scale operations, such as logisticians, communications experts and, equally important, operational planners. This work is, of course, not without danger, given the terrorists’ ability to strike in almost any part of Syria. One Russian adviser was killed in Latakia province in unknown circumstances.

The Russian advisers also serve as de-facto diplomats, whose presence is necessary to ensure the capability of pro-government forces which include recently recruited tribal and regional militias and even former opposition forces working smoothly together. For example, it is difficult to imagine the Kurds and the Syrian military cooperating effectively without Russian intermediation.

For all these efforts, the situation in Syria still remains critical.  Syrian forces’ problems have not been fully resolved, and ISIS and other jihadist forces are capable of launching local counter-attacks, as they recently did at Khanasser, because government forces are not large enough to properly defend the lengthy front lines against all the rebel factions. However, the trend is in a positive direction. The January fighting in Salma was a demonstration of the Russian efforts to train complete battalion task forces of the Syrian army to conduct offensive operations. It was the first operation carried out by one of the new Russian-trained battalions. Since the training program was launched in October, it would appear that the training cycle lasts 3 months before the unit is sent into the front lines, and more such units have been joining the fray recently and turning the tide of the war. The opposition’s newly discovered willingness to negotiate is entirely due to their belated recognition that the balance of forces has been shifting against them.

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

As political debate in Britain centres on the EU referendum in June, a significant decision took place in the European Parliament this week.

MEPs voted to stop all sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia’s despotic regime. In the same week, Cameron hailed the UK’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia as ‘brilliant.‘ The unflattering comparison is a timely reminder that a united Europe still has the power to take positive action.

At the core of the EU lies a commitment to the basic principles of liberty, democracy and a respect for human rights. Germany and Sweden have both taken the economically sacrificial decision to stop all arms trading with the Saudis. It is only by standing for these principles together that the EU can send a clear message to Saudi Arabia and all undemocratic regimes in the world.

Britain is just one of a number of EU member-states that continues to arm the Arab Kingdom, but is miles ahead of the rest in terms of scale. Saudi Arabia is the recipient of more British-made arms than any other state. But this EU vote could bring that situation to an end.

The embargo was proposed in reaction to the Saudi’s continued air campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, a campaign already assisted by British companies. MEPs have questioned the legality of the operation and many have also raised concerns about the alarming rate of civilian deaths, and alleged targeting of refugee camps and hospitals. Those who make these points argue that sales to regimes committing such atrocities are going against the shared values of the EU and undermine efforts to improve human rights protections globally. The EU currently imposes EU-wide arms embargos on 22 states – including Yemen.

Though news of the upcoming EU vote has been largely unreported in British media, there has been widespread condemnation of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia since the publication of a UN report on Yemen in January. Cameron stuck with the stock defence of praising Britain’s strict rules governing arms sales, but Jeremy Corbyn offered a pragmatic approach to the report’s findings. While Cameron brushed off British complicity in Saudi crimes, Corbyn called for an immediate inquiry into the issue with the suspension of arms sales pending its completion. Indeed, Labour MEPs voted in favour of the embargo. Sensible and, most importantly, effective.

Although many projects aided through the European Development Fund have raised questions as to where EU values lay, this vote shows that whatever our choices on the EU – we should make them knowing there is life in the old dog yet.

“What the government and Russian army are doing is fighting Takfiris.  Few civilians are left there [Aleppo], but we know there has been collateral damage. That is sad, but war is dirty and everyone is guilty.   But the government is not targeting civilians.”

That evening I joined a group of young Muslim [Sunni and Alawite] and Christian friends in a bustling Damascene cafe in the Old City, where Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christian, Alawite, from all parts of the country still mingle quite happily. Talking to people it is evident that no-one has escaped the horrors of war – whether it be close friends,loved ones killed and/or kidnapped, and/or homes and livelihoods destroyed. Yet,  whilst realistic about the multiple complexities of the realities, all are determined to keep living, and most want to preserve the integrity of Syria, and reject the sectarian agendas that outside forces are creating.

I asked my friend about the situation in Aleppo.  He replied:

The western media is putting out that there are 70,000 fleeing the area.  Turkey hasn’t opened the borders to people fleeing the ‘Russian bombing of civilians’.  But where are the 70000?  We are only seeing clips of hundreds, maybe a few thousand gathering.   We cannot deny that there are still some civilians there and people who couldn’t manage to get to other safe cities, but remember,  more than one and half million people have already come from Aleppo to Lattakia, Tartous and Damascus, to the safety of Government-controlled areas.  So who is left in Aleppo? 

We know that there are a lot of foreign fighters there… it is all over the media… lots of Chechens in South Aleppo and Turkmen, and fighters  from around the world.  What the government and Russian army are doing is fighting Takfiris.  Few civilians are left there, but we know there has been collateral damage. That is sad, but war is dirty and everyone is guilty.   But the government is not targeting civilians.

Those who fled to Latakkia and Tartous are Muslims.  They  don’t want to have the terrorists there.  They are praying for the army to defeat the terrorists.

From my experience of talking with refugees from Aleppo, sheltering in Lattakia in 2105, this was definitely the case when listening to their experiences. My friend continued talking:

If all the people the government are fighting are civilians, wouldn’t it be easy to take over the area?   Why does it take five years?  No.  The army are trying to liberate the towns and villages in the Aleppo area.

He went on to talk about Homs.

There are parts of Homs that the rebels were in control of for a long time.   They were taken out in a reconciliation agreement.  My home and a lot of homes were destroyed because the terrorists occupied them, and were firing on the government-controlled areas from them.  They were launching mortars and missiles all over the city that killed a lot of people. When we were told that the government would bomb our house, we told them ‘Fine. Go ahead.’   We want to defeat the terrorists, and if it means losing our home, so be it.

[A young Christian woman whose home in Homs was destroyed in the same way, said almost the same thing to me when I visited Homs last year.]

My friend continued:

Homs witnessed a lot of car explosions that killed a lot of people and destroyed a lot of houses. [Actual number of car bombs in one civilian area of the city is so far 33.]   The city is now free of terrorists, but there are terrorists in the area, and the reconciliation project is still going on.   We say to them:  let the foreign fighters out, and lay down arms, and everything will come back to normal.  In a lot of cities, the fighters are giving up their weapons, and some of them are joining the army against the takfiris.  Homs is mostly at  peace now, and there are plans already for its reconstruction.

[For further information on the terrorist mortar and suicide bomb attacks on Syrian towns and cities please read Eva Bartlett’s blog: InGaza.wordpress.com.]

I asked about the political prisoners, so often mentioned by Western and Gulf media:

“We cannot deny the issue of political prisoners and we don’t like it,”  he continued.

A close member of my family spent nine months in prison for criticising the President, but he was released.  They didn’t mistreat him or torture him.  It is the same for most. 

You know the ‘Caesar Report’ is mostly a fake.  It was financed by Qatar, and many of the pictures come from other parts of the region, or are even of Syria soldiers. It is ironic that Qatar, where there are no human rights, should fund a report that claims to be about human rights! 

In any case, the President issued a decree in 2014 lifting the emergency laws that say that the President cannot be criticised.  The problem is that the Secret Services continue to arrest people for doing so, even though the President has called for the cessation of such action.

Actually, contrary to the mythology presented in the West that Syrian people live in fear and will not say a negative word about the regime, I found very few people who were not openly critical of the regime.

The issue that was mentioned to me again and again, both by supporters of the regime, and of opponents, was the corruption within the regime, and the presence of ‘bad characters’ who wield excessive influence.

By contrast, talking to Sunni, Shia, Druze, Kurds, Christians, residents of Syria, refugees in neighbouring countries, internally displaced people,  supporters or opposition, I have heard very little criticism of Assad himself.   The fact of the matter is that, whether the West likes it or not, Assad personally retains an enormous level of popularity and respect.

There seem to be very few people, even amongst those who are highly critical of the regime, who believe that the secularism and pluralism of Syria can survive without him.  Even refugees outside Syria, who have opposed the Syrian Government, have expressed to me their deep fear, of what would happen if Assad were deposed and the US NATO backed “moderate rebel” forces gained power.

The following day I met and had lunch with another young Christian friend who spoke freely about the struggles of life amidst the conflict.  She too was from the Old City of Homs and had fled the rebel occupation of the city.  She echoed the narrative of others I met in Homs itself.

Together we visited a medieval caravanserai which I last visited with my family in 2010. A place of craft shops and culture, I had assumed that it would be boarded up, but no the shops were still open. I watched one man making replica swords and medieval armoury; another making replica clay tablets of Ugarit writing and Koranic verses, artists selling paintings, and other shops of silks and carpets. How they survive I don’t know.

My friend could not imagine either…

“None of us have the money to buy luxury items” she said.

The shopkeepers, however were proud of their trade.  They said:

This is all we can do – to keep working and to keep living until peace comes.

In my view, these people, and the many friends I meet, represent the hope for Syria.  These are the people who will ensure the survival and healing of Syria… if the international community don’t sell it to the forces of violence and terror.

That evening I had dinner at a friend’s home, in the company of a teacher, a doctor, a university professor, a TV presenter, and another university teacher and independent translator. They were people from different faiths and communities and different parts of the country. We shared in wide-ranging, deeply honest and open discussions on social and political realities of life in the country, the conflict, it’s implications, and the tragic effect it is having on everyone and everything.

I have huge respect for these friends, who in the face of so many difficulties are committed to and desirous of a brighter future for all the people of the country.

Damascus University

Despite the conflict, the University of Damascus continues to operate, with a shortage of staff, and with students who still come from all over the country to complete their studies.  Everyone has their stories of suffering, loved ones killed, homes and livelihoods destroyed.

It is one of the largest universities in the Middle East.  Given the abundance of highly intelligent students, different political views are represented amongst both students and staff.  But the University has suffered as well.  Several times it has received direct hits from rebel shells.   Staff and students have been killed.  I met one professor who had both legs amputated following a car bomb explosion.

Within the University, there is a strong desire to set up a department for the study of Peace and Reconciliation and Conflict Resolution, and the University is seeking to work with the Centre for Peace and Religions at Winchester University to develop a joint programme.  This area of study and research will be vital for the long process of healing that will be needed once the conflict has ended.

I met with the President of the University, Dr. Hassan Kurdi and also with Professor Dr. Mohammed Tawfiq Ramadan, Dean of the Faculty of Islamic Jurisprudence, and son of the renowned former Grand Mufti, Dr. Moahmmed Said Ramadan Al-Buti, who was assassinated  in his mosque in 2013.  A scholar who supported inter-religious dialogue and the plurality of Syria, his son is continuing his father’s work.

Coming to Syria independently, my primary purpose, and one which was largely successful, was to spend time with and speak with ordinary Syrians, and it was a joy and privilege to speak with many from different backgrounds and different parts of Syria. Though I was not able to go beyond Damascus on this occasion, I talked with many who have experienced the horrors of Homs, Aleppo, Daraa, Deir Ezzor etc.

I was deeply disappointed that my efforts, with the help of friends and contacts, to visit Aleppo, failed. As I was travelling independently, the paperwork and permissions required to visit the city, and the number of departments and officials through which such application has to proceed, was just not possible in the time available. It was quite telling that even the Grand Mufti, who told me when I met him, that he would gladly support me in visiting Aleppo, felt he would be unable to influence the speed of the bureaucratic procedure.

Civilians and supplies are now travelling freely and safely between Damascus and Aleppo since the Syrian Arab Army has cleared the highway of the Western & Gulf backed extremists, however, the government-controlled half of Aleppo is still a dangerous place due to the raining shells, bombs and sniper -fire of the “moderate rebels”.

I was willing to put my life on the line to visit friends and contacts, including members of the Christian community there, because no-one from the West is reporting from and about those areas. And our desk-bound experts in London, Washington and around the world, refuse to listen to the numerous different voices and realities on the ground.

In my view, by refusing to do so, they are only helping to perpetuate the conflict and the suffering of the innocents on all sides of the conflict. The tragedy for so many millions is unimaginable, and no party to the conflict is free of blame.

End of Part II

[Editors Note:  Part III will be an interview with Dr Ali Haider, Syrian Government Minister for Reconciliation]

Reverend Andrew Ashdown is an Anglican priest in England.  He has been visiting and leading groups to the Middle East for over 25 years, and has visited Syria four times since April 2014, both as a member of faith delegations, and more recently independently.  Andrew is undertaking research into Christian/Muslim relations in the region. 

ALSO READ: Part I – Reports from Inside Syria by Rev. Andrew Ashdown

As Baron Rothschild famously said back in the late 18th century, “When there’s blood in the streets, it’s time to buy property.” Too bad then that Donald Trump has to divest all of his holdings and put them in the hands of a blind trust.

On the scale of ugly, last night’s debate was a moon shot even by this election’s sinking standards.

Both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz began their two hour-long sustained attack on the man in the middle, Donald Trump – relentlessly hitting the front-runner with every conceivable ‘gotcha’ factoid and political angle. Trump hit back at Cruz calling him “a liar” and at Rubio calling the Florida Senator “choke artist” in reference to his meltdown at the hands of Chris Christie during the last televised debate.

Clearly, CNN was also part of this coordinated attack, as they echoed Wall Street luminary and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, going after Trump about publicly releasing his tax returns. Trump then hit back saying that he’s being audited by the IRS and can’t release his returns in the middle of an audit (which is actually true), and CNN, along with Cruz, kept hammering the issue straight into the post-debate media opportunity where CNN ingénue Chris Cuomo tried (and failed) to channel his inner Tim Russert as he continued the Trump tax probe.

It didn’t end there. Subsequent gang stalking by Rubio and Cruz were powered by the New York Times (who’s adopted a overwhelmingly anti-Trump editorial stance early on), including accusations of fraud over the Trump University civil court case, Trump using Polish building laborin 1980 (the same year that Rubio and Cruz were beginning second grade), and accusations of hypocrisy over Trump’s use of used H-2B Visa applications to import seasonal labor to build in south Florida (that one turned out to be ‘nothing burger’ though. Trump, a seasoned litigator, didn’t seemed too worried about the Trump University case, intimating that ‘the lawyers are taking care of that’, and the Polish builder scandal (come on guys, who doesn’t like Polish builders?) happened 36 years ago.

Forget about airs and graces. This was a vicious battle – a historic new low for American politics. The fact Trump survived the beating was something in itself. If he does make it through this storm, then both Cruz and Rubio will have done The Donald a huge favor – having vetted and exorcised all of his scandals early on during the primary stage, and leaving Hillary and the media with little besides bone to chew on come August.

When today’s morning press came out, exactly as they have throughout this election, all of the mainstream media channels, newspapers and magazine loudly declared Trump’s “debate defeat”, and trumpeted Rubio ‘aggressiveness’. Liberal establishment stalwart The Atlantic declared, “Trump’s Terrible night”, while NBC News ran with the headline that “Rubio and Cruz Hammer Trump”, followed by the Washington Post trumpeting, “Rubio Won Debate, Put Trump on the Defensive.”

Other wishful pundits weighed in, like media mogul Glenn Beck (who is openly backing Ted Cruz and warning his audiences of an end times Armageddon if America doesn’t elect a “true Christian Conservative” in November). Beck was ecstatic after Rubio’s debate performance, especially after this week when Trump gatecrashed a Nevada event where Beck was stumping for Cruz.

This morning, Rubio drew additional fire from the Trump CENTCOM after Rubio claimed that Donald Trump had received $200 million from his father, and said if not for his father’s ‘inheritance’, Trump would be “selling watches in Manhattan.”

This morning Rubio appeared at an outdoor media event where he tore into Trump, calling him a“con artist” and went on the pick apart Trump’s spelling mistakes on Twitter. At this point, you just got the feeling that Rubio has ventured into a new area of media warfare outside of his own sanitized political wheelhouse. As the old saying goes: never wrestle with a pig.

In the end, it was Trump who stole the wind from Rubio’s sails, when early the following morning he appeared on national TV next to firebrand GOP candidate, Chris Christie, garnering a power midstream endorsement from the popular New Jersey governor.

Crowds For Hire?

With so many people disengaged from mainstream politics and from major broadcast media, politicians are said to be turning to PR agencies and “rent-a-crowd” services in order to fill out their camera frames and look more appealing to audiences. More than any other previous presidential election cycle, this 2016 race has seen more accusations of this – leveled mainly at GOP candidates like Jeb Bush – but also towards Marco Rubio. At this morning’s media event, Rubio’s team had hand-picked dozens of youths and immaculately dressed made up crowds – carefully assembled in rows behind and directly below Rubio. Interestingly, the teen models and the gangsters do not cheer with the core crowd positioned between the cameras and Rubio – they simply smile, and many of these people are wearing sunglasses – on an overcast morning in Texas. Even hip hop gangster-looking students wearing color-coordinated red hoodies – many of whom are even too young to vote, appear disinterested, as if they are being paid $40 to stand in a row in the camera frame.

If this is any indication of Rubio’s “New American Century”, then it’s certainly cause for worry. The fact that Rubio stole his campaign slogan from Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton’s neoconservative pro-war think tank, Project for A New American Century (PNAC) is interesting, and the fact the media have not commented yet on this is highly suspect.

Ironically, it was the brash hawk Donald Trump who took the high ground on the issue of the Middle East. When asked about his commitment to Israel, Trump pointed out that he would not take sides beforehand when brokering any peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and even stated that if he could negotiate a peace deal between the perennial warring neighbors that, “It would be my greatest achievement as US president.” Who can really argue with that? Well, hermanos Cubanos did. Cruz and Rubio were furious at this point, and the reason for this has to be that both of them have received mucho dinero from the Israeli Lobby to maintain a categorically anti-Palestinian stance. Cruz and Rubio adopted a very ugly tone during this exchange, both telegraphing their commitment to the decrepit status quo – meaning that there would be no peace in the Middle East on their watch. Once again, Cruz and Rubio are completely out of touch with what voters really want.

Almost one year ago I said on the SUNDAY WIRE SHOW that the Republican establishment would be looking to hedge its approach to returning to the White House more than they have in past elections – this time going for the mathematical and demographically pragmatic option – which would be Marco Rubio, with Wisconsin’s Scott Walker throwing early innings in the bull pen. Orthodox RNC thinking last spring believed that with Rubio, with less than one term in Senate and no leadership experience, could somehow repeat the ‘Obama effect’ of 2008 and finally usher their party into the 21st century. Things looked very different for Hillary last spring too, where she seemed invisible on the Democrat side as well as in national polling. On paper at least, it seems that Rubio would “tick all the right boxes” for the GOP elite who are presiding over a party in decline and disarray – he’s young (44 years old, although you’d punt him at a decade his junior), and even more importantly he’s Latino, which gives the GOP a shot a pulling in a crucial trilateral voter compliment: Hispanic-American, independents and moderate Democrats. On paper this all makes perfect sense, but running for President in the United States of America isn’t simply a case of what looks logical on paper. Case and point: Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson and, of course, Donald Trump.

Curtains

If Cruz loses his home state Texas GOP primary on March 1st, then it’s lights out for the Cruz campaign. Right now Cruz and Trump are in a dead heat, nearly tied in the pre-polling, with Cruz a few points ahead. Ditto for Rubio in his home state Florida’s GOP primary on March 15th. Currently, Trump is burying Rubio by an average of 15+ points in every poll for Florida. Birther issues aside, this has always been the knock against both Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz (photo, left) and Marco Rubio: just like Barack Obama, they are too young and with no real experience governing, and like Obama, destined to become party functionaries.

Trump supporters will often point out that while their man was building skyscrapers in Manhattan, both Cruz and Rubio were still scraping their knees playing dodge ball in junior high. Putting this into perspective, it’s hard to take a junior politician seriously when they talk about “restoring America”. Like him or hate him, Trump has a long list of achievements and powerful relationships, and has actually created jobs. As much as politicians tell us that their successive administrations have conjured “job creation”, the truth is that Americans no longer believe this lie, and millions now see Donald J. Trump as the antidote to that institutional fib. If you polled Americans today and asked them: would you rather live on government assistance or build your own company and be independently wealthy (?), it’s fairly certain that the overwhelming majority of Americans would choose the latter – even if it meant risking everything. Trump understands this dynamic better than any other candidate because for him, it’s not a theoretical proposition. In essence this is theAmerican Dream, and therein lies the disconnect for both career politicians Rubio and Cruz, and perhaps for Hillary Clinton too, should she face-off against Trump later on.

Despite the mainstream media insistence that Marco Rubio “won” Thursday night’s debate, and  Ted Cruz looked “strong”, it’s fairly clear that both candidates are now relying on negative attacks and cruel swipes, in effect, trying to out-Trump The Donald. If that’s their main strategic directive – and mind you we haven’t even reached super Tuesday yet – then it’s fair to say we are looking at the final desperate lunges of two highly over-inflated political marketing exercises. Their double team might have impressed a few media gatekeepers, but in the end it didn’t make the Cuban pair look presidential. At this stage of the race, looking presidential is important, but when you’re desperately playing catch-up you simply can’t afford to look presidential, according to Rubio and Cruz anyway. Just another example of how short-term logic rules this race.

Meanwhile, the media continue to scratch their heads and quietly panic (think of all the retractions and back pedaling if Trump wins) as Trump continues to win primaries and scoop-up delegates on his way towards a Republican nomination.

Watch Rubio’s somewhat vain attempt at gutter politics this morning in Texas:

.
Likewise, the fickle days of the media crucifying and murdering any candidate for saying one word are ancient history, as they did with Democrat front-runner Howard Dean in 2004 when he shrilled,“Yeeeeeaaaaaah!” following his primary win in Iowa that year. Watch the scream that killed Howard Dean:

.
Indeed, times have changed. This was demonstrated only last week – as the media sat idle after Hillary Clinton barked like a dog on national TV last week. Why? Maybe the media cannot keep up anymore, or maybe because no one actually cares anymore. American audiences have developed a thick skin for depravity. Reality TV and selfie-style narcissism has melded seamlessly into Shameless, and it’s all gone mainstream, even for Democrats. Watch:

.
Beyond Cynicism

It was amusing to watch CNN interrogators, along with Rubio and Cruz, lay into Trump about his lack of specifics on his healthcare plan. Trump stuck to his canned lines, and generalities, and lost no ground with his supporters either. It should also be said voters don’t really care about hearing policy details either, as the population has finally copped on to the fact that candidates will say anything to get elected and that no president will ever make good on his or her campaign promises. Eight years of Obama taught America that lesson once and for all.

Throughout the CNN event, Trump would point out individual corporate lobbyists in the audience from various industries including the pharmaceutical industry. The fact of the matter here is, despite painting themselves as rebels and ‘DC outsiders’, both Rubio and Cruz made it on the stage by taking millions of dollars from various Washington DC lobbies. The same special interests have poured fortunes into Super PACs which are presently funding Cruz and Rubio’s presidential campaigns and paying for all of their million dollar TV ad slots. Trump, on the other hand, is funding his own campaign and is not bought and paid for.

Collectively, between Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, hundreds of millions of dollars have been donated, invested and spent – in order to try and inflate a bloated GOP field – and give lift-off to each one of these political balloons. As it stands now, all of this money will have been spent in vain. The only winners will be the media consultants and PR companies who produced mountains campaign ads and printed material, and also the TV networks, like CNN, FOX and the others, who ran all of those costly political ads.

Towards the end of CNN’s gladiatorial event last night, Trump got the last word, and again, it reflected the public mood and thus will further galvanize his support base. He exclaimed:

Politicians are all talk, no action – just like these two here (Cruz and Rubio)… Look what’s happening to our country. Trade, vets, common core, Obamacare: I’ll get it done, they won’t, and we will Make America Great Again.

Once again, it’s not a question of whether voters believe everything he says, or like everything he does. Just as Jimmy Carter was to cure for Nixon’s epic corruption, and the Simple Jack approach of George W. Bush was the beneficiary of Bill Clinton’s shameful antics in the Oval office, and just as Barack Obama was the natural reaction to the nation’s WMD shame and intellectual inadequacy of two terms of George W. Bush – so too is Donald Trump the natural progression following eight years of divisive partisan “lead from behind” community organizer-in-chief politics by Barack Obama.

If Trump does win the nomination in July, then this general election will be one of the most rancorous contests in American history.  The real fun has only just begun.

Canada: in August 2015 the CBC reported the results of a study from Statistics Canada showing risk of avoidable death for First Nations peoples twice that (in some cases five times that) of non-natives.[1] On January 15th, 2016, it featured a plea by the Ontario First Nations Regional Chief, Isadore Day, that Canadians deal with the fact of inadequate health care for aboriginal peoples.[2]  The CBC notes that according to the Ministry of Health TB rates are five times the general population for First Nations people, and fifty times the general population for the Inuit.

If verifiable these disastrous figures would show something of an improvement. In 2009 Night’s Lantern reported UNICEF’s findings that noted the tuberculosis rate among Canadian aboriginal people was 90 times the national average for the years 2004 to 2006. In 2013 Night’s Lantern noted news reports of the rate of Inuit tuberculosis as 186 times that of native born non-aboriginals. Sources of reliable information concerning damages to Canadian First Nations were intentionally removed by the Harper government in 2012 when the Conservative government de-funded the National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO). Studies linking TB rates to Canada’s poverty levels are also not easily available.

Lack of transparency raises issues of the government’s enduring intentions. Historically both disease and lack of adequate health care have been used as a weapon. To my understanding, aboriginal communities of North Western Ontario do not have resident doctors. The CBC noted last October that 10 First Nations in Ontario’s North West have gone without safe tap water for ten years, while citing a Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine report of “dramatic increase in invasive disease.”[3]  The recent rate of sepsis and pneumonia is estimated as about 20 times that of Calgary. The rate of rheumatic fever is reported as 75 times higher than Canada’s general population.[4]  The statistics are so far outside the norm that a continuing lack of normalization implies intent by the government and calls into force Article II b and c of the Convention on Genocide. Despite occasional highly placed political appointments, a genocide warning for Canadian Aboriginal people remains in effect.

Guatemala: the Ríos Montt defense team continues to use legal technicalities and evasion to avoid his re-trial on charges of genocide. Initially convicted of genocide in 2013 the verdict was nullified by non-standard judicial procedures which required a set back of the trial to a previous date, then followed by postponement after postponement. Intended once again for trial, the case was once again temporarily postponed January 11th. Prosecution and witnesses remain prepared to testify again.[5] Concurrently the legal system has arrested 18 military officers on January 6th for crimes against humanity and their part in the destruction of Mayan villagers during the country’s open war against the people. Extraordinary about the recent indictments is the power of those indicted, their high rank and known closeness to their U.S. protectors / handlers who aren’t immune to eventual prosecution. 12 of the officers were trained by the U.S. School of the Americas.[6] 

Allan Nairn describes the arrests as the “beginning of a Nuremberg trial-type process” except applied by the local people; he notes the arrests would have been impossible without massive support for reform shown by the people’s uprising against the former president. He recognizes in the extremes of the Guatemalan military’s crimes and torture the contemporary acts of ISIS. [7]  Challenges to impunity aren’t limited to Guatemala. On January 6th in El Salvador, the government acceded to Spain’s request for the extradition of 17 former soldiers including officers of the military’s High Command, all involved in the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter (previous). Ralph McGehee’s 1999 archive CIA Support of Death Squads at Serendipidy includes material relevant to the war crimes in both Guatemala and El Salvador. Background. 

Ethiopia: the Ethiopian government continues to enjoy U.S. favour as it sacrifices the security of its peoples to corporate uses. Severe oppression of Ogadeni and the Oromo peoples, continues. The booming economy and its development are powered by Ethiopia’s tactical and military uses to the U.S. and the coining of oppressed groups’ resources. Curiously, Addis Ababa is the seat of the African Union. In recent elections of May 2015, the ruling party for 25 years met no effective opposition.[8]  while opposition areas and groups were frightened or in places denied the voting process (UNPO).[9]

The government’s attempt to take land rights within Oromo territory outside Addis Ababa was met on the streets with resistance resulting in the death of 140 Oromo protesters and arrests of Oromo leaders, activists, students, and journalists. The essentially nonviolent student protests were successful and a stronger resistance begins to cohere. Government plans for expansion had to be dropped. Journalists are banned from regions challenged by separatist groups which are labeled “terrorist.” These have recognized that resources of both Oromo and Ogaden peoples among other minorities are coined to the profit of the government, creating humanitarian crises. The Ogadeni basin is divided into concession blocks for foreign corporate resource development of natural gas deposits. Government opposition press releases reveal no change in the government’s tactics since Night’s Lantern’s genocide warnings of 2010 and 2011 which are suggested reading for background. Current estimates of internal displacement in this oasis of corporate capitalism reach 413,400 (OZY).[10]

John Bart Gerald writes the suppressed news pages of  nightslantern.ca, a website concerned with prevention of genocide.

Notes:

1. “First Nations adults more than twice as likely to die from avoidable causes,” Aug. 19, 2015, CBC News.

2.  “First Nations leaders cite deplorable health conditions, urge action,” Kristy Kikup The Canadian Press, Jan. 15, 2016, CBC News.

3.  “Bad water in First Nations leads to high rate of invasive infection, doctor says,” Jody Porter, Oct. 26, 2015, CBC News.

4.  “Rheumatic fever rates in some Ontario First Nations 75 times higher than rest of Canada,” Jody Porter, Oct. 22, 2015, CBC News.

5. “Genocide trial for Guatemala ex-dictator Rios Montt suspended,” Jan. 11, 2016, Reuters.

6. “Guatemala Arrests 14 Ex-Military Officials Linked to Genocide,” Jan. 6, 2016, Telesur; “New Moves on Old Crimes in El Salvador and Guatemala,” Kevin Clarke, Jan. 7, 2016, The National Catholic Review; “Guatemala ex-military officials held over massacres,” Jan. 7, 2016, BBC News; “Guatemalan authorities arrest SOA-trained officers for massacres, disappearances,” Linda Cooper James Hodge, Jan. 11, 2016, National Catholic Reporter.

7. “18 Guatemalan Ex-Military Leaders Arrested for Crimes Against Humanity During U.S.-Backed Dirty War,” Amy Goodman /Allan Nairn, Jan.8, 2016, Democracy Now!; ‘“CIA Death Squad,” Allan Nairn, April 17, 1995, The Nation.

8. “US official praises Ethiopian ‘democracy,’ rest of world begs to differ,” Mohammed Ademo, April 18, 2015, Al Jazeera.

9. “Ethiopian journalists worry after editor flees,” IBT staff, Nov. 24, 2015, International Business Times; “Ogaden: Killing and Destruction of Communities along Somalia Border,” June 1, 2015, UNPO; “Ethiopian Election 2015: Is Democracy Prosperous or Destitute?” HPLHA Press release, June 28, 2015, Ayyaantuu News;

10. “The Secret War in Ogaden,” Laura Secorun Palet, Nov. 4, 2015, OZY; “Ogaden: Community Expresses Support to Oromo People,” Press release, Jan. 7, 2016, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.                                                     

EU politicians and European heads of state are desperately looking for ways to save the European project, but a series of powerful anti-EU shocks, and growing public distrust makes a Soviet-style collapse seem almost inevitable, French economist Charles Gave suggests.

Beset by crises from all sides, from the prospects of a Brexit to the ongoing migrant crisis to a negative economic outlook, cracks have appeared in the EU project, France’s Atlantico newspaper recalls.Speaking to the newspaper, Charles Gave, an economist and president of the liberal think tank Institut des Libertes, was asked why he believes the European Union project may eventually face the same fate as the old Soviet Union.

“The disaster of the quotations of European banks shows that something has gone terribly wrong,” the economist warned. “I have never seen a scenario where the collapse of major European banks was not followed by a recession in Europe. So the answer to your question is simple: if a recession happens in Europe in 2016, the euro will not survive.”

For example,” Gave recalled, “in Italy, bank debts already constitute 20% of GDP, and might cross the 30% or even 40% threshold, which is obviously not tenable. For years now, the euro has served as a financial Frankenstein: it is impossible to maintain a fixed exchange rate for countries that have such differing production capacities.

I wrote back in 2002 that the euro would lead to too many houses in Spain, too many officials in France and too many factories in Germany, and that Europe would fall under German influence, with Germany remaining the only country with a positive net balance.

“As for the formation of a [single] European state,” Gave noted,

“France, Germany and Italy are real states – Europe is not. Europe is a civilization, not a state. The supporters of the euro have, for 15 years now, been killing the continent’s economies, and if a recession begins in 2016, the European people will take the wheel away from those whom they did not elect – from [European Council President] Donald Tusk and [European Commission President] Jean-Claude Juncker. A union [in itself] does not necessarily indicate strength, because if that was the case, the Soviet Union would be the main world power…

Ultimately, Gave suggests,

“strength lies in a competitive economy, and not in a bloated organization which no one wants – one which destroyed the fruits of the labors of the founding fathers of Europe. Schumann, Adenauer and Piux XII desired to establish a Europe based on diversity. The malefactors who created the euro want instead to create a European nation…and are responsible for the looming catastrophe on the horizon.”

Why is it so important to the US that Britain renew its nuclear weapons of mass destruction? The main purpose of Trident, writes Oliver Tickell, is to allow the UK to join American nuclear attacks, adding ‘legitimacy’ to them and so lowering the threshold for nuclear war – even if it guarantees our own destruction.

With thousands of marchers expected to converge on London on Saturdayto protest against government plans to renew the UK’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction, it is worth asking once again: what is Trident for?

Why does Britain feel any need at all to be in possession of nuclear weapons with many hundreds of times the destructive power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs?

And why did Ash Carter, the US Defense Secretary, find it necessary to intervene in the UK’s internal political debate on the issue earler this month? Asked by the BBC if it was wise for the UK to invest in a new fleet of nuclear submarines at a time of stretched defence resources, Carter responded:

The UK’s deterrent is an important part of the deterent structure of NATO, of our alliance with the UK, and helps the United Kingdom to continue to play that outsized role on the global stage that it does because of its moral standing and its historical standing.

“It’s important to have a military power that matches that standing”, he continued in masterpiece of Orwellian doublespeak, “and so we’re very supportive of it. And of course we work with the United Kingdom, we are intertwined on this program, mutually dependent. We are partners in this very strongly.

He then added that Trident was “part of the special relationship” of the UK and the US – in effect threatening that without Trident, that special relationship would be weakened.

A most unusual crossing of lines

The first thing is that such an intervention in what should be a purely internal UK debate is most unusual. It indicates deep concern about the ‘Trident review’ under way in the Labour Party, and about the impressive performance of Labour’s Trident-sceptic shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry.

So exactly why is it so important to the US? Of course there is the financial aspect of the matter. The cost of the missile system with warheads is likely to come out in the region of £5-10 billion. US contractors are also likely to do well out of the submarine contracts, since the new nuclear reactors are to be built to a US design.

Less than a year ago, in April 2015, the BBC was reporting a total Trident system cost of  £17.5 – £23.4 billion, most of which, £12.9 – £16.4 billion, would go on the four nuclear submarines. But now the subs are costed at £31 billion, with a £10 billion contingency.

The cost of the subs, in other words, almost trebled in less than a year. But of course that’s just the beginning: the system also has to be staffed, fuelled, protected, maintained and so on. Last October Reuters reported that the total life-cycle cost of a new Trident would actually be £167 billion, of which £25 billion would go on the submarines.

But even that eye-watering figure is already out of date, based on the latest submarine costs which are £6 billion higher – and that’s ignoring the £10 billion contingency. So what’s it really going to cost? Take a high guess, and double it. Call it £300 billion and you might not be far off. As much as a third of that could reasonably end up with US contractors.

Adding legitimacy to a US nuclear attack?

But there is more than that to it. And some very interesting indications are to be found inwritten evidence given to the UK Parliament’s Select Committee on Defence back in 2006, assembled by Greenpeace from various expert sources. It states:

In practice, the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it. There are precedents for the USA using UK participation in this way for conventional military operations.

The principal value of the UK’s participation in the recent Iraq war was to help legitimise the US attack. Likewise the principal value of the firing of UK cruise missiles as part of the larger US cruise missile attack on Baghdad was to help legitimise the use of such weapons against urban targets.

The most likely scenario in which Trident would actually be used is that Britain would give legitimacy to a US nuclear strike by participating in it.

This scenario is all too credible – and raises the important idea that far from the UK’s ‘independent deterrent’ being there to deter attack from our enemies, that its real purpose – certainly as far as the US is concerned, is make it easier for the US to launch a nuclear attack.

The statement continues: “The well-established links between the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in Omaha Nebraska and the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, London would facilitate the planning of such attacks. In a crisis the very existence of the UK Trident system might make it difficult for a UK prime minister to refuse a request by the US president to participate in an attack.”

The UK’s possession of a Trident nuclear missile system, therefore, makes nuclear war more likely rather than less. Its use would also, if deployed against another sophisticated nuclear-armed state such as Russia, guarantee the UK’s retaliatory annihalation.

Nor can we rule out the possibility that the UK might  be lured into firing off its missiles alone, whether by diplomatic trickery or technical subversion, giving the US a ‘hands off’ first strike capability that would leave it untouched, and the UK wiped out.

Independent?

There is also the question of just how ‘independent’ the system would ever be. The evidence continues:

The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. …

The UK Trident system is highly dependent, and for some purposes completely dependent, on the larger US system. The assembling of information available in the USA, but kept secret in Britain, by John Ainslie in his 2005 report The Future of the British bomb, shows how extensive this dependency is.

The UK’s dependency on the USA has operational significance. For example, the UK’s reliance on US weather data and on navigational data provided by the US Global Positioning System (GPS) means that, should the USA decide not to supply this data, the capacity of the UK’s Trident missiles to hit targets would be degraded.

In fact it could get worse than that. If the GPS system was not merely closed off, but was used to send wrong data, then the missiles could be diverted to land harmlessly in the ocean, or even to strike other targets.

Video: Trailer for ‘The Megaton Nuclear Bomb: A Guide to Armageddon‘ by Concord Media.

And who is it meant to deter, anyway?

Let’s quickly go back to the main point in Ash Carter’s statement to the BBC. Trident“helps the United Kingdom to continue to play that outsized role on the global stage that it does because of its moral standing and its historical standing. It’s important to have a military power that matches that standing, and so we’re very supportive of it.”

So what exactly is the UK’s “outsized role on the global stage”? This is a clear reference to the UK’s military attacks on other countries, invariably in support of US campaigns. Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. The US values the UK’s military support for the ‘legitimacy’ that it provides and the sense that the US forms part of an ‘alliance’ and is not acting unilaterally.

And the role of Trident is clear: to allow us, while engaging in further military attacks on other sovereign nations, to deter retaliation by threatening a nuclear strike in response. This has nothing to do with defending the UK against some ‘mad dog’ dictator irrationally determined to destroy us. It is all about providing cover for our own military adventurism and that of the US.

So there we have it. Trident will do little or nothing to defend our Sceptered Isle in time of national threat, unless the US allows us to use it. It is a weapon of attack, intended to provide cover for the UK’s military aggression overseas.

But above all it is there to lower the threshold for US nuclear attacks on other countries, perhaps even giving it a ‘hands off first strike’ capability – in the process condemning Britain to national extinction.

And what’s more, doing it all at UK taxpayers’ expense.

 

---

Action: CND anti-Trident March in London tomorrow, Saturday 27th February, beginning 12 midday

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Interview with the delegate of the Polisario Front, Mr. Ahamed Fal

41 years ago, November 14, 1975 Spain wrote one of the saddest pages in its history, delivered in haste and on a platter, an entire people tethered hand and foot for the slaughter. Since then Morocco has not ceased in its attempts to physically eliminate the Saharawi people from the map as an attacker and occupier.

Interview conducted by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

1. What is the current situation under international law regarding the right of the Saharawi people to a referendum on its future?

41 years ago, November 14, 1975 Spain wrote one of the saddest pages in its history, delivered in haste and on a platter, an entire people tethered hand and foot for the slaughter. Since then Morocco has not ceased in its attempts to physically eliminate the Saharawi people from the map as an attacker and occupier. So, in this situation, the answer is obvious “organization and resistance.”

This Feb. 27, 2016 marks the 40th anniversary of the Sahrawi Republic Democratic Arab (SADR), the Saharawi State, which is now an obvious reality, a founding member of the African Union, with diplomatic representation at the level of embassies in Africa, Latin America and Asia and political presence throughout Europe, the Saharawi State based on solid institutions to guarantee the basic rights of its people, in education, health, security and defense.

The Saharawi people simultaneously with the construction of their future state, are pursuing a constant struggle to conquer their usurped rights and the recovery of part of the territory currently under the illegal occupation of Morocco. On 6 September 1991, the United Nations and its Security Council have called on both parties to the conflict, Morocco and the Polisario Front, to seek a peaceful solution through the implementation of a transparent and democratic referendum, in which the Saharawi people are able to freely express their own destiny. To date this referendum was not held due to the refusal, thwarting or prevention by Morocco against the international community’s efforts to resolve this conflict.

2. Does Morocco continue to violate the law?

Morocco has always been as it was in its time Hitler’s Germany, a permanent threat to its neighbors, the great call Morocco is an aggressive project of territorial expansion. No one recognizes the supposed sovereignty of Morocco over the Sahara, starting with the Moroccans themselves.

The late King of Morocco Hassan II when he accepted the settlement plan proposed by the UN and the African Union, proclaimed twice that if the Saharawis in the referendum opted for independence, he would be the first to open an embassy in the city that the Saharawis choose as capital.

Morocco is acting outside international law, not only for violating all international resolutions, but also through the implementation of a genocide and extermination policy against the Saharawi population in the territories under their occupation and isolation of these from the outside world territories, barring from entry foreign journalists, associations and international organizations of human rights, and to the present day, Morocco has dozens of Saharawi citizens in its prisons unjustly sentenced to disproportionate sentences of 20 years to life imprisonment. The marginalization of the Sahrawi population, impoverishment and deprivation of all their rights is another  of the tactics of Morocco.

3. Do you feel that your people have been abandoned by the international community?

The Saharawi cause has been and continues to be present on the international agenda, the international solidarity movement has been growing over the past 40 years, and there are hundreds of people from all countries of the world who visit the Saharawi refugee camps and through their presence there demonstrate their solidarity and give us courage, the Saharawi cause is not a forgotten cause , but there is negligence in fact and lack of UN mechanisms to enforce its own resolutions on this conflict, although every year since 1964 it has been reaffirming the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and independence.

There are examples in history in which international law was imposed, as is the case of apartheid in South Africa, the cause of Palestine, East Timor, in these cases there was an application and severe length of international law with political and economic sanctions that led to independence of South Africa and Timor-Leste to the recognition of the Palestinian state at the United Nations.

These measures should also be applied against Morocco because of its uncompromising stance against international law and allow the Saharawi people to exercise their right to self-determination, the right to self-determination is one of the fundamental principles underlying international law and is one of the UN pillars.

4. Do you have an appeal to make to the people of the world? What can people do to help?

First I want to thank all the solidarity and support throughout these 40 years of resistance and I would like to encourage them to continue to support this cause, because it is a just cause.

I appeal to the need to continue to fight to break the blackout / silence of the media imposed by Morocco and its allies and intensify the struggle on all fronts, in the media, social networks, in public institutions, national and international forums, so that the Saharawi people can achieve their freedom and contribute to the strengthening of a more just world where freedom reigns, with justice and international law among all countries of the world. As an immediate and individual action people can start by subscribing to the international petition demanding the referendum for self-determination in accordance with United Nations resolutions

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

Director and Chief Editor Portuguese version Pravda.Ru

([email protected])

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. A Vegan, he is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. He is Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru.

Collaboration with Isabel Laurenço, Member of the Foundation Sahara Occidental

IT IS NO SECRET that Saudi Arabia, along with its Gulf and Western allies, has played a direct role in fueling the fires of grinding sectarian conflict that has kept Syria burning for the past five years. It is also no secret that Russian intervention has radically altered the kingdom’s “regime change” calculus in effect since at least 2011. But an internal Saudi government cable sheds new light on the kingdom’s current threats of military escalation in Syria.

Overthrow the Regime “by all means available”

A WikiLeaks cable released as part of “The Saudi Cables” in the summer of 2015, now fully translated here for the first time, reveals what the Saudis feared most in the early years of the war: Russian military intervention and Syrian retaliation. These fears were such that the kingdom directed its media “not to oppose Russian figures and to avoid insulting them” at the time.

Saudi Arabia had further miscalculated that the “Russian position” of preserving the Assad government “will not persist in force.” In Saudi thinking, reflected in the leaked memo, Assad’s violent ouster (“by all means available”) could be pursued so long as Russia stayed on the sidelines. The following section is categorical in its emphasis on regime change at all costs, even should the U.S. vacillate for “lack of desire”:

The fact must be stressed that in the case where the Syrian regime is able to pass through its current crisis in any shape or form, the primary goal that it will pursue is taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom and some of the countries of the Gulf coming at the top of the list. If we take into account the extent of this regime’s brutality and viciousness and its lack of hesitancy to resort to any means to realize its aims, then the situation will reach a high degree of danger for the Kingdom, which must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria. As regards the international position, it is clear that there is a lack of “desire” and not a lack of “capability” on the part of Western countries, chief among them the United States, to take firm steps…

Amman-based Albawaba News—one of the largest online news providers in the Middle East—was the first to call attention to the WikiLeaks memo, which “reveals Saudi officials saying President Bashar al-Assad must be taken down before he exacts revenge on Saudi Arabia.” Albawaba offered a brief partial translation of the cable, which though undated, was likely produced in early 2012 (based on my best speculation using event references in the text; Russia began proposing informal Syrian peace talks in January 2012).

Russian Hardware, a Saudi Nightmare

Over the past weeks Saudi Arabia has ratcheted up its rhetoric on Syria, threatening direct military escalation and the insertion of special forces on the ground, ostensibly for humanitarian and stabilizing purposes as a willing partner in the “war on terror.” As many pundits are now observing, in reality the kingdom’s saber rattling stems not from confidence, but utter desperation as its proxy anti-Assad fighters face defeat by overwhelming Russian air power and Syrian ground forces, and as the Saudi military itself is increasingly bogged down in Yemen.

Even as the Saudi regime dresses its bellicose rhetoric in humanitarian terms, it ultimately desires to protect the flow of foreign fighters into Northern Syria, which is its still hoped-for “available means” of toppling the Syrian government (or at least, at this point, permanent sectarian partitionof Syria).

The U.S. State Department’s own 2014 Country Report on Terrorism confirms that the rate of foreign terrorist entry into Syria over the past few years is unprecedented among any conflict in history: “The rate of foreign terrorist fighter travel to Syria – totaling more than 16,000 foreign terrorist fighters from more than 90 countries as of late December – exceeded the rate of foreign terrorist fighters who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Somalia at any point in the last 20 years.”

According to Cinan Siddi, Director of the Institute for Turkish Studies at Georgetown’s prestigious School of Foreign Service, Russian military presence in Syria was born of genuine geopolitical interests. In a public lecture recently given at Baylor University, Siddi said that Russia is fundamentally trying to disrupt the “jihadi corridor” facilitated by Turkey and its allies in Northern Syria.

ANNEX

The below leaked document gives us a glimpse into Saudi motives and fears long before Russian hardware entered the equation, and the degree to which the kingdom utterly failed in assessing Russian red lines.

For the first time, here’s a full translation of the text

THE BELOW original translation is courtesy of my co-author, a published scholar of Arabic and Middle East History, who wishes to remain unnamed. Note: the cable as published in the SaudiLeaks trove appears to be incomplete. 

[…] shared interest, and believes that the current Russian position only represents a movement to put pressure on him, its goals being evident, and that this position will not persist in force, given Russia’s ties to interests with Western countries and the countries of the Gulf.

If it pleases Your Highness, I support the idea of entering into a profound dialogue with Russia regarding its position towards Syria*, holding the Second Strategic Conference in Moscow, working to focus the discussion during it on the issue of Syria, and exerting whatever pressure is possible to dissuade it from its current position. I likewise see an opportunity to invite the head of the Committee for International Relations in the Duma to visit the Kingdom. Since it is better to remain in communication with Russia and to direct the media not to oppose Russian figures and to avoid insulting them, so that no harm may come to the interests of the Kingdom, it is possible that the new Russian president will change Russian policy toward Arab countries for the better.

However, our position currently in practice, which is to criticize Russian policy toward Syria and its positions that are contrary to our declared principles, remains. It is also advantageous to increase pressure on the Russians by encouraging the Organization of Islamic States to exert some form of pressure by strongly brandishing Islamic public opinion, since Russia fears the Islamic dimension more than the Arab dimension.

In what pertains to the Syrian crisis, the Kingdom is resolute in its position and there is no longer any room to back down. The fact must be stressed that in the case where the Syrian regime is able to pass through its current crisis in any shape or form, the primary goal that it will pursue is taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom and some of the countries of the Gulf coming at the top of the list. If we take into account the extent of this regime’s brutality and viciousness and its lack of hesitancy to resort to any means to realize its aims, then the situation will reach a high degree of danger for the Kingdom, which must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria.

As regards the international position, it is clear that there is a lack of “desire” and not a lack of “capability” on the part of Western countries, chief among them the United States, to take firm steps […]

*[in the Arabic text: Russia, but this is a typo]

If you are a Jewish family living in Paris or London, you are expected to conform to the mindset that the State of Israel is your personal insurance policy in the event that the scourge of anti­-Semitism should again become mainstream and Jews are prohibited from holding public, or any, office anywhere in Europe.

A scenario that depicts a concentration camp in London’s Hyde Park, and another under the shadow of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. A time when the horrors of another Holocaust could be visited upon the Jewish Diaspora communities of France and England.

The above statements are typical of those that Mr Netanyahu and his extremist right­-wing government would have you believe as they continue with their illegal settlement of over 500,000 Israeli citizens in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem, in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention on Human Rights (GCIV) and in contempt of the will of the United Nations for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

That is what the Netanyahu government would have you believe as they continue their blockade of essential goods and services against 1.8 million civilians in Gaza in a deliberate policy to starve the indigenous population into submission in this, its seventh year, and following upon the attempt by the IDF to totally destroy the infrastructure in Gaza during its viciously unprovoked attack upon the civilian population in July 2014.

And Mr Netanyahu is not wrong, as his policies are, in fact, increasingly successful in driving anti­-Semitic sentiment throughout Europe as an expression of the disgust of ordinary people at the tragedy that is supported and funded by a United States Congress that is complicit in carrying out the agenda of the Israel lobby.

This is the political movement that has been allowed to circumvent international law in its bid for regional power and hegemony and to violate the Geneva Conventions in its settlement policy in the Occupied Territories – a violation supported and funded by the Israel lobby.

Yet even this situation is compounded because Israel, who is not a member of NATO, is also the only undeclared nuclear weapons state on the planet with an estimated secret arsenal of up 400 nuclear warheads – entirely outside the inspection of the IAEA.

The above is a brief snapshot of the extremist right-­wing ideology that is the Likud Zionist movement. That there is an urgent requirement for a paradigm shift to be initiated by the European Union, is a need that now screams out for action.

The continuing dispossession and persecution of an entire indigenous people which has been the regional majority in the Holy Land for over a thousand years, is an issue that now needs to be confronted and dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly.

Failing which, there will be a [nuclear] war that will impact not only the Middle East but the whole of Europe. The EU must act because this new anti­-Semitism, and its inevitable consequences, can only be avoided by a global rejection of the Israeli government policy agenda.

Likud Zionism is not in God’s name nor in the name of Europe.

As of this Saturday February 27^th a peace proposal brokered by Russia and the United States is scheduled to take effect in Syria for one week. But if last Monday both the US and Russian presidents expressed hopeful optimism that the war in Syria might be coming to an end this Saturday, then why on Tuesday would Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain issue warnings to all its citizens in Lebanon to immediately evacuate as well as impose a travel ban to Lebanon. Beirut, Lebanon is located only 54 miles from Syria’s capital Damascus. Hence, an invasion force through Lebanon seems a most plausible avenue given this scant piece of turf separating invading forces from their eyed prize – an overthrow of Assad.

To add weight to the high probability that neither US ally Turkey nor Saudi Arabia has any intention of complying with the truce, on Thursday Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu stated:

For us, the (Kurdish) YPG (militia) is a terror organization just like Daesh. The deal did not designate the YPG as a terrorist organization. That should have been done. But it should be known that this ceasefire deal is valid for Syria.

The Turkish leader in so many words is telling the world that the ceasefire only applies to Syria, not other nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia or for that matter their 34-nation Sunni Arab coalition supplying 350,000 soldiers currently prepping in northern Saudi Arabia for the already declared Syrian invasion. The Machiavellian strategy of pure deception and attempted stealth deployed by a litany of US Empire lies and false flags would cunningly sign a truce just as its Arab allies pre-position themselves to move forward with a massive invasion by the Saudi-led Arab Antiterrorism Coalition (a misnomer if there ever was one) to invade Syria from all directions.

This presentation examines the realistic and probable underlying plans still in place yet transparently masked by America’s so called truce starting Saturday that the US will likely still permit its proxy nation allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia to spearhead their invasion of Syria already announced two week ago. It’s the old “good cop-bad cop” strategy. While Empire signs agreements for peace, its bloodthirsty allies are lustfully preparing for war.

As more evidence that Turkey and the Saudis are intent on expanding the war to unprecedented heights, earlier this week bigmouth Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir was at it again telling der Spiegel:

We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria is going to change the balance of power on the ground.

Saudi Arabia plans to arm the terrorists with more antiaircraft weapons capable of shooting down Russian warplanes that have been providing the necessary air support that’s turned the tide in Syria’s favor to win the war against the foreign jihadists. Barring a US led Sunni invasion, the South Front group of geopolitical analysts expect the Syrian-Russian coalition to be finished defeating the terrorists possibly within weeks or at most a few more months. There’s good reason why Turkey and Saudi Arabia are Empire’s closest Islamic regional allies willing to sacrifice the slaughter of thousands of their own troops to save a few raggedy terrorists. More good cop-bad cop chicanery and deception at Empire’s behest sets the stage for more carving up Middle Eastern borders according to the Greater Israel Plan, not according to the delusional duo of the sultan and the prince in for a rude awakening.

Once news that a truce was agreed upon by Russia and the US this last Monday, on Tuesday before a congressional hearing US Secretary of State John Kerry immediately began hedging, bringing up a contingency plan B delineating a partitioned separate section in northern Syria (i.e., the designated terrorist safe haven stronghold) that would be the outcome should the truce not work out. As a second choice behind their “Assad must go” mantra, this has been what the US Empire and its terrorist loving allies have been supporting and have pretty much had all along during their five year war until recently, an autonomous region as a designated Islamic caliphate able to continue business as usual waging Empire’s regime change proxy war against the Assad government.

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov’s puzzled response was that Kerry’s “Plan B” alternative was never even brought up during the negotiations. This discrepancy is typical of US diplomacy saying and agreeing to one thing and then doing another because the Empire, after all, can always claim “exceptionalism” allowing willful defiance toward any and all international law or agreement… just another unipolar hegemonic perk worth fighting for say the neocons in control of US foreign policy. The peace proposal that the US and Russia approved earlier this week will be presented to the UN Security Council for consideration as a formal UN resolution.

Saudi Arabia is where the largest military exercises in Middle East history involving those 350,000 troops from 20 different Arab nations are presently being conducted in the northernmost part of the country conveniently closest to the Syrian border. The war games dubbed Operation North Thunder include 20,000 tanks, 2,450 warplanes and 460 military helicopters. Participating nations are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain, Senegal, Sudan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Chad, Tunisia, Comoro Islands, Djibouti, Oman, Qatar, Malaysia, Egypt, Mauritania, and Mauritius. The Northern Thunder twitter account specifies that the drills that began on February 14^th will continue through March 10^th, plenty of time to go live for their threatened invasion of Syria.

A Middle Eastern map at a glance illustrates the short distance across a narrow strip of Jordan less than 60 miles wide separating northern Saudi Arabia from Syria’s southeastern border. From Saudi Arabia passing through Jordan – a known training ground for terrorists, would be a potentially viable route and entry point into Syria for launching a major ground war invasion. A Saudi military spokesman general reiterated two weeks ago that his nation’s decision to invade Syria is both “irreversible” and “final,” and he’s backing it up with 350,000 troops from his Saudi-led 34-Sunni nation coalition currently participating in war games near the northern Saudi city of Hafar Al-Batin close to the Iraq border. As a longer route an enormous ground force invasion could also cut through Iraq’s southwestern corner into Syria. Because of the distance involved, it would be the first ground troop movement towards Syria to detect as a key part of a possible larger, multi-pronged attack on Syria from all sides.

When asked a couple weeks ago if the US will send GI boots on the ground in Syria (aside from the military advisors already there) in the wake of the Turkish-Saudi invasion pronouncement, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter replied that he would not rule it out, adding:

We do need to accelerate the campaign and we have a very clear operational picture of how to do it. Now we just need the resources and the forces to fall in behind it.

Hmm… a good-to-go Sunni army of 350,000 might just do it Ash. Then there’s the 18,000 soldiers Turkey currently has amassed at Syria’s northern border just waiting for their order to invade.

On Thursday Kerry mentioned anywhere from 15 to 30,000 troops necessary to create and secure a “safe zone” in northern Syria. More thinking aloud here – might those Turkish troops at the border plunging southward be conveniently used to establish John Kerry’s said Plan B? The elephant in his room is that safe zone would be for the terrorists, not the so called displaced Syrian civilian population the feds like to talk about. The old humanitarian excuse for military intervention is standard lying policy.

Meanwhile to try and soften up that northern border for an invasion, Turkey’s daily shelling is intended to push back the Syrian coalition forces that have recently made significant strides toward sealing off the border to Turkey. This would obviously be the quickest invasion route into Syria in last gasp effort to reverse militants’ recently lost territory in Latakia and Aleppo and a chance to reinforce and salvage the remaining terrorist stronghold in Raqqa. But superior Russian forces with airpower superiority, air defense superiority and very competent, battle-tested allies would defeat a Turkish incursion in Syria and the top generals in Ankara know this. But unfortunately their tyrannical leader is an unpredictable megalomaniac.

Though a cessation of violence and peace ending the five year bloody rampage of a war brought on by US Empire of Chaos and Destruction would come as a welcomed long-awaited Godsend to the long suffering people of Syria, it would be considered a disaster to the sinister anti-Assad forces bent on further treachery and bloodshed. In all likelihood they are only planning to misuse the truce as a deceitful attempt to gain an elemental trace of tactical surprise in launching their military offensive into Syria. Though a common enough pattern in history as numerous nations have used this deceptive Machiavellian “art of war” strategy to their advantage, it’s a tall order to preannounce your invasion and then actually surprise anyone. But signs still eerily portend that the pro-terrorist coalition of Sunnis, their Sunni terrorists fighting inside Syria and the West’s pro-terrorist US-NATO-EU-Israel alliance range from minimally complicit to actively plotting a massive, multi-pronged, protracted, costly campaign that couldrisk WWIII ending all earthly life.

So it all comes down to the US led pro-terrorists versus the Russian led antiterrorists. Should an invasion occur attacking the antiterrorist forces aligned on history’s moral high ground operating in good faith to cease military operations except against ISIS/al Qaeda/as-Nusra Front and any would-be invading terrorist nations, the winners will not be the pro-terrorists. The Saudis are already bogged down in a stalemate and losing busily cause committing crimes against humanity against the poorest Middle Eastern nation in Yemen. And the Turkish military is inexperienced at war compared to its seasoned opponents.

Image: US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter

Peace is but a longshot. The grey area challenge and likely source of disagreement between the US-led and Russian-led coalitions will be drawing fine line distinctions amongst numerous local armed militias to define who is actually a terrorist and who isn’t. Assad’s straightforward contention is any armed opposition group is a terrorist but the DC neocons rigidly hold onto the false notion that “moderate rebels” aren’t terrorists. Assumedly the US will be sharing intelligence information with the Russian military and its allies Syria, Iran, the Syrian Kurds and Lebanese Hezbollah forces. All week Putin has been actively communicating with foreign leaders not only in the US and Syria but also Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, trying to win cooperation amongst disparate parties to maximize the chance for peace. Additionally he has set up a coordination center that will field and investigate any reports of ceasefire violations.

Middle Eastern expert and author Saeb Shaath pointed out this week that the pro-terrorist camp could resort to more trickery with deceptive name changing so that Daesh-ISIS-al Qaeda-al-Nusra suddenly could adopt a different name and logo claiming that the Syria-Russian coalition still firing on them after Saturday is violating the signed truce since the terrorists are a new organization not yet designated as terrorists. Though such absurd ploys are not inconceivable especially when it comes to Empire transgressions and twisted truth machinations, fabricating and attempting to gain any real traction from a foolish technicality like that would hardly deter the Russian-Syrian coalition from pursuit of victory against terrorists occupying Syrian territory.

Whenever a truce in any military conflict is announced, various warring factions will readily attempt to use it to their strategic advantage both militarily as well as politically through accusatory rhetoric with warnings crying foul that the enemy is exploiting the lull in violence only for false purposes of regrouping for more war. Look how Kiev disingenuously uses ceasefire agreements repeatedly to regroup for the next major offensive into Donbas. Critics of the US coalition accuse more of the same.

Truces have also been misused to deceptively launch surprise attacks, although Turkey and Saudi Arabia broadcasting their plan a couple weeks ago for a massive joint troop invasion into Syria would hardly come as a surprise now. Plus, deployment of Saudi military units and warplanes to Turkey and the largest military exercise in Middle East history (in early March the US and South Korea are engaging in their biggest ever joint military exerciseinvolving 105,000 troops incurring North Korea’s wrath) presently taking place in northern Saudi Arabia could easily be construed as invasion precursors. The precedent for military drills to suddenly go live in response to a deep state covertly planned and timed crisis has become a tall-tale sign of virtually every false flag terrorist operation.

Additionally, during this entire month of February from its side of the border Turkey has been brutally shelling northern Syria with heavy artillery mortar fire killing Syrian Arab Army soldiers, Syrian Kurd forces, at least one confirmed Russian advisor and Syrian civilians, flagrantly defying both the US and UN Security Council demands. Turkey has also been violating international law by sending Turkish soldiers and more terrorists inside Syria asreinforcements. Turkish madman President Erdogan is taking US backing the Syrian Kurds personal. A cessation of violence so that all the prime investors in terrorism on this planet currently amassed at the border with guns blazing are not about to passively sit by watching their billions worth of vested interest in an Islamic Wahhabi Caliphate or second Ottoman Empire be systematically destroyed. That simply will not happen and Russia, Syria and Iran must fully realize as well even if they are upholding the truce. No doubt Putin who’s outplayed, out-maneuvered and outclassed Obama, his neocons and Western vassals at every turn also sees through the US phony con job of a truce that has no chance at all to bring lasting peace, not when Armageddon’s knocking at the door.

All this escalating, mounting aggression recently by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and their Gulf State allies are overt provocative acts in preparation for triggering a much larger scaled war. This Turkish-Saudi led Arab coalition consisting of the Islamic State’s strongest, most fervent terrorist supporters have stated it will invade Syria as soon as the United States gives them the go-ahead. Of course this comes after recent weeks of the Russian-Syrian coalition’s dramatic success decisively cutting off the terrorist supply line from Turkey and soundly defeating the jihadist militants now running for their lives. Thus, in desperation the most pro-terrorist nations on earth representing by proxythe US-NATO-EU-Israel axis-of-evil are using the fork-tongued lie that they will invade Syria to fight against the terrorists when of course we all know they will be fighting against the only true anti-terrorist forces the Syrian-Russian coalition. It’s the pro-terrorists last ditch desperado effort to protect and save what’s left of their barbarian terrorists.

If you really believe that this truce will successfully halt all further aggressive actions by Turkey and Saudi Arabia et al after mobilizing such a massive military force into pre-invasion positioning at multimillion dollar expense when both the Saudi and Turkish economies have never been shakier, one would have to be blind to believe that on Saturdayonce the truce is in place they will all just simply pack up their arms and go home. It’s all too obvious that the war in Syria will turn in an instant from a regional conflict to a world war if US Empire gives the greenlight for the Arab invasion that’s really just another divide and conquer war pitting Sunni nations against Shiite nations Syria, Iraq and Iran. But even more significant, it will also initiate a West versus East showdown against Russia, China and North Korea, and of course this holds broader nuclear implications that could potentially end all life on this planet.

In their diabolical grand design to redraw the map of the Middle East and North Africa, the imperialistic US and Israel agenda is to partition (aka balkanize) all designated enemy nations into weakened, destroyed failed states. A trail of tears follows America’s every King Midas in reverse intervention. The neocons have been working nonstop on that Wesley Clark disclosed 7 nation regime change list with Iraq, Syria and Iran the final three, the same final three Shiite nations that back in 2012 went ahead with their own proposed natural gas pipeline rejecting Empire’s previously prescribed proxy offer submitted by Gulf puppet Qatar.

Because the Russian troop contingent fighting in Syria numbers only about 12,000 while the enemy forces amassing at or near the Syrian border could approach near half million, Russia has already warned Turkey and Saudi Arabia that it will not hesitate using its tactical nukes against any invading forces on Syrian soil. Yet because the 6-oligarch owned and controlled Western mainstream media corporations have kept Americans in the dark with 24/7 lies and disinformation throughout the Syrian war, next to no coverage of this impending Turkish-Saudi invasion of Syria has even been reported, so soon Americans may wake up one morning to the breaking news headline “Russia nukes US allies.” This will be exploited as the propagandized pretext for World War III and the modern day Armageddon may start on the Syrian battlefield.

The ruling elite has engineered through its servant lackey leaders of the West and their puppet governments Turkey and Saudi Arabia the perfect storm of events all converging, colliding and exploding in the days and weeks ahead. With Europe overrun and reeling from the globalist manufactured mass migration crisis, the EU is about to go bust. With virtually every honest economist and financial analyst unanimously predicting that the global economy is on theverge of total collapse starting with the Deutsch Bank, like dominoes all the major banks will fail once again while national economies crash. Covert legislation in both Europe and North America will ensure that this time around instead of a “too big to fail” buyout, a buy-in will steal citizens’ life savings from their private bank accounts. All the central banks, Homeland Security, FEMA and the rest of the treasonous Washington criminals have been methodically preparing for this moment in history for decades.

So as a weapon of mass distraction, the elite has manipulated the global chessboard for World War III. In the days leading up to Saturday’s truce we have been witnessing the predictable banter and squabbling. Regional kingpin bully and nuclear-powered antagonist Israel that borders war torn Syria from the south has war criminal Netanyahu phoning Putin on Wednesday soliciting assurances that Israel’s designated enemies – Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces – as Russian allies will not attempt to take advantage of the truce by advancing into the disputed Israeli occupied oil rich Golan Heights that Israel stole from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. It’s total hypocrisy for Netanyahu to even act like he’s so worried defensively when he along with US Empire has always been the longtime aggressor and secret supporter of jihadist terrorism. He knows that a world war about to erupt at his backdoor is all part of his Zionist Plan.

It was the US neocons and Israel’s unholy marriage that produced Muslim terrorists as their original twenty-first century baby, their manufactured mercenary stooges to scapegoat and falsely criminalize Islam for their own demonically evil purposes, enabling them to pull off their 9/11 inside job to spawn their “endless war on terror.” And since the neocons and Bibi share the same common enemies, they self-servingly made more unholy alliances dividing and conquering the Arab world with its fellow terrorist loving supporters Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the rest of the Arab Gulf State monarchies. You can bet that any Arab Sunni invasion of Syria led by the Turks and Saudis is not only fully endorsed by the bloodthirsty Netanyahu but will be granted free access to Syria through the Golan Heights to the invading Sunni army as part of any ground offensive sweeping towards Damascus from Syria’s southern border.

As Willian Engdahl suggests, US Empire’s seemingly disastrous entanglements around the world and in particular the Middle East and North Africa may actually be by hidden design. In a recent article he states:

Washington policy – the policy of the USA military-industrial complex and their Wall Street bankers – has in no way changed… They plan to destroy Syria as a functioning nation, to finish the destruction of Iraq begun in 1991, and to spread that destruction now to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, and across the entire oil and gas-rich Middle East.

The Israeli-American strategy to upend Putin’s success in Syria could well be setting the stage for the impending Saudi-Turkish-Sunni invasion as a trap where they become the sacrificial lunatic lambs to state-of-the-art war precision commanded by the chessboard master himself Putin. The neocons in Washington may claim that the Arab Sunni coalition is acting on its own accord defying all US directives to not invade Syria or interfere with the peace process in a Machiavellian attempt to wash their bloodstained hands clean from the bloodbath that may soon be spilled. This cunning diabolical endgame scenario also exemplifies how US Empire treats its two longstanding Muslim best buds in the Middle East, priming and setting them up for disaster while pretending to seek peace and harmony with its adversaries. And then like predatory sharks when it’s all over move in to redraw, partition and control what’s left. Let’s pray for peace and root for the good guys in Syria who know how to fight and defeat the terrorists of the world, including the terrorists behind the terrorists.

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

 

This article was first published by Global Research in April 2003

It is easy. All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. -Hermann Goering

Genocide used to be a crime without a name. Although the most heinous of all crimes, the concept was not introduced into international language until after World War 2. Until then, military invasion and destruction of other peoples and cultures masqueraded under such slogans as progress and spreading civilisation.

I was shocked many years ago when I heard Noam Chomsky say that genocide was America’s defining political tradition. Then I realised that the United States (like Canada to a much lesser extent) was based on destroying the lives and cultures of the 25 million or so first peoples who had lived in America for millennia. In the case of the U.S., the story continued with the forcible seizure of Texas in 1845 from Mexican farmers and indigenous peoples, and Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and other state territories shortly afterward in 1849. U.S. troops under the slave-owning General Zachary Taylor unilaterally invaded its southern neighbour under the false pretext of avenging American blood, and General Taylor soon vaulted into the White House as a presidential war hero. Even though a young Congressman, Abraham Lincoln, exposed the pretext, and connected it to a Anglo-British business strategy to impose free trade on the regions by financing the prior president, James Polk, into the White House as General Taylor’s commander.

In 1898, once again under the false pretext of self-defence (when the U.S.S. Maine sank from an internal explosion), the Philippines, Guam, Cuba in part, and Puerto Rico were seized from their peoples by another unilaterally provoked war. This war of aggression and occupation, like so many U.S. interventions since, was preceded by a media campaign of whipping up public hysteria and war fever. Media baron Randolf Hearst made the famous remark, “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war,” not unlike the U.S. cable and network media daily drum-beat in recent months for war on Iraq. War is a major violence entertainment, and in close partnership with the Pentagon it can go on for months to divert the masses.

The tradition of misleading the American people by false pretexts for aggressive wars is an old one in U.S. history, but since the fascist interregnum war criminal invasions of other countries have not been accepted by public opinion. The U.S. under the control of the corporate war party now seeks to reverse this trend. By dint of the permitted 9-11 plane attacks on the World Trade Centre, an open presidential blank-cheque has been granted by Congress for attacking third-world countries so as to occupy their countries and control their resources. The now known blueprint of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others written in September of 2001 as the Project for the New American Century is clear on the plan to shape the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Armed domination of the Gulf region transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Oil looms large in this plan to rule the world for American interests. According to a report sponsored by oil corporations from the Washington Centre for Strategic and International Studies, oil is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of the traditional supply and demand balances, but a determinant of national security and international power.

The U.S. state military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in under two years are expressions of this new supra-market policy. Before we pass over the pattern of facts at work as merely realpolitik, we should note that this armed-state project resembles fascism: not only in war criminal attacks on other countries in violation of international law, but in repudiating market relations to seize others valuable goods by armed force.

Facing Facts

As demagogic glorification of genocidal invasion once again escapes naming by a flood of falsehoods and projections onto the latest U.S. Enemy, we need to remind ourselves of facts that no mass medium once discussed [the period] from October of 2002 to March of 2003. As we lay bare the ruling deceptions here, we should keep in mind the unifying principle which is not seen. U.S. state justifications always project onto the designated Enemy what the U.S. security state is doing itself. If it loudly condemns another weaker states weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, violation of international laws, or attempts to impose its will on the world by terror, then we can deduce that this is exactly what the U.S. is planning more of, but is diverting attention from by accusing others. Test this underlying principle with every international accusation the U.S. makes next, and you will find that it is invariable confirmed.

The tactic works wonderfully with a lapdog press and political class who are excited into a kind of collective delirium by choral denunciations of the foreign demon who is the designated Enemy of the Day. (I will explain why in my analysis ahead of the ruling group-mind.) So exactly does the U.S. security state project its own violent policies onto others that one can tell what vicious policy it is about to escalate next by by the intensity with which the Other is accused of the crime. This is how we can best understand the endless accusation of the Soviet Union of a plot to rule the worldbefore 1991, and how we can best make sense of the official U.S. fixation on global terrorism today. Both predications disclose the inner logic of the U.S. war states own pattern of behaviour. I sometimes wonder whether this is a deliberate strategic tactic of diversion, or a structure of paranoid delusion built into the mind-set of U.S. culture.

Let us in this light examine the principal claims and concealments of the Bush Jr. administration in its pursuit of Iraq:

The Bush administration has tirelessly claimed to be upholding international law in its pressuring of the Security Council into action regarding Iraq’s violation of U.N. resolutions and international law. In fact, since its entry into office the Bush Jr. administration has sabotaged laws, covenants and monitoring protocols to protect individuals and peoples against nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines, small arms, international ballistic missiles, torture, racism, discrimination against women, arbitrary seizure and imprisonment, mistreatment of prisoners, crimes against humanity and war crimes, military weather distortions, biodiversity loss, and international climate destabilisation. Its latest overriding of international law and due process has been the forcible usurpation of the Security Council inspections of Iraq. No rogue state in modern history has remotely matched this continuous and systematic violation of international law and procedures to implement international law.

The Bush administration’s preparation and threat of military invasion against a country thousands of miles from its borders is unequivocally a war crime under international law, including Principles 1, 2 and 6(a)1of the Nuremberg Charter and Article 54 of the Geneva Convention. The fact that this war crime of preparing for and planning an invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led armed forces whatever the UN decides has never been openly discussed promoted the very aggression which the U.N. is constituted to prevent.

It is not as if there were any doubt about the Bush administration’s clear intention to put itself above the law as it incessantly accused Iraq of doing so. It declared from the beginning that it would go it alone with whoever was willing, and yet not a word of this declared threat to international peace and security issued from any U.N. ambassador, including Canadas Bill Graham, that this was a lawless intention and plan.

The effect on Iraqi citizens of the long-planned U.S. war of aggression against Iraq is said to be their liberation. The targeted victims since the first war on Iraq have, however, been most of all infants and children. The Bush administration’s planned Operation Shock and Awe is a self-imagery of Godlike power which is more blind in hubris than in 1991 when the U.S. military assault caused mass infectious disease, child dysentery and birth mutilation by deliberate bombing of civilian electricity sources, sewage and water treatment facilities and by the deployment of nuclear waste in shells and weapons. Over 500,000 children in Iraq have already died as a consequence of the last war according to UNICEF-a figure predicted in 1991 by the New England Journal of Medicine, and substantiated in 1999 by the leading British medical research, Lancet.

Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction about which the Bush regime has most pervasively trumpeted its concern were sold to Saddam at great profit by the U.S., Britain and other Security Council members. This is why Bush officials took the original Iraq report to the U.N. from the Council chair (then the military client state, Colombia), and deleted all the pages documenting these military sales before distributing the text to non-permanent members. Secretary Rumsfeld, meanwhile, has refused to work with the relevant Senate committees to expose and ensure against continued military sales to Iraq or its middlemen by U.S. armament manufacturers.

U.S. demands for Iraq’s compliance with U.N. resolutions are not and have not been its true concern since far more U.N. resolutions over far more years have been ignored by the U.S. military partner, Israel. Thus continuing war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israeli administrations are still perpetrated with impunity in the illegally occupied territories of Palestine-for example, by land and property seizures and continuous enlargement of the illegal occupation, collective punishments of the population, increasing assassinations, and destruction of civilian infrastructure and homes. Twelve to eighteen UN resolutions prior to the inspections were said to have been violated by Iraq during its years of living with militarily enforced destruction of its society. Israel before, and since, has violated 64 UN resolutions with impunity. No double standard of international law has been so long-term, blatant and systematic, except by the U.S. itself.

The regime change all along demanded by the Bush administration cannot benefit the Iraqi people as promised because the projected U.S. military occupation has not been about getting rid of Saddam (who the U.S. armed and supported into power), but has ever more directly been the forced takeover of Iraq’s publicly owned and controlled oil reserves. These reserves since the 1950’s have (despite Saddams U.S.-supported coup detat) financed the most advanced social infrastructure in the Arab world, free education, and universal health care. During the demonization of Iraq over the last 6 months, its public oil revenues have enabled a government program of guaranteed food for all citizens by a publicly run distribution system which the U.N. World Food Program described as the most efficient in the world. With oil as with all else, the greatest enemy to this empire is the civil commons of publicly owned resources which obstructs corporate market control. That the Iraqi government has, moreover, put a run on the U.S. dollar by converting its oil revenues into Euros instead of dollars is another unspeakable fact which is blocked out of all corporate media reports.

Watching the War Crime Unfold

The ultimate target of the U.S. war party has long been the greatest and most accessible high-quality oil reserves on the planet. The Bush oil party has long coveted it, and U.S. military invasion has been the favoured blitzkrieg method for getting it over years of planning – with no response by the Security Council. But world public opinion has not covered its eyes like governments and the corporate media. Turkey’s people were 96% against invasion of Iraq as its government considered large bribes, and Spain’s people were over 90% opposed as its Falangist prime minister joined Tony the War Poodle in barking for the invasion. Over 30 million citizens from across the world demonstrated against a U.S.-led invasion in one weekend, an historically unprecedented event.

The U.S. president’s response to all this has been revealing. He has told the world throughout that the U.N. itself is on trial, with him as God’s judge. The Security Council has been told for months that it either agrees to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, or it is irrelevant. If it fails, the Bush administration will take the law into its own hands and invade distant and weak Iraq as America’s sovereign right. Try to remember when you heard this kind of demagoguery and defiance of international law before.

The difference has been most clearly in the use of the U.N. Pervasive aerial and ground inspections of Iraq’s territory, soften-up bombings of defences in the North and South, and successful commands to destroy short-range missiles which together had largely stripped Iraqs meagre defences by mid-March. During this process, U.S. and allied demands merely escalated from immediate abolition of weapons of mass destruction to-without any media noticing-demands for total disarmament. Best to have a helpless victim. Has history ever witnessed such a corruptly one-sided scheme to destroy and loot a defenceless country?

The Ruling Group-Mind

As I watched the Security Council Meeting on March 19 after military inspections of Iraq were forcibly terminated by the Bush Jr. administration’s decision to take the law into its own hands, I was struck by the intimidation of the Council members. They were in thrall to a ceremony of avoidance. The hard fact that the U.S. administration had just stopped the U.N.’s due process by its decision for lawless armed attack of Iraq was blocked out of view as if it had not been decided. That this massive armed military invasion was a grave violation of international law, the supreme international crime under the Nuremberg Charter, was never mentioned. The ritual of sacrifice prevailed instead as if in collective submission to the implacable ordinance of Fate.

Formal pieties and aversion of the facts ruled. The Secretary-General was congratulated for removing the inspection teams on the instruction of the U.S. adminstration so that they would not be harmed by its illegal invasion. The inspectors were again and again praised for inspecting Iraq’s military possessions before the full-scale illegal invasion forcibly prevented the completion of their work. Much angst was displayed for the humanitarian catastrophe about to unfold, with none mentioning that the lawless usurpation of U.N. process by the blitkrieg invasion of a suffering poor country would cause the mass terror. The long genocide was diplomatically sanitised by abstractions. In the case of the U.S., Britain and Spain, Saddam Hussein was held solely responsible.

Repeated ritual mantras of concern for international peace and security, alleged Iraq government violations not substantiated by the inspectors, official regrets, collective self- blaming, and much talk of rebuilding the society about to be destroyed were limned in a sleepwalk of official euphemisms. The theme that bound them all was the silence on the U.S. planned war-criminal attack in violation of the will and the legal process of the U.N. Security Council itself. Kofi Annan almost spoke out when he advised that a belligerent country is responsible under law for the costs of occupation. But the U.N. and Canada were soon ready to pay for picking up the pieces of another mass destruction of a poor society by U.S.-led forces.

I remembered all the history and accounts I had read of the Third Reich and the cowardice of official appeasement that enabled every step. The appeasement now was on the level of the mind itself. No-one dared to say what was happening. Threats and bribes by the U.S. had for months saturated the proceedings of the Council’s judgement, but there were to their great credit few takers of the blood money. The Security Council had repudiated the U.S.-led war by an overwhelming rejection of any motion for it. For the U.S. now to still lead an invasion was self-evidently against the Security Council’s will and decision, and thus wholly illegal. Yet there was a strange refusal to name the crime, the supreme international crime of a war of aggression against another state. One listened in vain for one explicit reference to the violation of the U.N. Charter, of the Nuremberg Charter, of international criminal law, of the Secretary-General’s own previous statement that a U.S. attack without Security Council support would be illegal, and of the usurpation of the will and process of the U.N. Security Council itself.

On the contrary, Iraq was being held accountable to obey the Council’s every demand to strip its meagre defences as huge U.S. and British armed forces formed on its borders. Ever louder U.S. threats of armed invasion outside the law and against Security Council vote was left to proceed as if it was a natural event. Everywhere in the media, the inevitable war was bowed before as an ordinance of destiny. It was only now a question of viewers watching U.S. forces destroy a society at will and with impunity, an ideal mass market site for the entertainment of lawless power. No-one thought to notice from within the Security Council Chamber and official global culture that every step of the mass terror against an essentially defenceless people was planned, chosen and executed in defiance of all international law by a sitting member state.

The monstrous construction had no author. Responsibility fell only on the victim. The U.S. became another onlooker at the inevitable war. Once it invaded, it became magnanimous in assigning the costs to others to pay for its mass destruction. It was now ready to co-operate with its international partners in the rebuilding of the country that it destroyed. No-one inside official society outside thought to hold the U.S. accountable for what it did. There is “no alternative” took another meaning. Now the no-alternative world the U.S. rules means criminal war invasion as an act of God.

The New Fundamentalism: America is God

As you observe the criminal war invasion of Iraq, the round-the-clock commentary and pictures, and the aftermath, watch for a silent general fact. There will no end of detailed discussion of the military operations of attack and occupation of a country rendered defenceless by Security Council demands, with much admiration and vicarious self- congratulation at the new weapons and strategic moves of the American Superpower. There will be no end of experts and commentators communicating adoringly to audiences about the high-tech assault instruments which are being tested on a third-world people to see how they work. Its a little like a high-school science experiment, advised the Pentagon Joint Chief of Staff to the militarily embedded CNN medium of public news.

The fact at the centre of the whole conflict and long in dispute will, however, soon be put down the memory hole with no one noticing. No one in the media or government will point out that the biological and chemical weapons that Iraq was declared to be hiding are not used, and did not in fact exist. No one will think to notice that this, the main justification of the war, the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam, was from start to finish a vast and criminal big lie. No one will wonder at their own cowardly complicity in the long train of destructive deceit and war crime even as the invading armies sweep across the country and the 3000 sorties of bombs fall with no hint of a chemical or biological weapon or nuclear device. Least of all will servelings of the ruling group-mind connect back to the Third Reich’s prototype of aggressive war. It is the Formula. Blame terrorists as the cause of the country’s police state measures. Accuse every country attacked of being an imminent threat to it to justify the invasion. Denounce all resistance as unpatriotic. Attack and occupy the weak country with total weaponry. The formula repeats as long as it is not called out.

The group-mind cannot compute what does not fit its fixed presuppositions. So predictable outcomes follow as if prescribed by the laws of nature. The inevitable war occurs like el Nino. Only the terrible infliction of damages are thought worth perceiving or talking about. The moral debate is silenced, left to the world’s peoples in the streets where only passing painted signs can speak. The co-ordinates of international law and the rogue war party in control of the White House are blocked of every discussion as if they did not exist. There will, in particular, be no discussion of this administration’s illegal presidency, its ever more ruinous failure to govern effectively at any level of the U.S. economy, the environmental meltdown which it leads, or the unprecedentedly pervasive corruption of its lead corporate gang-from all of which the latest orchestrated war is the ongoing system of violent diversion. The distraction and attack rhythm of one war after another will, if it is not seen through, continue to succeed with the Formula until the world is subjugated across its civilisations. As long as the self-evident can be denied, there is nothing to stop it. Discharges of condemnation of Saddam Hussein can occupy the mind instead, until the next Enemy is wheeled into the war theatre to extend the U.S. war states rule.

In Canada, the CBC and its retinue of U.S. explainers and apologists will report the world to us so we cannot see the meaning of what is happening. The local academy will occasionally provide the choral affirmation on cue. Thus Janice Stein of the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre will reassure us on CBC News coverage on March 20, the day that the U.S. crime against peace began, that We are targeting Iraq’s leadership and not its civilians. All are one in Americas view of the world as itself. What cannot be discussed is the U.S. war crime itself, even to deny it. It is unspeakable – so long as the ruling group-mind remains the invisible prison of our collective life.

The moral syntax of the American group-mind is the inner logic of the problem. In this era, the group-mind is American. All its principles are presupposed as the way that God is presupposed by the religious fundamentalist – an all-powerful, all-knowing and jealous ruler of the world, which none may doubt without social opprobrium and attack. U.S. witch-hunts of those who oppose the religion of America is the creed’s fanatical mode. But the creed is not confined to expression within America’s church of self-adoration. It is on a crusade across the world’s continents, with ruinous destabilization or armed attack of those who do not submit to its will for freedom.

The God of America is primitive. It worships itself. But there are a set of silently regulating principles at work through all the phenomena of its rule which together constitute the ruling group-mind which has imprisoned global culture within its premises since 9-11 .

Presupposition 1 of this ruling group-mind is that the U.S. national security state is America.

This assertion is never directly stated because that would reveal the absurdity of the equation. But the assumption nevertheless underlies every statement that has proceeded from U.S. government offices since 9-11. This preconscious equation explains, for example, why even the U.S. government’s official opposition, the Democratic Party, has abdicated from political responsibility in its fear of appearing to oppose unjustified wars against essentially defenceless third-world societies in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are incarcerated within the ruling structure of mind, more paralysed than 1930 Germans in their dread of being named as unpatriotic. This is a fear that can only be explained by the equation of the state military command and its apparatus with America. Beneath the surface phenomena of party politics rules the instituted group-mind in terms of which perception itself is constructed.

Thus the equation of America to its armed state apparatus is never publicly challenged in the official culture of the West because the equation is assumed a priori across the official leaderships of American allies. No-one who houses the false equation can tell them apart. They cannot see the demonstrable falsehoods of the war state, the overthrow of the Republic’s democratic traditions, and least of all the safety of millions of innocent civilians in other countries: because they assume America and its national security apparatus are one and the same. Since they love America, and America is it, they cannot distinguish their beloved country from the criminal gang institutions of the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the CIA. As these rogue secret societies rule across the world by the force of armed terror, mass disinformation, secret narco-links and political bribery and coercion at every level, lovers of America are obliged to defend this criminal global domination as America. This absurd equation obliges them to be, in short, blind dupes. It then further misleads them into supposing that anyone who opposes a gangster state rule of the world is anti-American. One absurdity builds onto another. The disorder ends as a paranoid mass cult characterised as patriotism, just as in the 1930’s with the worlds most powerful industrial state. It is in this false equation at the baseline of the group-mind that we find the kernel of the worlds problem – America’s self- definition as absolutist armed force unbound by fact or international law.

Presupposition 2 is that America is the ultimate source and moving line of the world’s freedom and goodness, God’s material embodiment on earth.

This assumption too is presupposed as true by definition, the prime article of faith of a fanatic religion. Full-spectrum dominance and pre-emptive attack of threats before they appear are not merely clinically paranoid delusions of power and persecution. They follow from the underlying and increasingly absolute assumption that America is God, the source of all Freedom and Goodness on the planet. The expressions of this deranged presupposition are evident in every speech of the former alcohol and cocaine addict occupying the White House, and there is no evident opposition from the parishioners of U.S. official culture.

Any indirect questioning or challenge of this first moral premise of the group-mind is attacked as a betrayal of the country and what it holds dear. American freedom comes to mean, then, only what establishes and maximizes the absolute right of the U.S. to command the world – specifically, to command as inevitable that all societies adopt an American-style market, American values and culture, and American military dominance in all areas of the globe as its vital interests. How do we test the rule of this fanatic basis of thought? It is expressed in Bush Doctrine policy documents throughout. But we can more easily discover its ruling principle at work by asking whether there is any limit placed anywhere on what the U.S. and vassal corporate states have the right to demand of other peoples and societies – including unconditional support of full-scale war against destitute societies over ten thousand miles from American borders.

Anything may go in the way of attack-dog journalism, but one hint of question of this ruling assumption that America is the moving line of the world’s freedom is heresy. The assumption is thus internalised prior to censorship. Self-censorship is this regime’s centre of gravity, and holds the group-mind in its prison. Those who oppose it hate freedom. Loyalty to this ultimate premise of social and political thought is what regulates the mind at a preconscious level prior to statement. It is the identity structure of the mob-mind across the world.

Principle 3 follows as a logical consequent from Principle 2. America is always and necessarily right in all conflicts with other nations or peoples or social forces.

This is not a truth which facts can disprove, because it is true by definition in the ruling group-mind. Disproving facts are irrelevant or of no consequence, even if by some chance they make it through the gates of the corporate media. This third regulating assumption explains why even the hardest facts soon disappear from sight if they throw doubt on America’s infallible moral superiority in cases of international conflict – for example the conviction of the U.S. by the International Court for its war criminal actions against Nicaragua, along with the $13.2 billion damages which were never paid.

Beneath the selection and exclusion of facts and perspectives which regulate editorial offices and policies, this third principle of the ruling group-mind too regulates perception and conversation beneath direct control. Before an exposing word is spoken, it is ruled out from within. It is an intersubjective operation, like the thought-field of playing a game. Any fact or argument which calls into question America’s moral superiority to any adversary is known to be hostile to freedom and the good in advance of consideration.

Principles 4 and 5 follow suit as ultimate moral imperatives for all Americans and their allies.

Any people or nation or social force which does not side with or opposes the U.S. government is evil (Principle 4), and so must, as an Enemy of world freedom and justice, be attacked by all means available-including pre-emptive armed force before the Enemy presents a threat (Principle 5).

Principles 4 and 5 have sharpened into patriotic absolutes with the Bush Jr. regime. Not even fabricated evidence – like the Gulf of Tonkin attack off Vietnam or the electricity cut-off of infant incubators in Iraq in 1991 – are thought any longer essential necessary to justify a military attack on another people’s territory and society. As George Bush Jr. said to a West Point audience this year: “If we wait for threats to materialise, we will have waited too long.” There is, therefore, no need for the threat to be real. Threats only need to be declared. That is is why the attack on Iraq by U.S. and British armed forces did not require anyone else to confirm that there was, in fact, a threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction being used by terrorists against America. The evil is known, as with witchcraft, by the accusation itself. Once accused, the Enemy becomes such by definition – because materialisation by fact is too late. Those who question the designation side with the Enemy. You are with us, or for the terrorists. Bush’s rage against French opposition to the war of aggression against Iraq thus follows necessarily. The logic of the ruling group- mind prescribes reality prior to its construction.

A self-evident baseline of entitlement is thus instituted for the rest of the world which is not spoken. America can go to war against accused enemies as it chooses on the basis of the self-propelling operations of its ruling group-mind alone. All one has to do is trigger the known stimuli which activate its value-set and its attendant emotions of rage. Since 9- 11, majority opinion support for Americas New War in any form follows from this lockstep of the group-mind. It is predictable so long as it remains unexposed to view.

The European region bears a great significance for the US and its ambitions to act as a global power. Relations between the United States and some European countries date back even to 17^th and 18^th century, when the European settlers began their voyage to the New World, the ties which bond these two global entities are not only political, military and economic in nature but they are also historical and social. Western Europe countries share more or less the same values with the US regarding the human rights and freedoms, democracy, civil society and more; but the interests for Europe in the US rapidly grew only after the Second World War and the bipolarization of the world. The rise of communism and the USSR made an imminent threat to Europe and of course to the new emerging global power, the United States.

Geopolitics

The region of Europe has three main aspects which makes it important for the US in geopolitical terms. The first aspect is the Arctic or the High North. Arctic encompasses territory (land and sea) of eight countries, six of them are in Europe including Russia. The Arctic region is becoming more popular every year in global politics, and not only because it has vast deposits of resources like natural gas and oil. Scarcely populated and with the melting of ice the Arctic will become a major shipping route, its estimated that using the Arctic route ships can shorten their way from Hamburg to Shanghai for almost 4,000 miles. This will be a huge boost to all shipping companies across the globe, and since its in the Arctic chances for pirates are rather low. The US has the best path for contesting this region exactly from Europe. The northern countries have good infrastructure and experience in the Arctic region, and their proximity to Russia can be helpful if the conflict occurs. The next aspect is the Europe’s access to the Middle East through the Balkans. Although the Balkan is relatively stable with semi-frozen conflicts, most of the countries are in NATO, and of course Turkey as the most important ally in this part of Europe can provide all the needed support and accessibility to the Middle East. Caucasus region and the two straits, Bosporus and Dardanelle, can also be added here as geopolitical points in which US has a lot of interest. The third aspect is the Mediterranean and North Africa. Countries in the South of Europe provide substantial naval infrastructure and power projection capabilities across the Mediterranean Sea. Also these countries provide a base access point to the North Africa, this could be observed during the earliest years of the Arab Spring and the civil war in Libya. All these aspects combined make the European region crucial for the US especially if the objective is to restrain Russia.

European Allies

Beside geopolitical interests the US has some of the closest allies in Europe like the United Kingdom, France and Germany. These three countries have significant military and economic power and they are also leading the European Union. One of the most important bilateral relationship is definitely with the UK. The two countries share a lot of common values and interests, and the UK government is usually the first who supports US actions, both military and political. Also the UK and the US have a high degree of military cooperation, intelligence sharing and even transfer of some nuclear technology. France still stands for one of the most military capable NATO members with military spending of 1.9% of GPD. Good infrastructure, vast military industry and nuclear capabilities allow France to have a solid deterrent force thus strengthening the whole NATO structure. However, plans like job cuts in defense department and lower military budget which the government wants to achieve, can leave some bad marks on the relations between NATO and the US, especially since the US expects a more active approach from their allies in the conflicts across the Middle East and Ukraine. As a powerhouse in Europe, Germany doesn’t fully commit to the NATO or the US actions in terms of military power. The budget which is 1.3% of GDP is usually spent on personnel costs and building rents which leads to a decline in money for other military equipment. Furthermore, the government is lowering the total number of servicemen in the military from 205,000 to 185,000 personnel. Also Germany lacks the capability of tactical and strategic airlift, and the government plans to cut procurement and decommission certain specific capabilities which will mostly effect the Army and the Air Force. All these remarks are not welcomed by the US or some other NATO members, despite the public call for broadening Germanys participation in peacekeeping missions made by Germanys Defense Minister Ursula von der Layen.

Military Presence

US military presence in Europe reached its peak in the fifties with more than 450,000 troops operating on more than 1,200 sites. After the end of the Cold War the US military presence in Europe rapidly decreased to 213,000 servicemen, and later in 1993 it decreased even further to 112,000 servicemen. Today there are 67,000 American troops permanently stationed across Europe. Military infrastructure and the US military in Europe (EUCOM) can be classified in sections.

Military Infrastructure:

• Main operating bases are large installations able to accommodate relatively large number of permanently stationed troops with well-established infrastructure.
• Forward-operating sites are primarily used by rotating forces. These installations are capable for adaptation depending on the circumstances.
• Cooperative security locations usually have no permanently stationed troops and are maintained by contractor or host-nation support.

EUCOM is responsible for military operations, partnering, general security enhancement as part of United States forward defensive posture. EUCOM has five components: US Naval Forces Europe (NAVEUR), US Army Europe (USAREUR), US Air Force in Europe (USAFE), US Marine Force Europe (MARFOREUR), US Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR).

• US Naval Forces Europe (NAVEUR) provides overall command, control and coordination for all US maritime assets currently deployed in Europe. Currently in command of NAVEUR is the US sixth fleet based in Naples. It is possible that in the future US Naval presence in Europe might become larger. As stated by Admiral Stavridis “Increasing the capabilities of the Navy is important as the Russian Federation Navy increases the pace, scope and sophistication of its fleet”. This could be expected especially if the Russian Navy settles on the coast of Syria.
• US Army Europe (USAREUR) forms the bulk of US forces in Europe. The command was in Heidelberg but now it has been moved to Wiesbaden. At the peak of the Cold War the US Army had almost 300,000 troops deployed in Europe, today the core of USAREUR is formed by two brigade combat teams and an aviation brigade located in Germany and Italy.
• US Air Force in Europe (USAFE) provides forward-based air capability that can support wide range of operations, ranging from combat to humanitarian aid operations. Today USAFE has eight main bases in Europe with approximately 39,000 active, reserve and civilian personnel. USAFE supports ongoing missions in Europe as well as around the world, USAFE was particularly active during the crisis in Libya.
• US Marine Force Europe (MARFOREUR) was planned as a support unit which could bolster the forces in case of a conflict. This unit was formed in the eighties with less than 200 marines, today the command is set in Böblingen, Germany with approximately 1,500 marines assigned to support EUCOM and NATO missions. MARFOREUR was active in the Balkans, and has regular drills especially with the Norwegian forces. It is presumed that this unit will make a particular geostrategic difference in the Arctic region.
• US Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) provides peace time planning and operation control of special operation forces during unconventional warfare in EUCOMs area of responsibility. Although public information is scarce SOCEUR participated in various capacity-building missions and evacuation missions especially in Africa, it had an active role in the Balkans during the nineties and supported combat operations during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Beside French and British nuclear capabilities the US has also maintained a significant number of nuclear warheads across Europe. During the Cold War era US had more than 2,500 nuclear warheads in Europe, however after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union that number rapidly decreased. Today according to some unofficial estimates the US has around 150 to 250 warheads deployed in Italy, Turkey, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium. It should be noted that most of these weapons are free fall gravity bombs delivered by aircrafts. There is still an ongoing debate in NATO whether there should be a further decrease in nuclear armament, as proposed by President Obama’s administration, or the nuclear armament should be deployed in Eastern Europe countries as a response for Russian actions in Crimea. Though most of the nuclear weapons are in Western Europe total disarmament and removal of these warheads is highly unlikely, considering the situation in Ukraine and in the Middle East. There are two types of bases currently used to hold nuclear weapons in Europe: Nuclear Air Bases and Air Bases with Nuclear vaults in caretaker status. In the first group we have bases like Lakenheath (UK), Volkel (Netherlands), Kleine Broggle (Belgium), Buchel (Germany), Ramstein (Germany), Ghadei Torre (Italy), Aviano (Italy) and Incirlik which is in Turkey. In the other group bases are Norvenich (Germany), Araxos (Greece), Balikesir (Turkey), Akinci (Turkey). Of all other countries Germany is the most nuclearized with the potential storage of more than 150 bombs, also all these weapons can be moved and shifted to other bases or other countries if need be.

Although the US Government is trying to cut spending on foreign military presence, the Pentagon won’t allow strategic points like EUCOM to suffer, especially now when the new global adversaries are on the rise. Still undisputed in their military spending the US is trying to become more effective with their troop deployment and the maintenance of such large military force. President Obama’s administration program of removing US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan has already shown bad results. Although Europe is nothing like those regions, further removal of US forces could result in major power shifts. Probably one of the future objectives of EUCOM and NATO will be deeper military involvement in Eastern Europe, more precisely in Baltic states. Of course, these developments will be governed by finance and the amount of threat for the US global interests in other regions like the South China Sea, the Middle East and the North Africa.

List of U.S Military Bases in Europe

• Bases located in the United Kingdom
  • Menwith Hill Air Base
  • Mildenhall Air Base
  • Alcon Bury Air Base
  • Croughton Air Base
  • Fairford Air Base
• Bases located in Germany
  • USAG Hohenfels
  • USAG Weisbaden
  • USAG Hessen
  • USAG Schweinfurt
  • USAG Bamberg
  • USAG Grafenwoehr
  • USAG Ansbach
  • USAG Darmstadt
  • USAG Heidelberg
  • USAG Stuttgart
  • USAG Kaiserslautern
  • USAG Baumholder
  • Spangdahlem Air Base
  • Ramstein Air Base
  • Panzer Kaserne (marine base)
• Bases located in Belgium
  • USAG Benelux
  • USAG Brussels
• Bases located in Netherlands
  • USAG Schinnen
  • Joint Force Command
• Bases located in Italy
  • Aviano Air Base
  • Caserma Ederle
  • Camp Darby
  • NSA La Maddalena
  • NSA Gaeta
  • NSA Naples
  • NSA Sigonella
• Bases located in Serbia/Kosovo
  • Camp Bondsteel
• Bases located in Bulgaria
  • Graf Ignatievo Air Base
  • Bezmer Air Base
  • Aitos Logistics Center
  • Novo Selo Range
• Bases located in Greece
  • NSA Souda Bay
• Bases located in Turkey
  • Izmir Air Base
  • Incirlik Air Base

Igor Pejic is currently doing his MA in Terrorism, Security and Organized Crime at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.

References:

• http://www.eshraf.ir/wp-content/uploads/www.eshraf.ir-2015-Index-of-US-Military-Strength.pdf
• https://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf
• http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/0907dancs.pdf

Philosophers have been muzzled by the Western global regime; most of great modern philosophy concealed from the masses. What has been left of it, allowed to float on the surface is toothless, irrelevant and incomprehensible: a foolish outdated theoretical field for those few remaining intellectual snobs.

Philosophy used to be the most precious crown jewel of human intellectual achievement. It stood at the vanguard of almost all fights for a better world. Gramsci was a philosopher, and so were Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho-Chi-Minh, Guevara, Castro, Frantz Fanon, Senghors, Cabral, Nyerere and Lumumba, to name just a few.

To be a thinker, a philosopher, in ancient China, Japan or even in some parts of the West, was the most respected human ‘occupation’.

In all ‘normally’ developing societies, knowledge has been valued much higher than material possessions or naked power.

In ancient Greece and China, people were able to understand the majority of their philosophers. There was nothing “exclusive” in the desire to know and interpret the world. Philosophers spoke to the people, for the people.

Some still do. But that whoring and servile Western academic gang, which has locked philosophy behind the university walls, viciously sidelines such men and women.

Instead of leading people to the barricades, instead of addressing the most urgent issues our world is now facing, official philosophers are fighting amongst themselves for tenures, offering their brains and bodies to the Empire. At best, they are endlessly recycling each other, spoiling millions of pages of paper with footnotes, comparing conclusions made by Derrida and Nietzsche, hopelessly stuck at exhausted ideas of Kant and Hegel.

At worst, they are outrightly evil – making still relevant revolutionary philosophical concepts totally incomprehensible, attacking them, and even disappearing them from the face of the Earth.

***

Only the official breed, consisting of almost exclusively white/Western ‘thought recyclers’, is now awarded the right to be called ‘philosophers’.

My friends in all corners of the world, some of the brightest people on earth, are never defined as such. The word ‘philosopher’ still carries at least some great theoretical prestige, and god forbid if those who are now fighting against Western terror, for social justice or true freedom of thought, were to be labeled as such!

But they are, of course, all great philosophers! And they don’t recycle – they go forward, advancing brilliant new concepts that can improve life on our Planet. Some have fallen, some are still alive, and some are still relatively young:

Eduardo Galeano – one of the greatest storytellers of all times, and a dedicated fighter against Western imperialism. Noam Chomsky – renowned linguist and relentless fighter against Western fascism. Pramoedya Ananta Toer – former prisoner of conscience in Suharto’s camps and the greatest novelist of Southeast Asia. John Steppling – brilliant American playwright and thinker. Christopher Black – Canadian international lawyer and fighter against illegal neo-colonialist concepts of the Empire. Peter Koenig – renowned economist and thinker. Milan Kohout, thinker and performer, fighter against European racism.

Yes – all these great thinkers; all of them, philosophers! And many more that I know and love – in Africa and Latin America and Asia especially…

For those who insist that in order to be called a philosopher, one has to be equipped with some stamp that shows that the person has passed a test and is allowed to serve the Empire, here is proof to the contrary:

Even according to the Dictionary of Modern American philosophers (online ed.). New York: Oxford University Press:

“The label of “philosopher” has been broadly applied in this Dictionary to intellectuals who have made philosophical contributions regardless of academic career or professional title. The wide scope of philosophical activity across the time-span of this Dictionary would now be classed among the various humanities and social sciences which gradually separated from philosophy over the last one hundred and fifty years. Many figures included were not academic philosophers but did work at philosophical foundations of such fields as pedagogy, rhetoric, the arts, history, politics, economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, religion, and theology.”

***

In his brilliant upcoming book Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest, my friend John Steppling quotes, Hullot-Kentor:

“If art – when art is art – understands us better than we can intentionally understand ourselves, then a philosophy of art would need to comprehend what understands us. Thinking would need to become critically imminent to that object; subjectivity would become the capacity of its object, not simply its manipulation. That’s the center of Adorno’s aesthetics. It’s an idea of thought that is considerably different from the sense of contemporary “theory”, where everyone feels urged to compare Derrida with Nietzsche, the two of them with Levinas, and all of them now with Badiou, Žižek and Agamben. That kind of thinking is primarily manipulation. It’s the bureaucratic mind unconsciously flexing the form of social control it has internalized and wants to turn on others.”

Western academia is rigidly defining, which lines of thought are acceptable for philosophers to use, as well as what analyses, and what forms.

Those who refuse to comply are ‘not true philosophers’. They are dilettantes, ‘amateurs’.

And those who are not embraced by some ‘reputable’ institution are not to be taken seriously at all (especially if they are carrying Russian, Asian, African, Middle Eastern or Latino names). It is a little bit like with journalism. Unless you have an ‘important’ media outlet behind you (preferably a Western one), unless you can show that the Empire truly trusts you, your press card is worth nothing, and you would not even be allowed to board a UN or a military flight to a war zone.

Your readers, even if numbering millions, may see you as an important philosopher. But let’s be frank: unless the Empire stamps its seal of acceptance on your forehead of backside, in the West you are really nothing more than worthless shit!

***

BLURRING THE WORK OF REVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHERS

After all that I have witnessed and written, I am increasingly convinced that Western imperialism and neo-colonialism are the most urgent and dangerous challenges facing our Planet. Perhaps the only challenges…

I have seen 160 countries in all corners of the Globe. I have witnessed wars, conflicts, imperialist theft and indescribable brutality of white tyrants.

And so, recently, I sensed that it is time to revisit two great thinkers of the 20th Century, two determined fighters against Western imperialist fascism: Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre.

The Wretched of the Earth, and Black Skin, White Masks – two essential books by Frantz Omar Fanon, a Martinique-born Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist, philosopher, revolutionary, and writer, and a dedicated fighter against Western colonialism. And Colonialism and Neocolonialism, a still greatly relevant book by Jean-Paul Sartre, a prominent French resistance fighter, philosopher, playwright and novelist…

I had all three books in my library and, after many years, it was time to read them again.

But my English edition of Colonialism and Neocolonialism was wrapped in dozens of pages of prefaces and introductions.  The ‘intellectual cushioning’ was too thick and at some point I lost interest, leaving the book in Japan. Then in Kerala I picked up another, this time Indian edition.

Again, some 60 pages of prefaces and introductions, pre-chewed intrusive and patronizing explanations of how I am supposed to perceive both Sartre and his interactions with Fanon, Memmi and others. And yes, it all suddenly began moving again into that pre-chewed but still indigestible “Derrida-Nietzsche” swamp.

Instead of evoking outrage and wrath, instead of inspiring me into taking concrete revolutionary action, those prefaces, back covers, introductions and comments were clearly castrating and choking the great messages of both Sartre and Fanon. They were preventing readers and fellow philosophers from getting to the core.

Then finally, when reaching the real text of Sartre, it all becomes clear – why exactly is the regime so determined to “protect” readers from the originals.

It is because the core, the original, is extremely simple and powerful.  The words are relevant, and easy to understand. They are describing both old French colonialist barbarities, as the current Western neo-colonialism. God forbid someone puts two and two together!

Philosopher Sartre on China and Western fascist cultural propaganda:

“As a child, I was a victim of the picturesque: everything had been done to make the Chinese intimidating. I was told about rotten eggs… of men sawn between two planks of wood, of piping and discordant music… [The Chinese] were tiny and terrible, slipping between your fingers, attacked from behind, burst out suddenly in a ridiculous din… There was also the Chinese soul, which I was simply told was inscrutable. ‘Orientals, you see…’ The Negroes did not worry me; I had been taught that they were good dogs. With them, we were still among mammals. But the Asians frightened me…”

Sartre on Western colonialism and racism:

“Racism is inscribed in the events themselves, in the institutions, in the nature of the exchange and the production. The political and social statuses reinforce one another: since the natives are sub-human, the Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to them; conversely, since they have no rights, they are abandoned without protection to the inhuman forces of nature, to the ‘iron laws’ of economics…”

And Sartre goes further:

“Western humanism and rights discourse had worked by excluding a majority of the world’s population from the category of humans.”

I address the same issues and so is Chomsky. But the Empire does not want people to know that Sartre, Memmi and Fanon spoke ‘the same language’ as we do, already more than half a century ago!

Albert Memmi:

“Conservatism engenders the selection of mediocre people. How can this elite of usurpers, conscious of their mediocrity, justify their privileges? Only one way: diminish the colonized in order to exult themselves, deny the status of human beings to the natives, and deprive them of basic rights…”

Sartre on Western ignorance:

“It is not cynicism, it is not hatred that is demoralizing us: no, it is only the state of false ignorance in which we are made to live and which we ourselves contribute to maintaining…”

The way the West ‘educates’ the world, Sartre again:

“The European elite set about fabricating a native elite; they selected adolescents, marked on their foreheads, with a branding iron, the principles of Western culture, stuffed into their mouths verbal gags, grand turgid words which stuck to their teeth; after a brief stay in the mother country, they were sent back, interfered with…”

***

It is actually easy to learn how to recycle the thoughts of others, how to compare them and at the end, how to compile footnotes. It takes time, it is boring, tedious and generally useless, but not really too difficult.

On the other hand, it is difficult to create brand new concepts, to revolutionize the way our societies, and our world are arranged. If our brains recycle too much and try to create too little, they get lazy and sclerotic – chronically sclerotic.

Intellectual servility is a degenerative disease.

Western art has deteriorated to ugly psychedelic beats, to excessively bright colors and infantile geometric drawings, to cartoons and nightmarish and violent films as well as “fiction”. It is all very convenient – with all that noise, one cannot hear anymore the screams of the victims, one cannot understand loneliness, and comprehend emptiness.

In bookstores, all over the world, poetry and philosophy sections are shrinking or outright disappearing.

Now what? Is it going to be Althusser (mostly not even real Althusser, but a recycled and abbreviated one), or Lévi-Strauss or Derrida, each wrapped in endless litanies of academic talk?

No! Comrades, philosophers, not that! Down with the sclerotic, whoring academia and their interpretation of philosophy!

Down with the assassins of Philosophy!

Philosophy is supposed to be the intellectual vanguard. It is synonymous with revolution, humanism, and rebellion.

Those who are thinking about and fighting for a much better world, using their brains as weapons, are true philosophers.

Those who are collecting dust and tenures in some profit-oriented institutions of higher ‘learning’ are definitely not, even if they have hundreds of diplomas and stamps all over their walls and foreheads!

They do not create and do not lead. They do not even teach! They are muzzling knowledge. To quote Fanon: “Everything can be explained to the people, on the single condition that you want them to understand.” But “they” don’t want people to understand; they really don’t…

And one more thing: the great thoughts of Fanon and Sartre, of Gramsci and Mao, Guevara and Galeano should be gently washed, undusted and exhibited again, free of all those choking ‘analyses’ and comparisons compiled by toxic pro-establishment thinkers.

There is nothing to add to the writing of maverick revolutionary philosophers. Hands off their work! Let them speak! Editions without prefaces and introductions, please! The greatest works of philosophy were written with heart, blood and passion! No interpretation is needed. Even a child can understand.

It may be surprising to some that the Syrian people still support Pres. Bashar al Assad.  The western media has gone to great lengths to portray him as an evil dictator. However, Syrian residents are not affected by western media, and have a different view of their leader.

Syrians see Pres. Assad as a reformer.  They have witnessed numerous laws passed for their benefit, and a constant focus on anti-corruption measures.  They witnessed the abolition of the one-party rule, and now over 30 political parties are registered.  They watched him call for a new constitution to be drafted, and it was ratified in 2012.

Syria has millions of civil servants, and they watched as their salaries were repeatedly and routinely increased by order of the President from 2000 until present. Doctors, professors, teachers, and all the millions of civil servants have personally benefited from Pres. Assad.

During the several years of the worst fighting in Homs, Syria the Syrians watched as Pres. Assad   kept the Syrian Army slowly advancing, without unnecessary loss of life.  Some critics wanted a quicker military response in Homs, in order to free Homs and allow the residents to return home and rebuild.  However, Pres. Assad preferred the slow and steady method of using force and patience combined.

Syria is the only secular country in the Middle East. This was established many decades ago, and when Pres. Assad came to office in summer of 2000 he maintained this form of government. The Syrian people have become very used to the secular nature of Syrian government, and social life. There are 18 different religious sects in Syria. The government and institutions are all secular and protect the rights of all Syrians.  In Syria there is no ruling sect, all sects are represented throughout the government, Parliament and military.

Syria has a long history of a policy of resistance to the occupation of Palestine. This has been engrained in the collective thinking of the Syrian population, regardless of religious affiliation, or social status.   The suffering of the Palestinian people is always on the minds, and in the hearts of Syrians.  Pres. Assad is viewed as a champion of this resistance position.  The Syrian people would not take kindly to any softening of this stance.    Part of the moral fabric of the Syrian society is the resistance ideology.

Pres. Assad is a well known brand.  The long length in office of his father put Pres. Bashar al Assad front and center in the political limelight.   Syrians enjoy the safety of continuity, as opposed to radical change which can bring negative changes.

In the June 3, 2014 Presidential election millions of Syrians participated at over 9,600 polling stations across the country. Tens of thousands inundated the Syrian embassy in Lebanon to vote and thousands more came from around the world to vote in Syria because their host countries denied them the right to vote at the local Syrian diplomatic mission.  Syrian abroad voted in 36 Syrian Embassies around the world.  This was the first competitive election since the new Constitution was approved in 2012.  The voting by Syrians living or taking refuge in Lebanon was massive.

Voting in Beirut needed to be extended by a full day. Similarly, the voting inside Syria on June 3, 2014 exceeded expectations and polls remained open until midnight to accommodate the huge numbers of Syrians waiting to vote. Insurgents increased their shelling of civilian areas in Damascus and Aleppo but otherwise the election was conducted peacefully and without attacks on voting stations.  There was a large international observers delegation dispersed around the country. The Higher Judicial Committee of the Constitutional Court reported the results:

• 15,840, 575 were eligible to vote, both inside Syria and outside.
• 442,108 ballots were disqualified, for irregularities. (3.8%)
• 11,634,412 voted (73.4%)
• Results of the election were presented by the Speaker of the Parliament:
• Dr. Bashar al Assad received: 10,319,723 votes, 88.7% of the vote.
• Dr. Hassan al Nouri received: 500,272 votes, 4.3% of the vote
• Mr. Maher Hajjar received: 372,301 votes, 3.2% of the vote

Syrians value education.  A University degree is the goal of many Syrians, and a source of pride among families.  Given the fact that Pres. Assad is the most highly educated President in the world, with a prestigious Medical degree from UK, they are collectively proud of his intelligence.  They have also noted his balanced personality.  They feel he is neither too soft, nor too hard.  They see him as fair and balanced.  He has shown them a great deal of patience and perseverance during almost 5 years of international attacks on Syria.

Steven Sahiounie began writing political analysis and commentary during the Syrian war, which began in March 2011. He has published several articles, and has been affiliated with numerous media. He has been interviewed by US, Canadian and German media.

“‘Freedom?’  I hate the word ‘Freedom’. ‘Freedom’ to me means guns and bullets, suicide bombings and killings.  I have deleted the word from my vocabulary. Don’t talk to me about ‘freedom’. We had peace before they brought us ‘freedom’.”

I was sitting in an old Damascene house – the home of a Syrian Christian woman, situated within the walls of the Old City of Damascus.   A teacher, who has for years taught in a Muslim school, with Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze children all learning together, talks passionately and emotionally, as she laments the situation in Syria.

The room in which  I am sitting,  her living room, has twice received a direct hit from ‘moderate rebel’ positions in the city.  She shows me the heavy, jagged metal shards of the shell that scattered across her courtyard. Fortunately, she and her young family were out.  The shattered windows have plastic covering them

“I will not spend the money to repair them until there is peace, and we can be sure no more shells will come,” she says.

“What is this war? We were living in peace, and everything was fine, until they started talking about ‘freedom’.  Now, we don’t know if we will live or die.  People die just for being in the wrong place, when a shell lands.  I used to live quite happily, with my Muslim and Christian friends.   Now I think how can I afford the most basic things?  What cost me five Syrian pounds before the conflict, now costs me one hundred Syrian pounds. Why?  Because of ‘freedom’.  We now have a shortage of water and electricity.   Everything is difficult.  Many people have left – not because of the President or the Government, but because of the crisis.  I believe in the Government; I believe in the Army.  I feel sorry for the soldier who dies for his country. He is the real martyr.”

I ask her what she thought of the international community.  Her response is:

“Stay away from Syria.  Leave Syria alone.  If two brothers fight, they can resolve their differences.  Syria needs time, but I feel sure that we will have peace again.  We have always been a people that lives together.”

Ommayad Mosque, Damascus 2016

My Connections to Syria

I travelled to Syria after a five week stay in Lebanon, where I undertook an intensive Beginners Course in Arabic.  During my time in Lebanon, I also visited the staff of a Christian agency that has been working closely with Syrian refugees for the last four years; met with faith leaders in Beirut; talked with Syrian refugees on the streets; and travelled for a long weekend to Erbil, in Iraq, visiting Syrian and Iraqi refugees both in the city, and at a Syrian Kurdish refugee camp close to ‘IS’ front-lines, west of Erbil.

Prior to the conflict, I had visited Syria at least four times, and had travelled throughout the country, both as an individual, and leading groups.  This however was my fourth visit to Syria since April 2014.    On previous visits, I have been a member of delegations, and have travelled throughout the government-controlled areas of the country, meeting with Christians of all denominations.  I have interacted with Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Kurds, Druze.  I have visited faith and community leaders.  I have met with  political leaders including all the leaders of the internal opposition parties and finally I have spent time in refugee camps and with internally displaced people –  in Homs, Damascus, Yarmouk, Maaloula, Saidnaya, Qara, Tartous, Lattakia.

For this latest visit, I travelled independently, without any accompaniment; and without security.  I was free to meet whom I please, and to travel at my own risk.  I travelled to Damascus in a shared taxi that I arranged myself from Beirut.

My meeting with Huda, was on the first full day of this visit.  I had decided that, being a Sunday, I would focus on a Christian perspective.  And so I walked from my hotel, about 3 kms to and through the Old City and to the Greek Melkite Cathedral in the old Christian Quarter, just off ‘Straight Street’, and a short distance from where St. Paul met Ananias.

The streets of the city were only beginning to wake up, but wherever I walked, I was greeted with warm smiles and welcomes.   During the subsequent week walking the streets of Damascus, I did not see one other ‘white’ European face.

The car-park of the heavily fortified Four Seasons 5* hotel where any journalists, NGOs and UN staff stay, was filled with official four-wheel drive vehicles, but my experience during every one of my visits to Syria, would suggest that most stay firmly installed in the luxury confines of their hotel.  They exit only for official work and do not integrate with Syrian society.

The fact is that very few people are travelling in Syria and meeting with, and talking to ordinary people in the city or the country.   Walking through Damascus now is a sobering experience.   It is and always was a beautiful city.  Now, of course, there are army checkpoints everywhere and thank goodness that they are there to prevent terrorist or car-bomb attacks in the city.

Sanctions are causing shortages of supplies. Costs have sky-rocketed…infact I could barely afford to cover my stay and eat with the money I had left.  The city is looking tired and unkempt. People are not as well turned out as they used to be.   And everywhere, you see people sleeping on the streets or begging.  It is heart-wrenching.

Whilst some of the suburbs that were occupied by ‘rebels’ have been severely pummelled with bombardment (it is possible to see some of the devastation from the road into the city), the city centre has also received five years of random mortar attacks, leaving it scarred, and vulnerable.  Despite this, apart from Tartous, it is still, probably, the safest place in the country.

Yet, life goes on.  People go about daily tasks,  drinking coffee and smoking ‘argile’ in the cafes.  Schools are still operating.  Hospitals are still functioning, though profoundly stretched due to a shortage of staff and supplies.  As one person said to me: “Despite the hardships, we must carry on.  Carrying on with normal life is our resistance to terrorism”

Grand Mufti Hassoun

Grand Mufti of Syria.  Dr. Hassoun, Voice of Moderation and Peace

It was a wonderful surprise to receive an invitation to meet with the Grand Mufti of Syria.  It is always a joy to meet him. Vilified and misrepresented in the West, Dr.Hassoun is one of the most moderate Muslim leaders and theologians in the region – passionate about pluralism and mutual respect between faiths, and insistent on the importance of the indigenous Christian presence, and our mutual fellowship under God.

In the political and religious fragmentation in the region, he is a spiritual leader of the highest calibre who we ought to be listening to and engaging with.

[And before anyone raises the oft-repeated accusation that he once ‘threatened’ the West with suicide bombers, he has consistently clarified the remark which was a warning of what could happen if we continued in our policies. Even my own limited knowledge of Arabic, recently acquired, has shown me how easily it can be poorly translated….and of course used for political purposes. In fact, if anything, his words have proved disturbingly prophetic. ]

I count it a privilege to know him. He is a spiritual leader of stature and dignity.

One afternoon, I was invited to give an interview on Syrian TV in order to share my impressions of Syria both before and since the beginning of the conflict. To discuss the view of Syria in the West and to share my own thoughts and impressions from meeting numerous people from all communities around the country.

Entering the State TV building is a bit like entering a bunker.  Situated in a heavily fortified compound, the main office areas are deep within the building.  Windows are covered over to protect from sniper fire and exploding shells.  The main studio is below ground behind heavy steel doors.

I received a warm welcome from the staff, management and TV presenters… many of whom are young and passionate about their country.  A few days later, the 40 minute programme was broadcast as I sat with friends in a local café.

The following day, I was touched when, walking in the streets of the city, a shopkeeper rushed out and heartily thanked me for my words and for visiting the country.  A few hours later, I received a personal ‘phone call from the Grand Mufti, congratulating me for the interview and thanking me for my words.

Following the recording of the interview, I was driven back to my hotel by a young female presenter. She was fluent in English. Her eyes were sad and she spoke slowly and with a sad smile. She asked about my age and I made a joke about being young at heart. Her response I thought was poignant. She said, with tears in her eyes:

“Seeing you here fills me with joy and sadness: joy because you have come to see the real situation and listen to the people; sadness because seeing you reminds me of the days when foreigners would come and visit our beautiful country.  I hope one day they will come again.  I am 28, but I feel like I am 60. Our youth has been taken from us. All we can do is hang on to hope…”

The Greek Melkite Patriarchate, Damascus.

I arrived early at the Greek Catholic Melkite Patriarchate for their service, chancing upon a wonderful scene – the Patriarch Gregorios III Laham alone with two priests doing Matins. He was clearly training them in the chanting, with a beautiful mix of firm direction, genuine devotion, humility, mild humorous rebuke when they got it wrong, and constant explanation.

He even stopped to welcome me warmly and explain what was going on. Later, the Church filled for the Mass in which I was allowed to partake.  As I met and mingled with members of the congregation afterwards, I detected a deep sadness and weariness in people’s eyes, and in their words.

Christians have been a very part of the fabric of Syrian society since the earliest days of the Church.  The country is full of ancient Christian shrines and holy places, some of which are places of pilgrimage for Muslims too.  Yet, in parts of Syria, the Christian presence is being decimated, and historic Churches are being damaged and destroyed by the very forces that the west are supporting.

All communities acknowledge the gulf that has developed in trust between the communities during this conflict, and express a deep sadness given the historic tolerance and life that the communities shared prior to the conflct.   And yet, after the service, a young Syrian woman approached me and said: “We will stay.  This is our home.  And Syria would not be Syria without the Christian community.”

It has been a privilege to meet with Patriarch Laham on several occasions over the years.   He has always been consistent in his requests that the outside world acknowledges and respects the diversity of Syria.  He has always celebrated Syria’s extraordinary plurality and secularity.

Unfortunately, as with the majority of the Christian leaders in Syria, who call upon western nations to cease supporting outside forces that are promoting sectarianism and violence, his cry, too, remains unheeded.

[End of Part One]

Revd Andrew Ashdown is an Anglican priest in England.  He has been visiting and leading groups to the Middle East for over 25 years, and has visited Syria four times since April 2014, both as a member of faith delegations, and more recently independently.  Andrew is undertaking research into Christian/Muslim relations in the region.

He always had a rough deal.  He strayed as a young man, a situation that would have been perfectly acceptable if he had picked the approved rogue group or terrorist collective to vent his adolescent angst.  Al Qaeda, and their Taliban hosts, were not on that list.  Having fallen out of favour with the Oscar equivalent of good terrorist nominees, Australia’s David Hicks found himself in the dark, picked up in Afghanistan in November 2001 and conveyed to that terrestrial nightmare known as Guantánamo Bay soon after.

From January 2002 to March 2007, he was detained at the US Naval Base on the island. Over five years later, he was sentenced (on March 31, 2007) by Military Commission to a term of imprisonment of seven years.  A bilateral transfer prison arrangement between the US and Australia followed, with Hicks returning to Australia in May 2007 to serve seven months of his sentence.  Suspecting that his behaviour might turn, the Federal Magistrates Court imposed an interim control order on Hicks on his release on December 28, 2007.

Unfortunately for Hicks, the military commissions, fanciful creatures of executive contrivance, were more real than most. It would take till February 2015 for the courts to find in David Hicks v United States of America that he was innocent, an acknowledgment that led to the vacation of his sentence for providing material support for terrorism.[1]  That greatest of legal sins – retroactivity – had come into play.

Then came, all too late, the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s consideration about what happened to Hicks relative to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[2]  It was submitted on September 10, 2010, and took over five years to finalise.

It reads much like a re-learning of the alphabet of international law and obligations, and its pitfalls.  As we all know, that alphabet tends to lose letters rapidly when it comes to the matter of domestic self-interest. Unfortunately, the UNHRC proved that it, too, can fail when tested on the subject of how the Covenant applies.  Narrow and distinctly tunnelled, the decision will leave human rights lawyers and activists troubled.

Communication No. 2005/2010, otherwise outlining “Views adopted by the Committee at its 115^th session (19 October-6 November 2015)” considers such points as retroactive punishment, torture, arbitrary detention, conditions in detention, unfair trial, non-discrimination and the right to privacy. The subject of Hicks grief was the Australian participation in a sordid affair of penal imagination.

The main question charging the UNHRC was whether Australia had jurisdiction over the subject “while he was in the custody of the United States.”  The fact that the US had not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant did not prevent the committee from examining Hicks’ concerns regarding Australian responsibility even during his time in US custody.

Time and time again, the Australian case regarding Hicks has been one of dismissal and lack of interest. If Hicks was being tortured, that would pose no concern to the satraps in Australia. If Hicks was being subjected to novel forms of military commission, then that could hardly trouble Australian consul officials. As long as some machinery was turning to punish Hicks, Australia’s officials would be content that someone was doing their job, even when if the grounds were spurious. Offshoring justice, it could be argued, is a very distinct trait in Australia’s legal culture, an effort to lighten the obligations imposed by international law.

Hicks’ powerful argument on torture centred on Australia’s failure to investigate allegations of its commission while in US custody.  In rebuttal, Canberra’s argument was that it had no obligation under the Covenant “to investigate allegations of torture relating to conduct outside the jurisdiction of a State party.”  Such an argument, if accepted, would suggest that torture can, by its very nature, be outsourced, kept beyond the jurisdictional control of the citizen’s country.  If another state is doing it, one is under no obligation to intrusively assist citizens.

The Committee went so far as to note that Australian officials continued to interview Hicks several times while in US custody and the efforts of Australian agents to investigate other claims of torture made against its nationals.  These did not, however, constitute acts of “control” over Hicks, even if Australia might have done more to help their national.  Its officials were “in a position to take positive measures to ensure that [Hicks] was treated in a manner consonant with the Covenant, including to take measures intended to remedy violations of the author’s rights.”

Having considered that aspect, the Committee still felt, rather fancifully, that spending seven months in Australia, despite being a violation, was a form of mitigation of harm “he would have suffered had he continued to be kept” at the Guantánamo Bay facility.  One ill had been mitigated by another.

Hicks’ counsel also failed to get what they wanted on claims that the Covenant was breached over the imposition of the control order once he was released from Australian prison.  The UNHRC decided that challenging the discretion of the Federal Magistrate judge in the matter was not something it could do lightly.  There was no obvious “arbitrariness or denial of justice”.  Again, legal novelty prevailed, with a regime of continued punishment left undisturbed by international scrutiny.

Hicks did get some satisfaction regarding his claim of arbitrary detention (Art. 9(1)) for the seven months of his sentence served in Australia proper.  But in doing so, the UNHRC’s verdict was narrow, and its effect limiting. The large points were left undisturbed.  As the Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University observed, “the UNHRC ultimately focused on the lowest-hanging fruit”.[3]  The sordid tale of Australian complicity remains unchallenged.

 

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

Notes:

1. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hicks-v.-United-States-13-004-Decision-Feb-18-2015-1.pdf

2. http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/115/D/2005/2010&Lang=en

3. https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/australia-found-to-have-breached-the-rights-of-david-hicks,8708

In light of the recent US government case against Apple, we bring to the attention of our readers this piece originally published in January 2014: 

New information made public by Edward Snowden reveals that the governments of the United States and United Kingdom are trawling data from cellphone “apps” to accumulate dossiers on the “political alignments” of millions of smartphone users worldwide.

According to a 2012 internal UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) document, the National Security Agency (NSA) and GCHQ have been accumulating and storing hundreds of millions of user “cookies” —the digital footprints left on a cellphone or computer each time a user visits a web site—in order to accumulate detailed personal information about users’ private lives.

This confirms that the main purpose of the programs is not to protect the population from “terrorism,” but to facilitate the state repression of working class opposition to widening social inequality and social counterrevolution. The programs do not primarily target “terrorists,” but workers, intellectuals, and students.

The collection of data regarding the “political alignment” of cellphone users also suggests that the governments of the US and UK are keeping lists of those whose “political alignments” are of concern to the government. Previous revelations have shown how the NSA and GCHQ “flag” certain “suspects” for additional surveillance: the most recent revelation indicates that suspects are “flagged” at least in part based on their “political alignment.”

The legal rationale behind this process points to a growing movement to criminalize political thought in the US and UK.

If, as the revelations indicate, determining a user’s “political alignment” is a primary goal of this program, then it is also likely a factor in determining whether the government has a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the user is a “terrorist suspect.” If this is the case, the web sites a user visits may raise the government’s level of suspicion that the user is engaged in criminal activity, and may thereby provide the government with the pseudo-legal pretext required to unlock the content of all his or her phone calls, emails, text messages, etc.

Such a rationale would amount to a flagrant violation of both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Not only does the Fourth Amendment protect against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the First Amendment also proscribes the government from monitoring individuals based on their political beliefs. The elimination of such a fundamental democratic right would be a dangerous step towards the imposition of a police state dictatorship.

The new report also details the depth of the mobile-app spying operation.

A 2009 “brute-force” analysis test performed by the NSA and GCHQ of what the New York Times describes as a “tiny sliver of their cellphone databases” revealed that in one month, the NSA collected cellphone data of 8,615,650 cellphone users. Data from the GCHQ test revealed that in three months, the British had spied on 24,760,289 users. Expanded to a full year, this data shows that in 2009, the NSA collected data from over 103,000,000 users, while GCHQ collected data from over 99,000,000 users: and this coming from only a “tiny sliver” of a month’s data!

“They are gathered in bulk, and are currently our single largest type of events,” one leaked document reads.

The program—referred to in one NSA document as “Golden Nugget!”—also allows the governments to receive a log of users’ Google Maps application use. Such information allows the intelligence apparatus to track the exact whereabouts of surveillance victims worldwide. One chart from an internal NSA slideshow asks: “Where was my target when they did this?” and “Where is my target going?”

An NSA report from 2007 bragged that so much geo-data could be gathered that the intelligence agencies would “be able to clone Google’s database” of all searches for directions made via Google Maps.

“It effectively means that anyone using Google Maps on a smartphone is working in support of a GCHQ system,” a 2008 GCHQ report noted.

Additional presentation material leaked by Snowden shows that in 2010 the NSA explained that its “perfect scenario” was to “target uploading photo to a social media site taken with a mobile device.” The same slide asks, “What can we get?” The answer, according to the same presentation, includes the photographs of the user, buddy lists, emails, phone contacts, and “a host of other social networking data as well as location.”

The agencies also use information provided by mobile apps to paint a clear picture of the victim’s current location, sexual orientation, marital status, income, ethnicity, education level, and number of children.

GCHQ has an internal code-name system for grading their ability to snoop on a particular cellphone user. The codes are based on the television show “The Smurfs.” If the agencies can tap the phone’s microphone to listen to conversations, the codename “Nosey Smurf” is employed. If the agencies can track the precise location of the user as he or she moves, the codename “Tracker Smurf” is used. The ability to track a phone that is powered off is named “Dreamy Smurf,” and the ability to hide the spy software is coded “Paranoid Smurf.”

That the intelligence agencies have cheekily nicknamed codes in an Orwellian surveillance program after animated characters from a children’s show is a telling indication of the contempt with which the ruling class views the democratic rights of the population of the world.

Additionally, the agencies have been tracking and storing data from a series of cellphone game applications, including the popular “Angry Birds” game, which has been downloaded over 1.7 billion times.

The tracking of data from online games like “Angry Birds” further reveals that these programs are not intended to protect the population from “terrorism.” It would be indefensible for the NSA and GCHQ to explain that they suspected to glean information about looming Al Qaeda plots from a mindless cellphone game.

Yet this is precisely how the NSA has attempted to justify these programs.

“The communications of people who are not valid foreign intelligence targets are not of interest to the National Security Agency,” an agency spokeswoman said. “Any implication that NSA’s foreign intelligence collection is focused on the smartphone or social media communications of everyday Americans is not true. Moreover, NSA does not profile everyday Americans as it carries out its foreign intelligence mission.”

In an added indication of its anti-democratic character, the US government is therefore employing the technique of the “Big Lie” by denying what has just been proven true.

In reality, the revelations have further exposed President Barack Obama’s January 17 speech as a celebration of lies.

The president told the nation that the spying programs do “not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans.” He also said that the US “is not abusing authorities to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails,” and that “the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security.”

He added in reference to the “folks” at the NSA that “nothing I have learned [about the programs] indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.”

But the evidence is mounting that the governments of the US and UK are compiling information regarding the “political alignments” of hundreds of millions across the globe. All those responsible for carrying out such a facially anti-democratic campaign—including President Obama, David Cameron, their aides, and the leaders of the security apparatus—must face criminal charges and immediate removal from office.

Bouthaina Shaaban has been an effective and dominating figure representing the Syrian government in Western media for years now. Having delivered a number of fiery rebuttals to Western governments and the claims made by their State Departments and media mouthpieces, the political advisor to President Bashar al-Assad has recently returned to the Western media circuit to respond to questions regarding fighting terrorism in Syria and the upcoming implementation of a U.S. – Russian brokered ceasefire there. 

In her interview to largely sympathetic RT, Shaaban stated that dialogue between the Syrian government, “rebels,” and other “opposition forces” would legitimately be held “whenever the opposition is able to get together and be at the table.” She also pointed out that the so-called “opposition” has yet to even agree on the makeup of their own delegation.

“For five years they [Syrian opposition] have not been able to have a dialogue, because each party of this opposition belongs to a different country and is paid by different countries. They are not an opposition that have a political party in Syria and that have grown from the Syrian people. This is the only opposition in the world that are agents of foreign countries against their own country,”

she said.

Pointing out that both the Syrian and Iraqi armies are doing their best to defeat and destroy ISIS, she also reiterated that “We are running the country according to its constitution… We are fighting terrorism as we should, and we are forthcoming in pursuing any political solution.”

Shaaban specified that the interference of both regional and international players has prevented Syria and Iraq from defeating the terrorist organization and restoring peace to their respective countries.

“If it were not for the support [of militants groups] by regional parties – in particular Turkey and Saudi Arabia, it would not be difficult to defeat ISIL. But the money, the resources, the facilitation comes from these countries to IS. [IS] doesn’t live in a vacuum.”

She added that not only has ISIS received support from countries in the region but also “political support of the United States and the West.”

Shaaban further pointed out the hypocrisy and falsehood of the label “moderate rebel” or “moderate opposition.” Shaaban stated that

“There is no such thing as moderate terrorist or moderate opposition, because anyone who carries arms is not moderate, anyone who is killing people is not moderate, anyone who is destroying institutions in the country is not moderate.”

“Moderate,” she stated, “has no relation to reality whatsoever.”

Shaaban pointed out the use of semantics and wordplay by the West and its regional allies to promote a particular narrative – in this case, the narrative that there is or ever was such a thing in Syria as a “moderate opposition.”

“It’s very dangerous, as so many people are using it almost unconsciously… It’s an abuse of the language,” Shaaban said.

When asked about John Kerry’s Plan B (the breakup and partitioning of Syria) if the ceasefire fails, Shaaban stated that “the Syrian people have fought for five years against any partition of Syria.” Still, she expressed hope that the Russian-American agreement will succeed but stipulated that it must “keep the territorial integrity and the unity of Syria.”

The main objective, Shaaban says, is to defeat terrorism in the region and that “requires, first of all, stopping the flow of support” to the terrorist organizations.

“It’s only [when] the Russian forces came to Syria that the oil trucks that were going to Turkey were attacked. Only when the Russian planes came to Syria, were we able to control some parts of the border with Turkey. . . .And that’s why Turkey started to attack us directly,”

she stated.

Shaaban stated that both the Russian and Syrian air forces only target terrorist targets and never civilians despite the “many false reports that Western media put in order to show that Russia is not doing the right thing in Syria.”

“I get tired of saying how many unfounded news come to us every day from Western media. They fabricate news about Russia, Syria, about what’s happening on the ground – but they have no grain of truth in them,”

she said.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 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 atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

The sentences for long term political prisoners are extreme. And cruel, revenge for the prisoner’s challenge to the system rather than appropriate punishment for alleged crimes of self defence or for the unplanned tragedies of political actions. Because many here were provably targeted by law enforcement programs to silence them and are likely to be innocent, the length of prison terms falls into a pattern of racist and political oppression.

The prisoners are consistently from Black or left wing resistance groups after moderate leaders within the system were assassinated. The arrests and sentencing come from a time when police actions against Black Panthers were overtly criminal (Fred Hampton) and covertly part of a military and law enforcement war against the left, anti war resistance, the poor. Allegations against leaders of Black communities couldn’t be relied on as factual. While “life imprisonment” is better than death who will tell us that it’s bearable? Beyond sentencing, some cases show repetitive patterns of withholding medical care to the point of extrajudicial punishment, particularly where the prisoner was accused of crimes against police (ref. Oct. 13, 2013). The additional extra-judicial punishment of holding a prisoner for years in solitary confinement is finally being recognized as a crime. It’s torture. Political prisoners targeted for their convictions, their organizing, their truths, suffered more than most of us can sustain, and some have survived. Their lives weren’t allowed to be lived. Their suffering was caused and intended to scare everyone else. We remember political prisoners because they keep alive our hope that there will always be people who say no to what is unacceptable.

Thomas William Manning of the Ohio Seven: according to Medical Justice of the Jericho Movement Manning remains at FMC Butner where he was transferred in 2010: his knee replacement surgery was performed in 2012 but kept him in a wheelchair since his damaged shoulder didn’t allow him to progress with physiotherapy. Shoulder surgery, for an injury which by my understanding was caused by police (on arrest he was picked up and dropped until something broke), continues to be denied him as ‘not medically necessary.’ Appropriate private medical treatment was effectively denied with his parole, November 2014. He’s expected to be freed August 20, 2020. Tom Manning became an artist in prison and there’s an art book of his paintings out – For Love and Liberty: Artist Tom Manning, Freedom Fighter, Political Prisoner.  [1]

Albert Woodfox, of the Angola 3 was finally released February 19, 2016. The State of Louisiana appealed three former judicial attempts to free him, and kept him in solitary confinement. At the final trial the prisoner pleaded nolo contendere in a plea bargain which gains his freedom without admission of guilt but lets him plead to lesser charges for which he has already served the time. This time he can’t be placed back in a cell. The extreme injustice remains that as an innocent, Albert Woodfox served 43 years in solitary confinement. His lawyer is bringing legal action against the State of Louisiana for its policies of solitary confinement.  [2]

Russell Maroon Shoatz: in 2013 counsel for Russell Maroon Shoatz sued Pennsylvania’s State Corrections Secretary, John Wetzel, and the Greene Correctional Institution Superintendent, Louis Folino, for cruel and unusual punishment without recourse to remedy. This directly attacked the solitary confinement policies of the State’s Department of Corrections. The case protests the cruelty of solitary confinement as applied to Shoatz for over 22 years. It may help other Pennsylvania prisoners. On February 15, 2016 the federal court judge ruled that Shoatz’s case should be decided by a jury trial. At the hearing Shoatz’s lawyer was able to provide a report by Juan Mendez, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Torture who found the conditions of Shoatz’s imprisonment beyond the current norm of civilized nations.  [3]

Mumia Abu Jamal: his case has allowed a challenge to a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections policy on treatment of patients with Hepatits C. There is a known treatment for the disease. It costs about eighty-four thousand dollars in the U.S.. If not treated Hep C may develop into cirrhosis of the liver which is lethal. Even when diagnosed with Hep C U.S. prisoners are not usually treated for the disease because of the expense. Abu-Jamal’s lawyers are challenging the DFOCV policy of triage which waits to give expensive treatment until there is a Hepatitis C caused medical emergency which is possibly fatal. The hope is to gain Abu-Jamal among other prisoners the life-saving treatment. The effects on Abu-Jamal through lack of appropriate medical treatment as revealed through trial testimony, are awful, similar to the effects of torture, and these were unrefuted.  [4]

Leonard Peltier: the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (ILPDC) has confirmed that a preliminary diagnosis of the prisoner’s condition by an MRI shows an abdominal aortic aneurism. Aware of Peltier’s illness before June 2015, initial results were available about January 10th, 2016. Consistently, prison authorities have moved very slowly to address Peltier’s medical difficulties to the point of endangering his life for the forty years of his imprisonment so far. Treatment of a potentially fatal aneurism requires an exception – it was to be operated on before mid-January. Peltier notes in an article of Feb. 23rd that no operation was forthcoming since he’s in a maximum security prison and inmates don’t get treatment until the problem is terminal. There was always serious doubt of the validity of Peltier’s conviction. There is strong doubt he’s being held legally now. He needs and deserves the clemency students across the country will be demanding February 27th.  [5]

Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin: one of the most important alternative voices in America, Al-Amin remains without pardon in prison serving a life sentence. I believe he’s innocent of the charges against him. At Butner Federal Medical Center a bone marrow biopsy on Jan. 23, 2014 revealed the presence of myeloma cells. The condition was to be monitored every several months. Then he was returned to the remote ADX Florence Colorado, an over-controlled maximum security prison for the most dangerous prisoners. It’s considered one of America’s worst. On Sept. 3, 2015 a prisoner was able to contact the Prison Movement with the news that Al-Amin was in a medical emergency. [6]

Robert Seth Hayes: in July 2015, Medical Justice noted that Seth Hayes was beginning to receive some treatment for his Hepatitis C and diabetes but none for “chronic bleeding and abdominal growths.” Despite previous emergency alerts and notices he continues without adequate health care at Sullivan Correctional Facility in New York. Medical Justice claims his diabetes is not under control and as of November 2015 he was having trouble breathing. Medical Justice has asked he be taken to a pulmonary and heart specialist immediately. Medical treatment so far is inadequate to the point of intentional harm. Hayes is a Vietnam war veteran and Black Panther sentenced back in 1973 to from 25 years to life. It’s 2016 now. He’s denied his freedom and his health.   [7]

Sekou Odinga: imprisoned for his part in the 1979 freeing of Assata Shakur and his part in the Brinks robbery of 1981, with a mandatory release date of 2009, Sekou Abdullah Odinga (Nathaniel Burns) left prison on parole Nov. 25, 2014. He passed about half his 34 years time in solitary confinement. [8]

Dr. Mutulu Shakur: under laws no longer in effect Dr. Shakur won his release date of Feb. 10, 2016, after serving 30 years of a sixty year sentence. On Feb. 4th he received notice of a scheduled parole hearing on April 4th and so remains in Victorville U.S. Penitentiary (California). He is being held illegally. Authorities hold against him the planning of the Brinks robbery of 1981 where two policemen and two guards were killed, and attribute to him the successful escape of Assata Shakur (Joanne D. Chesimard) from a New Jersey prison to Cuba. A doctor, healer and teacher he should be allowed to continue his work of wholeness, caring for people in New York. [9]

Judith Clark has served 35 years of a minimum 75 year sentence; she’ll be eligible for parole at the age of 107. She drove a getaway car for the 1981 Brinks robbery which Dr. Shakur is said to have planned. She was not accused of any violent act and the intolerable length of her sentence reflected the court’s judgement of her political thinking and expression rather than her degree of guilt. She refused a lawyer as did David Gilbert still in prison, and Kuwasi Balagoon who has died in prison. Her statements to the court were honest but radical. Of the same group Kathy Boudin plead guilty which brought her a twenty year sentence and she left prison on parole in 2003. The New York Times reports that former presidents of the New York Bar association have joined in a plea of clemency for Judith Clark. Under current law an appeal to the governor is the only means of finding her a release from prison. The length of the sentence is so clearly unjust it reflects poorly on the sanity of the legal system. [10]

Under the norms of civilization, each of these prisoners would be freed. But each of these cases is abnormal, contravening any international expectation of justice. The length of the sentences is consistently skewed from the norm. The sentences are primitive, scented with revenge and racist hatred. These prisoners among all the public doesn’t know about had their lives taken away because of what they believed and who they cared for. From a time when law enforcement was corrupt, racist, and as programmed to right wing extremism as it is today, the charges against the prisoners do not match up with the prisoners’ histories, writings , concerns, deeds over the years, whom they’ve proved themselves to be. So the allegations are either hard to believe, or within a logic of self defence. The courts’ astounding long sentences were intended to wipe out the left wing. In a United States that promises freedom who would have the outrageous ignorance to deny any of these a pardon.

Gouache drawings by Julie Maas

Notes:

1. “Tom Manning,” current, Medical Justice; “Tom Manning (prisoner) explained,” current, Explained Today‘ “Tom Manning,” current, Wikipedia.
2. “Albert Woodfox of the Angola 3 released from prison in Louisiana,” Steve Almasy, Feb. 19, 2016, CNN; “Albert Woodfox released from jail after 43 years in solitary confinement,” Ed Pilkington, Feb. 19, 2016, theguardian.
3. “22 Years in Solitary May Be Cruel & Unusual, Federal Judge Says,”Rose Bouboushian, Feb. 18, 2016, Courthouse News Service; “How a Former Black Panther Could Change the Rules of Solitary Confinement,” Victoria Law, Feb. 22, 2016, The Nation.
4. “Mumia Abu-Jamal vs John Kerestes et al,” #15cv967, Dec. 18, 2015, The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania [access:< http://www.prisonradio.org/sites/default/files/letters/pdf/Abu-Jamal%20v%20Kerestes%20PreliminInjunctionTranscript%2012-15%20%281%29.pdf >].
5. “New Health Emergency for Leonard Peltier,” Jan. 6, 2016, International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee; “Leonard Peltier’s MRI Confirms Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Diagnosis,” Levi Rickert, Jan. 10, 2016, Native News Online.net; “Call for National Student Day of Action: Demand Obama Grant Clemency to Leonard Peltier!” current, peltierstudentnationalaction.wordpress.com; “What Can I Say?” Leonard Peltier, Feb.23, 2016, NetNewsLedger.
6. “Stop the execution of Imam Jamil, the former H. Rap Brown, by medical neglect in federal prison”, the Imam Jamil Action Network, Sept. 6, 2015, BayView; Biopsy results released for Imam Jamil Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown)”, Karima Al-Amin, Aug. 8, 2014, BayView; “Jamil Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown),” current, Medical Justice
7. “July update on Seth Hayes: Call for support,” July 5, 2015, Medical Justice; “Robert Seth Hayes Urgent Medical Update,” Nov. 16, 2015, Medical Justice.
8. “UC-Irvine welcomes ‘political prisoner’ involved in cop killings,” Dave Huber, Feb. 10, 2016, The College Fix; “Free ‘Em All: 50 Years Later, Black Panthers Are Still Fighting for Freedom,” Asha Bandele, Feb. 18, 2016 Huffington Post, Alternet.
9. “Mutulu Shakur,” current, Family & Friends of Dr. Mutulu Shakur; “Mutulu Shakur has not been released from Prison ,” Pologod, Feb. 12, 2016, The source; “Dr. Mutulu Shakur: More than Tupac’s stepfather!” Feb.18, 2016, BayView.
10. “As Ringleader in ’81 Brink’s Robbery Goes Free, a Plea for Its Getaway Driver,” Jim Dwyer, Feb. 9, 2016, The New York Times; “Judith Clark’s Radical Transformation,” Tom Robbins, Jan. 12, 2012, The New York Times Magazine.

Pan-African News Wire Editor Abayomi Azikiwe [pictured left] says the U.S. is acting like the chief policeman of the region after it participated in the destruction of the Libyan state in 2011.

SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: It’s the Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.

For some time now concerns over the Islamic State have been specific to the nation of Iraq and Syria. But in recent months, with the recent attacks and bombing campaigns, the group has seen a reduction in its ranks in those countries, and around the same time, however, Libya has seen its ISIL membership double to roughly 6,000 fighters. Reports from the intelligence community indicate that ISIL is attempting to establish a caliphate in the West African nation.

On to talk about what’s going on in Libya is Abayomi Azikiwe. He is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire, an electronic press agency that was founded in 1998. Abayomi, thank you so much for joining the Real News Network.

ABAYOMI AZIKIWE: Thank you.

PERIES: So Abayomi, there appears to be much consternation over the international community in terms of recent spread of ISIL in Libya. Do you assess this development as a threat?

AZIKIWE: It’s clearly a threat to the people of Libya, who have been imperiled over the last five years as a result of a counter-revolution that began in February of 2011. It led very quickly to the passage of two United Nations resolutions authorizing a naval blockade and economic embargo, and of course a massive bombing campaign that continued from March 19 of 2011 all the way to October 31 of the same year.

Since 2011, Libya has gone from being the most prosperous and stable state on the African continent to being one of the most unstable, that is fostering an instability throughout the entire region of North as well as West Africa. This instability has extended, as well, into the Mediterranean area, because at this point Libya has become perhaps the largest source for human trafficking across the Mediterranean into Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe.

Now, the migration of so-called Islamic State fighters to Libya is in part due directly to the intervention of the Russian Federation, which has been carrying out air strikes against Islamic State positions, as well as bases of other armed groups that are fighting against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad. They therefore have new ground, new territory, which many of them have relocated to the northwest coast of Libya. They’ve taken over the hometown of the former leader of the country, who is now deceased, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, of Sirte. And they have spread out from Sirte to other areas of the country. The problem in Libya, as well, is that you have numerous militias and political factions that are vying for authority within their own areas, as well as nationally. They are two competing rival regimes, which they are attempting to force into a merger or an alliance, [inaud.] an interim government. [Inaud.] that interim government is really not functioning as a unified entity. There are still major differences between the two rival regimes as well as in each respective rival junta.

So the context for all of this, it’s a very difficult place to stabilize.

PERIES: The U.S. is dropping bombs on Libya as we speak, and the Pentagon recently proposed spending another $200 million on training and equipping security forces in the North, and in West Africa. What are the long-term implications of this kind of engagement again in Libya?

AZIKIWE: This Kurd engagement is actually a precursor for the deployment of 6,000 United Nations-led so-called peacekeeping forces. Italy is supposed to be the titular head of this military unit. However, there is disagreement among the two rival camps in Libya over the deployment of these UN peacekeeping forces. Martin Kobler, who is a career German diplomat who was also involved in Iraq, as well as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and spearheaded this effort to implement this unity accord between the so-called House of Representatives as well as a general national congress. These are the two rival regimes, one of which is based in Tripoli, the capital, and the other in the eastern part of the country, in Tobruk.

The bombing that was carried out on February 19 in Sabratha was an action ostensibly designed to halt the spreading of the Islamic State. It’s reported that at least 40 people were killed, two of whom were Serbian diplomats who had been kidnapped by IS operatives who were being held. The Serbian government protested against the bombing, because they were in the midst of negotiating for the release of these diplomats, and the United States did not make them aware that this bombing operation was going to take place. Also, the interim government protested the air strikes because they say they were not informed prior to the strike that it was going to be carried out.

So it looks as if the United States, under the Obama administration, engaging in the same policies that the United States has been known for for years. And that is disrespect of the sovereignty, and of course the right to self-determination of all of these states. So you create conditions for the destruction of Libya in 2011, and after the country has been destroyed, when all efforts to put it back together have failed, the United States now is acting as if it is the chief policeman to bring about some type of stability inside the country against the Islamic State.

But even if we look at the Islamic State itself, its origins go back to Iraq as a direct result of another intervention that failed. That was against the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the rise of the resistance in Iraq against the U.S. occupation. Now, there’s a different configuration of the so-called Islamic extremist organizations today, but within the context of developments in Iraq, you had the birth of ISIL and later the Islamic State which spread into Syria, and of course now has spread into Libya as well.

PERIES: Now, let’s take a specific example. You mentioned Sirte earlier, which is the hometown of Muammar Gaddafi, and supporters of Muammar Gaddafi that are still there obviously are very upset, and still remember the end of Gaddafi’s reign. And these are very susceptible folks, in terms of getting involved with ISIL. Give us a flavor of how these kinds of sentiments feed and fuel the evolution and the growth of ISIL.

AZIKIWE: The growth of ISIL is clearly connected with U.S. and NATO foreign policy throughout the Middle East. There was an attempt to balance the growing influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the intervention by the United States and Britain and their allies in Iraq. The consequence of that was Iran becoming the most stable and most politically influential government throughout the region. Also, you have, you have Hezbollah, which is a resistance movement in Southern Lebanon, which is also a Shia-based movement, which is in alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the same time in Yemen, we have the growth of the Ansar Allah, the so-called Houthi movement, which last year nearly took control of the entire, most of the territory in Yemen.

These entities, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, the Ansar Allah in Yemen, are allied with Syria, with the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, which is an Alawite-dominated government, but is working in alliance with the so-called Shia crescent. This is the terminology that’s been utilized by the West to characterize its alliance, which I just outlined.

So the Islamic State, being a Sunni-based guerrilla and political movement, they, of course, are very sectarian in their approach and view the Shia-dominated movements as their moral enemies, even more so than they do the United States, and even the state of Israel. Consequently, it is a political game of brinkmanship that’s being played out right now, and it appears to many people that the U.S. and its allies, including–there are Turkey, which is a part of NATO, and Saudi Arabia, which is a very close ally of the United States, are actually working in conjunction undermining Iranian influence in the Middle East, and also on the African continent as well.

So it’s been documented that ISIS fighters have had free transport, as well as economic relations and interactions with the Turkish state, because the Turkish state is also committed, along with the U.S., with the overthrow of the Arab Baath socialist party government of President Bashar al-Assad.

PERIES: And what kind of evidence are you pointing to that there is this alliance between the Turkish government and ISIL?

AZIKIWE: Well, the fact that various journalists from numerous news agencies, including Press TV, including RT, have documented the movement of ISIS fighters between Turkey and Syria. Also, the bombing by the Russian federation of these supply lines for oil and weapons and other goods has in fact fueled tensions between Turkey and Moscow. We saw the shooting down of a Russian fighter plane several months ago, claiming that it had veered into Turkish territory, which the Russians denied.

So these are some of the variables that are involved in making these connections between Turkey and the Islamic State, as well as Washington, and also Saudi Arabia.

PERIES: Abayomi, you’re referring here to RT, which is Russia Today, and Press TV, which is the international arm of the Iranian state TV network. Now, how do we know that these sources you are citing are actually in fact correct?

AZIKIWE: They are independent of the Western based corporate as well as governmental media outlets. They provide a different perspective than what you would get over the BBC or CNN, or National Public Radio, or the public broadcasting system. So they are independent of the West. They do have correspondents on the ground in those areas. The alliance between Russia, Syria, Iran, and other forces, they represent the bulwark of opposition against the Islamic State, and as allies and as benefactors within NATO, and also within the United States.

So in that regard, even if you do not accept, totally, the editorial policy or direction of Press TV and RT and other media agencies that operate outside the influence and the control of the West, they still provide a balance in regard to assessing what is actually going on in these geopolitical regions of the Middle East, as well as in North Africa.

PERIES: All right, fair enough. I thank you so much for joining us today, and giving us a perspective that is different from what we see on the mainstream media. Thank you so much for joining us today.

AZIKIWE: Thank you.

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire, an electronic press agency that was founded in 1998. He has worked as a broadcast journalist for the last 14 years, and has worked for decades in solidarity with the liberation movements and progressive governments on the African continent and the Caribbean. Azikiwe is the co-founder of several Detroit-area organizations including: The Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice, and the Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shut-offs. Between 2007-2011 Azikiwe served as the chairperson of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights(MCHR) and is currently the president of the organization.

On February 20^th, the anti-Russian propaganda site Newsweek headlined «How We Can Defeat Putin» and presented an essay from Evelyn Farkas, of the NATO-generated Atlantic Council, but didn’t indicate her being controlled by the same people who control NATO (the US aristocracy). (Newsweek hid her connection to NATO – gave no indication of it.)

NATO is run by the North Atlantic Council, and its main PR agencies are the Atlantic Council and the Atlantic Treaty Association, both of which receive funding from international corporations. The head of the Atlantic Council is billionaire Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former US Presidential candidate, and a member of the Bilderberg organization, which was founded in 1954 to engineer a takeover of national governments’ regulatory abilities and a replacement of national economic regulations by international economic treaties, which will supersede any national authority and will not be answerable to any voters except the controlling stockholders in international corporations. (Bilderberger David Rockefeller then created the Trilateral Commission in 1974, to extend the globally controlling aristocracy to include also Japanese aristocrats, and Huntsman is also a member of that Bilderberg spin-off: he’s a member of the Trilateral Commission’s ruling Executive Committee.)

Farkas’s propaganda-piece opened:

«Russia poses a geostrategic threat to the United States and our interests. Indeed, earlier this month Defense Secretary Ash Carter listed it first among the threats faced by our nation.»

She continued: 

«The Kremlin’s objectives are clear: 1) Retain Vladimir Putin’s position as the leader of the Russian Federation, preserving the autocratic political system and mafia-style crony economy that together make up ‘Putinism’; 2) restore Russia’s status as a great power; 3) rewrite the international rules and norms to prevent intervention in states to protect citizens; 4) maintain political control of Russia’s geographical periphery; and, if possible, 5) break NATO, the European Union and trans-Atlantic unity».

One could turn that around against the United States by saying that we Americans have a depersonalized, institutionalized, form of dictatorship, which doesn’t require continuance of the same person to be in control, but which provides foreign policies that extend little changed from one President to the next, even if the rhetoric differs considerably between individual Presidents, such as it did and does from George W Bush to Barack Obama, with little real difference in policies except this: tortures such as waterboarding might possibly now be actually forbidden here. However, Putin’s international policies have been changing far more than that. (They changed a lot after Obama overthrew the democratically elected and pro-Russian President of Ukraine in February 2014 and instituted a rabidly anti-Russian fascist regime there.)

Domestically, Obama continued Bush’s Wall Street bailouts and reduced the prosecutions of white-collar crooks (and also of higher-level «financial fraud»), even lower than was the situation when Bush was the nominal President. Also, the prosecutions of government corruption declined under Obama. This was not the type of «change» that Obama’s voters had been voting for, but it’s what we got.

The only scientific study that has been done of whether or not the US is a democracy or instead a dictatorship (rule of the public by an aristocracy, which may or may not have a king or other nominal dictator that rules answerable to that elite but not to any broader public) found that the US, at least since 1980, has been a dictatorship (the authors called it an «oligarchy»). That doesn’t sound much different from what is typically said about Russia, either.

The readers of Ms Farkas’s propaganda-article, if one judges by the reader-comments there, were far less damning against Mr Putin than they were against the con-job that had just been delivered to them by Newsweek (and so perhaps that ‘news’ site’s constant ads seeking new subscribers to the site are not producing nearly as much income as are the propaganda-services Newsweek delivers on behalf of their international-corporate advertisers). To read those comments from readers, Americans are getting jaundice from reading America’s propagandistic ‘press’. Here were two typical such comments:

«I have been reading and watching western media and Russian media equally. There is no bad guy here in geopolitics. If there is then its the US».

Another said:

«Meanwhile Putin plays chess Americans play checkers. And the Americans (Obama) are sold as chess players (at least they make themselves believe it) to start with… Now they have propaganda outlets like this one, that want to sell you a ‘checkers’ play to win the game».

Of course, such cynicism is also widespread among Russians, against their own nation’s media.

The Newsweek propagandist wrote in her article: «We must be united with our allies and partners worldwide and resolute toward Russian bad behavior». But, what about America’s «bad behavior»: unjustified and catastrophic invasion and destruction of Iraq in 2003, of Libya in 2011, and of Syria in 2013, and Obama’s keeping in power the coup-regime in Honduras that was installed there on 28 June 2009?

That’s not very nice, either – and, unlike anything that can be charged against Russia, there’s no NATO-like organization against the United States to have provoked our invasions, as there is with regard to Russia, which had long ago terminated its equivalent, the Warsaw Pact (in 1991). They disbanded theirs; we continued and still continue ours, even though its alleged raison d’être likewise ended in 1991 (and NATO and its propaganda-arms now drown us with propaganda such as Newsweek published here). Clearly, the US is the international aggressor, par excellence, and it needs propagandists – the US press – in order to make the American public fear «Saddam’s WMD» (to invade Iraq in 2003) and «Russian bad behavior» (to attempt a «color revolution» against Russia’s leader, Putin, whose approval-rating among his people is nearly twice as high as Obama’s own – and yet America calls itself a ‘democracy’ that brings ‘democracy’ to places such as Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and Russia).

More and more Americans are learning that they’re suckers if they pay for their ’news’ – if they pay their hard-earned money in order to be manipulated by their insatiable corrupting aristocracy. And now, with Chrome’s free Google Translate feature, one can receive the news from the media in every country, immediately translated into English, and thereby get a read not only on America’s propaganda but on that of the countries that the US aristocracy want Americans to overthrow (in overthrows that are becoming a very bad habit of this country, and that drain America’s tax dollars for rotten weaponry and a bloated army but enrich the ‘defense’ contractors that our aristocrats invest so heavily in, so as to conquer the lands they don’t currently control). Americans are increasingly coming to recognize that they’ve been (and are being) had: by ‘their’ government and by ‘their’ ‘free press’, if not by the aristocracy that controls them both.

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.

On February 17, a mass delegation of members and supporters of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) marched to Toronto City Hall. We brought with us copies of a report we had put together called Out in the Cold: The Crisis in Toronto’s Shelter System.

The City Council was putting the finishing touches to a municipal budget tailored to the needs of investors, developers and a well resourced police force. We entered the Council Chambers and interrupted their deliberations to deliver the report as many of them scrambled for the exits.

The Out in the Cold report, was our attempt to show just how severe the crisis within the shelter system has become. Shelter use has grown by 11 per cent over the last four years and there is no indication that this trend is likely to reverse. This situation arises from the accumulating impacts of an austerity agenda that has reduced the adequacy of income support programs to the point where many people find it impossible to eat properly and retain their housing. At the same time, this City is in the midst of a frenzied drive to create an oversupply of upscale housing that drives up rents and reduces affordable housing stock. Large scale homelessness is the predictable and inevitable end result.

The regime at City Hall that is working to further this twin agenda of austerity and redevelopment is deeply reluctant to adequately respond to the shelter needs of the homeless population that their work is creating. In tough times, people facing destitution will tend to move into the central areas of the major urban centres. The municipal administration is anxious to ensure that Toronto’s shelters remain forbidding places that are hard to access and even harder to tolerate. For this reason, the track record has been to concede as little as possible to community pressure and to keep the shelters crowded and uninviting.

Snapshot of Conditions

During the week of January 18, OCAP organized visits to shelter facilities to survey users, staff and volunteers. We deliberately focused our efforts on the interfaith ‘Out of the Colds’ and warming centres that function as a de facto back up to the main system. We calculated that we could learn a great deal by taking a snapshot of the conditions in these places. What we found was shocking. The City’s policy of keeping shelter occupancy at a maximum level of 90 per cent is being systematically disregarded. 81 per cent of those we surveyed told us that had been denied a shelter bed because the shelters were full. 55 per cent had been denied a spot in the Out of the Colds for the same reason. The system is bursting at the seams and the tensions that this produces are hardly surprising. 55 per cent of those surveyed had witnessed physical or sexual violence in a shelter and 19 per cent had experienced such things personally.

The Out of the Colds are being run by people who are doing all they can to meet needs that are overwhelming them. Mats are put down on church basement floors, sometimes only inches apart. Often there are no showers and inadequate numbers of sinks and toilets. I visited one place myself that had two toilets for seventy people. Ventilation is also often very poor. When the tensions that such a situation creates lead to conflicts, police are called and people are often barred from shelters.

We happened to conduct our survey during a week when the weather was relatively mild. During an extreme cold weather alert shortly afterwards, one of our members visited a warming centre just before the 6.00 AM wake up. He found that they had not only run out of mats but had actually run out of floor space. People were sleeping in chairs and propped up against the walls.

Threshold Has Been Crossed

The picture that emerges from the Out in the Cold report is one of austerity taken to the point of abandonment. After the right to decent wages or income has been denied and, after the very right to housing has been withdrawn, shelter from the elements is the last and most meagre measure of state provision before someone is simply left to survive on their own as best they can, if they can. In Toronto, that threshold has been crossed and the austerity agenda has come to such a point.

OCAP is now demanding that the 90 per cent maximum occupancy policy be enforced and that available federal property, the armouries, be opened as an emergency measure. We are also calling for an end to discriminatory practices that bar people from the shelters because the overcrowded conditions produce conflicts and incidents. We demand that there be no more closing of shelter beds, especially in the central areas of the City where they are most needed. Finally, we call for the federal and provincial levels of government to respond to the housing crisis that is fueling homelessness and restore funding for social housing that has been lost to the austerity agenda.

It is absolutely essential that trade unions and social movements understand that responding to the homeless crisis is not some consideration of charity. The creation of a growing destitute population is only the sharpest expression of the attack on the broader working class. If we are really going to build a movement that defends workers’ gains, challenges the attack on public services and forces back the privatization agenda, then we must be prepared to draw lines. If our movements in this City will tolerate a situation where people are left to die on the streets or have their health destroyed and their dignity denied in overcrowded human warehouses, then it’s hard to imagine anything that would lead us to say ‘enough is enough’.

During the recent cold spell in Toronto, the Out of the Colds were under enormous pressure and, in the space of 48 hours, a thirty one year old woman and a forty one year old man died on the floors of two of these places. Mayor John Tory and those around him have cynically decided that freezing deaths on the streets are a PR problem. Their ‘solution’ is to cram people into facilities that have become crucibles of human misery and go on with the job of creating the neoliberal city as if all was well. This inhuman agenda must be exposed, challenged and defeated and we must ensure adequate shelter for the homeless as we build a movement for the right to housing for everyone.

John Clarke is an organizer with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP).

Cessation of hostilities is scheduled to take effect on  February 27, at midnight Damascus time. 

Provisions mandate all fighting stop except against ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Security Council designated terrorist groups, comprising most anti-Assad forces.

Syria and Russia intend showing good faith. It’s unclear whether opposition elements will follow suit. It’ll take time to know beyond the midnight deadline, likely days or longer.

Conditions don’t change dramatically overnight. Given Obama’s rage to make Syria another US vassal state, chances for cessation of hostilities to work are virtually nil. Likewise for a durable peace.

How events play out remain to be seen. . 

If cessation of hostilities fails, John Kerry suggested partitioning northern Syria, creating a so-called safe zone along Turkey’s border, enforced by 30,000 troops, an imperial scheme Moscow and Damascus won’t accept. 

The draft UN Security Council resolution is expected to be unanimously approved later on Friday or Saturday. It mandates cessation of hostilities, designated terrorist groups excluded.

It calls for access to all areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed, along with UN-brokered peace talks to begin “as soon as possible…in good faith…”

On Monday, a joint US/Russia statement said

“(t)he United States of America and the Russian Federation, as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and seeking to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis with full respect for the fundamental role of the United Nations, are fully determined to provide their strongest support to end the Syrian conflict and establish conditions for a successful Syrian-led political transition process, facilitated by the UN.”

Statements are one thing, reality quite another. Washington’s rage for war and dominance haven’t changed. Believing Obama transformed himself into a peacemaker is pure fantasy. Lunatics infesting Washington consider Russia their greatest threat.

As long as Washington and its allies keep supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups, conflict resolution in Syria remains illusive.

 

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.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.