Global Research

This was always going to be a mixed bag. Heading to Europe, receiving bruising, and then getting some concessions for his case, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate his country’s arrangements with the EU was not going to win many favours.

It took the course of two days. Late on the evening of February 19^th, Cameron concluded his renegotiation, announcing in the process that a referendum would be conducted on June 23^rd on whether the UK should remain within or leave the EU.

There were several sticking points, not least from eastern European states to Cameron’s insistence to cut in-work and child benefits to EU migrants to Britain. This violated the fundamental principle of mobility, ever the cornerstone of the European arrangement.

As far as that was concerned, Cameron got approval for what is being termed an “emergency brake” that will allow the UK to stop in-work benefits for migrants for seven years, and cut child benefits for existing migrants from 2020. Whether this concession will be immune to legal challenge is quite another matter.

Others included the attempt to seek exemption from the ultimate EU treaty goal of “ever-closer union” (opposed with some determination by the Belgians) and an understanding that countries outside the Eurozone be protected from decisions made by those in it.[1]

Cameron did get, rather reluctantly, agreement to a “red card” mechanism which enables national parliaments to block various EU laws. The understanding here is that Britain not play the role of meddler in attempting to convince other states to not move towards the goal of ever closer union.

Commentary from various quarters – The Spectator and The Times, for instance, proved sceptical about his prancing in Brussels. It can hardly be deemed substantive in any true sense, and certainly not the dramatic renegotiation Cameron had been touting. In a leaked diplomatic document on the Brussels talks, Germany’s Angela Merkel expressed a general lack of concern about the British demands on amending the treaty, as “we do not know if we ever will have a change in them.”[2]

The Spectator, for one, has expressed views about the “crucial missing part of Cameron’s EU deal”: sovereign control of one’s laws. The false exceptionalism of British law makers (and their defenders) has seen them confront the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union with disdain. “Aside from eroding national sovereignty (which it does) the current situation also undermines legal certainly – which, in turn, undermines good governance.”[3]

The Economist preferred to see his approach as one of painful awakening. “The story of intervening years is that of his gradual recognition that alliance-building and compromise, not foot-stamping and unilateralism (or the ‘Cameron Show’, as Germany’s Spiegelexasperatedly calls it), is the way to get things done in Brussels.”[4]

Traditional progressive outlets also ran pieces about how Cameron’s deal was the “wrong one”. Jeremy Corbyn of Labour found the Prime Minister’s proposed changes “irrelevant” and a case of “overblown tinkering”. The standard line there was that Europe had “brought Britain investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment.”[5]

The European super structure, however, remained unchanged, while big business would be getting its jab of immunity from genuine reform. “Cameron’s Tories,” insists Corbyn, “want a free-market Europe. We want a social Europe of decent jobs and equality for all.”

Boiled down to its elements, the risk for Cameron is, as it always tends to be in such matters, simplification. There will be no negotiations at the ballot box over basket case concessions or understandings. The issue to be decided will be distilled, often grotesquely, to the issue of whether Britons are better off within or without the EU. Cameron has already decided to launch the first volley, claiming that, “Leaving the European Union would threaten our economic and national security.”[6]

Those like Justice Secretary Michael Gove see the case for the Out campaign, having received something of a Eurosceptic baptism of fire. Gove’s point is more populist than constructive, arguing that EU policies were behind the reactionary spike in Europe. Brexit would be didactic for Brussels. “By leaving the EU we take control. Indeed, we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish.”

The Tory London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has similarly gone for the simple route, despite agonising, in characteristic confusion, over which way to go. His argument is pegged to the idea that the vote will somehow spur genuine reform. It is not that he resents Europe, a continent of culture he admits to adoring. He resents, rather, “the political project of the European Union”.[7]

Not that all of Johnson’s points should be dismissed. The project in 28 years, he argued “has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisable”. The Qualified Majority Voting mechanism has been rendered less effective for Britain, a country that “can be overruled more and more often”. The result is “legal colonisation” that is unsanctioned by parliament. The Greeks, among others, would certainly agree with that one.

Ultimately, it is the simple, hand bag falseness of the debate that will count. The economy is certainly up there, reduced to the issue of whether Britain’s competitiveness will be affected by moving outside the EU framework.

An unreformed European bureaucracy, lack of coherent policy, drowning refugees, for one, and the general sense of migrants overall will also stir up various parts of the population. Not that Britain needs to have concerns – the so-called hordes in Britannia have finally allowed the rich to get their conservatories, the bathrooms to be finished on time, the plumbing to be tended to. There is a sense that Cameron’s gamble is one that emphasises minor change for maximum illusion.

The “In” campaign may have the legs to carry it come June, though stating it with such clarity, as The Economist does, is always a risky proposition. “The Out camp may have Mr Gove and perhaps Mr Johnson, but otherwise it is a bunch of cabinet no-names and fringe eccentrics.” Given the fortune-favouring the brave voice of Johnson, however, and the dangers for Cameron’s stance become all too apparent.

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

Notes

 [1] http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21693324-britains-out-referendum-will-be-held-june-23rd-david-cameron-strikes-european-union-deal

[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-gove-david-cameron-brexit-national-security-a6886711.html

[3] http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/the-crucial-missing-part-of-camerons-eu-deal/

[4] http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/02/and-theyre

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/20/jeremy-corbyn-comment-britain-eu-reform

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12166541/EU-referendum-David-Cameron-reveals-the-latest-threat-to-national-security…-the-voters.html

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167643/Boris-Johnson-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change-we-want-vote-to-leave-the-EU.html

 

The territorial dispute between Japan and Russia has its origins in the closing stages of the Second World War. Specifically, after declaring war on Japan on the evening of 8 August 1945 (two days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima), the Soviet Union launched large-scale offensives against Japanese positions in Manchuria, Korea, and Sakhalin. Even after the broadcast of Japan’s surrender on 15 August, the Soviet advance continued. The Soviet forces recovered southern Sakhalin, which had been ceded to Japan in 1905 after Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. They also reclaimed the islands of the Kuril chain from Urup northwards, which Russia had voluntarily transferred to Japan in the 1875 Treaty of St. Petersburg. Finally, and most controversially, between 28 August and 4 September, the Soviet military occupied the islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and the Habomai islets, territory that had never previously been Soviet or Russian.¹

Map of the disputed islands (Source:CartoGIS, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University

Although this action can be considered the initial cause, the territorial dispute did not take on its current status as enduring stalemate until the mid-1950s. Until this time the Soviet Union and Japan remained technically in a state of war since Moscow had refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. In order to normalise this situation, and hopefully conclude a peace treaty, negotiations were undertaken in 1955-56. It was at this time that the countries came closest to finalising the status of the four islands. In the course of the discussions, the Japanese side, led by chief negotiator Matsumoto Shun’ichi and Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Mamoru, came to accept the position of considering the return of Shikotan and Habomai to be sufficient for the conclusion of a peace treaty. In other words, Japan’s diplomats were prepared to accept the loss of southern Sakhalin and all of the Kuril chain, including Etorofu and Kunashiri (Hasegawa 1998a: 109; Mizoguchi 2014). This was consistent with the San Francisco Peace Treaty in which Japan renounced “all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.” (United Nations 1952: 3).

An agreement on the transfer of Shikotan and Habomai could have provided the basis for a permanent resolution to the territorial dispute and enabled a peace treaty to be signed. During the course of the negotiations, however, the United States intervened. The State Department was particularly concerned that reconciliation between the Soviet Union and Japan would harm US interests by facilitating a broader rapprochement between Japan and the socialist bloc, including the People’s Republic of China. In addition, they were worried that any territorial concessions from the Soviet Union would increase pressure for the United States to return the Japanese territory that it continued to occupy (Hasegawa 1998a: 114-5; Mizoguchi 2014). Guided by such thinking, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles boldly declared to his Japanese counterpart that Japan had no right to grant Etorofu and Kunashiri to the Soviet Union since these islands had been renounced in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Moreover, if Japan were to cede this territory, the United States would demand comparable concessions and permanently annex Okinawa (Hasegawa 1998a: 124). Intimidated by this threat, the Japanese side strengthened its resolve and revived the demand for the return of Etorofu and Kunashiri as well. The Japanese authorities also altered their definition of the Kuril Islands. Having previously only considered Shikotan and Habomai to be distinct from the Kuril chain, Japan began to insist that Etorofu and Kunashiri were also part of a separate geographical entity, which later came to be called “the Northern Territories” (Hasegawa 1998a: 120).

Since the return of the two larger islands was entirely unacceptable to the Soviet side, the hardening of Japan’s position made it impossible for a peace treaty to be concluded. Instead, the governments agreed to sign a Joint Declaration in October 1956. This document formally ended the state of war, restored diplomatic ties, and cleared the way for Japan to join the United Nations. With regard to the territorial dispute, Moscow left the offer of the two smaller islands on the table. Specifically, article 9 states that

“the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, desiring to meet the wishes of Japan and taking into consideration the interests of the Japanese State, agrees to transfer to Japan the Habomai Islands and the island of Shikotan, the actual transfer of these islands to Japan to take place after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan.” (Joint Declaration by the USSR and Japan 1956).

Signing of the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration by Prime Minister Hatoyama and Soviet Premier Bulganin, 19 Oct. 1956

There have been numerous diplomatic ups and downs over the subsequent six decades. Nonetheless, the gap that the sides ultimately failed to bridge in 1956 remains as wide as ever in 2016. That is, while Moscow considers the transfer of the two smaller islands after the signing of a peace treaty to be the maximum possible concession, Tokyo continues to insist on the restoration of sovereignty over all four.

Upon taking power, all Japanese prime ministers are expected to commit themselves to breaking this deadlock. Some have made particularly determined efforts, including Hashimoto Ryūtarō and Mori Yoshirō, while others have just paid lip service. However, irrespective of their level of commitment, none have been able to achieve a territorial resolution.

One might expect that this history of failure would discourage Japanese leaders from seriously taking on this issue. And yet, Abe Shinzō has devoted himself to resolving the territorial dispute with Russia with unusual enthusiasm. For instance, on several occasions Prime Minister Abe has repeated his commitment that “my mission as a politician, as prime minister, is to achieve this no matter what” (quoted in Naka 2014). What is more, this is not simply empty rhetoric to satisfy certain domestic constituencies. Rather, as will be seen, Abe has gone to great lengths and taken some political risks in his pursuit of closer relations with Russia. This has been a regular feature of his foreign policy during his second and third terms as prime minister and, as will be explained below, the purpose has been to lay the groundwork for achieving a territorial breakthrough before the end of his time in office. With much of this preparatory work considered complete and now in his fourth year as prime minister, all of the signs are that 2016 will be the year in which Abe redoubles his efforts and makes a final push to deliver a conclusive settlement.

In addressing this topic, this article has four main purposes. First, it provides an overview of Abe’s policy towards Russia during his second and third terms in office. Second, the paper sets out a detailed description of Abe’s apparent plan for 2016, including a review of what he will specifically offer Russia in return for a favourable outcome. Third, it presents a discussion of why Abe is especially determined to resolve this longstanding territorial problem and why he is optimistic about his chances of succeeding. And fourth, the article provides an assessment of Abe’s realistic chances of success. In this final section, emphasis is placed on how relations with Japan, and the territorial dispute in particular, are currently viewed within Russia.

Abe’s Russia Policy

Although it may have attracted less attention than some of his other diplomatic initiatives, Abe’s assiduous effort to strengthen relations with Russia has been one of the most prominent features of his foreign policy during his second spell in office. Indeed, on the very day of the 2012 election that returned him to power, Abe declared that this would be a priority of his administration (Naka 2012). True to his word, after taking office he immediately set about attempting to fulfill this ambition. The initial step was his trip to Moscow in April 2013, the first such official visit by a Japanese prime minister in over a decade. What is more, Abe has invested heavily in his relationship with President Putin, correctly discerning that the Russian leader is central to everything of importance that takes place in his country’s domestic and international politics. To this end, Abe has publicly reiterated his positive attitude towards Putin, saying “President Putin has a clear goal, to build a strong, flourishing Russia. My current goal is to build a strong Japan. In this way, the President and I share common values and ideals. I feel considerable affinity with him” (quoted in Gusman 2013). Abe has made it an explicit goal to hold “as many meetings as possible” with the Russian leader (quoted in Makarov 2014). Following through with this tactic, by early 2016 Abe had held 12 meetings with Putin. The most striking of these was Abe’s last minute decision to attend the opening ceremony of the Sochi Olympics in February 2014, an event that was boycotted by most Western leaders.

Putin and Abe meet in Sochi, February 2014

For more than a year, this attempted rapprochement progressed smoothly (Brown 2014). To begin with, the commitment to frequent one-on-one meetings appeared to have paid off as Abe was able to declare with satisfaction that “relations of personal trust and confidence have been established between President Putin and me” (Kremlin 2013). The Japanese leader was also rewarded for his decision to travel to Sochi where he received a friendly welcome from the Russian president and the two leaders moved to calling each other by their first names. More substantively, economic ties improved steadily and bilateral trade exceeded US$35bn for the first time in 2013; this represented an increase of 3.3% from 2012 (Minekonomrazvitiya 2013). In the security field too, relations reached an unprecedented level when the sides held their first “2+2” meeting in November 2013. This format, which brings together foreign and defence ministers, had previously been reserved for states with which Japan enjoys particularly close ties, specifically the United States and Australia. Further progress was also discernible in the entry into force of an agreement on the simplification of visa procedures, as well as in the formulation of plans on the exchange of cultural centres.

Most importantly for the Japanese side, this improvement in bilateral relations also appeared to be generating the intended progress on the territorial and treaty issues. At the Moscow summit in April 2013, the two leaders issued a joint statement to announce that “We have instructed our foreign ministries to step up contacts on working out mutually acceptable options [for a peace treaty]” (quoted in Clover 2013). It was later clarified that these negotiations would be conducted at the vice-ministerial level. An informal session took place in August 2013 and the following January the first round of talks began formally in Tokyo between Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Igor’ Morgulov and his Japanese counterpart Sugiyama Shinsuke. With the renewal of these long-stalled discussions, for the first time since 2001 there appeared to be a genuine opportunity for progress towards settling the territorial dispute.

Despite the sense of promise generated by these rapid steps forward during 2013 and early 2014, the relationship suffered a serious setback in March 2014. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the United States and the European Union imposed a series of increasingly punitive economic sanctions. Japan was initially reluctant to follow suit but eventually felt it had no option but to conform to the policy of the other G7 members. Japan’s sanctions on Russia were introduced later than those of the US and EU, and they were carefully crafted to avoid having any serious impact. For instance, although a visa ban was announced against 23 individuals, Japan refused to identify who had been targeted, leading to speculation that the list did not include any prominent Russian figures (Golovnin 2014).

In this way, the Abe administration signaled its commitment to continuing the rapprochement with Russia as soon as international conditions permitted. And yet, despite the fact that Japan’s sanctions were largely symbolic, their introduction has had a chilling effect on the atmosphere in bilateral relations. Trade volumes, having reached record levels in 2013, subsequently plummeted, falling around 30% in 2015 (Zakharchenko 2015). Moreover, there has been no further “2+2” meeting and the vice-ministerial discussions on the peace treaty were suspended. Perhaps most symbolic of the contemporary difficulties, however, has been the embarrassing situation pertaining to Putin’s official visit to Japan. Abe invited the Russian president to come to Tokyo as a follow-up to the Japanese prime minister’s successful trip to Moscow in April 2013.

The visit was expected to take place in the second half of 2014, but this proved impossible due to the Ukraine crisis. Throughout 2015 there was regular talk about continuing preparations for the visit, though no date was set. Finally, when Abe and Putin met on the sidelines of the G20 in Antalya in November 2015, the plans for the visit were shelved.

Much of Abe’s hard work therefore seemed to be have been undone by the downturn in relations during the second half of 2014 and in 2015. And yet, despite these difficulties, the Japanese prime minister did not give up on rapprochement with Russia. Indeed, now that the conflict in eastern Ukraine has entered a lull, and with the possibility emerging of increased cooperation between G7 countries and Russia in confronting Islamic terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear test, there are strong signs that Abe has decided that 2016 is the year to resume efforts to secure a conclusive territorial deal with Russia.

Abe’s Plan for 2016

The diplomatic process

As previously, the centrepiece of Abe’s strategy for dealing with Russia in 2016 will be his personal engagement with the Russian leader. He made this clear in his New Year press conference of 4 January when he emphasised his intention to “keep taking opportunities to continue having dialogue with President Putin” (Kantei 2016). Abe followed up by making the relationship with Russia the major focus of a subsequent interview with the Nikkei and Financial Times. He told the journalists, “I believe appropriate dialogue with Russia, appropriate dialogue with president Putin is very important”. He also stressed his willingness to travel to Russia in 2016 and to welcome the Russian leader to Japan (Barber and Harding 2016). Although such engagement was presented as being in the interests of the G7 as a whole, there is no doubt that Prime Minister Abe is primarily concerned with achieving a territorial breakthrough.

This he confirmed on 7 February 2016, Japan’s “Day of the Northern Territories”, when he promised to quickly resolve the territorial dispute with Russia (Kommersant 2016). In particular, Abe appears confident that, in a one-on-one meeting with Putin, he can persuade the Russian leader of the merits of making a deal. Interestingly, in taking the lead himself, Abe appears to have decided to minimise the involvement of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). This may be a reflection of the fact that, over the years, the ministry has gained the reputation for being unhelpfully dogmatic with regard to the territorial dispute with Russia (Mori 2013: 51).

The specific summit towards which Abe is directing his hopes is likely to take place in Russia in the spring of 2016, not long before Japan hosts the G7 summit in Mie prefecture on 26-27 May. The possibility of this meeting was raised in November 2015 when the leaders met at the G20. This summit will require Abe’s third trip to Russia in a row (after April 2013 and February 2014), with no reciprocal visits from the Russian leader in between. To minimise the awkward appearance of this situation, the suggestion is that the meeting will be described as an informal summit and will not be held in the Russian capital. Initially it was rumoured that the leaders would meet in Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, or St. Petersburg (Ishimatsu and Watanabe 2016). On 16 February, however, it was reported in the Japanese media that the summit would likely take place on 6 May in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi (Nikkei 2016).

Although the informal status of the spring summit is a product of circumstance, it suits the Japanese prime minister’s purposes well. This is because, unlike an official summit, there will be less preceding pressure for a concrete result and less information will have to be made public about the nature of the negotiations. This will give Abe greater freedom to concentrate on his goal of privately convincing the Russian leader to accept a territorial deal. There is precedent for such informal meetings between Japanese and Russian leaders. In particular, two “no necktie” summits were held between President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Hashimoto at Krasnoyarsk in November 1997 and Kawana in April 1998. Although ultimately leading to no breakthrough, these informal meetings were seen at the time as useful in making progress on the territorial issue. In particular, the Krasnoyarsk summit led to a pledge to conclude a peace treaty by the year 2000.

In advance of Abe’s own “no necktie” summit, the Japanese side has been eager to prepare the groundwork and to ensure the best possible atmosphere in bilateral relations. To this end, Kōmura Masahiko, Vice President of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), was dispatched to Moscow on 10 January. During his four-day visit, Mr Kōmura held meetings with Foreign Minister Lavrov and Sergei Naryshkin, Speaker of the Russian Duma and close Putin associate. He was also tasked with delivering a personal letter from Abe to Putin, though his hopes of meeting the Russian leader himself were not realised. Following up on Kōmura’s visit, on 22 January phone discussions were held between the Japanese prime minister and Russian president. Organised at the request of the Japanese side, these talks touched on recent developments in Korea and Syria. The leaders also took the opportunity to express their mutual interest in deepening cooperation in the political, economic, and humanitarian fields. Most interesting, however, is that official reports of the phone conversation state that, “Agreement was reached on the continuation of personal contacts” (Kremlin 2016). This suggests that plans for the informal summit were discussed. What is more, in a significant move, on the same day the Abe administration announced the appointment of a special representative to oversee relations with Russia. This new post will be assigned to Harada Chikahito, a veteran diplomat and former Japanese ambassador to Moscow (Rossiiskaya Gazeta 2016). The creation of this position represents yet further confirmation of the seriousness of Abe’s ambition to achieve a breakthrough on the territorial dispute in 2016. Mr Harada had his first opportunity to make an impact in his new role on 15 February when he met with Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Morgulov in Tokyo. At this meeting, it was agreed that Foreign Minister Lavrov would visit Japan in mid-April to confirm the final details of the informal Putin-Abe summit to take place in early May (Lenin 2016).

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Morgulov and Japan’s special representative Harada meet in Tokyo, 15 February 2016

In addition to this preparatory work, the Abe administration needs to consider what it would do in the event of the successful completion of the summit. This is because, even if Abe were to secure an agreement with Putin behind closed doors, many obstacles would remain to its implementation. Above all, the Japanese side would be likely to encounter opposition from G7 members, principally the United States, who, as has been seen, has a record of intervening in this territorial dispute. In this case, the US would be concerned about a major rapprochement between Japan and Russia taking place at a time when the latter remains in possession of Crimea and continues to be controversially involved in developments in eastern Ukraine. For this reason it is helpful that the informal meeting be held in advance of the G7 summit. In this way, Japan will have the opportunity to explain its position to its Western partners and to justify the softening of its stance towards Russia. Abe attempted to do something similar at the G7 summit in Germany in June 2015 when he outlined his intention to maintain intensive dialogue with Russia, despite the continuation of sanctions (Lenin 2015). Finally, if all of these steps go well, a formal deal on resolving the territorial dispute and signing a peace treaty could be officially presented at a subsequent visit by President Putin to Japan during the second half of 2016.

The specifics of Abe’s offer

The above are likely stages of Abe’s plan to achieve a conclusive solution to the territorial problem with Russia in 2016. All of this is, however, entirely dependent on Abe’s ability to secure Putin’s agreement to a deal. What then does the Japanese leader intend to offer? This is clearly something that cannot be known with certainty. In order for such sensitive negotiations to have any chance of success, they must be conducted in private. Were the anticipated Japanese concessions to be leaked in advance in the media, the government would come under fierce attack from conservatives and it would become impossible to reach any agreement. Leaks to the press, including from within MOFA, have had this effect on the negotiations with Russia in the past (Hasegawa 1998b: 367).

Although we cannot therefore know the exact details of Japan’s negotiating position, we can nonetheless piece together its probable features. To begin with, Abe’s starting point will be an attempt to convince his Russian counterpart to recognise the legitimacy of Japan’s claims to sovereignty over all four of the islands. This hoped-for acknowledgement is prized by the Japanese side because it would validate its long-held claim that the islands are “inherent” Japanese territory and that Japan’s sovereignty was formally established by means of the 1855 Treaty of Shimoda. Not being seen to compromise on the principle of sovereignty is also valued as a way of sending a message to China and Korea that Japan will never give ground with regard to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and Takeshima/Dokdo.

It is, of course, all but unthinkable that Russia would readily agree to hand over all four of the islands. After all, it is Moscow’s steadfast refusal to consider any such thing that has prevented the settlement of this dispute for over 70 years. Prime Minister Abe, however, will not demand the immediate return of the four islands. Instead, he is likely to propose a compromise whereby, if Russia recognises Japan’s residual sovereignty over the four islands, Japan will accept maximum flexibility on the timing of the islands’ actual transfer.

This proposal has already long been public (MOFA 2011), though its precise terms are less apparent. The probability is that Abe will push for the rapid transfer of Shikotan and Habomai within five to ten years. With regard to Etorofu and Kunashiri, however, Abe is likely to propose that, as long as Russia recognises Japan’s residual sovereignty, these two islands can be left to be administered by the Russian authorities. This would allow the Russian residents – approximately 8,000 on Kunashiri and 6,400 on Etorofu – to continue to live on the islands (Argumenty Nedeli 2014). Following this agreement, Japan would also reverse its opposition to its own citizens visiting the islands and would instead actively encourage economic investment and joint projects. This arrangement could be guaranteed for a period of 50 years, after which a new agreement could be made either to transfer the islands to Japanese administration or to continue with the preceding arrangement. It should be noted that this is not actually a new suggestion. It has many similarities with the proposal made by Matsumoto Shun’ichi in 1956, after he had been forced to expand Japan’s minimum requirement for a peace treaty from two islands to four (Hasegawa 1998a: 121).

Prime Minister Abe will hope to persuade President Putin of the merits of a deal that would enable Russia to retain control over the two largest islands – constituting 93% of the total landmass – albeit on condition that the islands be demilitarised. Additionally, Abe is certain to offer some more immediate incentives. The most significant of these will be economic. To start with, Abe will offer to move quickly to end the economic sanctions that Japan introduced against Russia in 2014. This promise is likely to have to remain informal as the removal of sanctions is supposed to be conditional upon Russia’s constructive contribution to resolving the Ukraine crisis. There would be opposition within other G7 countries if Japan were to be too obvious in its use of the sanctions as political leverage for pursuing its own national interests.

More important than ending its essentially symbolic sanctions, Japan will commit to providing large-scale economic assistance to be directed towards the development of Siberia and the Russian Far East. The Japanese side will wish to avoid creating the impression that it is attempting to simply purchase the islands, something that would be expected to intensify opposition from the Russian public. Nonetheless, it will be made clear that, if the territorial dispute is resolved, Japan will be willing to provide generous funding for major infrastructure and industrial projects in Russia’s eastern regions. Additionally, the prospect of lucrative long-term energy deals will be raised.

In offering these incentives, Abe will be seeking to exploit the Russian leadership’s urgent desire to develop Siberia and the Far East, something that Putin has described as the “national priority for the entire 21^st century” (quoted in Zavrazhin 2013). The Japanese side will also be calculating that Russia may at present be especially willing to make sacrifices in exchange for financial assistance as a consequence of the country’s parlous economic situation. Added to this, Abe will be looking to make the most of any concerns on the Russian side about overdependence on China. In particular, as the growth engine of the Chinese economy continues to sputter at the start of 2016, there will be the hope that Russian decision makers will prioritise closer ties with other Asian partners. With regard to energy, Japan will argue that, by diversifying its customer base away from China, Russia will be able to demand higher prices in Asian markets.

The proposal for Russia to continue to administer Etorofu and Kunashiri (at least for the medium term) and the offer of economic incentives are therefore likely to constitute the central element of Abe’s plan. At the same time, however, Abe may seek to add a few further sweeteners. This could include an additional easing of visa requirements for Russian citizens to visit Japan, a reform in which Russian diplomats have recently shown strong interest (Zakharchenko 2016). More intriguingly, Abe also seems to have in mind the idea of offering Japan to serve as a diplomatic bridge between the West and Russia, thereby helping to reduce Russia’s recent isolation. It is far from clear that Washington would welcome Japan’s mediation, yet this proposal was aired during Kōmura’s January 2016 visit to Moscow. Specifically, the LDP Vice-President is reported to have told his hosts that Japan would be willing to speak up for Russia during the 2016 G7 summit and would demonstrate maximum consideration for Russia’s interests (Ishimatsu and Watanabe 2016). It is unlikely that Kōmura would have made so bold a suggestion about Japan’s conduct at the G7 summit unless directly instructed to do so by the Japanese prime minister. Subsequently, Former Prime Minister Mori, who has previously been used by Abe as an unofficial envoy to Russia, also publicly promoted the idea of the Japanese leader serving as a mediator between Russia and the West (Agafonov 2016).

By means of these incentives, Abe will hope to secure the Russian side’s recognition of the legitimacy of Japan’s claims to sovereignty over all four of the islands. If he fails in this ambition, however, what will be his fallback position? It is almost certain that Abe will have one or two further positions to which he will reluctantly retreat if his first proposal is resolutely refused. This is standard practice in negotiations. What is more, Abe will be aware of the difficulty of his task, yet, having invested so much in his personal diplomacy with Russia, he will be unwilling to come away with nothing. Abe may therefore seek to seize his chance of becoming the Japanese leader who finally ends the territorial dispute, even if this means settling for sovereignty over less than four islands.

One possible fallback option is for Japan to accept a 50-50 territorial split. This would entail Japan regaining sovereignty over Shikotan, Habomai, and Kunashiri, plus a portion of Etorofu. A new international border would be established approximately a third of the way up this last island. Such a deal would represent an equal division of landmass since Etorofu is so much larger than the other three islands. In implementing this deal, the offer of continued Russian administration over Kunashiri and the southern section of Etorofu for a fixed period of time could still apply. This would ease the process of eventual transfer to Japan. A yet further concession would be for Japan to give up its claims to Etorofu altogether and settle for sovereignty over only three islands. This would have the advantage of avoiding the creation of Japan’s first land border.

These fallback options would involve the abandonment of the Japanese government’s longstanding commitment to the principled position that Russia must simultaneously recognise Japan’s sovereignty over all four of the islands. The acceptance of either option would therefore constitute a major compromise from a Japanese leader. Despite this, it is not inconceivable that Abe would consider making such a deal. To begin with, Abe has previously demonstrated a pragmatic streak in his approach to foreign policy. This was most recently in evidence in the Japan-South Korea “Comfort Women” deal. It is well-known that Abe takes a skeptical view of the “Comfort Woman” issue. In 2007, he stated: “The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion,” (quoted in Mizoguchi and Dudden 2007: 2).

Moreover, in February 2014 the Abe administration let it be known that they were considering reviewing the apology offered in the 1993 Kōno statement (Ryall 2014). And yet, despite these personal beliefs, Abe agreed to put his name to the December 2015 “Comfort Women” deal, which included a formal expression of his own “most sincere apologies and remorse” (MOFA 2015). He did so because he evidently judged that a resolution to this dispute was in Japan’s broader national interests. As a relatively popular nationalist leader, Abe is also in a stronger position than most Japanese prime ministers to make concessions that will be unpopular with Japan’s right wing. Finally, with specific regard to the territorial dispute with Russia, it is worth noting that the idea of a 50-50 territorial split has previously been floated by Asō Tarō and Yachi Shōtarō, both prominent members of the Abe government (Mainichi Shinbun 2009; Sarkisov 2009: 45). On this basis, it is therefore not impossible to imagine Abe settling for a territorial resolution that resulted in the return to Japan of only three islands or three and one third.

Explanations for Abe’s Behaviour

Those familiar with the tortuous history of territorial negotiations between Japan and Russia will be surprised by Abe’s apparent optimism about being able to secure the return of more than the two smaller islands. In fact, some may be inclined to think that his efforts are not genuine and that he is just making a show of trying in order to garner public support. This would be a reasonable assumption, but it would not be correct.

The territorial dispute with Russia remains a priority for some small domestic groups, including the League of Chishima-Habomai Residents and certain far-right organisations. For the majority of Japanese citizens, however, this issue is not a political priority. For instance, according to a survey conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office in 2013, only 40.5% of respondents had heard about the dispute and knew its details. A further 41% had heard about the dispute and knew its details to a certain degree. Meanwhile, only 20.6% were aware of the activities of the government and private groups to recover the islands and knew what these efforts entailed. Another 30.7% knew about these efforts to a certain extent. Strikingly, only 3.2% of respondents stated that they would be interested in actively participating in efforts to secure the return of the islands (Naikaku-fu 2013). Separate analysis also shows that public interest in the dispute with Korea over Takeshima/Dokdo now actually exceeds that in the Northern Territories (Bukh 2015: 60). On the basis of these statistics, Abe has little to gain in terms of public support by merely attempting to pursue a territorial resolution with Russia.

Additionally, if the Japanese prime minister’s activities were purely for show, he could have achieved this effect with much less effort and expenditure of political capital. Instead, as has been noted, since the beginning of his second term Abe has put extensive effort into courting Putin, even at the risk of creating some distance between Japan and the United States, something that Japanese leaders are usually loath to do. As a result, Washington has cautioned Japan about its accommodating stance towards Russia, a warning that the Japanese leader has evidently chosen to ignore (Asahi Shimbun 2015). Abe would not have engaged in such bold action if he did not believe that there was the genuine possibility of a breakthrough in the territorial dispute.

This determination to resolve the Northern Territories problem is consistent with other aspects of the prime minister’s political agenda. This is because Abe is an unusually ambitious Japanese prime minister and seems committed to sealing his legacy as a transformational leader. In this regard, he has been assisted by institutional changes since the late 1990s that have shifted power towards the prime minister’s office. He has also been encouraged by the lack of opposition since 2012, both from other parties and within the LDP (Burrett forthcoming). These developments have been empowering for the Japanese leader. The ambitious way in which he has sought to use this power, however, is specific to Abe.

Since returning to office in December 2012, Abe has hurriedly pursued a series of bold initiatives. These include the 2013 Secrecy Act, reinterpretation of the Constitution to permit collective self-defence, the economic programme dubbed “Abenomics”, and the “Comfort Women” deal with South Korea. This impatient attitude may owe something to Abe’s unexpected political rejuvenation. Having failed to leave a lasting impression during his first term as prime minister in 2006-07, Abe will be especially eager to make the most of his second opportunity in power. The Japanese leader is also in much better physical health than during his first term when he was debilitated by the effects of ulcerative colitis. Due to new medication, this illness is now under control and, according to one of his advisors, Abe is consequently enjoying “a psychological transformation that has made the prime minister more forward looking than in his first administration” (Burrett forthcoming).

These considerations may help to explain Abe’s political ambitions. There are, however, some factors that make him particularly keen to secure a peace treaty with Russia. First in this regard is his family history. It is often suggested that Abe’s determination to revise the Constitution is guided by his desire to fulfill the ambitions of his grandfather, Kishi Nobusuke, who was prime minister from 1957 to 1960. When it comes to Japan’s relations with Russia, however, it is his father who is the greater inspiration. Abe Shintarō was Japan’s foreign minister from 1982 to 1986 and was therefore in office during the positive period in Soviet-Japanese relations that followed Mikhail Gorbachev’s accession to general secretary in March 1985.

Encouraged by the optimistic atmosphere that accompanied the ending of the Cold War, Abe’s father succeeded in opening negotiations with the Soviet Union. He also developed an affection for the country and set the target of signing a peace treaty during the lifetime of the current generation. Abe Shinzō has openly expressed his determination to complete this unfulfilled goal of his father (Abe 2006: 34-7). Most nostalgically, when in Moscow in April 2013, the Japanese prime minister visited the sakura garden that had been inaugurated by his father in 1986. On that occasion, Abe stated: “In accordance with the will of my father, I wish to achieve such development in relations with Russia that the cherry trees enter a period of full bloom” (quoted in Gusman 2013).

A young Abe Shinzō with his father, Shintarō

 

Further to this emotional element, Abe’s foreign policy towards Russia is powerfully guided by his strategic vision for Japan. In this respect, the Japanese leader has two main priorities: first, to uphold Japanese security against the threat of an increasingly assertive China; and second, to return Japan to the status of a normal great power that is able to play a more independent role in international politics. Resolving the territorial dispute with Russia helps serve both goals.

To elaborate, by settling its northern border and signing a peace treaty, Japan would eliminate a major obstacle to closer relations with Russia. This would in turn open up the prospect of Japan beginning to draw Russia away from China. As is well known, in recent years the relationship between Russia and China has become increasingly close, especially in the aftermath of the Ukraine crisis and consequent deterioration in Moscow’s relations with the West (Brown 2015a; 2015b). This is undoubtedly negative for Japan since cooperation between Russia and China in the political, military, and economic spheres has an emboldening effect on Beijing. In particular, confidence about the security of its vast northeastern land border enables China to commit more resources to its maritime activities in the East and South China Seas. What is more, if regional tensions continue to grow in the coming years, Japan could find itself facing the strategic nightmare of being surrounded by a hostile Sino-Russian bloc, while simultaneously growing ever more nervous about the dependability of the security guarantee of the United States. If, on the other hand, the territorial dispute can be resolved, Japan would be in a better position to entice Moscow to distance itself from what is beginning to look like a fledgling alliance with Beijing and instead to adopt a more flexible, balancing role within East Asia.

With regard to the second goal of enabling Japan to pursue a more independent foreign policy, it is certainly not Abe’s intention to abandon the alliance with the United States. Rather, the goal is to maintain this close relationship but to make it more of a partnership of equals. That is to say, to make Japan less dependent on the security guarantee of the United States and to make it possible for Japan to act more autonomously when necessary. To achieve this, Abe wishes to revise (rather than simply reinterpret) the Constitution’s article 9, which prevents Japan from maintaining armed forces and rules out the use of force as an instrument of foreign policy. In addition, Abe is seeking to develop stronger bilateral ties with other key powers. This is why he has been so active internationally since returning to office, visiting a quarter of the world’s countries in the first 20 months (Panda 2014). There are several important relationships in this regard, but that with Russia is one of the most significant. This is highlighted in the National Security Strategy of 2013, which notes that “it is critical for Japan to advance cooperation with Russia in all areas, including security and energy, thereby enhancing bilateral relations as a whole, in order to ensure its security” (Kantei 2013: 25). Interestingly, it was the same goal of enabling Japan to operate more autonomously that informed Prime Minister Hatoyama Ichirō’s original decision to press for a territorial resolution in 1955-56. As Hasegawa explains,

“Hatoyama, noted for his stronger nationalistic tendencies, took a position that Japan should seek a more independent foreign policy, not wholly faithfully following the American global strategy. This did not mean that Hatoyama was allied with the left-wing/progressive force since he also stood for the revision of the constitution and the rearmament of Japan. In forming his cabinet, Hatoyama considered the normalization of relations with the Soviet Union the first priority of his government.” (1998a: 107-8).

The above paragraphs provide a clear explanation as to why Abe is so determined to settle the territorial dispute with Russia. They do not, however, get to the bottom of why he is so confident about his chances of success. Only the Japanese prime minister himself can provide the full reasons for this optimism, but part of the explanation would again seem to lie in Abe’s own personality. In particular, the Japanese leader appears to have a strong sense of self-belief and this encourages him to concentrate on what he wants to achieve rather than on what might ordinarily be considered possible. This conclusion is encouraged by analysis of Abe’s well-known “Japan is back” speech of February 2013 in which he stated:

The time I spent – five long years since leaving office as Prime Minister was my time for reflection. First and foremost, I reflected upon where Japan should stand in the future. I didn’t consider WHETHER Japan could do this or that. I thought, more often, what Japan MUST continue to do (MOFA 2013).

Further to the conviction that the return of the Northern Territories is something that Japan must do, Abe’s optimism is likely enhanced by a strong belief in the legitimacy of Japan’s claims to the islands. Such a view, which is common in Japan, has been subjected to criticism by some academics. For instance, according to Hasegawa, “The petulance and tenacity with which the Japanese government clung to the return of the Northern Territories can be explained by their self-righteous belief that few people in Japan have questioned – a belief that all justice rested on their side.” (Hasegawa 1998a: 141). As will be seen below, this one-sided outlook owes much to a lack of understanding of Russian perceptions of the territorial dispute. It is also reinforced by a tendency to overestimate the extent of Japanese leverage over Russia.

Last of all, Abe’s optimistic belief that he can regain sovereignty over more than just Shikotan and Habomai has actually been encouraged by the Russian side. Most significant in this regard was Putin’s statement in March 2012 when he responded to a Japanese journalist’s question by saying “we really want to permanently close this territorial problem with Japan, and we want to do so in a way that is acceptable for both countries.” Going further, Putin described this desired outcome as a “hikiwake” (meaning “draw” in Japanese) (RIA Novosti 2012). Although not attracting much interest within Russia, this comment provoked great excitement within Japan. In particular, Suzuki Muneo, a former Diet member with a long history of involvement with Russia, interpreted the statement as being of historic importance, saying

“Putin made it public that he was considering more than the return of just two islands. It was extremely brave of Putin to make such in-depth statements about the Northern Territories dispute, which has to do with national sovereignty, at a conference days before the presidential election. Putin’s affection for Japan and his determination to resolve the territorial problem also come across. It is a very sincere attitude and you feel that he has the political toughness and the good judgment of a leader. That is why, without a doubt, we have a chance with Putin.” (Suzuki 2012: 198–9).

It is not clear if Abe was as impressed by Putin’s “hikiwake” statement as his former LDP colleague. Nonetheless, it is apparent that the Japanese leader shares the belief that there is a window of opportunity at present for Japan to secure a favourable settlement to the territorial dispute.

Will Abe Succeed?

Prime Minister Abe should be applauded for his determined efforts to resolve this territorial dispute and thereby put a conclusive end to the abnormal situation in which no peace treaty exists between two of the world’s major powers. While other Japanese leaders have simply gone through the motions of demanding the islands back, Abe has carefully sought to implement a plan that he genuinely believes to have a chance of achieving a lasting resolution. In so doing, he has taken some risk. Firstly, as noted, Abe’s strategy of seeking to induce concessions by taking a soft stance towards Russia is likely to irk the United States. Secondly, having involved himself so personally in the courtship of Putin over the last three years, Abe will be seen to have failed if his endeavour leads to nothing concrete.

So, having invested significant time and political capital in the relationship with Russia, can Abe repeat his apparent success of the recent “Comfort Women” deal by pulling another foreign policy rabbit out of his hat? It is difficult to be sure of anything in international politics, especially when we cannot be certain of what is being discussed by the parties behind closed doors. Nonetheless, in the case of Abe’s attempts to secure a territorial deal with Russia in 2016, we can be as confident as possible in the prediction that his efforts will prove to be in vain.

To begin with, the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia is considerably more intractable than the “Comfort Women” issue. This is because, for all the enormous sensitivities and symbolic importance of the subject of the “Comfort Women”, it is a problem to which the resolution may involve an outcome that can clearly benefit both sides. This is much more difficult to achieve with regard to a territorial dispute. Although those who wish to encourage concessions will talk of achieving a win-win situation, the reality is that territorial disputes are essentially zero-sum. In this case, this means that for Japan to secure a satisfactory result, it is necessary for the Russian side to resign itself to the permanent loss of territory. Added to this, in the case of the “Comfort Women” agreement, the United States was able to lean heavily on Seoul to accept a seemingly unpalatable deal. By contrast, Washington has no such leverage vis-à-vis Moscow over the Northern Territories.

This being so, the only way in which Abe can succeed in securing the return of sovereignty over the four islands (or at least three) is if there are sufficiently powerful incentives for the Russian leadership to decide that there is more to be gained from voluntarily giving up the islands than from retaining them. The Japanese leader evidently believes that he can present the Russian side with such a scenario. In this regard, he is clearly mistaken. In a straightforward cost-benefit analysis, no Russian leader would rationally opt to concede to Japan any sovereignty over Etorofu or Kunashiri and there is nothing that Prime Minister Abe can realistically offer to change this. I have outlined the reasons for this in detail elsewhere (Brown 2016). The main points, however, can be summarised as follows.

Conflicting historical memory

Firstly, there is the issue of fervent opposition to any territorial transfers from within the Russian political elite and broader populace. Due to Japanese confidence about the righteousness of its own position from a legal and historical perspective, there is a tendency to overlook the alternative narrative that prevails in Russia and to underestimate the intensity of feeling that this engenders. To briefly explain these two conflicting narratives, the Japanese side regards the four islands as “inherent” Japanese territory whose legal status was firmly established by means of the 1855 Shimoda Treaty. This land was then opportunistically seized at the end of World War II when the Soviet Union, “like a thief at a fire” (Kimura 2008: 51), exploited the circumstances of Japan’s imminent defeat to forcibly occupy this territory. To make matters worse, this action was preceded by Moscow’s violation of the countries’ Neutrality Pact, making this attack a “stab in the back” (Kimura 2008: 48).

In opposition to this account, it is commonly argued in Russia that, far from being “inherent” Japanese territory, the islands were only colonised by Japan during the 19^th century. What is more, this seizure of the territory by Japan is claimed to have been “accompanied by the same annihilation of local tribes that occurred in America with the Indians” (quoted in Sabov 2005). Japan is therefore considered to have no particularly strong historical or moral claim to the territory.

In terms of more modern history, within Russia it is generally believed that, rather than acting in the manner of an unprincipled looter, the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan to uphold a solemn commitment it had made to its wartime allies, the United States and United Kingdom. Having joined this conflict, Soviet forces are regarded as having made a major contribution to the defeat of Japan. This opinion was expressed by Putin in 2014 when he declared, “we did battle on the hills of Manchuria and in the mountain passes of the Greater Khingan, crushing the Kwantung Army, and together we delivered a victorious end to the Second World War” (Kremlin 2014). On this basis, the islands are considered to have become Russian territory in legitimate recompense for the Soviet contribution to Allied victory. Although the four islands had never previously been Russian territory, this outcome is nonetheless seen as legitimate since it represented well-deserved payback for four decades of Japanese aggression, which included the Russo-Japanese War, the Siberian Intervention, and the battle of Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol. Furthermore, with regard to legal issues, the Russian side frequently draws attention to the Yalta Protocol, which states that, “The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union” (Protocol of Proceedings of Crimea Conference 1945). They also highlight the San Francisco Peace Treaty in which Japan renounced “all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands” (United Nations 1952: 48). Lastly, emphasis is placed on article 107 of the UN Charter, which Russian leaders interpret as having finalised the post-war settlement (Dolgopolov and Shestakov 2015).

The most sensitive issue from the Russian perspective, however, is the memory of the approximately 12,000 Soviet soldiers killed in the course of fighting Japanese forces during August 1945 (Zubov 2011: 181). Only 539 of these losses were incurred on the Kuril chain (during the Battle of Shumshu) and no combat took place in the occupation of the four disputed islands (Myasnikov 2014). Despite this, in the Russian popular narrative, the islands were obtained through the sacrifice of Soviet lives. This view has been repeated by Dmitrii Rogozin, Russia’s outspoken deputy prime minister, who has claimed that “the four islands became Russian territory after a bloody struggle and have now assumed the status of sacred territory” (quoted in Kimura 2008: 145).

War memorial on the island of Kunashiri

 

The Japanese authorities would fiercely challenge many elements of this account. This matters little, however, when a successful resolution for Japan is dependent on the Russian government voluntarily making concessions. What is of significance is that, in the views of a majority of Russians, any substantial transfer of territory to Japan would not be regarded as a reasonable compromise to settle a longstanding problem in bilateral relations. Instead, it would be understood as a betrayal of those Soviet soldiers who gave their lives in their country’s struggle against fascism and militarism. Such views are particularly strong in the Sakhalin region, which administers the islands. Indeed, according to one poll, 80 percent of residents would demand the president’s resignation if the islands were to be returned. More alarmingly, as many as 17.8 percent stated that they would be willing to commit extreme acts, including taking up arms, if it were necessary to protect the status of the Southern Kurils as Russian territory (Williams 2007: 189). Although these are not new statistics, such attitudes are only likely to have been strengthened by the nationalist ferment stirred up by the Ukraine crisis and by the grandiose celebrations of the 70^th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. In this context, any Russian leader would have to be brave indeed to offer major territorial concessions to Japan.

Japan’s economic leverage?

Prime Minister Abe’s evident hope is that Putin can be induced to go against public opinion and to use his enormous political capital to force through a territorial deal. In formulating this strategy, however, the Japanese side has misjudged, not only the intensity of Russian popular opposition, but also the extent of Japanese leverage. As noted, the principal incentive that Abe plans to offer is Japanese economic investment in Russia, especially in Siberia and the Russian Far East. This is unquestionably something that the Russian authorities desire. And yet, if one looks more closely at the way in which this issue is seen in Russia, it immediately becomes clear that Russian enthusiasm for closer economic ties with Japan is not nearly strong enough to persuade the country’s leadership to make deeply unpopular territorial concessions.

To begin with, economic relations with Japan are not viewed as the prize they once were. Instead of being the number one Asian economy with which Russia would like to develop closer ties, as was the case during the 1990s, Japan is now considered just one of many Asia-Pacific countries with which Russia is interested in doing more business. This shift in attitude is the result of the enduring stagnation of the Japanese economy. While in 1999 Japanese gross domestic product was approximately 23 times larger than that of Russia, this had been reduced to just 2.3 times by 2013 (World Bank 2014). As a consequence, the allure of the Japanese economy has been diminished significantly and there is now a strikingly gloomy attitude within Russia towards Japan’s economic prospects. For instance, Dmitrii Strel’tsov, one of Russia’s leading Japan experts, describes the current economic situation in Japan as follows: “Against a background of prolonged recession, from which no exit is in sight, there is rooted amongst the public a sense of pessimism which borders on the feeling of a country that has capitulated after a long and exhausting war.” (2014: 78). Observations of Japan’s slow-motion population collapse only add to such negative perceptions. As such, unlike China in the 2000s to which Russia was willing to cede a small amount of territory²,Japan is not regarded as the sort of dynamic economy to which it would be worth making painful concessions in exchange for closer economic ties.

Added to this impression that Japan is economically past its best, there is a strong belief in Russia that economic leverage within the bilateral relationship is not all one way. That is, while Russia may want more of Japan’s high-tech investment, Japan also has a desire to import more energy resources from Russia. This is considered particularly pressing since Japan needs to protect its energy security by diversifying its oil and gas imports away from excessive dependence on the Middle East at a time when its nuclear power remains largely crippled (Brown 2013). Giving voice to this opinion, Valerii Golubev, Gazprom’s deputy chairman, has stated: “No, I don’t think Japan has an alternative [to Russian gas]. They don’t have their own energy resources, so they will need to buy. [. . .] For them, it is the shortest route. Therefore, in any case for them our gas will be the most advantageous” (RIA Novosti 2014). Increased economic exchange is therefore viewed as mutually beneficial, and not as some coveted gift to be bestowed on Russia by Japan in exchange for political concessions.

Another factor that seriously reduces Japanese economic leverage is the widespread understanding amongst Russian officials and business executives that the territorial dispute has already become almost completely decoupled from economic relations. In other words, attracting increased Japanese investment is not dependent on making progress on the territorial issue. This precise point is made by Viktor Ozerov, representative of Khabarovsk in the Federation Council.

“Beginning in 1994, I have been to Japan many times. At the time of my first trips, as soon as the Japanese asked, ‘Are you going to give up the islands?’ and I said, ‘No’, the negotiations immediately ended. However, during my last visit, a Japanese legislator told me that at a parliamentary level people have started to believe that economic development of our relations is a step towards resolution of the territorial problem and not the reverse.” (quoted in Sargin 2014).

On 26 January 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov confirmed that this was also his understanding of the situation, stating:

“Some Japanese politicians say that if the peace treaty is concluded and the territorial issue resolved, Japanese business will become hugely involved in the Russian economy but it will play it safe if it doesn’t happen. We don’t feel that Japanese business is trying to play it safe. … For the most part, business is not waiting for any political stamp but is actively working” (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016).

Based on observations like these, there is the not unreasonable belief in Russia that, if the authorities succeed in creating a more attractive environment for all investors, Japanese investment will also substantially increase, even if there is no progress whatsoever on the territorial dispute. Efforts in this direction are already underway, including the goal to reach 20^th place in the World Bank’s ease of doing business rankings by 2018 (Kremlin 2012), as well as the creation of the Vladivostok Free Port and several Territories of Priority Development in the Russian Far East (Markelov 2015).

Last of all, any Japanese financial inducements have to be weighed against the economic losses associated with surrendering sovereignty over the islands. This is an issue emphasised by Svetlana Goryacheva, a Duma deputy, who declares: “Of course, I would never give up the Southern Kurils! … these islands are especially rich in fish and mineral resources. That is, the Japanese have something to gain and we have something to lose. There are really valuable natural resources there!” (quoted in Sargin 2014). Added to the forfeiture of these natural assets, by transferring the territory to Japan the Russian government would be abandoning a number of its own recent investments. The islands were seriously neglected during the 1990s, resulting in much hardship for their resident population. Since the mid-2000s, however, the Russian federal and regional authorities have directed significant financial resources to the islands, including programmes of R30bn for 2007-15 and R20bn for 2016-25 (Interfax 2014). These funds have been directed towards building and renewing basic infrastructure on the disputed islands, including roads, power plants, and water treatment facilities. Most eye-catchingly, a new airport was opened on Etorofu in 2014 and a new hospital was unveiled on Shikotan in 2015. With a touch of hyperbole, one Russian newspaper proclaimed that “the islands are being transformed from a godforsaken frontier to a downright paradisiacal corner of Russia” (Argumenty Nedeli 2014). Now that this “paradise” is on its way to completion, the Russian government will surely be all the more reluctant to give it up.

New Russian airport on Etorofu

Russian security considerations

The final set of reasons that ensure that Abe will not succeed in his plan to resolve the territorial dispute in 2016 relate to Russia’s national security considerations. Firstly in this regard, the Russian military will oppose any transfer of sovereignty over the islands because of its desire to retain tight control over the Sea of Okhotsk. This is because of the Sea’s potential strategic value as a “last line of defense” (Haines 2014: 596). Specifically, in the event of a major conflict, Russia would have the option of mining the narrow straits that provide access to the Sea of Okhotsk and using the area as a sanctuary for its ballistic missile submarines. This contingency plan gives Russia added confidence about the security of its nuclear deterrent. Giving up Etorofu and Kunashiri would undermine this strategy as two of the most convenient channels for accessing the Sea are adjacent to the islands. It might be thought that such strategic planning for a nuclear confrontation was a relic of the Cold War. In fact, however, in recent times Moscow has come to place increasing emphasis on its nuclear arsenal in recognition of the fact that, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia’s conventional forces are no match for those of the United States and its allies.

 

The Sea of Okhotsk, Russia’s “last line of defense”

In addition to functioning as a side-door to the Sea of Okhotsk, the disputed islands are considered strategically important to Russia because of their location at the extreme end of the Northern Sea Route. The Russian government is eager to promote the commercial use of this alternative trade route between Europe and Asia. At the same time, however, the authorities are worried about the security implications of the Arctic waterways in proximity to Russia’s northern coastline becoming increasingly accessible as a result of climate change. It is to a considerable extent in response to these security concerns that Russia has recently sought to accelerate its programme of developing a total of 392 military installations on Etorofu and Kunashiri. As announced in January by Defence Minister Shoigu, all of this military infrastructure is now expected to be complete by the end of 2016 (Sankei Shinbun 2016).

There is therefore well-established opposition on security grounds to the transfer of the islands to Japan. While long-standing, this hostility has intensified in the aftermath of the Ukraine crisis. In particular, Japan’s decision to follow the United States in introducing sanctions has encouraged the view in Russia that Tokyo simply functions as Washington’s puppet when it comes to major international issues and that it cannot be trusted to act in an autonomous fashion. This view underpins the comments made by Foreign Minister Lavrov during his 26 January press conference when he expressed Russia’s desire to “see a more independent Japan”. He also made the criticism that “When a country takes the same position as the United States, it doesn’t contribute much to the political process or adjust the balance in the drafting of decisions.” (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016). Given these current attitudes, the prospect of a territorial transfer becomes even more distant since it would be regarded by many Russians as being, at least partly, a political concession to the United States. Whether justified or not, there is also the underlying fear that, if it regained the islands, Japan would permit the US to use the territory to deploy military, surveillance, or missile-defence capabilities in proximity to Russia’s eastern borders.

Lastly in terms of security, in recent times an increasingly salient feature of Russian foreign policy has been the Kremlin’s portrayal of itself in the role of defender of all Russian speakers and “compatriots” (sootechestvenniki), even if these individuals are not Russian citizens and are resident outside the borders of the Russian Federation. This concept has been present within Russian foreign policy thinking for some years, but it became particularly prominent following the Ukraine crisis when Moscow appealed to this idea in justifying the annexation of Crimea. As such, having fully embraced this role of protector of all Russians internationally, it is all but inconceivable that Putin would now agree to a territorial deal that would be seen by many in his country as the abandonment of nearly 17,000 Russians to be ruled by a foreign power.

Conclusion

In short, however strong his determination, how well-planned his negotiating strategy, and how friendly his personal relations with Putin, Prime Minister Abe will be unable to secure any deal in 2016 that entails Japan regaining the islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri, even if this were only in terms of a recognition of residual sovereignty. The only territory that could possibly be recovered is Shikotan and Habomai, in accordance with the 1956 Joint Declaration. As I have previously argued in this journal (Brown 2015c), there is growing opposition within Russia to even this concession. Nonetheless, as signalled by Lavrov’s reference to this agreement on 26 January (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016), the Putin administration (at least for the time being) seems willing to honour this commitment. This is therefore most likely what Putin had in mind when raising the possibility of a “hikiwake” solution³.

The prospect of recovering only these two islands, which account for 7% of the total disputed landmass, will be unacceptable to most on the Japanese side. Arguing against such a resolution, there will be those who counsel that, even if a more favourable deal is impossible at present, Japan should remain patient and wait until its negotiating position further strengthens. This argument has been made previously by Kimura Hiroshi, who believes that “the international situation and the Russian domestic situation are moving in a direction favourable to Japan and therefore Japan should wait until the right opportunity, which will come in 2017 or later” (Kawauchi 2014). Such optimism is based on positive assessments of Japan’s economic and security position vis-à-vis Russia, but it is also encouraged by the assumption that a peace treaty is something “which Russia badly needs” (Kimura 2009: 29). Once again, this assessment derives from a serious misunderstanding of the Russian position.

Fundamentally, the Russian authorities feel little compulsion to sign a peace treaty with Japan. Such a document would be welcome as a way of ending the awkward legal situation that exists between the two countries, yet the Russian side sees no particular urgency to finalise such a treaty and is certainly not inclined to make concessions to achieve it. The reason is because, while there may not be a peace treaty, this does not mean that the countries are in a state of war. Instead, the Joint Declaration of 1956 formally established “peace, friendship and good-neighbourly relations” (Joint Declaration by the USSR and Japan 1956). As such, Russian officials frequently emphasise their broad satisfaction with the status quo. Most recently, this point was reiterated by Foreign Minister Lavrov who, on 26 January, told the press that “essentially we maintain peace and cooperation. In other words, we don’t feel the effects of the absence of the peace treaty” (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016).

The Russian side is therefore in no hurry to reach a resolution to the peace treaty and related territorial issue. This tendency is further strengthened by the perception that time is on Russia’s side. Firstly, it will not be long before the last of the Japanese former residents of the islands passes away. This will deprive Japan of some of its most ardent campaigners for the islands’ return and will also break Japan’s most direct connection to its former territory. Furthermore, as the years pass, we begin to approach the date of 2035 when the islands shift to having been ruled directly for longer by Moscow than they ever were by Japan. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the demographic situation is not favorable to Japan. The Russian population of the islands has recently been growing at a rate of 2-3% a year (Argumenty Nedeli 2014), and the Russian government has introduced plans to attract further residents (Japan Times 2015). At the same time, Japan’s population will continue to decline. Specifically, by 2055 it is projected that Japan’s population will have plummeted to 91.93 million from 128.06 million in 2010 (National Institute of Population and Social Security Research 2012: 13). With this population decline affecting remote areas most strongly, this suggests that, even if the islands were somehow returned, Japan would be unable to repopulate them.

In conclusion, with the passage of time, Japan’s chances of regaining any territory become ever less and Russia’s position will become increasingly inflexible. This trend is reflected in Deputy Foreign Minister Morgulov’s statement of September 2015, in which he said, “We are not engaging in any form of dialogue with Japan on the ‘Kuril problem’. This question was solved 70 years ago” (Interfax 2015). A similarly hardline stance was also shown by Lavrov when he stated, “We do not consider the peace treaty to be synonymous with resolving the territorial issue” (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016). This being so, if Abe is really committed to resolving the territorial dispute with Russia before the end of his time in office, he will need to consider settling for considerably less than a 50-50 territorial split or three islands. If not, Japan’s prospects of regaining any territory whatsoever are likely to soon vanish altogether.

Works cited

1. Abe, S. (2006) Utsukushii kuni he [Towards a Beautiful Country] (Tokyo: Bungei Shunju).
2. Agafonov, K. (2016) Sindzo Abe mog by stat’ sosrednikom mezhdu Rossiei i Zapadom, schitaet eks-prem’er Yaponii [Abe Shinzō could become a mediator between Russia and the West says former prime minister of Japan], TASS, January 26.
3. Argumenty Nedeli (2014) Na Kurilakh uzhe nikto ne khochet v Yaponiyu [On the Kurils already no-one wants the islands to go to Japan], 43(435), November 13.
4. Asahi Shimbun (2015) Japan pursues top-level talks with Russia despite U.S. concern, May 23.
5. Barber, L. and Harding, R. (2016). Japan’s Abe calls for Putin to be brought in from the cold, Financial Times, January 17.
6. Brown, J.D.J. (2013) The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Russian-Japanese Relations, Post-Soviet Affairs, 29(3): 197-236 (June).
7. Brown, J.D.J. (2014). Hajime! The causes and prospects of the new start in Russian-Japanese relations, Asia Policy, 18: 81-110 (July).
8. Brown, J.D.J. (2015a). Ukraine and the Russia-China Axis, The Diplomat, April 2, http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/ukraine-and-the-russia-china-axis/
9. Brown, J.D.J. (2015b). Towards an anti-Japanese territorial front? Russia and the Senkaku/ Diaoyu dispute, Europe-Asia Studies, 67(6): 893-915 (August).
10. Brown, J.D.J. (2015c). Not Even Two? New developments in the territorial dispute between Russia and Japan, The Asia-Pacific Journal, 13(38-3) (September).
11. Brown, J.D.J. (2016) Japan, Russia and their Territorial Dispute: The Northern Delusion (Oxon: Routledge).
12. Bukh, A. (2015) Shimane Prefecture, Tokyo and the territorial dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima: regional and national identities in Japan, The Pacific Review, 28(1): 47-70.
13. Burrett, T. (forthcoming) Abe road: Comparing Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s leadership of his first and second governments, Parliamentary Affairs.
14. Clover, C. (2013). Russia and Japan Revive Talks over Disputed Islands, Financial Times, April 29.
15. Dolgopolov, N. and Shestakov, E. (2015) Minskie zagovorennosti: Sergey Lavrov o tom, kto i zachem iskazhaet Minskie dogovorennosti [Minsk enchantments: Sergey Lavrov about who and what distorts the Minsk agreements], Rossiiskaya Gazeta, May 19.
16. Golovnin, V. (2014) Yaponiya ob” yavila o novykh sanktsiyakh v otnoshenii Rossii [Japan announces new sanctions in relation to Russia], ITAR-TASS, April 29.
17. Gusman, M. (2013). Sakura nepremenno zatsvetet [The Sakura will bloom without fail], Rossiiskaya Gazeta, April 26.
18. Haines, J.R. (2014) ‘Ali Baba’s cave’: The sea of Okhotsk’s contentious triangle , Orbis, 58(4): 584–603.
19. Hasegawa, T. (1998a). The Northern Territories Dispute and Russo-Japanese Relations: Volume 1 – Between War and Peace, 1697-1985 (Berkeley: University of California Press).
20. Hasegawa, T. (1998b). The Northern Territories Dispute and Russo-Japanese Relations: Volume 2 – Neither War, Nor Peace, 1985–1998 (Berkeley: University of California Press).
21. Interfax (2014) Sakhalinskaya oblast’ vlozhit v razvitie Yuzhnykh Kuril 20 milliardov rublei [Sakhalin Oblast invests 20 billion in development of Southern Kurils], September 1.
22. Interfax (2015) V MID RF otkazalis’ vesti peregovory s Yaponiei po povodu Kuril [Russian Foreign Ministry refuses to hold negotiations with Japan regarding the Kurils].
23. Ishimatsu, H. and Watanabe, T. (2016). Hoppōryōdo, itoguchi saguru sokkin gaikō [Northern Territories: Inner circle diplomacy in search for starting point], Asahi Shinbun, January 14.
24. Japan Times (2015) Russia calls for immigration to islands disputed with Japan, August 14.
25. Joint Declaration by the USSR and Japan (1956), The World and Japan Database Project, Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, ioc.utokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19561019.D1E.html
26. Kantei (2013) National Security Strategy, provisional translation, December 17, kantei.go.jp/foreign/96_abe/documents/2013/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/12/17/NSS.pdf
27. Kantei (2016). New Year’s Press Conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, January 4, http://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201601/1215413_10999.html
28. Kawauchi, Akiko (2014). Nichi ro kan no ryōdo kōshō [Territorial negotiations between Japan and Russia], National Diet Library, Reference, 3: 101–121.
29. Kimura, H. (2008) The Kurillian Knot: A History of Japanese-Russian Border Negotiations (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
30. Kimura, Hiroshi (2009) The Northern Territories issue: Japanese-Russian relations and domestic concerns in Japan, ch. 2 in Hara, K. and Jukes, G. (eds.) Northern Territories, Asia-Pacific Regional Conflicts and the Åland Experience (Abingdon: Routledge).
31. Kommersant (2016) Sindzo Abe poobeshchal skoro uladit’ territorial’nye spory s Rossiei [Abe Shinzō promises to quickly settle the territorial dispute with Russia], February 7.
32. Kremlin (2012) Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii: O dolgosrochnoi gosudarstvennoi ekonomicheskoi politike [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation: Regarding long-term state economic policy], decree no. 596, May 7, http://graph.document.kremlin.ru/page.aspx?1610833
33. Kremlin (2013) Zayavleniya dlya pressy i otvety na voprosy zhurnalistov po itogam Rossiisko-Yaponskikh peregovorov [Statements for the Press and Replies to Journalists’ Questions about the Results of Russian-Japanese Negotiations], April 29, http://news.kremlin.ru/transcripts/18000
34. Kremlin (2014) 75-letie pobedy na Khalkhin-Gole [75th anniversary of the victory at Khakhin Gol, September 3, kremlin.ru/news/46553
35. Kremlin (2016). Telefonnyi razgovor s Prem’er-ministrom Yaponii Sindzo Abe [Telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Japan Abe Shinzō], January 22, http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51193.
36. Lenin, A. (2015). G7 otneslas’ s ponimaniem k zhelaniyu Yaponii prodolzhat’ dialog s RF [G7 reacts with understanding to Japan’s desire to continue dialogue with Russia], Rossiiskaya Gazeta, June 9.
37. Lenin, A. (2016) MID RF: Sergei Lavrov posetit Yaponiyu v seredine aprelya [Russian MFA: Sergei Lavrov will visit Japan in mid-April], February 15.
38. Mainichi Shinbun (2009). ‘3.5 jima’ henkan [The return of ‘3.5 islands’], April 18.
39. Makarov, Y. (2014) Prem’er-ministr Yaponii khotel by uskorit’ peregovory o territorial’noi problemy RF [The Japanese Prime Minister would like to accelerate negotiations about the territorial problem with Russia], ITAR-TASS, January 19.
40. Markelov, R. (2015) Zakon o TORakh vstupil v silu [Law on Territories of Priority Development enters into force], Rossiiskaya Gazeta, March 30.
41. Minekonomrazvitiya (2013) Zvaimovygodnoe sotrudnichestvo Rossii i Yaponii [Mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and Japan,” December 26, http://economy.gov.ru/minec/press/news/doc20131226_3
42. Mizoguchi, K. and Dudden, A. (2007). Abe’s Violent Denial: Japan’s Prime Minister and the ‘Comfort Women’, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 5(3): 1-4.
43. Mizoguchi, S. (2014) Nisso kokkō seijō-ka kōshō ni taisuru Beikoku no seisaku no henka to renzoku-sei [Changes and continuities in US policy towards the Japan-Soviet normalisation talks], Kokusai Seiji, 176: 111-125.
44. MOFA (1993). Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono
45. on the result of the study on the issue of “comfort women”, August 4, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html
46. MOFA (2011). Northern Territories Issue. March 1, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/overview.html
47. MOFA (2013). Japan is Back, February 22, http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/pm/abe/us_20130222en.html
48. MOFA (2015). Announcement by Foreign Ministers of Japan and the Republic of Korea at the Joint Press Occasion, December 28, http://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/kr/page4e_000364.html
49. Momoi, Y. (2016) Putin’s ‘draw’ not so even, Nikkei Asian Review, January 15.
50. Mori, Y. (2013) Nihon seiji no ura no ura [Deep behind the scenes of Japanese politics], (Tokyo: Kōdansha).
51. Myasnikov, V. (2014) Na Shumshu za yaponskimi tankami [On Shumshu beyond Japanese tanks], Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 12.
52. Naka, K. (2012). Budushchii prem’yer Yaponii Abe nameren ukreplyat’ otnosheniya s Rossiei [Future Premier of Japan Abe Intends to Strengthen Relations with Russia], RIA Novosti, December 16.
53. Naka, K. (201 4). Yaponskii prem’er ser’ezno nameren podpisat’ mirnyi dogovor s Rossiei [Japanese prime minister seriously intends to sign a peace treaty with Russia], RIA Novosti, December 1.
54. Naikaku-fu (2013) Hoppōryōdo mondai ni kansuru tokubetsu seron chōsa [Special public opinion survey on the Northern Territories problem], http://survey.gov-online.go.jp/tokubetu/h25/h25-hoppou_chosahyo.pdf
55. National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2012). Population Projections for Japan (January 2012): 2011 to 2060, ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/ppfj2012.pdf
56. Nikkei (2016) Shushō go gatsu jōjun hōro de chōsei, sochi jiku ni: ryōdo kōshō no shinten mezasu [Prime Minister’s visit to Russia set for early May in Sochi: Progress targeted in territorial negotiations], February 16.
57. Panda, A. (2014) Shinzo Abe Has Visited a Quarter of the World’s Countries in 20 Months: Why?, The Diplomat, September 11.
58. Protocol of Proceedings of Crimea Conference (1945), February 11, The Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/yalta.asp
59. RIA Novosti (2012) Putin shchitaet vozmozhnym reshit’ territorial’nuyu problemu s Yaponiei [Putin Considers it Possible to Resolve the Territorial Problem with Japan], March 2.
60. RIA Novosti (2014) Realizatsiya proekta ‘Vladivostok SPG’ zavisit ot sprosa v Yaponii [Realisation of the project ‘Vladivostok LNG’ depends on Japanese demand], October 24.
61. Rossiiskaya Gazeta (2016). V Yaponii uchrezhden post spetspredstavitelya po otnosheniyam s Rossiei [New post of special representative for relations with Russia established in Japan], January 22.
62. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016) Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on Russia’s diplomacy performance in 2015, Moscow, January 26, http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2032328
63. Ryall, J. (2014) Japan may revise ‘comfort women’ apology, Deutsche Welle, February 25.
64. Sabov, A. (2005) Za Kurily. Istoriya ostrovov preduprezhdaet: Peregovory o ‘severnykh territoriyakh’ opasny dlya zdorov’ya natsii [For the Kurils. The history of the islands is a warning: Negotiations about the ‘Northern Territories’ is a danger to the health of the nation], Rossiiskaya Gazeta, October 28.
65. Sankei Shinbun (2016) Hoppōryōdo no Ro-gun shisetsu ‘nennai ni subete kansei o’ to shiji, Roshia kokubōsō [Russian Defence Ministry: Russian military installations on the Northern Territories ‘all to be completed within the year’], January 12.
66. Sargin, A. (2014) ‘Yapontsy nervnichayut, – tak eto u nikh takaya emotsiaonal’naya reaktsiya’ [‘The Japanese are nervous, that’s why they have such an emotional reaction’], Argumenty-Live, September 26.
67. Sarkisov, K. (2009) The territorial dispute between Japan and Russia: The ‘two island solution’ and Putin’s last years as President, ch. 3 in Hara, K. and Jukes, G. (eds.) Northern Territories, Asia-Pacific Regional Conflicts and the Åland Experience (Oxon: Routledge).
68. Strel’tsov, D. (2014) Ekonomicheskaya politika yaponskogo pravitel’stva S. Abe [The economic policies of the Japanese government of S. Abe], Vostochnaya Analitika, 4: 78– 86.
69. Suzuki, Muneo (2012) Seiji no Shuraba [Political Carnage] (Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū).
70. United Nations (1952) Treaty of Peace with Japan, United Nations – Treaty Series, no.1832.
71. Weitz, R. (2008) Russia, China end decades-long border dispute, World Politics Review, August 1.
72. Williams, B. (2007) Resolving the Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute: Hokkaido-Sakhalin Relations (Oxon: Routledge).
73. World Bank (2014) “Data: GDP (current US$),” http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
74. Zakharchenko, I. (2015) Posol: Moskva ozhidaet padeniya tovarooborota s Tokio na 30% v etom godu [Ambassador: Moscow expects a fall in trade turnover with Tokyo of 30% this year], RIA Novosti, December 22.
75. Zakharchenko, I. (2016) Prem’er Yaponii otstaivaet neobkhodimost’ provedeniya sammita s Rossiei [Japanese premier upholds the necessity of conducting a summit with Russia], January 04.
76. Zavrazhin, K. (2013) Poslanie prezidenta RF Vladimira Putina Federal’nomu Sobraniyu [Message from President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly], December 13.
77. Zubov, A.B. (2011) Istoriya Rossii XX Vek, 1939–2007 [History of Russia of the 20^th Century, 1939–2007] (Moscow: Astrel’).

Notes

Accusations and denials continue to be traded between the West’s NGO, Doctors Without Borders or officially Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and the Russian and Syrian governments. Despite the gravity of the accusations by the West and MSF, which suggest “deliberate” and egregious war crimes, they have thus far produced no evidence. Not only have they produced no evidence, they openly admit that so far, they have none.

Reuters in their article, “MSF seeks independent probe into bombing of Syria hospital,” reveals as much by claiming (emphasis added):

 “This attack can only be considered deliberate. It was probably carried out by the Syrian government-led coalition that is predominantly active in the region,” she told a news briefing. 

Accounts from surviving hospital staff led MSF to believe that the government-led coalition had carried out the attack. 

“We say a probability because we don’t have more facts than the accounts from our staff,” Liu said, noting that it took time to collect forensic evidence. “The only thing predominantly in the region is the Syrian government-led coalition.”

For an international organization to accuse two nations of “war crimes” with admittedly nothing more than “accounts,” not from an MSF hospital and their staff, but from an alleged hospital “supported by” MSF and run by local staff, indicates self-serving political motivation, not impartial, selfless charity.  But beyond baseless accusations, this most recent incident reveals something far more sinister MSF may be guilty of.

MSF’s Use and Abuse of the Geneva Conventions 

When the United States inexplicably bombed MSF’s hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan last year, among the many statements released by MSF would include one published on their own website titled, “Afghanistan: Enough. Even war has rules.” In it, it claims that (emphasis added):

This was not just an attack on our hospital – it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions. This cannot be tolerated. These Conventions govern the rules of war and were established to protect civilians in conflicts – including patients, medical workers and facilities. They bring some humanity into what is otherwise an inhumane situation.

The Geneva Conventions are not just an abstract legal framework – they are the difference between life and death for medical teams on the frontline. They are what allow patients to access our health facilities safely and what allows us to provide healthcare without being targeted. 

It is precisely because attacking hospitals in war zones is prohibited that we expected to be protected. And yet, ten patients including 3 children, and 12 MSF staff were killed in the aerial raids.

In another entry on MSF’s website titled, “Kunduz Hospital Airstrike,” MSF clearly states that (emphasis added):

All parties to the conflict, including in Kabul and Washington, were clearly informed of the precise location (GPS Coordinates) of the MSF facilities – hospital, guest-house, office and an outreach stabilization unit in Chardara (to the north-west of Kunduz). As MSF does in all conflict contexts, these precise locations were communicated to all parties on multiple occasions over the past months, including most recently on 29 September.

It appears that not only is MSF very familiar with the Geneva Conventions, and more specifically, those articles and additional protocols that govern their work as medical care providers amid armed conflict, they also clearly understand how they apply in a modern context.

For instance, the Geneva Conventions, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) states clearly under, “Emblem: relevant articles of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols,” that (emphasis added):

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 [red cross or red crescent] of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, but only if so authorized by the State. 

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action. 

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives. 

MSF clearly understands the Geneva Conventions, and in a modern context, understands that to avoid violating the Conventions, making a hospital visible to military land, air, and naval forces requires that the GPS coordinates of the hospital be given to all parties of the conflict. They are thus, “marked,” satisfying the Geneva Conventions’ requirements.

However, in Syria, MSF is in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Unmarked Hospitals Violate the Geneva Conventions

In Reuters article, “MSF seeks independent probe into bombing of Syria hospital,” it would also admit (emphasis added):

MSF said it had not provided the hospital’s GPS coordinates to Syrian or Russian authorities, at the request of local staff.

Furthermore, MSF’s admission that its hospitals are unmarked directly contradict their assertion that the attacks on these unmarked hospitals were “deliberate.” Indeed, in the same Reuters article, MSF would paradoxically claim that:While MSF accuses Syria and Russia of violating the Geneva Conventions – accusations both Syria and Russia deny, MSF itself blatantly admits that it violated the Conventions itself.

“This attack can only be considered deliberate. It was probably carried out by the Syrian government-led coalition that is predominantly active in the region,” she [Dr. Joanne Liu] told a news briefing.

If the hospitals were unmarked and concealed in fear of being deliberately attacked, how then, were they still deliberately attacked? That will be yet another significant claim now incumbent upon MSF and their “independent inquiry” to answer adequately with accompanying evidence.

Undermining Humanitarianism While Hiding Behind It 

In reality, like a previous string of accusations leveled at both Syria and Russia, no evidence will be provided, no inquiry will be opened, and no truth will be arrived at.

MSF, in partaking in politically-motivated war propaganda, not only undermines its own alleged mission statement, but undermines all humanitarian charity undertaken during times of conflict. MSF poses as standing for humanitarianism while undermining and cynically taking advantage of every rule, regulation, and convention defined to truly uphold it.

For those honest volunteers among MSF who are not involved in rendering aid to terrorists, in terrorist-held territory, in unmarked hospitals in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, they may want to either search out another organization with more genuine means and methods, or better still, start one of their own.

Readers should recall that it was also MSF who played a pivotal role in attempting to frame the Syrian government for a large-scale chemical weapons attack near Damascus in 2013. It would later turn out that evidence implicated terrorists and their Turkish and Saudi sponsors. Even at that time, MSF would admit that its organization focused on providing “care” to those fighting the Syrian government – now all admittedly Al Qaeda-affiliates and/or “Islamic State” terrorists. It appears that in addition to medical aid, MSF is providing significant rhetorical aid to their cause as well.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.   

The following article by Dr. Jack Rasmus (Telesur) summarizes the money behind the major candidates–including Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Bush and Clinton and the estimated $10 billion that will be spent on this year’s US national election.

Poll after public opinion poll in the US today consistently show that US voters overwhelmingly share the opinion that big money billionaires and their corporations were increasingly dominating US elections.

As the United States election cycle began to ramp up last summer, for example, the New York Times/NBC News poll showed no less than 84 percent of U.S. voters – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike – shared the common view that there was simply “too much money” flooding into U.S. elections today. While 85 percent of those in the poll further indicated that either major changes or a “complete rebuild” of the U.S. election system was needed to take money out of politics.

Forget minor tweaking reforms of campaign financing. The people of the U.S. now believe the entire process is rigged in favor of rich contributors and corporations who fill to over-flowing the campaign coffers of their chosen politicians.

War for the White House 2016

A related major concern expressed by those polled was that those billionaires writing the checks for candidates were “hiding behind the curtain” as never before. The electoral system itself was becoming increasingly opaque. Seventy-five percent of those polled thus demanded full disclosure of just who was providing all the money.

The current election cycle is just now getting underway with the primary season and nominating of candidates, so total spending won’t be known for at least mid-2017 at the earliest. But there are signs appearing in numerous places that this election year will break all records for money flowing from the billionaires, their banks, and their corporations to their “hat in hand” candidates, as they regularly stumble over themselves and trek one after the other attending private meetings with the Koch Brothers, the Sheldon Adelsons, the Paul Singers, Goldman Sachs and other bankers – and all the rest of the billionaire class who write checks for tens of millions of dollars at a single sitting – to fund whichever candidate bends his knee and bows his head the most in committing to their favorite economic interest or pet political cause. And bend and bow they do.

Marco Rubio

For example, there’s the Republican presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, who led the attack on Argentina in the U.S. Congress to pressure that country’s Kirchner government to concede to the blackmail by U.S. vulture funds led by multi-billionaire, hedge fund magnate, Paul Singer. A financial supporter of the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank of Palestine, Singer is an ardent advocate that “Israel can do no wrong.” As Singer’s boy in the U.S. Senate, Rubio consistently takes a hard line on every Israel debate and vote, effectively representing Singer’s views and interests. Not surprisingly, for that Rubio has been repaid well. Singer is Rubio’s second biggest campaign contributor, second only to Florida real estate billionaire, Norman Braman. Multi-billionaires, both have already contributed more than US$11 million in 2015 to Rubio’s campaign. Software billionaire, Larry Ellison, the world’s fifth richest person, worth $47 billion, has also already contributed millions to Rubio. All three no doubt appreciate Rubio’s pledge to eliminate all taxes on capital gains and dividends, which would mean $1 trillion tax free to them and their billionaire friends. Rubio’s election campaign committee and his “Conservative Solutions” super PAC have accumulated more than $60 million in 2015. Bush money is reportedly moving to Rubio recently as well.

Ted Cruz

Then there’s candidate Cruz. His billionaires include ultra-right wing, hedge fund owner Robert Mercer, who contributes to restoration of the death penalty, advocates return to the gold standard, funds pro-life and anti-gay causes, and collects machine-guns for a hobby; Toby Neugebauer, the billionaire Houston investment banker; and Farris and Staci Wilks, extreme bible-thumpers, who view the U.S. from a prism of the biblical old testament, and whose family has made their billions by fracking and poisoning land in the U.S. from Texas to Montana. All have all written checks to the Cruz campaign for more than $10 million each thus far, and contribute heavily to Cruz’s super PAC, “Keeping the Promise,” and his campaign committee, together worth at latest estimate more than $100 million. Cruz repeatedly pilgrimages to their respective billionaire compounds and retreats, that is, when he’s not getting loans from the big Investment bank, Goldman Sachs, where his wife worked as a managing director, and from which Cruz has been given low interest loans.

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush got most of his money from his personal and family investment sources, from his super PAC, “Right to Rise,” to which wealthy friends have already contributed $118 million in “outside money,” from his election committee with a pot of more than $40 million more so far, from his 50+ per year public speeches for which he is paid an average of $40,000 each, and unknown amounts from his multi-billionaire Bush dynasty family. Another big billionaire contributor, writing a $10 million check recently, was the notorious Hank Greenberg, former Chairman of the American Insurance Group that the government and U.S. taxpayer bailed out to the tune of $180 billion in the 2008 crisis.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s money comes from all the above sources and then some. For example, there’s hedge fund billionaire, George Soros, who contributed $8.5 million just last year. And the media billionaires, Haim and Cheryl Saban, who have directly already contributed millions; and reportedly may have contributed an estimated $10-$25 million more indirectly from their own personal foundation to the Clinton’s foundation: a favorite way the rich contribute to each other. Both Hillary and Bill have also had multi-million dollar royalty book contracts, Hillary’s latest worth $5 million. She is also the biggest recipient of contributions from professional Lobbyists among all the candidates. Her campaign committee has amassed $115 million as of January 2016 and her super PAC, “Priorities USA,” more than $40 million.

The Clintons, however, have especially farmed the speech circuit for big money ever since Bill left office. That’s how former presidents and other big-name, high visibility politicians who have performed well for the rich are “paid off” in the U.S. when they leave office. Corruption is “post-hoc” in the U.S. system, a more sophisticated arrangement than crude graft or theft while in office practiced in other countries. Bill Clinton has earned more than $100 million in speeches alone since 2001. Hillary and Bill have earned another $25 million just since her announcement to run. And then there are Hillary’s “closed door talks,” off-the record, unrecorded, Q&A sessions of an hour or so, which Hillary has held with scores of financial institutions, banks, and big companies since announcing her candidacy.

Her speeches and talks average $225,000 to $275,000, according to her “schedule A” campaign finance statement that is public record. When challenged by Sanders why she has been accepting fees of $275,000 from scores of bankers and big corporations, including a recent 3 speech $675,000 fee from Goldman Sachs, her reply was “I don’t know, that’s just what they offered”. Yeah, out of the pure generosity of their banker hearts, expecting nothing in return no doubt.

The Clintons have given more than 50 speeches each in 2014 alone, according to public records. Adding it up, it’s more than $25 million in speeches and “talks” in 2014 alone. Their 2014 income was $28 million and net worth $110 million. At least $28 million, and likely far more will eventually be reported for 2015 later this summer. Even more for 2016.

Trump and Sanders

Trump claims his net worth is more than $10 billion, and receives $3 million per show just as host of the TV show, “Celebrity Apprentice,” providing ample cash for his campaign, that is, so far. His long list of investments generate millions more in cash every year.

Sanders relies on small donors, has no super PAC or outside money, while his campaign committee reportedly has accumulated $95 million. He owns no business and his net worth is reportedly $330,000.

Estimating the Totals

A proxy of just how much money is involved this year is perhaps estimated by how much in total was spent on the 2014 midterm Congressional elections, where no presidential candidate was running. No less than $3.77 billion was spent that year. And that was what was only official reported to the Federal Election Commission for donors contributing more than $200 – excluding as well all spending on state and local government races and excluding what is called “dark” money from nonprofit organizations – called 501( c) (4) shell groups-like Karl Rove’s notorious “Crossroads GPS,” which has reportedly raised $330 million in recent years. Spending by 501s is directed at attacking a candidate’s opponents instead of contributing to the favorite candidate via PACs, super PACs, campaign committees, party committees, and the like. But it is campaign spending on behalf of candidates, nonetheless. Super-PACs and 501s are projected to spend more than a $US billion each in the current year.

Totals for 2015 from all the above sources – i.e. corporate and special interest PACs, super PACs, leadership PACs, the 30,000 Washington, D.C. lobbyists, the 501s and their “Limited Liability Company” middlemen who raise money from the super-wealthy but can legally keep their names unreported, from House and Senate and political party fund raising committees, and so on – were likely more than $5 billion, at minimum. But public records for 2015 totals won’t be released by the government until June 30, 2016

For the entire 2015-2016 election, the cumulative totals will no doubt range from $10 to $15 billion. But the actual totals will have to wait even longer, until June 30, 2017. But even then will reflect only what is officially reported, as more “dark money” flows into elections in increasingly opaque system that grows progressively “darker” as the mountains of election money provided by billionaires, corporations, and bankers grow ever higher.

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the recently published book about today’s unstable global economy, “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy,” by Clarity Press, January 2016. For more on this book, click on the book icon on the front page. For free chapters, go to the author website:https://kyklosproductions.com/homewar.html

South African students shut down almost all of the country’s universities this October during unprecedented nationwide protests against a planned 10% hike in tuition fees. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets, and beat gathering students with truncheons, but were unable to suppress the movement. More than 10,000 people demonstrated in front of the nation’s parliament in Pretoria on October 23, forcing the African National Congress (ANC) government to concede that there would be no tuition fee increase for 2016. 

Emboldened by their victory, the students continued to press the government on related demands such as an end to contracting out of poorly paid janitorial, cafeteria and security work positions within the universities. From the beginning, student organizers insisted on linking their struggle to that of the working class. Universities have reopened, but the students remain committed to this and a third demand for free education and an end to tuition fees altogether.

“The demonstrations have grown to be a national movement of solidarity,” says Katlego Disemelo, a PhD candidate at Johannesburg’s University of Witwatersrand (Wits) where the protests began. “Far too long have we black and poor students languished under the yoke of perpetual struggle just to get an education. That is the chief impetus behind our struggle.”

Disemelo, who continues to participate in the student actions, tells me the #FeesMustFall and #InsourceOurWorkers movements, “have shone light on the heinous blight of institutional racism and exploitation in South African higher education. Students and workers are the backbone of these neoliberal ivory towers.”

At about 0.8% of GDP, the South African state spends much less on post-secondary education than the OECD average (about 1.6%) and less than it can probably afford. The proposed 10% increase in tuition fees would have transferred more of the cost of a university education onto students, bumping average fees to between $3,000 and $4,000 per year in a country where the median annual income is US$2,300, 53% of the population lives in poverty, and 40% is unemployed. South Africa also suffers one of the highest rates of inequality in the world.

The ANC, which has ruled South African for 21 years since Apartheid (in coalition with the Communist Party), portrays itself as leftist and has the backing of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the country’s largest labour federation. The liberation movement that thrust the ANC into power had high expectations of economic as well as political revolution, with hopes the nationalization of the country’s exhaustive natural resources would fuel social development.

This vision was swiftly exchanged in the early 1990s for IMF loans attached to neoliberal handcuffs on the new government. As a result, promises of free education and subsidized housing, medical care, electricity and water remain largely unfulfilled, compelling first workers and then students to strike against the state to demand economic rights.

The situation for the country’s miners is especially bleak. In August 2012, police cordoned off, then fired on a group of striking workers from a platinum mine operated by the U.K.-based Lonmin in the northeastern town of Marikana. The event and its political consequences are captured in graphic detail in the 2015 documentary, Miners Shot Down, which is available for free viewing on YouTube.

With a death toll of 34, the Marikana massacre was the worst act of violence by South African security forces since 1960, when police killed more than 60 people in a crowd of several thousand protesting the segregationist pass laws. For many, it exposed the failure of corporate-led resource development and the corruption it is causing within the ANC and government institutions.

About a fifth of South African GDP is directly or indirectly generated from mining, most of it by foreign-owned companies, and it is to protect these private investors that the ANC has insisted on maintaining a neoliberal regime that prioritizes competitive (low) wages, while ignoring growing demands for nationalization. Though the government insists its Black Empowerment Programs, with their local content and employment quotas for major projects, help capture more of the benefits of mining, targets for black ownership of resource companies have been missed, and the industry continues to lobby against having to meet them.

When mineral prices were high (between 2002 and 2011) and the economy was expanding, the availability of cheap credit limited social protests. But with the collapse of raw material prices globally, starting in 2011, annual growth in South Africa fell to 1.5%, stimulating an explosion of protests all over the country as the country’s leaders appeared to have no way of dealing with the severe economic crisis.

“The allegiance of the state’s economic decision-makers to international and domestic finance and mining capital is obvious enough. Until the mining sector crash, corporate profits were amongst the highest in the world, and last year PricewaterhouseCoopers named our corporate elites the world’s most corrupt,” says Patrick Bond, a professor of political economy at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban and author of the book Looting Africa(2006).

The Marikana Massacre was a consciousness-raiser, as are repeated threats by the credit rating agencies to downgrade South Africa to junk status unless fiscal discipline and monetarist ideology are tightened.

Bond tells me President Jacob Zuma and Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa (“the big business choice to be the next president”) make up South Africa’s “core neoliberal bloc.” Both have been implicated in corruption scandals, with the latter chairing a large cellphone company responsible for “many financial misdeeds.” Zuma is one of the 10 highest-paid national leaders in the world, yet he felt entitled to spend $17 million in public funds on his private house, supposedly for security improvements.

In one recent scandal—part of “a running joke,” according to Bond—the president tried to blame two army officers for a decision to allow the powerful Gupta family to land their private jet at an air force base so family members could attend a wedding. The Guptas own coal and uranium mines in South Africa, and are widely believed to hold too much influence over the appointment of government positions, including possibly that of Mosebenzi Zwane to mining minister in September.

For his part, Ramaphosa is worth an astounding $450 million, which makes him the 42^nd richest person in Africa in 2015, according to Forbes Magazine. He was chairman of Shanduka Group, an investment company that indirectly owned 9% of Lonmin’s shares at the time of the Marikana massacre. Though an independent commission of inquiry cleared Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in June 2015, he was promptly slapped with murder charges by the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters party (EFF) in July. In November, families of the murdered miners filed a $95-million lawsuit against the man who could be South Africa’s next president.

Bond points out how the 2015 budget increases in government grants for the country’s poor do not keep up with inflation, resulting in an actual 3% drop in support. While much of the population has to deal with frequent blackouts, the government offers cheap power to the world’s biggest mining company, BHP Billiton. A prominent wealth manager declared the February budget was “a lovely budget for offshore investors,” with the country’s offshore allowance rising from 4 million rand (US$282,500) to R10 million (US$706,500). “The immigration allowance is now up to R20 million (US$1,413,000) and corporates can take a billion (over US$70 million) offshore,” said the Citadel director in February.

Disemelo is similarly outraged by the contrast between the ANC’s stated priorities and its obvious corruption, as well as the way it panders to the country’s industrial and financial elite. “There are countless scandals and exposés in the mainstream media every week about this or that cabinet minister misappropriating state funds or outright stealing from the government’s coffers,” he tells me.

But what is amazing is that most South Africans now know this and can see it with their own eyes. We are no longer willing to sit back and be exploited for the gain of only a few. We have been sold out by the ANC in exchange for their lavish houses, cars and clothing. Little do they realize that the global white imperialist capitalists who line their pockets, and whose financial interests they are so keen to protect, will give them nothing more than crumbs.

For Disemelo, the student movement is intimately connected to the broader social struggle for wealth redistribution and the reclamation of national resources from the clutches of a domestic and international elite.

“During decolonization, the first thing that people will demand is land. As such, we demand access to the land and its resources so that those who have been previously dispossessed can begin to reap the rewards and resources which come from that land, such that they can live decent human lives from and through it,” he says.

In this regard, I see no other way but to nationalize the mines of South Africa so that its citizens can ultimately reap the benefits therefrom. As long as white global capital (and its cronies) still greedily hold on to the resources of this land, poverty, inequality and exploitation will continue to hold the majority of South Africans in neocolonial and economic slavery. And one of the instruments of such slavery is the outright denial of basic and free education for all South Africans.

Nationalization is also the platform of the EFF, a breakaway faction from the ANC that is challenging the party from the left. The EFF won 6% of the vote in the last election, giving it 24 seats in parliament. Notably, EFF leader Julius Malema was expelled from the ANC Youth League in 2012 for sowing divisions within the party related to resource nationalization. The internal committee that upheld the decision was chaired by Ramaphosa. Malema has loudly criticized both the white and black power structures in South Africa, and the EFF strongly supported the students.

“But most importantly,” says Bond,

“I’m increasingly impressed with the EFF’s ground troops, not just the two dozen parliamentarians. In November, the leaders brought out 50,000 red-shirted supporters to march more than 20 km from central Johannesburg targets like the South Africa Reserve Bank and Chamber of Mines all the way to the Sandton stock market. Their numbers and their demands for nationalization scared the heck out of the bourgeoisie.”

Also launching large-scale demonstrations in Johannesburg has been the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA). With 350,000 members, it is the largest union in the country. And like the EFF, NUMSA has taken a radical left position, calling for nationalization of large companies and the mines.

NUMSA left COSATU in 2014 and demanded Zuma’s resignation. Since then, the labour start-up has been exploring the possibility of founding a new socialist party to contest the ANC in elections. The union is currently focusing on creating a labour federation to rival COSATU. The students movement, the EFF and NUMSA signify a revitalized South African left that may soon pose a serious challenge to the ANC’s neoliberal hold on the country.

“The period ahead is at least going to offer the prospect of a working class steeped in left ideology deciding between institutions inside the ANC tradition versus those led by metalworkers and left social movements outside,” says Bond.

“This is very welcome, because the prestige of the ANC, plus the forcefulness of official Communist manoeuvres in the labour movement, have kept the bulk of the working class loyal to a liberation movement that long ago had ditched their interests.”

Asad Ismi is the CCPA Monitor’s international affairs correspondent. He is author of the radio documentary “The Ravaging of Africa” which Black Agenda Report called “ground-breaking”. The documentary is based on his award-winning article of the same title and has been aired on 28 radio stations in the U.S. and Canada reaching an audience of 30 million people. For his publications visit www.asadismi.ws. 

Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies. (Dorothy Allison, b. 1949.)

On 7th September 2002, speaking at a Press Conference flanked by Prime Minister, Tony “dodgy dossier” Blair, President George W. Bush stated that Saddam Hussein was just six months away from an Iraqi nuclear age. (1) The timeline, said Bush, had come from the International Atomic Energy Agency Report issued that morning.

Blair confirmed

“ . . . The threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction … that threat is real. We only need to look at the Report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites to realize that.”

There was no Report from the IAEA “that morning.” The Report to which Bush and Blair were referring was from 1998 and included:

 . . . based on all credible information available to date . . . the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.

The pair continued to stress the lie of the immediacy of the Report with Bush replying to a question from an AP journalist with the preamble: “We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new Report …” (2)

When the story was further challenged a White House spokesperson even stated the Report might, in fact, have come from 1991. The chief IAEA spokesman denied any such 1991 Report.

THE IRRADIATION OF IRAQ.

Of course in 1991 every factory, including those making glass, cement, bricks, every military facility, chicken farm, agricultural processing unit, the whole industrial infrastructure, was erased by coalition bombs, with the US and UK liberally spreading radiation throughout the region with their depleted uranium missiles. Iraq had no nuclear capability but the country and the region would pay the price in cancers and birth deformities until the end of time, poisoned by up to 900 tonnes of residual radioactive and chemically toxic dust, also seeping in to water tables, earth, thus fauna flora – thus inhaled and ingested by the population. Black ironies do not come darker.

2003’s scorched earth onslaught, the invasion and subsequent years of bombings brought further radioactive pollution in orders of magnitude. The US is now bombing again.

Iraq’s French built Osirak nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha had been destroyed by Israel on 7^th June 1981, before it came on line. The warehouse in France housing the wherewithal for the reactor, awaiting shipment, was blown up. As the US, Israel calls its destructions by silly names, this one was called “Operation Opera.” The Tuwaitha complex was bombed again by the US in 1991.

Imad Khadduri, author of “Iraq’s Nuclear Mirage”, eminent Iraqi nuclear scientist is adamant that the nuclear programme was abandoned on the orders of Saddam Hussein after the 1991 war, with those involved directed to sign a commitment to that effect by President Saddam.

The relevance of the above is, of course, that Iraq was destroyed on a nuclear lie, whilst the nuclear reality is that the actions, primarily of the US and the UK, have poisoned the land, the people – and those of the region – with nuclear and chemical lethality for all time. The half life of depleted uranium is 4.5 Billion years. The soaring cancers and birth defects have been linked to this nuclear nightmare.

NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE.      

When the US invaded, the first mission of the troops was to secure the Oil Ministry, the oil fields and oil industrial infrastructure.

Weapons of mass destruction, the lie for the war, came a distand second in concerns. The Tuwaitha complex, developed as the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility in the early 1960s, an approximately 120 acre complex around eighteen km south of Baghdad was ignored. A decision of criminal negligence.

The large complex in which numerous buildings held decades worth of lethal nuclear materials from the abandoned nuclear programme had been sealed by the IAEA, was further protected by steel doors and over four hundred round-the-clock guards.

Five weeks after the invasion, The Washington Post’s Barton Gellman wrote (3):

Before the war began last month, the vast Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center held 3,896 pounds of partially enriched uranium, more than 94 tons of natural uranium and smaller quantities of cesium, cobalt and strontium, according to reports compiled through the 1990s by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Immensely valuable on the international black market, the uranium was in a form suitable for further enrichment to ‘weapons grade’, the core of a nuclear device.

The other substances, products of medical and industrial waste, emit intense radiation. They have been sought, officials said, by terrorists seeking to build a so-called dirty bomb, which uses conventional explosives to scatter dangerous radioactive particles.

Tuwaitha, with its at least 409 barrels of nuclear materials would be a terrorists dream.

Defense officials acknowledge that the U.S. government has no idea whether any of Tuwaitha’s potentially deadly contents have been stolen, because it has not dispatched investigators to appraise the site.

What it does know, according to officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, is that the sprawling campus … lay unguarded for days and that looters made their way inside.  (Emphasis added.)

As “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (OIL) engulfed Iraq, the guards had fled for their lives.

Incredibly:

“Disputes inside the U.S. Defense Department and with other government agencies have slowed the preparation of orders for a team of nuclear experts to assess Tuwaitha, officials said. Though it anticipated for months that war would leave it with responsibility for Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure, the Bush administration did not reach consensus on the role it would seek at those facilities.”

Corey Hinderstein, Deputy Director of the Institute for Science and International Security, found it “extremely surprising” when told that U.S. nuclear experts had not yet been to Tuwaitha.

“I would have hoped that they would try to assess as quickly as possible whether the site had been breached. If there is radiological material on the loose, with the chance that it may be transferred across borders, it would be extremely important to know that (in order) to prevent it from crossing a border or being transferred to a terrorist or another state.” (Emphasis added.)

In addition to their scarcely believable fecklessness with the most lethal of materials, the US and UK insurgents left the borders wide open – a situation remaining thirteen years on.

TERRIFYING FALLOUT.

Defence analyst Andy Oppenheimer, a specialist in counter-terrorism and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear weapons and explosives wrote a meticulously detailed, chilling document on the resultant tragedy published in October 2003. (4) Radiological material was certainly “on the loose in Iraq” and the results were locally catastrophic. What might have happened – or might still happen – further afield is seemingly unknown.

What is known is that hundreds of barrels were stolen from the abandoned plant, the radioactive and chemical content tipped out, and the barrels used to collect water for cooking,  to wash in, for storage. Water treatment plants, facilities, had been bombed and water was collected by any means from rivers, rain – the lethally contaminated barrels were a boon.

Oppenheimer wrote:

There has been growing concern over radiation poisoning in the neighbourhoods near al-Tuwaitha. Local doctors have reported cases of radiation sickness in nearby villages. There are also fears that local farms as well as the water supply may have been contaminated in the post-war chaos. According to local doctors, as many as 2,000 residents in the villages near the site have been showing the telltale symptoms of acute radiation sickness – nosebleeds, rashes, hair loss, respiratory distress, and vomiting. People have drunk water stored in plastic barrels stolen from the complex. One local fruit merchant’s children fell ill after drinking the water.

Doctors fear that hundreds could have been contaminated and may have ingested radioactive material. An Iraqi nuclear engineer and a founder of the al-Tuwaitha site, Dr. Hamid Al-Bah’ly, interviewed on Al-Jazeera TV, witnessed the spread of nuclear contamination firsthand. At one home, Al-Bah’ly discovered radioactive contamination in clothes and beds. In others, he recorded radiation levels 500 to 600 times higher than acceptable levels. Iraqi and foreign doctors are to conduct a major health survey in the affected areas near al-Tuwaitha; during June there was talk of evacuating villagers. Radiation sickness aside, the risk of Iraqis who have been contaminated contracting leukaemia and other cancers at a later date appears very high.

The paper highlights:

“the danger of radioactive materials falling into the hands of terrorists seeking to make radiological dispersion devices (RDDs – dubbed ‘dirty bombs’). There is clearly potential for looted materials to be sold on by looters to terrorist groups seeking to make RDDs.”

US intelligence had shown Al Qaeda’s interest in the use of radioactive weapons. Intelligence whose priority was non-existent in protecting the wherewithal to create such horrors – in a region where Al-Qaeda literally seemed to enter Iraq with the troops and whose offspring is now ISIS whose adherents regard death as a prize, not a fear and surely would not have a moment’s concern in irradiating entire regions, adding to the burden of what the the US has already done.

NOVEMBER 2015 – ANOTHER POTENTIAL NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE.

Now Iraq has a new nuclear threat. The theft has come to light: “of a highly dangerous radioactive source of Iridium -192 with highly radioactive activity from a depot…in the Rafidhia area of Basra province.” (5) Though the material went missing in November, the disappearance has only just come to light.

The material is classed as a Category 2 radioactive by the International Atomic Energy Agency – meaning it can be fatal to anyone in close proximity to it in a matter of days or even hours.

Moreover: “A security official said the initial investigation suggested the perpetrators had specific knowledge of how to handle the material and how to gain access to the facility” where it was stored. Army and police are working “day and night” to locate the stolen material, a spokesman for Basra Operations Command told Reuters. Nearly four months on it seems they are not doing too well.

Iridium-192 is used in industrial photography to locate flaws in metal components as well as in radiotherapy. It seemingly belonged to the giant Turkey based SGS group whose:

“ …  robust technology, knowledge-based approach and dedication to quality and safety allow us to provide innovative solutions to every part of the oil and gas industry” and was being used to test pipes at an oil field.”

It was reportedly being kept in a protective laptop-sized case in a depot belonging to US oilfield services company Weatherford. The isotope was apparently being used to check for flaws in oil piping etc., in Basra’s great oil industry, so speedily secured by the invaders.

However, both SGS and Weatherford deny responsibility for the disastrous loss, and according to Reuters are trading recriminations. (6)

Supremely ironically, under the decimating embargo years, Iraq was not even allowed chemotherapy for the rocketing cancers, X-rays or any therapeutic radiation. Saddam would somehow transform them into nuclear weapons US-UK Inc., fantasized.

Iraq now lives in an uncontrollable, nightmare nuclear age, delivered by Bush and Blair’s lies, bombs and actions.

Footnote: Extensive inquiries have so far failed to confirm whether an inventory of what went missing from Tuwaitha and other sites from the abandoned nuclear programme, was undertaken, or whether there were efforts to follow up on the ills from the affected areas or attempts to clean them. Inquiries will continue.

Notes

1. http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/MlandCampDavid.htm
2. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/bn.01.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200896.html
4. http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd73/73op03.htm
5. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-nuclear-dirty-bomb-iraq-oil-field-a6879481.html
6. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-iraq-sgs-sa-idUKKCN0VR1IP?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

“Accompanied by Mr. Moneybags … we [enter] into the hidden abode of production, on whose threshold there stares us in the face ‘No admittance except on business’. Here we shall see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is produced. We shall at last force the secret of profit making.” – Karl Marx, Capital, Vol 1, Chapter 6.

On February 21, 2016 a rare but much-needed Anti-Privatization Forum is being held in Toronto. The event not only continues a decades-long struggle by unions, activists, and concerned citizens to protect public services; it identifies areas of particular relevance in Ontario’s privatization saga today – namely in relation to healthcare, hydro, transit, and housing.

If Canada’s late 1980s and early 1990s privatization schemes largely favoured creating new sources of private profit making through the divestiture of state assets, by the late 1990s new avenues of privatization were being increasingly located within the state in the form of public-private partnerships (P3s).

While public-private collaboration may be nothing new in Canada, P3s for public infrastructure and services establish binding, multi-decade long contracts that bundle the private for-profit design, construction, finance, and management of public works that remain state responsibilities. With these partnerships, the state remains on the hook and the privatization dimension often flies under the radar. Seldom is any effort by P3 promoters put into making the public-at-large aware of what exactly P3s are, how they are produced, and how they work as a hidden abode of profit making within public sector operations. This despite many an Ontario P3 being a household name: Highway 407, the Brampton Civic Hospital, the Thunder Bay and Waterloo courthouses, and several up-and-coming LRT projects in Toronto, like Finch West and Eglinton Crosstown, just to name a few.

Opacity in P3 Proliferation

There are now well over 200 infrastructure P3s across Canada in nearly all jurisdictions, in some of the most sensitive areas of the public interest: healthcare, education, water, transportation, and incarceration. They turn public infrastructure and services into private commodities and financial assets with shockingly few details released except when admitted on business. Opacity results in P3 proliferation and normalization despite serious drawbacks like incursions on democratic processes, urban planning, social justice, environmental protection, and labour conditions.

Here I draw on recent research to shine some light on the hidden abode of P3s. I do so in the spirit of seeking to revoke Mr. P3 Moneybags’ privileged claim to “No admittance except on business.” (See bibliography below.)

Capitalizing on Public Infrastructure

“Infrastructure is ultra-low-risk because competition is limited by a host of forces that make it difficult to build, say, a rival toll road. With captive customers, the cash flows are virtually guaranteed. The only major variables are the initial prices paid, the amount of debt used for financing, and the pace and magnitude of toll hikes – easy things for Wall Street to model” (Emily Thornton, Businessweek, 2007).

Idiosyncrasies aside, a P3’s profit-oriented private partners are made up of two groups: equity investors who are signatories to the contract (typically the engineering, construction, and service providers), and debt holders who provide the bank or bond financing (which can include private commercial banks, wealthy individuals investing in infrastructure funds, and institutional investors like pension funds, life insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and superannuation funds, and investment banks).

Privately financed public infrastructure offers investors two means of profit making: as projects and as assets. Physical infrastructure projects like bridges, highways, and water treatment facilities provide stable and predictable revenue since they monopolize the role of provider and deliverer of that service to particular communities. The monopoly position is then guaranteed by multi-decade government contracts that often contain anti-competition clauses. And as a financial asset, public infrastructure brings in high returns for low risk. Mark Florian, the head of North American infrastructure banking at Goldman Sachs, summarizes the eagerness of investors to have government set up and lock in P3 projects: “there’s a lot of value trapped in public assets” (quoted in Thornton 2007).

Though each project is unique, investors tend to expect real rates of return of at least 15-25%; if refinanced in the relatively low risk operational phase of the project, cheaper debt can mean significantly enhanced profitability for equity holders. In some jurisdictions (such as Ontario and BC) refinancing gains must be shared with public partners, in others this provision does not exist. Equity sales can also be quite lucrative. In the UK, for example, Whitfield (2011) estimates that 240 P3 equity transactions have taken place since 1992, valued at £10-billion, with average profit rates coming in at a whopping 51%. Equity sales without public input or permission are typical in Canada.

Getting the Story Straight

It is clear that one half of the P3 partnership gains substantially from privatization, but the implications are far less rosy for the public and public sector.

In December 2014, Ontario’s Auditor General concluded that 74 P3 projects had added an additional (and unnecessary) $8-billion to the province’s long run budget obligations when compared with what traditional ways of financing, building, and procuring infrastructure would have cost. Most often this comes down to the lower rates of interest paid by public borrowers (even/especially after 2008) but can also be chalked up to the higher transaction costs associated with P3s.

Despite the provincial interest rate favouring public borrowing, the province of Ontario defends its use of private financing on the basis that it cannot sustain a high amount of debt. This argument obscures the long run nature of the P3 commitment: whether direct borrowing or multi-decade payment obligations to a private partner, the least costly option is the public option.

Getting Their Story Straight

As opposed to cost savings, it is far more common that policy documents justify P3 use on the grounds that they deliver ‘value for money’ (VfM). Understanding what exactly VfM means in practice and in technical detail, however, requires deciphering what a Scottish Auditor once famously called “pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.”

It turns out that for Ontario and the rest of Canada, in most cases the entire VfM basis of choosing a P3 over the traditional model rests on the claim that it uniquely provides for ‘risk transfer’. The argument is twofold: that P3s insulate the public from unnecessary and unexpected costs and that by linking private partner compensation to the acceptance of risk there will be an incentive to find project efficiencies and ensure quality delivery. In this sense, P3 is an insurance policy taken out (and paid for) by the public sector.

Arguments such as these ignore the longstanding practice of transferring risks through traditional forms of procurement. Auditors General in Ontario (2008) and Quebec (2009) have openly questioned P3 for this reason alone. Risk transfer justifications also privilege the P3 model without any basis in fact or systematic study of public sector performance. Infrastructure Ontario assumes that the risks associated with fully public projects are 5 times greater than with P3 but the provincial Auditor General argues “there is no empirical data supporting the key assumptions used by infrastructure Ontario to assign costs to specific risks” (2014, 198).

Nestling Everywhere, Settling Everywhere

For all their drawbacks, P3s work quite well in other ways, namely at accomplishing accumulation by dispossession. We now see not only the entrenchment of design-build-finance-operate infrastructure P3s in Canada but also its evolution and spread into new territory. The return of austerity after 2009 has only contributed to the shape-shifting nature of P3.

Looking at examples of cutting-edge trends in P3 from the U.S., UK, and Australia indicates what might be soon in store for Canadians.

Finale: Finding the Funds

Countering the P3 push has thus far proven difficult. Despite spectacular project failures, the demonstration effect has done little to reverse P3 use. Union resistance has been somewhat successful, in a limited way – in areas like Ontario’s health sector, P3 hospital service contracts are now narrower but P3 hospitals are more prevalent than ever. Planning and spending frameworks and oversight by auditors may be helpful at improving the process of P3 but cannot help intrinsic problems with the outcome of P3. If a solution is to be found which is of broad appeal – those tacit supporters of privatization included – it will be most successful if focused on the cost and financing dimensions. Calgary, for example, cancelled its P3 schools program in 2014 on the grounds that it was cheaper to use the traditional public route.

Arguments in favour of using private financing vary between it being a way to capture ‘extra’ money or a way to ‘replace’ public spending but the reality is that private financing through the P3 model must be paid back either through government-owed availability payments (taxpayer compensation sent to the private partner for its services, e.g., hospital cleaning) or by the public directly through user fees (collected at the time of use, e.g., highway tolls). Repayment schemes make P3 a mechanism of infrastructure financing, not funding – funds for public infrastructure ultimately come from taxpayers or service users one way or another.

Understanding the business of P3 reveals, rather ironically, a range of options for public alternatives that would tap into the same types of sources that private financing for public infrastructure draws on but jettison profit siphoning and private control. Examples include:

• Drawing on new or existing forms of pooled savings: pension and superannuation funds, employment insurance, sovereign wealth funds
• Income remitted through Crown corporations: commercial activities, dividends, and expansion into new revenue-generating markets (e.g., marijuana)
• Issuing debt in the form of federal bonds dedicated to vital infrastructure
• Establishing select user fees to ensure intergenerational repayment equity and leveraged as a source of funds for ‘revenue bond’ repayment
• Creating a more progressive taxation system to redistribute ‘dead money’ horded by wealthy individuals and institutions and/or allowing municipalities to collect new forms of tax revenue beyond the current reliance on property taxes
• Creating an infrastructure bank or trust to tap into more flexible accounting procedures related to the allocation and redistribution of intergovernmental fiscal transfers for infrastructure

Identifying and promoting viable alternatives to privately financed P3s will accomplish a number of goals, with broad appeal:

• Lower total project costs
• A reassertion of democratic control
• Design and delivery that is more responsive and tailored to local needs
• Flexibility for future policy, community, and technological changes
• Principles of sustainable development (ensuring that projects provide good jobs, are environmentally friendly, and economically sound) can be applied, re/assessed, and reapplied as needed
• Construction projects that bring in the expertise and strengths of the private sector as needed/desired: strengthening local contractors, favouring top quality designs, tapping into technological advancements
• Any/all cost savings or revenue generated can be kept within the community or reinvested in that project or sector

Alternatives to P3s are just one part of an anti-privatization strategy, success will also depend on developing common strategies to oppose privatization on other fronts. •

Heather Whiteside is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and Fellow at the Balsillie School of International Affairs.

Other references:

• Justin Panos: The Ontario Liberals and Long-Term Care (18 February 2016).
• Ontario Health Coalition: Against Privatization (5 February 2016).
• John Lister interviewed by Robin Chang: Public Healthcare Against Privatization (21 August 2015).
• Brenda Thompson: Rapid Transit Rip-Off (28 January 2015).
• Herman Rosenfeld: The New Struggle for Public Transit (9 April 2014).
• Brenda Thompson: Privatization and Public Transit in Toronto (18 February 2013).
• Paul Kahnert and Sam Gindin: Tax Cuts, Privatization and Deregulation Disguised as Public Policy (20 January 2012).
• Doug Allan: The Coming Battle: Healthcare Privatization and the Ontario Election (5 October 2011).
• John Loxley: Global Crisis, Fiscal Restraint and Public-Private Partnerships (10 March 2011).
• Paul Kahnert: The Case For Keeping Our Hydro Utilities Public (2 March 2010).

First published in January 2015. John McCain’s links to the terrorists.

Poor John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Washington’s original first couple. They only want to arm the ‘moderate opposition’ in Syria. Three years on, how come their master plan isn’t working, while ISIS has grown so strong?

Despite what media lauded as, “the largest demonstration in France’s history – bigger than liberation at the end of WWII!” (can you rightly compare the two), the Paris Attacks are fading fast into the rear view mirror. The media went to great lengths to reinforce the scary prospect of the ‘ISIS in Europe’, even though there is spurious, if any, real evidence to support that claim. Nonetheless, a lack of evidence has never stopped the media from conjuring up a frightening new trend.

In the light of the recent Paris Attacks it’s more important than ever to take a sober look, and perhaps shine a light on the fact that there are no real ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria, no more than there are in Iraq.

On Tuesday during his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touted great strides in “halting the advance of ISIS” with US-led airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Today, US Ambassador Stuart Jones announced that “Coalition Airstrikes” (US airstrikes) have killed 6,000 ISIS byHow the US is able to conjure up such incredible Jack and the Beanstalk-style numbers (all but impossible to verify) is beyond anyone outside of Washington. You just have to take his word for it. Just like we just had to take US Ambassador to the Ukraine’s word for it – when Geoffrey Pyatt Tweeted a few random Digital Globe images claiming that the Russians invaded Ukraine, again.After six or so ‘Russian Invasion’ false starts, we’re still waiting for evidence beyond Twitter.

The lies and creative accounting have been palpable since the beginning of the US airstrikes in Syria. Early strikes weren’t actually against ISIS, but rather against a number of impressive empty buildings, and buildings which were curiously evacuated days before the US conducted the raids. How interesting.

This brings us to the issue of who ISIS really is, and how did ISIS build up to the level they are at today. It’s a particularly embarrassing thing to admit, because when you allow this fact out of the bag, then skeptics start asking more questions, and if there’s one thing that politicians hate more than anything, it’s facts and questions.

So, what happened to all of McCain’s “moderate opposition”? You know, the ones which President Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron and the rest of the ‘liberate Syria’ gang insist need our help with more weapons and cash? New Eastern Outlook geopolitical analysis and writer Tony Cartalucci explains:

Reported along the peripheries of the Western media, it was reported recently that some 3,000 so-called “moderate rebels” of the “Free Syrian Army” had defected to the “Islamic State” (ISIS).  While not the first time so-called “moderates” have crossed over openly to Al Qaeda or ISIS, it is one of the largest crossovers that has occurred. With them, these 3,000 fighters will bring weapons, cash, equipment, and training provided to them by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States, the UK, and perhaps most ironic of all in the wake of the recent terror attack in Paris, France. Indeed, ISIS and Al Qaeda’s ranks continue to swell amid this insidious network of “terror laundering” that is only set to grow.

This means there’s no “moderate rebels” to speak of, so therefore ISIS is McCain’s Army. Washington’s nation-builders are banking on the fact that Americans are not smart enough, or too brain-dead to work this one out.

ISIS: CIA’s Twitter-friendly, “cut-out” mercenary army.

Since 2012, the war-obsessed Senator has dedicated a little too much of his valuable taxpayer-funded time to lobbying for more arms and more cash for his “freedom fighters” in Syria, fighters who are well-known outside of Washington to be all but ubiquitous with violent terrorist fighting groups al Qaeda, al Nusra, Front Victory and ISIS/ISIL/IS. Ten years of war theater in Iraq was time enough to cultivate and develop al Qaeda and Islamic State ‘death squads’ under US destabilization experts like John Negoponte and Robert Ford. Top ISIS fighting units grew directly out of Negoponte’s Death Squads from 2005 onwards. Death Suad recruits were hand-picked and drawn from the Shia, Kurdish, and some Sunni resistance militias, as well as foreign fighter insurgents and other ‘soldiers of fortune’ in Iraq. Death squads were designed to divide and disrupt communities and any remaining Sunnis and Shi’ite oppositions to the US occupation in Iraq. In addition, mythologies were erected, like the one surrounding actor-leaders like ‘al-Baghdadi’ (more on him below).

The first hint we had of Washington’s desert rat installment Operation Fast and Furious, came in September 2012, when a rented villa in Libya’s port city of Benghazi went up in flames. Later we find out that the makeshift ‘embassy’ was really part of a clandestine CIA complex where the US was organizing the shipment of ex-Gaddafi arms stocks over to Washington’s burgeoning new bloodbath in Syria.

Many Americans and other followers of this story may still be unaware that, Abdel Hakim-Belhadj (photo, left), the al Qaeda lieutenant who the US held at ‘Penny Lane’ in Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) and then subsequently turned (or debriefed) by the CIA, and released back into the field as a double agent, leading the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group on behalf of NATO in their effort to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2010-2011. WNDreported this week that The Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi’s interim report, revealed how “the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the Al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion”, an illegal operation carried out behind the back of Congress, andunder management of then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After toppling the Gaddafi gov’t, Washington rewarded Hakim-Belhadj with the position of Governor of Tripoli, after which time, he played a key roll in the continual recruitment and further redeployment of battle-hardenedLibyan jihadist fighters over to Syria. There is also the issue of Muslim Brotherhood members and their al Qaeda affiliations, embedded in NATO-backed Transnational Council (TNC) government in Libya, during and after, the fall of Gaddafi, which was explained by Dr Jerome Corsi in the WND story. Along with the fighters, more weapons, comprised of ex-Gaddafi arms stocks, also had to be moved from Libya, through Turkey and into Syria.

To clarify, Libyan Islamic fighting groups who worked hand-in-hand with US, British and French, and NATO intelligence agencies to topple Gaddafi in 2011 – were openly flying the al Qaeda and ISIS ‘black flag’ after Gaddafi’s gov’t collapsed, before and during the time they were shipped on to fight in Syria against Bashar al Assad’s gov’t forces – on behalf of those very same NATO-allied agencies.

WND’s report continues:

In early 2011, before Gadhafi was deposed, Christopher Stevens came to Benghazi in a cargo ship, and his title at the time was envoy to the Libyan rebels,’ which basically means Christopher Stevens was America’s very first envoy to al-Qaida,” explained Clare Lopez, a member of the commission who served as a career operations officer with the CIA and currently is vice president for research at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy. At that time, Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-related militia in Libya,” Lopez continued. “The weapons were produced at factories in Eastern Europe and shipped to a logistics hub in Qatar. The weapons were financed by the UAE and delivered via Qatar mostly on ships, with some possibly on airplanes, for delivery to Benghazi. The weapons were small arms, including Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and lots of ammunition.”

“This was about weapons going into Libya, and Stevens is coordinating with Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, other al-Qaida-affiliated militia leaders and leaders of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood that directed the rebellion against Qadhafi [Gaddafi] as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said. “Many of the individual members of the al-Qaida-related militias, including the LIFG, and the groups that would later become Ansar Al-Sharia, were Muslim Brotherhood members first.”

To call it a scandal would be an understatement. What’s worst though, is how these events provided the catalyst for the ‘ISIS Crisis’ the world is facing today. Highly trained, well-armed, ruthless Islamic fighters do not grow on trees, and to think that many of the top ISIS generals and fighters were hand-picked, transferred, and equipped by the US and its NATO and Gulf allies – should be cause for grave concern.

Later on, NATO allies opted for a more consolidated effort to first be staged in Europe, and then on to Syria. The first major arms shipment on record was organized by the US, Britain and France in March 2013, in what is known as the Great Croatian Weapons Airlift, which comprised of 75 airplanes, and an estimated 3,000 tons of military weaponry – bound for Jordan.

Then we learned on Sept 13, 2013, how the CIA had openly announced financial and military aid to the “moderate rebels” (now ISIS recruits). US politicians were brimming with excitement at the time, proudly coming out of the closet on their brilliant new program. Mark S. Ward, the State Department’s senior adviser on assistance to Syria boasted, “This doesn’t only lead to a more effective force, but it increases its ability to hold coalition groups together.” Indeed. Look how effective ISIS has become. Nice work Mark.

It’s a cheap ploy: the idea that there’s some sort of “moderate rebel army” waiting in Syria and the surrounding western collaborator nations, like Jordan and Turkey. The reality is simply horrific – armed Salafist militants, whose true nature and existence is being shielded by lies and endless propaganda in the West – in an effort to wear down the media and then the public on this issue. ISIS is one giant mercenary army and organized crime organ – one which I have already referred to as 21st century ‘Sand Pirates’. For extra beer money, these privateers are targeting civilians, running kidnapping and sex rings, protection, extortion, ‘taxes’ and black markets for anything they can put their thumbs on; food, fuel, retail, property, transport and of course narcotics. They’re even collecting “international aid” and UN/NGO funds on the streets of Northern Syria. The CIA’s go-between in Syria is General Salim ‘Sam’ Idriss, leader of the ‘Free Syria Army’, which is merely a shop-front for the US State Department to conduct over-the-counter business and gain access, delivering kinds of  aid to terrorist fighting groups and Death Squads in Syria and Iraq – in the exact same way that TNC-linked Libyan ‘Rebels’ were a shop-front which linked NATO to Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and al Qaeda (AQIM) paramilitaries in Libya.

According to a New York Times story published in 2007, the feared ISIS leader, Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, never existed, according to Brigadier General Kevin Bergner – the chief American military spokesman at the time. Yes, ‘al-Baghdadi’, is a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.

A large number of McCain’s ‘freedom-lovers’ have been trained by the best – US and British special forces and contractors based in Jordan and Turkey. Weapons and funding have been steadily supplied by the US and its Gulf monarchs – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and others, Moreover, Israel has been consistently giving the “moderate rebels” aid and air support.

What’s the master plan? That’s debatable, as the opportunists of instability line up on all sides to accumulate what they can in chaos. Essentially what we are looking at is a US-led effort to over-run the region with the ISIS and ISIS-related scourge, killing all stability and ability for Syria, Iraq and Iran to coordinate any meaningful military, economic or political enterprise, like a major oil or gas pipeline connecting the Asian and European markets, for instance. To achieve this, a regionalsectarian bloodbath is required. This suits Saudi Arabia, as well as the US and Israel. A happy Axis. But it’s a raw deal for the region, and the damage being inflicted by this proxy disaster is certain to poison generations upon generations, destroying cities, villages, families and whole cultures in the process. For more background on the underlying policy and practice, it’s worth reading Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker article, “”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?”.

If this all sounds too much for you, then  it’s imperative to take a moment, and better understand exactly how you’re being programmed in this global, mass media psycho-drama…

Four deafening blasts rocked today, Sunday, the Shia-populated district of Sayyidah Zaynab in the southern suburbs of Damascus, leaving more than 46 people dead, 100 injured in latest poll.

First published in October 2015 at the outset of the Russian bombing campaign

Russia in the few days it has been of fighting terrorism in Syria has achieved far more than the US coalition. According to the New York Times, Russia’s fighter jets are conducting nearly as many strikes in a typical day as the American-led coalition has been carrying out each month this year, a number which includes strikes conducted in Iraq – not just Syria.

Whilst the US has [allegedly] been bombing ISIS for over a year, ISIS has only grown and gained more ground in Syria. A few months ago ISIS took over the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria, a UNESCO world heritage-listed site.

In spite of the fact that the US government acknowledged ISIS cannot be defeated without ground troops, they have refused to work with the Syrian military, the only force on the ground commanded by the only UN-recognized government in the country, and the only force capable and willing to fight ISIS.

On the other hand Russia is coordinating with the Syrian military on the ground, assisting Syrian troops in gaining ground against terrorism. The discrepancy shows a lack of honesty on the part of the US when it comes to its real agenda in Syria vs its proclaimed goal of fighting terrorism. The US is capable of more, the US military is the most powerful and technologically advanced force in the world. It is logical to conclude that they are willfully throwing the fight against terrorism in Syria and the reasons for that should be examined.

ISIS Serves US Geopolitical Interests, Threatens Russia’s

It has become clear that the US’s main objectives in Syria is not their expressed goal of ‘fighting ISIS’, but regime change, isolating Russian influence, the Balkanization and the creation of failed states. US presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself stated that ‘removing Assad is the top priority”.

The US sees the Syrian state as one of the last spheres of Russian influence beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union, and a threat to its Israeli ally in the region. The presence of ISIS and other terrorists groups serves these interests. The US has a history of using terrorism to topple governments friendly to Russia. Al Qaeda itself was borne of the US objective to topple the Soviet friendly government of Afghanistan. The dismemberment of Russian-friendly Serbia and the creation of Kosovo was done via the same means.

More recently ISIS was a direct result of the US’s intervention in Iraq, and have only arrived in Libya and Syria in the wake of overt US-backed regime change efforts there. Although Libya and Iraq did not have relations with Russia as strong as Syria’s, Russia was still their main weapons supplier. It is therefore not surprising that since Russia entered the war in Syria, Saudi clerics and the Muslim Brotherhood – both US state assets – declared ‘jihad’ on Russia.

The former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Chief Michael Flynn said in an interview that he believed the US had made a willful decision to allow ISIS to grow in Syria. A 2012 declassified DIA report, wrote if the US and its allies continued to destabilize Syria by arming extremist insurgents “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The CIA had trained thousand of ‘rebels’, not to fight ISIS, but admittedly to fight the Assad government and Syrian military – showing once again that the real objective behind the US’ involvement is regime change. Media across the West has even admited this, including the Washington Post which would report:

Terrorism poses far greater risks to Russia’s national security than it does to the US. Not only is their proximity closer, but terrorists in Russia have the potential to cleave off part of the state and overrun entire Russian towns. This is not the case for the US, whose only risk to national security would be civilian deaths due to bombings, and that is not necessarily something that the US government would find a real ‘problem,’ and in fact, might even see as a possible opportunity.

The US Seeks Only to Contain ISIS

The US only wants to contain ISIS within Syria and Iraq’s borders indefinitely – not to defeat them. This was admitted to by a member of the current US government and party, Democratic Rep. Adam Smith to CNN who stated:

…we need to find partners that we can work with in Syria to help us contain ISIS. So it is a difficult problem to figure out the best strategy. I agree, they have safe haven there in parts of Syria and that will have to be part of the strategy for containing ISIS. 

Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes told CBS news:

 I think we are containing ISIS within the borders of Iraq and Syria. Outside of that we’re not doing much.

US President Barack Obama himself stated that he would like to like to:

…continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.

This suggests that President Obama wants to maintain ISIS sphere power to a contained manageable circle, like a diseases that is treated but never cured. Obama perhaps got his policies on the advice of the Brooking Institute think-tank, which stated:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future.

The US is Not Actually Bombing ISIS

The US bombing of ISIS has been mostly nominal, an exercise in perception management. Although the US Defense Intelligence Agency makes regular claims to have bombed specific targets, rarely is video evidence of the bombing strikes published. On the other hand the Russian military regularly releases video of most of the strikes on Russia Today. It was also leaked that the US had forbade its fighter jets from targeting a long list of ISIS training camps, which turn out thousands of fighters a month.

Award winning journalist Robert Fisk told the Australian program Lateline that the US could have bombed a convoy of ISIS militants who were taking over Palmyra, but instead allowed them to take over a Syrian military post as well as the ancient City which they have now begun to destroy. When the US has dropped bombs on ISIS run territory they have used the opportunity to primarily destroy Syria’s oil infrastructure. Likewise the US has largely avoided bombing ISIS and Al Qaeda targets in the Syrian district of North Hama in an attempt to prevent Syrian troops from gaining ground.Russia is now striking these targets long the benefactors of US-granted impunity.

The US Has ‘Forgotten’ its War with al Qaeda, Now Protects It

Perhaps the most ironic development of Russia’s involvement in Syria’s fight against terror, is the anger expressed by the US government and its media at Russia’s bombing of Al Qaeda (Jabhat Al Nusra) targets.

EL PAÍS interviews the Syrian leader at a crucial juncture in the conflict in the country

El Pais Introduction

Next month marks five years since the uprisings that plunged Syria into one of the bloodiest wars that can be remembered in the history of the Middle East. At least 260,000 people have died in the conflict, according to the United Nations. Five million have sought refuge abroad. Europe has taken in a million of them, in what is one of the worst humanitarian crises of the last century. Three thousand people have drowned trying to cross the Mediterranean in the past year.

Bashar al-Assad, who became president of the country following the death of his father in 2000, soon lost control of a good part of the country in the conflict, as large cities such as Homs and Aleppo fell into the hands of the rebel militias. He has recently managed to recover these opposition strongholds and his army has launched an offensive to cut off the rebels’ access and supply routes from Turkey, supported by Russian aerial bombardments, which have proved decisive since they began in September.

The embargo is not on the Syrian government, it is against the Syrian people”

The Syrian president tells the refugees that they can return to the country without fear of reprisals and accuses the Islamist governments of Qatar and Turkey of having promoted the war in Syria – a stage on which, he admits, not only the interests of a state are being measured, but also those of an entire region, with Saudi Arabia and Iran as powers in the conflict.

Question. This week you have allowed humanitarian aid to go into seven besieged areas. Some claim there are at least 486,000 people living in those areas, some for even more than three years. Why did this happen so late in the conflict?

Answer. Actually, it hasn’t happened recently; it’s been there since the beginning of the crisis. We never placed an embargo on any region in Syria. There’s a difference between an embargo and the army surrounding a certain area because of the militants, and that’s natural in such a security case or military case. But the problem with those areas is that the militants themselves took the food and the basic needs of those people, the people there, and gave it to their militants or sold it to the people at very high prices. As a government, we never prevented any area from having assistance, including the areas under the control of ISIS, like Raqqa in the north that’s been under their control, and before that the Al-Nusra Front [the local branch of Al Qaeda], for nearly three years now. We’ve been sending them all the salaries for the retired people, all the salaries for the employees today, and we send them vaccines for the children.

Q. So, food and salaries even still go into Raqqa and other ISIS strongholds?

A. Exactly. So, if we send it to Raqqa, which is under the control of ISIS, because we think as a government that we are responsible for every Syrian person, how can we not do it in other areas? That’s not realistic, that’s a contradiction. So, that’s why I said it’s not recently; we never stopped allowing the assistance or food.

Q. It will continue to happen?

A. Exactly.

Q. A truce was announced by Russia and the United States. Is the Syrian government willing to respect the cessation of military operations in Syria?

A. Definitely, and we announced that we’re ready, but it’s not only about announcing, because maybe the other party will announce the same. It’s about what you are going to do on the ground. A ceasefire is about – if you want to say ceasefire, it’s not the correct word, because a ceasefire is between two armies or two countries – it’s better to say cessation of hostility, or, let’s say, stopping the operations. It’s about, first of all, stopping the fire, but it’s also about other complimentary and more important factors, preventing the terrorists from using the ceasefire or the cessation of hostility to improve their position. It’s about preventing other countries, especially Turkey, from sending more recruits, more terrorists, more armaments, or any kind of logistical support to those terrorists. There is a United Nations resolution, or Security Council resolution, regarding this point that’s not implemented. If we don’t provide all these requirements for the ceasefire, it will be against the stability; it’s going to make more chaos in Syria, it may lead to a de facto division of the country. That’s why if we want to use the ceasefire, it is positive providing these factors.

Q. So, there will be still some fighting even though there’s this ceasefire, at least against some of the armed groups?

A. Yes, of course, like ISIS, like Al-Nusra, and other organizations or terrorist groups that belong to Al Qaeda. Now, Syria and Russia have announced four names: Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam [Army of Islam] and Al-Nusra and ISIS.

Q. Your forces have surrounded Aleppo. It’s one of the big strongholds of the opposition. When do you expect to fully regain control of that city?

A. Actually, we are in the middle of the city, so, yes, a large part of the city is under the control of the government, and most of the inhabitants of the other parts emigrated from the militants-controlled area to the government-controlled area, so it’s not about recapturing the city. Actually, it’s about closing the roads between Turkey and between the terrorist groups. That is the aim of the battles in Aleppo now, and we succeeded recently, we could close the main roads. Of course, it’s not a complete seal, let’s say, between Aleppo and Turkey, but it makes the relation between Turkey and the terrorists much more difficult. That’s why Turkey has been shelling the Kurds recently, for that reason.

Q. What comes after Aleppo? Is the Syrian Army even willing to go into Raqqa, the so-called capital of ISIS?

A. In principle, we should go everywhere, but now we are fighting on more than 10 fronts in Syria. Recently, we advanced towards Raqqa, but we’re still far from it. So, as a principle, yes, we are moving to Raqqa and other areas, but the timing depends on the results of different battles now, so we cannot tell the timing exactly.

Q. Russia has started an aggressive campaign of aerial bombings here in key opposition strongholds. This has been a turning point in the conflict. Some claim that you have the upper hand now. Do you think you could have made it without foreign help?

A. Definitely the Russian and the Iranian support were essential for our army to make this advancement. To say that we couldn’t have made it is a hypothetical question, because it’s an “if,” so nobody knows the real answer of the “if.” But we definitely need that help for a simple reason: because more than 80 countries supported those terrorists in different ways, some of them directly with money, with logistical support, with armaments, with recruitments. Some other countries supported them politically, in different international forums. Syria is a small country. We could fight, but in the end, there’s unlimited support and recruitment for those terrorists. You definitely need international support. But, again, this is a hypothetical question I cannot answer.

Q. Regarding these Russian aerial bombings, are you concerned about civilian casualties? On Monday, there was a bombing in a hospital and 50 people were killed. The United States has claimed that the Russians caused it.

A. Some other officials in the United States said they don’t know who did it, that’s what they said later. These contradictory statements are common in the United States, but no one has any proof about who did it and how it happened. But regarding the casualties, of course this is a problem in every war. Of course I feel very sad for every innocent civilian who dies in our conflict, but this is war. Every war is bad, you don’t have a good war, because you always have civilians, and you have innocent people who are going to pay the price.

Q. So, how do you explain to your people, to the Syrians, that there is a foreign army carrying out operations here that can cause civilian casualties?

A. No, no. We don’t have any evidence that the Russians attacked any civilian targets. They are very precise in their targets and they always attack, every day, the bases or the targets of the terrorists. Actually, it’s the Americans who did this, who killed many civilians in the northeastern part of Syria, not the Russians. Not a single incident has happened regarding the civilians so far, because they don’t attack in the cities; they attack mainly in the rural areas.

We expect Spain to convey our political point of view regarding our conflict to the EU

Q. Talking about foreign armies, how would you react if Turkey and Saudi Arabia follow through with their statements that they plan on sending troops here to allegedly fight the Islamic State?

A. As you said, allegedly. But if it happens, we’re going to deal with them like we deal with the terrorists. We’re going to defend our country. This is aggression. They don’t have any right to interfere, politically or militarily, in Syria. This is a breach of international law, and as Syrian citizens, the only option we have is to fight and defend.

Q. Turkey has started bombing from their territory into Syria.

A. Exactly, and before that bombing, Turkey was sending the terrorists, it’s the same, the same goal, the same effect, in different ways. So, Turkey has been involved in Syria since the very beginning.

Q. Saudi Arabia tried to unify the opposition in a conference in Riyadh. Some people linked to Al Qaeda were present in those meetings. Do you recognize any of the rebel groups as a legitimate party with whom you can negotiate in the whole opposition?

A. You mean the rebels who are fighting on the ground?

Q. Yes.

A. No. Legally and constitutionally, everyone who can hold machine guns against the people and against the government is a terrorist, in your country, in my country, in every country in the world. You cannot say they are legitimate. They could be legitimate when they give up their armaments and join the political process. This is the only way in every country to rebuild your country or to change whatever you want to change, whether the constitution or the laws or the government, everything, you can do it, but through political process, not through armaments.

Q. So, all those who are fighting, you deem them terrorists?

A. Unless they announce that they are ready to join the political process. Then we will not have any problem with them.

The refugees can come back without any action being taken against them by the government

Q. So those people who have been fighting, who take away their ideals or their intentions, if they lay down arms, can they come back?

A. We’ll give them amnesty, and that happened, it has happened during the last two years, and it’s accelerating recently. Many of them give up their arms and some of them have joined the Syrian Army now and they are fighting ISIS with the Syrian Army, and they get the support of the Syrian Army and the Russian airplanes.

Q. So if, as you just stated, those who have taken up arms against the government here are all terrorists, with whom are you exactly negotiating in Geneva?

A. I’m talking about the recent Geneva, Geneva III, that failed. It was supposed to be a mixture of the people who are trained in Saudi Arabia, a mixture of terrorists and extremists or their supporters, and some of them Al Qaeda, and the other, let’s say, independent or other opposition who live outside or inside Syria. So, we can negotiate with those Syrians, with those patriotic Syrians who are related to their country, but we cannot negotiate with the terrorists – that’s why it failed.

Q. What about those opposition activist leaders who have been imprisoned since before the conflict in 2011?

A. All of them left prison a long time ago, and most of them are in the opposition.

Q. All of them?

A. All of them. We don’t have any of them. Before 2010, all of them left. Including some of them who were terrorists, but they were sentenced for a few years, let’s say five or whatever, and when the crisis started, they joined the terrorist groups again.

Q. You have proof of that?

A. Yeah, of course. One of them was the one who was killed, Zahran Alloush; he was imprisoned for several years, because he was Al Qaeda-affiliated. When the crisis started, he formed his own terrorist group, and this group is one of those four that I mentioned that we consider terrorist groups.

I don’t care about being in power. For me, if the Syrian people want me to be in power, I will be

Q. Some claim that there are 35,000 foreign jihadists. Four thousand came from Europe. The Spanish government has stated that there are some 300 who hold a Spanish passport. What will happen to these people if the Syrian Army captures them?

A. The Spanish?

Q. In general, the foreign jihadists.

A. First of all, we are dealing with them like any other terrorist. When you deal with them as terrorists on a legal basis, there’s no distinguishing between the nationalities, but if you want to talk about, let’s say, sending them to their countries, or extraditing them to their governments, it should be through relations between the institutions in the two countries.

Q. Regarding this, what do you think attracts so many foreigners into Syria right now?

A. Mainly the support they’ve been sent. It’s active, not passive, it’s actually active from the outside. Saudi Arabia is the main financier of those terrorists. They put them in airplanes, send them to Turkey, and through Turkey to Syria. The other attractive factor is the chaos; when you have chaos, this is very fertile soil for the terrorists. The third factor, the ideology, because they belong to Al Qaeda, this area, in our religious culture, in the Islamic culture, has a special place after Mecca and the other holy places and Jerusalem. They think that this is where they can come and create their own state. Of course, they’re going to expand later to other places, but the thought is that they can come and fight and die for God and for Islam. For them, this is jihad.

Q. Regarding what would happen if the Syrian government claimed control of all the territory. Would you start a political process? Would you be willing to go to elections again?

A. The natural thing, first of all, is to form a government, a national unity government where every political party can join if they have the will. This government should prepare for the new constitution, because if you want to talk about the future of Syria, because if you want to discuss with different parties how to solve the problem, the internal problem – now I’m excluding the external support of terrorists – you need to discuss the constitution; you want to change it, you want to keep it, you want to change the whole political system, that depends on the constitution. Of course, the Syrian people should vote for that constitution. After the constitution, according to the new constitution, you should have early elections, I mean parliamentary elections. Some mention presidential elections. If the Syrian people or the different parties want to have elections, it will happen. Ultimately, solving the political aspect of the problem has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

Q. Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

A. The most important thing is how I see my country, because I’m part of my country. So, in 10 years, if I can save Syria as president – but that doesn’t mean I’m still going to be president in 10 years. I’m just talking about my vision of the 10 years. If Syria is safe and sound, and I’m the one who saved his country – that’s my job now, that’s my duty. So that’s how I see myself regarding the position, I’m talking about myself as a Syrian citizen.

Q. Would you still like to be in power in 10 years?

A. That’s not my aim. I don’t care about being in power. For me, if the Syrian people want me to be in power, I will be. If they don’t want me, I can do nothing, I mean, I cannot help my country, so I have to leave right away.

Q. Let me read from a United Nations Human Rights Council report that was published on February 3, and it said “detainees held by the government were beaten to death or died as a result of injuries sustained due to torture.” They say war crimes have also been committed. What do you have to say to this?

A. That’s based on what the Qataris made about a year ago or more, when they forged a report made of unverified pictures of injured people and unverified sources and sent it to the United Nations, and this is part of the propaganda against Syria. That’s the problem with the West and propaganda; they use unverified information to accuse Syria and to blame it and then to take action against it.

Q. The whole world was shocked by the image of little Alan Kurdi, the Syrian refuge, three years old, who was washed ashore dead on a Turkish beach. How did you feel when you saw that?

A. This is one of the saddest parts of the Syrian conflict; to have people leaving their country for different reasons. But beside the feeling, the question for us as officials that has been asked by the Syrian people: what are we going to do? What action has been taken either to allow those refugees to come back to their country or not to leave at all? You have two reasons here. The first one that we have to deal with, of course, is the terrorism, because those terrorists not only threaten people, but those terrorists deprive the people of the basic needs of their lives. The second reason is the embargo that has been implemented on Syria by the West, mainly the United States, of course, that caused more difficulties for the people to live here, especially in the health sector. So, we need to deal with these reasons in order to prevent this tragedy from being dragged on for a long time.

Q. You mentioned that some of those refugees are running away from ISIS, but some of them also claim that they are running away from the government, or from the campaigns of the government in some areas in Syria.

A. I can give you the contradicting facts that you can see while you are in Syria: that the majority of the people who live in the area controlled by the terrorists have emigrated to the area under the control of the government. So, if they want to flee from the government, why do they come to the government? This is not real. But at the same time, whenever there is a battle, shooting, a fight between the government and the terrorists in a certain area, it is natural for the majority of the population to leave that area to go to another area, but that doesn’t mean they escaped from the government. Some of the families who emigrated to the government-controlled areas are the families of the fighters themselves.

We have advanced towards Raqqa, but we’re still far from it

Q. Almost five million refugees have fled Syria according to international counts. One million have crossed into Europe. What guarantees do those people have that they can come back freely without fear of any reprisals?

A. No, of course they can come. It is their right to come back, unless somebody is a terrorist or killer. Some of them, and I think a good number of them, are government supporters who didn’t leave because they’re afraid of the government, but, as I said, because of the standards of living that have deteriorated drastically during the last few years. So, of course they can come back without any action being taken against them by the government. We want people to come back to Syria.

Q. What can the Syrian government do to stop that flow of refugees that has caused so many people to drown in the Mediterranean Sea. What can be done?

A. As I said, it is not only about Syria, it’s about the rest of the world. First of all, Europe should lift the embargo on the Syrian people; they don’t have an embargo on the Syrian government, it is against the Syrian people. Second, Turkey should stop sending terrorists to Syria. Third, as a government, we have to fight the terrorists, definitely, and we have to keep the living moving forward by any means in order to allow the Syrians to stay in their country. This is the only way that we could bring those people back or convince them to come back to their country. And I’m sure the majority of them want to come back to Syria. But, as I said, in the end you need to have the basic or minimum requirements for living.

Q. When you came to power, you promised democratic reforms; those times came to be known as the Damascus Spring. Some people claim that if those reforms had come faster, a lot of lives would have been spared. Other people claim, mainly the opposition, and also the United States, that if you had stepped down, a lot of lives would have been saved. What do you have to say to that?

A. The question is: what is the relation between what you have mentioned and Qatar sending money and then sending armaments and supporting terrorists directly? What is the relation? What is the relation between that and the role of Turkey in supporting terrorists? What is the relation between that and the existence of ISIS and Al-Nusra coming to Syria? So, the link is not correct. If you want to change the president or the prime minister or any system in your country, in any other country, you only have the political process to move through. You cannot use armaments. It is not an excuse to have armaments to say that I want to change the system or I want democracy. Democracy wouldn’t happen through armaments. And the experience of the United States in Iraq is still telling. The same in Yemen. President Saleh left because of the same allegations. What happened in Yemen? Is it better? That is not correct. There is no relation. We can achieve democracy through dialogue, but at the same time through the upgrading of the society towards the democracy, because democracy is not only the constitution or the president or laws and so on. These are tools or means to achieve it. But the real democracy, as a base, should be based on the society itself. How can we accept each other? This is a melting pot area; you have different ethnicities, different sects, different religions. How can they accept each other? When they accept each other, they can accept each other politically and this is where you can have real democracy. So, it is not about the president. They tried to personalize the problem just to show that it is a very simple problem: remove the president and everything will be fine. No one can accept it.

We can negotiate with the patriotic Syrians, but we cannot negotiate with the terrorists

Q. In these five years since the conflict started, do you think as you see the country now, with many heritage sites destroyed, a lot of lives lost, that you would have done anything differently?

A. In general, if we want to talk about the principles, from the very beginning we said that we’re going to fight terrorism and we’re going to make dialogue. We open dialogue with everyone except the terrorist groups. And we allowed the terrorists at the same time, we opened the door for them, if they want to lay down their armaments to go back to their normal life to be offered with full amnesty. So, that’s the principle of the whole solution. Now, five years later, I cannot say that was proved to be wrong, and I do not think that we are going to change those principles. Implementing the policy is different sometimes, because it depends on different officials, different institutions, different people, individuals. Anyone could make mistakes, and that would happen. So, if you want to change something, if you can change those mistakes that have been made in different places, that’s what I could have done, if I turn back the clock.

Q. So, from your perspective, from the very beginning you labeled those protests that were in Daraa and Damascus as terrorism, as infiltrated by foreign powers. How do you view those first demonstrations against the government?

A. At the very beginning, you had a mixture of demonstrators. First of all, Qatar paid those demonstrators in order to put them on Al Jazeera and then to convince the international public opinion that people are revolting against the president. The highest number of those were 140,000 demonstrators all over Syria, which is nothing, as a number, that’s why we weren’t worried. So, they infiltrated them with militants to shoot at the police and to shoot at the demonstrators, so you have more revolts. When they failed, they moved to send the tools to support the terrorists. But do we have demonstrators who demonstrated honestly, who wanted change? Of course we have, of course, but not all of them, you cannot say all of them, and I cannot say all of them are terrorists.

Q. You visited Spain twice. Both Presidents José María Aznar and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero visited Syria while in office. How have the relations been with Spain ever since?

A. Spain is against any adventurist solution in Syria. This is something we appreciate. They didn’t support any military action against Syria, they said that’s going to make it more complicated. They didn’t talk about deposing the president or interfering in our national affairs. They said everything should happen through a political solution or political process. This is very good. But at the same time, Spain is part of the EU, of the European Union. That makes Spain restrained by the decision of that union. We expect Spain to play that role, to convey the same message and its political point of view regarding our conflict to the EU.

Q. And in Latin America, where have you had the most support, do you feel?

A. Generally, and that’s strange, and maybe sometimes unfortunately, that those countries very far away from Syria have a much more realistic vision about what is happening in Syria than the Europeans, who are much closer. We are considered the backyard of Europe. I’m talking about the formal and official level, and about the popular level. They know much more, and they support Syria politically in every international forum, and they haven’t changed their position since the very beginning of the crisis.

Q. Brazil has one of the biggest Syrian communities abroad. How have relations been with the government of Brazil?

A. We have natural relations with them, we have natural relations with Argentina, with Venezuela, with Cuba, with all those Latin countries we have normal relations. It hasn’t been affected by the crisis, and they understand more and more, and they support Syria more and more. This contradicts with the European position.

As I have found out myself, there is nothing media outlets like less than criticising other media publications or the “profession” of journalism. It’s not really surprising. The credibility of a corporate media depends precisely on their not breaking ranks and not highlighting the structural constraints a “free press” operates under.

So one has to commend the Boston Globe for publishing this piece by Stephen Kinzer, a former foreign correspondent, warning that the media is not telling us the truth about what is going on in Syria.

But those constraints are also why Kinzer glosses over deeper problems with the coverage of Syria.

This [most western reporting of Syria] is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank ‘experts.’ After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

This is more of the “cock-up, not conspiracy” justification for skewed reporting. If only there was more money, more space, more time, more reporters, the media would not simply spew the government’s official line. Guardian journalist Nick Davies wrote a whole book, Flat Earth News, making much the same claim – what he called “churnalism”. I reviewed it at length here. Journalists like this kind of argument because it shifts responsibility for their failure to report honestly on to faceless penny-pinchers in the accounting department.

And yet, there are journalists reporting from the ground in Syria – for example, Martin Chulov of the Guardian – who have been just as unreliable as those based in Washington. In fact, many of the points Kinzer raises about the reality in Syria echo recent articles by Seymour Hersh, who is writing from the US, not Damascus. But he, of course, has been shunted to the outer margins of media discourse, publishing in the London Review of Books.

Media coverage of Iraq was just as woefully misleading during the sanctions period in the 1990s, when I worked in the foreign department at the Guardian, and later in the build-up of the US-led attack on Iraq. In those days, when there was no shortage of resources being directed at foreign reporting, the coverage also closely hewed to the official view of the US and UK governments.

The problem is not just that foreign reporting is being stripped of financial resources as the media find it harder to make a profit from their core activities. It is, as Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky pointed out long ago in their book Manufacturing Consent, that the corporate media is designed to reflect the interests of power – and the corporations that control our media are power. They select journalists through a long filtering process (school, university, journalism training, apprenticeships) precisely designed to weed out dissidents and those who think too critically. Only journalists whose worldview aligns closely with those in power reach the top.

None of this is in Kinzer’s piece. It is doubtful that he, a member of the media elite himself, would recognise such an analysis of the journalist’s role. As Chomsky once told British journalist Andrew Marr, when Marr reacted with indignation at what he inferred to be an accusation from Chomsky that he was self-censoring:

I don’t say you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is, if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.

That understanding of journalism does not depend on conspiracy, but nor does it accept that it is all about cock-up. It posits a much more interesting, and plausible, scenario that journalists get into positions of influence to the extent that they are unlikely to rock the boat for elite interests. The closer they get to power, the more likely they are to reflect its values. Much like politicians, in fact.

That’s why extremely few senior journalists have read Manufacturing Consent. And why among the Guardian journalists I worked with, though none seemed familiar with his huge body of work, there were few intellectuals who were referred to in more derisive terms than Chomsky.

 

Rabbi Outcast. Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism, by Jack Ross. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2011, 233 pp.

Rabbi Elmer Berger was often seen as a heretic. A graduate of the Hebrew Union College and an enthusiastic adept of Classical Reform, he opposed Zionism naturally, as did, then, most of his peers. What distinguishes him from other Reform rabbis is that he remained loyal to his beliefs throughout his life.

A book about a heretic tells us just as much about those who condemned him as a heretic, as it does about him. After all, “we are what we hate”. But Berger’s kind of heresy is unusual: he is not a heretic who betrayed the basic tenets of his religion. Rather, he refused to join the majority as most Reform Jews gradually came to abandon these tenets and embrace Zionism. Berger tried to counter this trend, mainly through the American Council for Judaism, established during World War II to affirm the religious nature of Judaism. The Council went against the current at a moment when most American Jews were accepting the idea of establishing a separate Jewish state in Palestine. This is why this work is so valuable: it offers a broad view of the emergence of the centrality of Israel among American Jews in the last century.

Reform Judaism put emphasis on the spiritual component of Judaism and was thus very unlikely to abide Jewish nationalism. As early as 1841, at the dedication of the first permanent Reform congregation in North America, mostly German-born Jews proclaimed: “this house of worship is our Temple, this free city [Charleston, NC] our Jerusalem, this happy country our Palestine.” (p. 9) Almost a century later, an American Reform rabbi affirmed: “Jewish states may rise and fall, as they have risen and fallen in the past, but the people of Israel will continue to minister at the altar of the Most High God in all the lands in which they dwell” (p. 37).

Hardly an innovation, this idea has been a leitmotif of Jewish continuity for centuries. Similarly, Hasidic rebbes insisted “mach du eretz yisroel” (“make the Land of Israel here”), thus emphasizing the importance of pious thoughts and deeds wherever a Jew could be found. Traditionally Orthodox (Haredi) rabbis focused on living a Jewish life in their countries of residence, relating to Jerusalem as a spiritual, rather than a material, let alone a political, entity. Both Haredi and Classical Reform schools would teach Biblical and liturgical Hebrew and avoid the Israeli vernacular.

The author reminds us that the Reform movement almost instantly condemned the Balfour Declaration. In this rejection, it found itself in a solid and diverse majority of Jews. Edwin Montagu, the most prominent Jew in Britain’s governing circles at that time, attacked the declaration as an anti-Semitic act, denouncing Zionism as “a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen”. Labour unions with preponderant Jewish majorities, such as Hat Makers and Ladies’ Garment Workers, opposed endorsing the Zionist declaration by the labour federations in the United States.

By the mid-1930s most American Jews had slowly moved to accept Zionism. This reflected the worsening situation of Jews in Europe and the growing influence of the nationalistically minded East European immigrants in Jewish life in America. Many immigrants from Imperial Russia had developed a proto-national identity, abandoning Jewish tradition but, unlike German or French Jews, forced to remain insulated in their shtetls from the larger society. While most Zionist activists could claim Russian ancestry, none stemmed from the capital cities with their cosmopolitan population and atmosphere.

Political Zionism implies the existence of a separate Jewish nation and separate Jewish political interests. This is why Jewish anti-Zionists affirmed individualism, arguing that their rights would be better protected by governments in liberal democracies than by parochial self-serving ethnic organizations, let alone an ethnocratic state.

Similarly, they opposed the establishment of the World Jewish Congress, seeing in it a sign of “indirect acceptance of the racial philosophy of the Hitler regime”, and warning that these separate Jewish political organizations would produce “leaders speaking for us as a single unit” (p. 34). Berger was right to predict “the Zionist takeover of essentially all American Jewish organizational life” (p. 183). The book surveys approaches used to inculcate Zionist attitudes among American Jews and operate a “transplantation of Israeli culture into American Jewish life” (p. 97). Berger and several of his rabbinical mentors refused to follow suit, wary of the power of Zionism to “corrupt” Jewish life, as quite a few insiders and outsiders, such as Hannah Arendt and Mahatma Gandhi (p. 33), were warning at the time.

To abstain from, let alone oppose, Zionism was becoming more and more difficult. Those Jews who entertained doubts about Zionism were promptly branded “sick”, “self-hating” and “enemies of the people”. Soon after the end of World War II, Zionist opinion makers declared anti-Zionism to be a form of anti-Semitism, and this conflation has become a powerful weapon to stifle public debate about Israel. This method of enforcing Jewish unity made some Reform rabbis in the interwar period openly associate Zionism with totalitarianism: “There is too dangerous a parallel between the insistence of some Zionist spokesmen upon nationality and race and blood, and similar pronouncements by Fascist leaders in European dictatorships” (p. 37). “The totalitarian impulse of Zionist ideology to brand any opposition as illegitimate and intolerable is alive and well” (p. 167). A gentile scholar close to Berger saw Zionism as “a totalitarian menace that could only lead to catastrophe” (p. 131).

Nowadays, quite a few Israelis decry the growth of fascist tendencies in their society as these manifest congenital, rather acquired, characteristics. To quote Vladimir Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini, Jews must become a people of iron: “Iron, from which everything that the national machine requires should be made. Does it require a wheel? Here I am. A nail, a screw, a girder? Here I am. Police? Doctors? Actors? Water carriers? Here I am. I have no features, no feelings, no psychology, no name of my own. I am a servant of Zion, prepared for everything, bound to nothing”. Jabotinsky’s ideology has not only triumphed in Israeli society but has even produced more audacious offspring. Nobody recognized this congenital feature of Zionism better than Judah Magnes, an American Reform Jew who went to Israel to become one of the founders and leaders of the Hebrew University. Alongside with Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, he argued – in vain – in favour of establishing a binational democratic state. As Zionist ethnic cleansing proceeded in the wake of the 1947 UN Resolution to partition Palestine, he gave his last speech to the university with a heavy heart, observing that “myriads of Jews throughout the world, particularly in America” are led “to yield to that Zionist totalitarianism which seeks to subject to its discipline the entire Jewish people and every individual therein, and if necessary, by force and violence” (p. 81).

When British authorities later tipped off Magnes that his life was in danger he left for New York, mindful of previous acts of terror perpetrated by Zionist militias, starting with the assassination of Jacob De Haan, lawyer, poet and anti-Zionist activist, in 1924.

Magnes concluded that “the world was now irreversibly on an advance to barbarism, and in their assent to Zionism, the Jewish people would tragically prove themselves only the most eager to join” (p. 90). This eagerness and the resulting military prowess continue to earn Zionism and the state of Israel profound admiration on the part of ethnic nationalist and fascist circles currently mushrooming across Europe. Moreover, this meeting of the minds is not new: the author cites the case of a German-born American Jewish Zionist functionary who, in a treatise titled Wir Juden (We Jews) published in 1934, had celebrated Hitler’s ascent to power as “the death of liberalism”.

Ever since its embrace of Zionism, “the American Jewish leadership was far less critical of Israel than many important groups in Israel itself” (p. 122). When Forverts, originally a Socialist daily, was transformed into a pro-Israel voice, one of its former supporters bemoaned: “I have never read anything more crude and contrary to the principles of the freedom of the press” (p. 124). Fundraising for Israel came to be conducted in the spirit of responding to interminable “vital emergencies” and “existential threats”. The book graphically shows how constant the Zionist arsenal of rhetorical and political devices has been.

Rabbi Berger was open about his rejection of Jewish nationalism: “I oppose Zionism because I deny that Jews are a nation. … Jewish nationalism is a fabrication woven from the thinnest kind of threads and strengthened only in those areas of human history in which reaction has been dominant and anti-Semites in full cry” (p. 63). Later he wrote that “those who seek to identify political Zionism with religious Judaism work a profound and dangerous injustice to Americans of all faiths”, above all to American Jews (p. 89). A Reform rabbi supporting Berger argued in 1952: “Racism can never be a substitute for Judaism. … Nationalism is no substitute for Judaism. … ‘Jewish culture’ is no substitute to Judaism. Emptied of religious content, it is either a phrase or a fetish, dependent on kitchen recipes, musicians, painters, and story tellers, but not on God” (p. 103). In the wake of a trip to Israel, Berger acknowledged the industrial and agricultural progress of Israel but added that “this progress is not at issue” (p. 119).

It may appear illogical that Rabbi Berger, who would not associate American Jews with the Zionist project, tried to provide input to the Middle East policy-making in Washington. In fact, he was quite consistent since he opposed the Zionist nature of the state as an American citizen of Judaic faith. It is as part of his Jewish commitment to justice and equality that he expressed his concern about improving the lot of the Palestinians unfairly treated in his name. After a trip to the Middle East in 1959, Berger lamented that U.S. diplomats “run around the world talking about democracy an the right of people to self-determination, and consistently back off from the political decisions necessary to put legs under these ideas” (p. 133). His lament has since lost none of its poignancy.

The book reads well even though it would have gained in being more focused. For example, medical diagnoses of the protagonists seem superfluous and many names the author mentions beg to be explained and contextualized. In spite of these minor imperfections, the book certainly deserves attention. It is not hagiographic, and Rabbi Berger’s persona is presented in all its complexity. While his Judaic practices rooted in Classical Reform and those of members of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta who follow a strictly Orthodox tradition differ immensely, both vociferously claim that the essence of being Jewish is religious and that they are American, not Israelis. It is important to see Rabbi Berger’s anti-Zionism in a comparative Judaic perspective.

The book is a useful addition to the historiography of Jewish opposition to Zionism, a topic that acquires growing relevance as more and more Jews around the world, including Israel, become disaffected from Zionism. It is no less important for non-Jewish readers who all too often are fearful to subject Zionism to serious scrutiny, lest they be accused of anti-Semitism.

A Reform rabbi and an old friend of Berger’s exclaimed: “In the face of the brutalizing nationalism of our times, we must cry out the universal message of Israel. Not the blood cult, state cult, hate cult, war cult of nationalism, but one humanity on earth as there is one God in heaven” (p. 127). This cry would well summarize the world view to which Rabbi Elmer Berger remained loyal all his life. It takes courage to take this stand, and the book shows well the predicament of an active anti-Zionist in contemporary Jewish life.

Berger’s main concern was the future of the Jews. In 1972 he received a letter telling him that “within our lifetime we shall see the Jewish people recognize in you someone who stood between them and disaster” (p. 154). Rabbi Berger did not live to see this but, as this book shows, this prophecy may yet come true after all.

Nowadays, spirituality and a search for meaning, rather than political support for a state in Western Asia, attract young American Jews; many of them, brought up in a liberal tradition, cannot even relate to the concept of a Jewish state. The author quotes a prominent American Zionist writing in 1998: “After all these years, it seems to be the American Council for Judaism that has won the ideological argument that we are ‘members of the Mosaic persuasion’” (p. 178).

While Jews may give up on Zionism and Israel, the state of Israel need not worry: its main support base, Christian Zionists, grows by leaps and bounds. For the evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell, the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 has been the most crucial event in history since the ascension of Jesus to heaven, and proof that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh: “We are so pro-Zionist, pro-Jewish, we are the only thing, the only one driving force in America that will not allow Washington to lift her hand of support from Israel” (p. 169). The book shows why pro-Israel circles have a vested interest in seeing the United States act as an aggressive and self-righteous empire rather than a benevolent republic acting with humility. “What has bound America and Israel together is their shared need for another Hitler to destroy” (p. 180). The book sheds light on the transformation of former Marxists and other leftists, such as Norman Podhoretz, into ardent neo-conservative Zionists. It is no accident that the Israeli mainstream views the internationalist left as an enemy. Support for Israel among non-Jews has become a class issue: it usually increases with personal income.

Identification of Israel with the political right in the United States is now complete. In a televised address to the annual meeting of Christians United for Israel in July 2011, Prime Minister Netanyahu said: “When you support Israel, you don’t have to choose between your interests and your values; you get both. … Our enemies think that we are you, and that you are us. And you know something? They are absolutely right.” Rabbi Berger would have welcomed these words as an official confirmation of his belief that Zionism had nothing to do with Jews and Judaism to begin with.

The author is Professor of History at the Université de Montréal. His book, A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, has been nominated for Canada’s Governor General Award and Israel’s Hecht Prize for Studies of Zionism; it is currently available in twelve languages.

 

Months of Russian air power and rejuvenated Syrian ground forces making significant gains against ISIS and other terrorist groups got Washington to change strategy.

Wanting to avoid direct confrontation with Russia, it relies on deception – conning Moscow to cease bombing terrorist infested northern Syrian areas where US special forces are deployed, claiming  they’re supporting are “moderates.”

On the phony pretext of modestly increasing military-to-military communication and cooperation beyond last October’s “memorandum of understanding,” relating to safety protocols for Russian and US warplanes operating in Syrian airspace, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s spokesman Peter Cook said:

[The Pentagon] “provided a geographical area that we asked (Moscow) to stay out of because of the risk to US forces” on the ground – to protect their safety “in a dangerous situation.”

So far, Russia “honored this request,” he explained. It’s a thinly veiled con, a ruse,  Moscow will see through and reject.

Washington wants to give terrorist elements it supports (falsely called “moderates”) breathing space, a chance to rearm, regroup and add new fighters to their ranks.

Turkey provides them safe haven, aids their movement cross-border into Syria while continuing to shell northern Syrian-based anti-terrorist Kurdish YPG forces, OK’d by Washington.

Fact: US policymakers pretend to want peace. They intend endless war to accomplish their objective – eliminating sovereign Syria, replacing it with US-controlled puppet governance.

Fact: Diplomatically negotiating with Washington assures disaster. Terms agreed on are systematically breached, negotiating partners irresponsibly blamed.

Fact: US imperial aims are pure evil, wanting all independent governments eliminated, especially Russia and China.

Fact: Its aim for dominion over planet earth depends on it.

Fact: Its strategy relies on endless wars, raping and destroying one country after another – Syria in the eye of the storm.

If Putin goes along with the Pentagon’s request to cease bombing areas infested with US-supported terrorists, everything

Russian air power and Syrian ground forces accomplished so far will be jeopardized.

Washington will be in a stronger position to turn things around in its favor – perhaps able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Establishing a safe zone in northern Syria will become a platform for US-supported continued war while talking peace – strengthening terrorist forces, aiding their advance into other areas.

The most fundamental rule to follow in dealing with Washington is knowing it can’t be trusted – not ever. Hegemons yield nothing.

They want things entirely their way, letting nothing interfere with their imperial aims.

Hopefully Putin and other Russian officials are too smart to fall for America’s ruse. Continuing their anti-terrorism campaign nationwide is vital to have any hope for eventually liberating Syria.

Washington doesn’t negotiate. It demands. Hoping bilateral or multi-lateral talks will gain important concessions is a major mistake. A military solution alone can save Syria.

US rhetorical support for cessation of hostilities and resumption of peace talks is pure subterfuge – aiming solely to undermine Russia’s effective war on terrorism, essential to continue unobstructed.

Michel Chossudovsky explained Washington’s strategy, saying it’s “to protect remaining US sponsored terrorist positions in Northern Syria including those of the ISIS from Russian airstrikes.”

He cited a “Secret Pentagon document. (T)he ultimate objective ‘was’ (and likely remains) to create an Islamic State Caliphate (Salafist Principality) in Northern Syria.”

Defeating America’s objective depends on Russian air power and Syrian ground forces maintaining unrelenting pressure, continuing their effective campaign, rejecting the Pentagon’s thinly veiled scheme to undermine it.

Preserving Syrian sovereignty depends on it – along with foiling Washington’s Middle East agenda, part of its grand plan to rule the world unchallenged.

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.

 

A vote in regard to whether Britain should withdraw from the European Union is an epic event; one which if in the affirmative would profoundly shape its destiny for a generation.

My first impression is that David Cameron has not obtained the ‘unique’ status which he promised to extract from Brussels to mollify those who favour continued membership under a looser arrangement.

1. If the preamble in the original founding document which aims for an “ever closer union” is not explicitly re-worded so far as Britain is concerned, for instance in regard to future treaties, then Cameron would obviously not have secured a singular status for Britain.

The Schuman-Monnet ideal of “closer union” is after all often seen as the theoretical blueprint for an eventually federated European family of nations.

2. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from which the United Kingdom initially opted out recently became incorporated into British law. The provisions effectively replicate most of the major provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR regime has provided similarly emotion-laced public discourse on the loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty to a supra-national legal body. If Cameron has not reinstated an opt out, it would mean that even if Britain renounced the ECHR, it would be bound to follow the tenets of human rights law created by EU institutions.

It is important to note that EU law is ‘stronger’ than ECHR law. Under the ECHR treaty, member nations promise to incorporate human rights law into their national laws. They are required merely to take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. However, British courts are bound to apply the laws emanated from the European Union.

3. The operation of the ‘Common Agricultural Policy’ which absorbs a great deal of the EU budget and which has favoured France could also be added to the list. If reform of this is not a factor in Cameron’s deal, then it falls short.

My view is that Britain should either be completely in or completely out. More importantly, that is how the other countries led by Germany and France see it. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was often reminded, the organisation cannot function in the form of a “two-track” system; this notwithstanding the mechanism of opt-out clauses in treaties.

France and Germany have been at the heart of the formation of a union of European nations because of the historical rivalry between both nations. The blood spilled during the Franco-Prussian War, the Great War and the Second World War testify to this.

The underlying almost forgotten rationale for the creation of the EU is thus the preservation of a previously elusive peace on the European continent. But membership of this brand of supra-national entity was always going to come with a price.

The bargain is simply this: in return for the benefits of economic, social, cultural, technological and political co-operation, that is peace and mutual prosperity, each member state must consent to forfeiting part of its national law making powers. The EU thus forms a supra-national legal entity whereby the member states have established a separate and independent legal authority that is superior to their domestic institutions.

The idea of “forfeiting part” of your national sovereignty is perhaps a severe understatement to those exercised by what is considered to be the EU’s inexorable drift towards being a ‘super state.’ It is clearly the case that the administrative and legal capacity of the original European Community has with successive treaties related to budgetary matters, economic integration and enlargement has increased manifold.

National leaders and their citizens are ambivalent about what might appear to be a choice of retaining national sovereignty and identity on the one hand or being transformed into a seemingly uniform state.

The ‘Little Englander’ complex or less crude depictions of reluctant Englishmen feeling culturally and physically apart from their continental neighbours is not the only discernible anti-European sentiment held among EU member states. For instance, German Euro-scepticism has increased given the perceived burdens it places on the German economy.

But the fundamental belief that Germany and France are at the core of the EU cannot be shaken off. France had under President de Gaulle repeatedly blocked Britain’s entry into what was then the ‘Common Market’. De Gaulle’s rationale while based on what he claimed was Britain’s “economic incompatibility” did not impress many Briton’s who sensed his intransigence was based on a personal antipathy towards the Anglo-Saxon nations.

The British elite has been traditionally divided on the matter of Europe. And despite the focus on the issue being a source of disunity among the members of the Conservative Party, those on the political Left have never been unanimous in their views. Where the Right focused on national sovereignty, the anti-Common Market Left felt that there was a threat posed to working class jobs.

An impending referendum will be interesting on so many fronts. It will be one of the few times in British political history that the constitutional convention of collective cabinet responsibility will be abrogated. Government ministers will not be coerced into following a party line and will be free to campaign for either side. When a referendum was held in 1975 to decide whether Britain should remain a member after joining in 1973, the Right-wing Enoch Powell and the Left-wing Tony Benn campaigned on the ‘No’ side.

The British opinion polls show a fine split between the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ sides with the ‘undecided’ element holding the balance.

The perception of whether Cameron has secured a meaningful deal may be crucial not only to the result of the vote, but also to his political survival.

A vote to leave the EU by the British public may even have wider ramifications. Domestically, this would likely result in the permanent dismemberment of the United Kingdom. The leadership of the Scottish National Party has repeatedly asserted that it would trigger a second referendum on Scottish independence.

Britain’s exit could also spur other EU member states to leave. It may also have implications for the survival of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The president of the United States, Barack Obama has gone on the record several times to register his disapproval of the idea of a British departure from the EU. Obama’s position arguably reflects the view of the American political establishment which prefers to formulate policy with the EU entity rather than with individual European states. This includes Britain. It is a policy which pointedly disregards any sentiment toward their shared English-speaking heritage and the frequently touted ‘Special Relationship.’

While they are separate institutions, EU policy is often synchronized with the political and military objectives of NATO, an organisation which is led by the United States. An obvious example of this relates to United States policy towards the Russian Federation and the flashpoint that is Ukraine.

Guided by the post-Cold War policies formulated respectively by Paul Wolfowitz and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both the Wolfowitz and Brzezinski Doctrines promote the idea of maintaining American global hegemony. The latter, which is geared towards the promoting the neutralisation of Russia as a military and economic competitor, is a fundamental precondition in achieving such a state of affairs.

The fomenting of the coup of February 2014 which deposed the elected government of Viktor Yanukovyc was orchestrated by the American government which clearly prodded a reluctant EU into backing it. The role of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, was central in getting the approval of the EU in the overthrow of the Yanukovyc government. A recorded conversation she had with the American ambassador to Kiev captured her expressing her contempt for European caution through the infamous “Fuck the E.U.” remark.

The hand of the United States in essentially forcing EU nations such as Germany and France to support its policy of sanctions –despite the fact that such measures have proved to be harmful to the interests of these countries- makes it all too apparent why the United States prefers to deal with a collective body of states.

For those who are critical of the aggression and militarism apparent in American foreign policy, the United States control of NATO and by extension the EU has provided the necessary cover under which American administrations have pursued a succession of geo-political objectives that have been lacking in legal and moral terms. The refugee crisis that is presently confronting EU member states owes a great deal to NATO action in reducing Libya into a lawless state from which uncontrolled amounts of refugees can begin perilous journeys. The Syrian Civil War, a conflict underwritten by America and NATO has massively contributed to the waves of refugees making their way to the EU via its Mediterranean borders.

Thus the issue for Britons worried about the loss of national sovereignty to Brussels ought also to focus on the United Kingdom as country dictated to by the United States which has used the EU as a vehicle to promote its national interests at the expense of the interests of EU member states.

Of course, they will also need to contemplate on how withdrawal can best serve Britain’s national economic and political interests. Outside of the EU, it would lose a huge amount of bargaining power when dealing with other economic blocs around the globe.

A lot will be at stake on Thursday, June 23^rd when the British public make their verdict.

Adeyinka Makinde is based in London where he teaches Public Law.

 

This April 6th the Netherlands will hold a (non-binding) referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (EUAA), as the result of a petition to the government signed by 427,939 voters. Until the results of the referendum are known, the EUAA cannot be ratified by the Dutch government and therefore cannot officially go into effect.

The Dutch government headed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte is firmly in favour of the agreement and from the moment it became clear it would be obliged (by law) to organize the referendum, has urged voters on every possible occasion to vote “Yes”.

The communication strategy the Rutte government is to follow in the upcoming weeks was leaked by Dutch RTL News on Wednesday (18-02-2016). Media experts have formulated guidelines and full statements for government officials to use when addressing voters. Political reporter Roel Geeraedts, who obtained the documents, describes it as “A prime example of State propaganda.”

Do’s and Don’ts

The strategy has some remarkable aspects. Especially the Do’s and Don’ts are insightful (full PDF document in Dutch available for downloading here).

For example: the term “Association agreement” is deemed too difficult to be understood by the public, officials are instructed to use “cooperative agreement” (in Dutch ‘working-together-agreement’): “This cooperative agreement is in the interest of the Netherlands and Ukraine. It deals with easier trade and a democratic, free Ukraine.” The statement reflects the three main arguments to be used in support of the EUAA: stabilizing/democratizing Ukraine, trade and cooperation.

Ministers are urged not to enter into discussions on wider subjects, such as the EU or failing democracy, and also apparently the political and military components of the EUAA, which are not mentioned anywhere, despite their significance.

According to the document, it should be made clear to the public that the Netherlands is against Ukraine becoming an EU-member.

Dutch PM Mark Rutte

The authors of the guideline warn against over-emphasizing security issues regarding Russia or an explicit pro/con Putin stance (they specifically name the President, not the country). They consider it more effective to say we do not accept Russia’s engaging in Ukrainian affairs – the media experts emphasize this point specifically – and repeatedly.

They also urge the government not to make the Ukrainian situation appear better than it is, an overly enthusiastic endorsement will lead to skepticism under voters. Thus scare-tactics should be avoided, as this will be counterproductive (apparently Mr. Juncker did not get this memo as he warned that a Dutch “No” could lead to a “continental crisis”).

Another key point of the instruction is that the EUAA is just one of the many cooperation treaties the EU has with over 25 countries throughout the world – nothing to worry about. That the EUAA is different from similar treaties with regard to political and military aspects is not mentioned.

How to sell the Association Agreement to the public

The media experts offer a detailed strategy on what points the government should put forward to sell the EUAA to the public (another PDF in Dutch for downloading here). Some highlights:

On Ukrainian authorities and ambitions:

• the EUAA is the foundation for the Ukrainian reform programme, with this treaty Ukraine will work on substantial reforms to become a grown-up democracy without corruption
• without the EUAA, Ukrainians won’t be able to continue implementing democratic reforms and combating corruption, they will have to do it by themselves, without EU assistance
• the EU won’t be able to hold the Ukrainian government to its commitments and it is questionable that the necessary reforms will then be implemented at all, even though the Ukrainian people want this very much [what touching confidence in the Ukrainian authorities!] (this argument is repeated and emphasized throughout both documents! – A.L.)
• with the help of the EU, Ukraine wants to become a country with a functioning government, independent judges and respect for human rights, where corruption is addressed and gay rights are respected
• it wants to become a country where companies can freely and easily do business with Dutch companies and where citizens are affluent enough to buy our products
• the ordinary Ukrainian has time and time again chosen in favour of this agreement with the EU: during the Maidan revolution in 2013-2014 and afterwards thousands of people have literally died for it [never mind that most casualties were actually opponents of the agreement– A.L.]
• during the last elections for parliament the pro-European parties received 68,5% of the votes – even in the mostly Russian-speaking East the majority of the people supported these parties [again, the fact that several opposition parties had been prohibited and the majority of the people living in Eastern Ukraine either boycotted the elections or were unable to participate because of the war the Kiev regime wages against them is not mentioned – A.L.]

On Ukraine’s EU-membership:

• the EUAA is not a first step to Ukraine becoming an EU-member [it mentions specifically that the Netherlands opposes a Ukraine EU-membership with reference to its VETO right – A.L.]
• this is just an agreement with a neighbour, the EUAA is a good way to cooperate with Ukraine without it leading to its EU-membership [ergo to keep Ukraine outside the EU, vote “Yes” – A.L.]
• the EUAA does not give Ukrainians visa-free entry into the EU
• visa regulations are being discussed, but not in the context of the EUAA and this concerns tourist-visa only, not Ukrainians’ right to live and work in the EU

On money and commitments:

• the EUAA will not cost us extra money, the EU and IMF are already providing Ukraine with financial aid outside of this agreement
• the EUAA does not oblige EU members to financially support Ukraine

On Russia and Putin:

• when the EUAA is not ratified and entered into force, this will greatly please President Putin [again the President is mentioned personally], this means that Ukraine has not been able to decide its own fate [interesting logic]
• the EUAA allows for good relations with Russia, it makes demands regarding the treatment of minorities
• Russia has no right to interfere with the positive development of the Ukrainian people, for example by invading Ukraine [!]; the EUAA does not deal with this conflict, this is discussed within the Minsk treaty framework
• President Putin tried to stop the EUAA to keep Ukraine within his sphere of influence and under his control
• we would like to cooperate with Russia, too, they also profit from a stable Ukraine – unfortunately they are not interested in this [this is an outright lie, see here or here  for just some examples – A.L.]

On the referendum and its outcome:

• the Dutch government will actively campaign for a “Yes”
• with a turnout of less than 30% or a “Yes” outcome the government will ratify the EUAA; with a “No” outcome the government will discuss the matter with parliament
  [earlier Dutch FM Bert Koenders informed parliament that in this case the government will send a proposal to the Parliament and the Senate to decide; the Dutch Parliament has indicated it will respect the outcome of the referendum – A.L.]
  

  Musicians of the Maidan” are entitled to take part in Yes campaign by the Dutch government

• elements of the EUAA that have already come into effect per 01-01-2016 won’t be stopped automatically because of a “No” by the Dutch; however, they were implemented with the expectation that the EUAA will be ratified by all EU members, a “No” would therefore require new negotiations [the message the Dutch is to send out is that we expect it won’t happen – A.L.]
• the Dutch government has requested the OSCE to send observers, but they have declined because it is not usual for them to send observers to referenda [apparently no other observers were asked; it is unclear whether they would be welcome – A.L.]
• the EUAA was agreed between democratically elected leaders from democratic countries with Ukraine [no mention of the fact that the political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 by interim “President” Oleksandr Turchynov, who was installed after a violent and foreign-sponsored coup d’etat – A.L.]
• the Dutch authorities do not expect the outcome of the referendum to interfere with the investigation into the MH17 tragedy: “It is and will remain the common goal of the Netherlands and Ukraine to find and bring to trial the perpetrators of this cowardly act”
• as according to Dutch law foreign financing of Dutch organisations is allowed, it is Ok that George Soros [yes, he is mentioned in the document – A.L.] is engaged in the media campaign in the Netherlands and makes no secret of it.

The team

Rutte’s government has identified (link to a PDF in Dutch) a kaleidoscope of parties that can help promote the “Yes” campaign: political parties (Labour, Progressive-Liberals, Greens and conservative Christians), politicians (a.o. EU Commisioner Frans Timmermans and Amsterdam mayor Eberhard van der Laan), EU officials Juncker, Mogherini, Hahn, Fule and Tusk, international organisations (IMF, World bank, OSCE, NATO), civil society (Greenpeace, LGBT community, Unions [with a question mark] and the Maidan cluster), companies and famous Ukrainians living in the Netherlands.

PM Rutte has reacted to the leak of his media strategy, trying to dismiss the incident by joking: “It’s disheartening. Really nothing can remain secret.” The government still expects the Dutch people to support them on the EUAA. Most opinion polls up-to-now indicate they won’t.

Anneke de Laaf is the Editor of NovayaGazeta.nl project and the Chairperson for the Dutch Forum “Sovereign Europe”.

The class struggle from above found its most intense , comprehensive and retrograde expression in Argentina, with the election of Mauricio Macri (December 2015).  During the first two months in office, through the arbitrary assumption of emergency powers, he reversed, by decree, a multitude of progressive socio-economic policies passed over the previous decade and sought to purge public institutions of independent voices.

Facing a hostile majority in Congress, he seized legislative powers and proceeded to name two Supreme Court judges in violation of the Constitution.

President Macri purged all the Ministries and agencies of perceived critics and appointees of the previous government and replaced those officials with loyalist neo-liberal functionaries.  Popular movement leaders were jailed, and former Cabinet members were prosecuted.

Parallel to the reconfiguration of the state, President Macri launched a neo-liberal counter-revolution: a 40% devaluation which raised prices of the basic canasta over 30%; the termination of an export tax for all agro-mineral exporters (except soya farmers); a salary and wage cap 20% below the rise in the cost of living; a 400% increase in electrical bills and a 200% increase in transport; large scale firing of public and private employees; strike breaking using rubber bullets; preparations for large scale privatizations of strategic economic sectors; a 6.5 billion dollar payout to vulture-fund debt holders and speculaters-a 1000%return-  while contracting new debts.

President Macri’s high intensity class warfare is intended to reverse, the social welfare and progressive policies implemented by the Kirchner regimes over the past 12 years (2003-2015).

President Macri has launched a virulent new version of the class struggle from above, following a long-term neo-liberal cyclical pattern which has witnessed:

1. Authoritarian military rule (1966-1972) accompanied by intense class struggle from below followed by democratic elections (1973-1976).
2. Military dictatorship and intense class struggle from above (1976-1982)resulting in the murder of 30.000 workers.
3. A negotiated transition to electoral politics (1983)a hyper inflationary crises and the deepening of neo-liberalism (1989-2000).
4. Crises and collapse of neoliberalism and insurrectionary class struggle from below 2001-2003.
5. Center-left Kirchner-Fernandez regimes (2003-2015): a labor-capital-regime social pact.
6. Authoritarian neo-liberal Macri regime(2015) and intense class struggle from above. Macri’s strategic perspective is to consolidate a new power bloc of local agro-mineral,and banking oligarchs, foreign bankers and investors and the police-military apparatus to massively increase profits by cheapening labor

The roots of the rise of the neo-liberal power bloc can be found in the practices and policies of the previous Kirchner-Fernandez regimes.  Their policies were designed to overcome the capitalist crises of 2000-2002 by channeling mass discontent toward social reforms, stimulating agro-mineral exports and increasing living standards via progressive taxes, electricity and food subsidies, and pension increases.  Kirchner’s progressive policies were based on the boom in commodity prices. When they collapsed the capital-labor ‘co-existence’ dissolveded and the Macri led business-middle class-foreign capital alliance was well placed to take advantage of the demise of the model.

The class struggle from below was severely weakened by the labor alliance with the center-left Kirchner regime .Not because labor benefited economically but because the pact demobilized the mass organizations of the 2001 -2003 period.  Over the course of the next 12 years’ labor entered into sectorial negotiations (paritarias) mediated by a ‘friendly government’. Class consciousness was replaced by ‘sectoral’ allegiances and bread and butter issues.  Labor unions lost their capacity to wage class struggle from below – or even influence sectors of the popular classes.  Labor was vulnerable and is in a weak position to confront President Macri’s virulent neo-liberal counter-reform offensive.

Nevertheless, the extreme measures adopted by Macri— the deep cuts in purchasing power, spiraling inflation and mass firings have led to the first phases of a renewal of the class struggle from below.

Strikes by teachers and public employees over salaries and firings have flared up in response to the barrage of public sector cuts and arbitrary executive decrees.  Sporadic mass demonstrations have been called by social  and human rights movements in response to Macri’s dismantling of the institutions prosecuting military officials responsible for the killing and disappearance of 30,000 victims during the “dirty war” (1976-83).

As the Macri regime proceeds to deepen and extend his regressive measures designed to lower labor costs, business taxes and living standards to entice capital with higher profits, as inflation soars and the economy stagnates due to the decline of public investment and consumption, the class struggle from below is likely to intensify –general strikes and related forms of direct action are likely before the end of the first year of the Macri regime.

Large scale class based organizations capable of engaging in  intense class struggle from below, weakened by the decade-long ‘corporate model’ of the Kitchener era, will take time to reconstruct.  The question is when and what it will take to organize a class-wide(national)  political movement which can move beyond  an electoral repudiation of Macri allied candidates in upcoming  legislative, provincial and municipal elections.

This is called taking it to the top.

Russia is set to initiate a meeting of the UN Security Council today to prevent Turkey’s planned invasion of Syria.

Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, is most concerned with:

Turkey’s announced plans to put boots on the ground in northern Syria,

It undercuts efforts to launch a political settlement in the Syrian Arab Republic,

Watch a video of this report here:

Russia seeks to do the following at the meeting:

End any actions that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, that are at odds with UN Security Council resolution 2254, as well as [interfere] with the launch of the Syrian peace process.

Just two weeks ago Russia announced that it had ‘serious grounds’ to believe Turkey was planning a ground invasion, after the Turks refused to let Russia fly surveillance flights near its border with Syria.

Since then, Saudi Arabia has been openly supportive of the plan and Turkey has been hyping numerous reasons that it could use to try and justify its coming invasion.

Turkey has even proposed somewhat of a land-grab, saying it wants a 10km ‘secure line’ cut across Northern Syria, which also happened to include an arms smuggling corridor that the CIA has been using to supply terrorists throughout Syria.

Incredibly, instead of taking Turkey’s threatening behaviour seriously, Samantha Power of the United States accused Moscow of trying to “distract the world” with its Security Council resolution.

Perhaps what angers the US the most is that Russia is playing this 100% by the book, an alien concept to US foreign policy for at least the past 15 years, as it seeks to guarantee thesovereignty of the Syrian state and properly eradicate its terror problem.

Is Russia’s resolution simply a ‘distraction’, or a genuine attempt to prevent World War 3?

SAA seizes last key village along Aleppo-Raqqa highway, trapping almost 1,000 ISIS terrorists 

Islamic State fighters are commonly referred to as ‘ISIS rats’ on the internet. That unflattering designation may have gone from being one of mere pejorative to one being literally true.

It is being reported that the Syrian Arab Army has seized the last remaining village along the Aleppo-Raqqa Highway, thus completing the encirclement of 800 ISIS members in East Aleppo and trapping them like, well, rats.

It is an especially cruel and ironic twist of fate for these sad souls as a great number of them were no doubt part of the siege of the Kuweires airbase located in the same region. The Syrian Army somehow managed to hold out for 18 grueling months until Russian air power eventually broke it down in November 2015.

If the encirclement is as complete as is being reported,

ISIS is in for a very painful experience. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. No one will be coming to help them and there is no escape. There is just the wait. Waiting under Russian jets and surrounded by an enraged army – an army so many members of which were subjected to some of the most appalling war crimes imaginable. With ISIS’ limited skills in negotiation, this could be a very harsh and brutal end of the road.

 

In the last fifty or so years, the ancient and beautiful religion of Judaism has been hijacked by political thugs who have used the Zionist movement to persecute, humiliate and oppress millions of indigenous Palestinian Arabs whose families have lived between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan for over a thousand years. Crucially, the Political Zionists use the spurious cloak of religion to justify their actions.

In particular, they misquote or misuse biblical texts to persuade gullible governments in both the United States and Europe together with millions of equally impressionable evangelical Christians**, that Zionism is validated by God.

The reality is that many from both sides of the Jewish religious spectrum i.e. Reform and orthodox, are opposed to the Zionist project and have been so since its inception.

Fact: Religious Judaism and Political Zionism* are mutually exclusive. The former is a thousands of years’ old, religious and moral force for good, from which emanated Christianity, whilst the latter is a modern political movement that falsely claims not only an ethnic superiority, plus the right to the entire land of Palestine, but also the endorsement of the former.

For over six years, the Political Zionist movement has turned Gaza into the world’s largest open-air prison camp in which the Israeli government deliberately keeps nearly two million souls at just above subsistence level through the blockading of essential medical, food and building supplies, in an abortive and criminal attempt at regime change.

Astonishingly, a blind eye is turned to this illegal, inhumane programme by both the British and American governments who, for years, have been indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda – even to this day. Just this week, the British government declared that any current legitimate boycott of goods from the Israeli Occupied Territories would in future be considered unlawful and subject to harsh penalties.

The documented fact that now more than 500,000 Israeli citizens have been induced by their government to leave their homes in Israel to illegally settle on Palestinian land in a spurious attempt to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, is implicitly endorsed by the British government in an astonishing and unprecedented assault upon international law and a denial of the essential principles of democracy.

The consequence of this acceptance of the Israeli government’s criminal agenda by both the AIPAC-controlled US congress and the CFI-controlled British government is the fuelling of the now frightening increase in anti-Semitic attitudes in universities, on campus, on the streets and in social circles throughout Europe as ordinary people now recognise the terrible injustice being perpetrated by the Zionist movement against an entire indigenous people and, incredibly, of it being endorsed by their own governments, apparently having succumbed to the influence of powerful lobbyists.

Modern Political Zionism with its lobbyists embedded within national legislatures worldwide should be proscribed by the United Nations as an organisation that increases ethnic prejudice and violence. Otherwise, history could be repeated and a great evil could again be perpetrated that would be beyond the ability of any government to control.

There is, consequently, an absolute imperative for urgent inter-governmental action, not only throughout Europe but also in the US and Canada. According to University of Montreal Professor Yakov Rabkin

‘Political Zionism implies the existence of a separate Jewish nation and separate Jewish political interests. This is why Jewish anti-Zionists affirmed individualism, arguing that their rights would be better protected by governments in liberal democracies than by parochial self-serving ethnic organizations, let alone an ethnocratic state.’

There are two major unknown questions concerning the breakdown in relations between Turkey and Russia following the ambush of a Russian Su-24 bomber in the skies above Syria. The first is what turn of events prompted Turkey’s leadership to adopt a course of confrontation against Russia. The second is why this escalation did not come months sooner, when Hmeimim was far more vulnerable to Turkish attack or blockade.

When the Russian aircraft first arrived at Hmeimim, the war was going badly for the Syrian government. The terrorists were able to make major advances during the prior months, and were close to threatening Damascus itself. Syrian forces were demoralized by their setbacks and suffering from shortages of equipment and ammunition.

The Russian air group at that point numbered slightly more than 30 aircraft, the base had no long-range air defenses, and only a small ground contingent to protect it on the ground. The bulk of the materiel for the base and for the rearmament of the Syrian army was only beginning to arrive by Syria Express ships which were busy traversing the Bosphorus in both directions.

The Russian military has not yet demonstrated its combat effectiveness or its long reach – it would do only after the air campaign reached its full tempo and began to be accompanied by cruise missile strikes and heavy bomber sorties. If Erdogan decided to launch a ground operation in Syria in September or October of 2015, when the situation presented far more tempting opportunities, Turkish forces stood a far better chance of influencing the outcome of the war in Syria than they do right now.

Several months later, the situation has changed to such an extent that Turkish intervention has almost no chance of scoring a military success.  Hmeimim now hosts over 50 aircraft, including Su-27SM, Su-30SM, and Su-35S fighters which can provide effective fighter defense against Turkish incursions. It is also protected by a multi-layered air defense system which includes the S-400 high altitude, long-range missile system, Buk-M2 medium range weapons, and Pantsir-S short-range gun/missile vehicles which are capable of shooting down not only aircraft but also cruise missiles and guided bombs. Hostile aircraft would also face a barrage of electronic countermeasures that would significantly degrade their ability to target Hmeimim.  The cruise missile launches by Russian naval ships and heavy bombers have demonstrated the ability to target Turkish air bases and destroy Turkish aircraft on the ground, in the event of escalation of the fighting.

Russian bases in Syria also enjoy the protection from a constant presence of a naval task force, which includes a missile cruiser armed with long-range anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons, several anti-submarine ships, and at least one missile corvette.

On the ground, the battalion force of Russian troops is hardly the only ground protection of the Hmeimim base.  Russian military assistance, including provision of heavy equipment, munitions, and military planners and advisers, has returned the Syrian Arab Army to an effective fighting condition. In addition, the Syrian army is no longer the only military force defending Syria. Thanks to Russian diplomatic efforts, several Syrian opposition groups have joined the government forces in their struggle against the extremists. Likewise the Kurdish units which in the past waged their own uncoordinated struggle against ISIS have now been fully incorporated into the Russian-led coalition in return for Syrian government’s political concessions. There is also a sizable Hezbollah and Iranian presence in Syria. Considering that none of these forces are likely to defect to Turkey in the event of Turkish invasion, and that in some cases they view Turkey as their mortal enemy, the Turkish military would likely not advance very far before suffering heavy losses at the hands of Syria’s defenders. Russian and Syrian long-range weapons now include heavy multiple rocket launchers and Tochka short-range ballistic missiles that would be deadly to Turkish armored columns advancing through narrow mountain paths under the watchful eyes of Russian drones and long-range surveillance aircraft like the Tu-214 and the Il-20.

Even the prospect of the Bosphorus blockade is not as threatening as it once seemed.  Syria Express is now mainly concerned with providing consumables like munitions and spare parts to the forces fighting in Syria. In the event Bosphorus were to be blocked, these supplies could be shipped from the Baltic Sea and, in really urgent cases, by air using the traditional Caspian-Iran-Iraq-Syria air route.

In the longer term, it is essential that Russian and Syrian forces punch a corridor through ISIS territory and link up with Iraqi forces, and there are indications that once extremists around Aleppo are neutralized, the nextmajor offensive will be launched in the direction of Raqqa. Doing so would not only break the back of ISIS, but also enable the opening of another overland supply route through the Caspian Sea and Iran.  The strength of the Russia-led coalition which seems to have taken all outside observers by surprise is such that it is probably sufficient to deter Turkish military air or ground assault against Syria. While we do not yet know how this happened, it would appear that Moscow was able to outmaneuver Ankara by placing a highly effective military force right under its nose in Syria and reverse the course of the war before Ankara was able to react.

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

The past week saw no decrease in the tense confrontation between Turkey and Russia over Syria. While Russia’s position is simple – ‘we are ready to fight’ – the Turkish position is much more ambiguous: Turkish politicians are saying one thing, then the opposite and then something else again. At times they make it sound like an invasion is imminent, and at times they say that “Turkey plans no unilateralinvasion”. Since a UN authorized invasion of Syria will never happen, this means some kind of “coalition of the willing”, possibly NATO. The problem here is that the Europeans have no desire to end up in a war against Russia. At the same time, the US and France refuse to allow a UN Resolution which would reaffirm the sovereignty of Syria. Yup, that’s right. The US and France apparently think that the UN Charter (which affirms the sovereignty of all countries) does not apply to Syria. Go figure…

There are persistent rumors that top Turkish military commanders, categorically oppose any attack on Syria and that they want no part in a war with Russia. I don’t blame them one bit as they understand perfectly well two simple things: first, Turkey does not need a war, only Erdogan does; second, when Turkey is defeated, Erdogan will blame the military. There are also signs of disagreements inside the USA over the prospects of such a war, with the Neocons backing Erdogan and pushing him towards war just as they had done with Saakashvili while the White House and Foggy Bottom are telling Erdogan to “cool it”. As for the Turks themselves, they have shelled Kurdish and Syrian positions across the border and, on at least two occasions, a small military force has been seen crossing the border.

From a purely military point of view, it makes absolutely no sense for the Turks to mass at the border, declare that they are about to invade, then stop, do some shelling and then only send a few little units across the border. What the Turks should have done was to covertly begin to increase the level of readiness of their forces then and then attacked as soon as Russians detected their preparations even if that meant that they would have to initiate combat operations before being fully mobilized and ready. The advantages of a surprise attack are so big that almost every other consideration has to be put aside in order to achieve it. The Turks did the exact opposite: they advertised their intentions to invade and once their forces were ready, they simply stopped at the border and began issuing completely contradictory declarations. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

What complicates this already chaotic situation is that Erdogan is clearly a lunatic and that there appears to the at least the possibility of some serious infighting between the Turkish political leaders and the military.

Furthermore, there appears to be some very bad blood between the USA and the Erdogan regime. Things got so bad that Erdogan’s chief adviser, Seref Malkoc, said that Turkey might deny the US the use of Incirlik Air Base for strikes against ISIL if the US does not name the YPG as a terrorist group. Erdogan later repudiated this statement, but the fact remains that the Turks are now directly blackmailing the USA. If Erdogan and his advisors seriously believe that they can publicly blackmail a superpower like the USA then their days are numbered. At the very least, this kind of irresponsible outbursts shows that the Turks are really crumbling under the pressure they themselves have created.

Still, the fact that Turkey has not invaded yet is a tiny minute sign that maybe, just maybe, the Turks will give up on this crazy notion or that they will limit themselves to a ‘mini-invasion’ just a few miles across the border. The military would probably prefer such a minimal face saving option, but what about Erdogan and the crazies around him?

Maybe the Turkish military ought to realize that the country is ruled by the madman and do something about it?

Still, the Russians are taking no chances and they have put all their forces into high alert. They have very publicly dispatched a Tu-214r – her most advanced ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft. You can think of the Tu-214R as an “AWACS for the ground”, the kind of aircraft you use to monitor a major ground battle (the regular Russian A-50Ms are already monitoring the Syrian airspace). In southern Russia, the Aerospace forces have organized large-scale exercises involving a large number of aircraft which would be used in a war against Turkey: SU-34s. The Airborne Forces are ready. The naval task forces off the Syrian coast is being augmented. The delivery of weapons has accelerated. The bottom line is simple and obvious: the Russians are not making any threats – they are preparing for war. In fact, by now they are ready.

This leaves an important question to be asked: what would the Russians do if their still relatively small force in Syria is attacked and over-run by the Turks? Would the Russian use nuclear weapons?

At least one reporter, Robert Perry, as written the following: “A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught”. Is that really possible? Would the Russians really use nuclear weapons of things get ugly in Syria?

The Russian Military Doctrine is very clear on the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. This is the relevant paragraph:

27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use against her and (or) her allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons in a way which would threaten her very existence as a state. The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

There is no ambiguity here. Unless Russia is threatened as a state she will not use nuclear weapons. Some will, no doubt, say that the official military doctrine is one thing, but the reality in Syria is another one and if the Turks overrun Khmeimin Russia will have no other option than to use nukes. There is a precedent for that kind of logic: when the US deployed the 82nd Airborne in Saudi Arabia as part of Desert Shield the Pentagon fully understood that if the much larger Iraqi army invaded Saudi Arabia the 82nd would be destroyed. It was hoped that the USAF and USN could provide enough air sorties to stop the Iraqi advance, but if not it was understood that tactical nuclear weapons would be used. The situation in Syria is different.

For one thing, the Russian task force in Syria is not an infantry tripwire force like the 82nd in Iraq. The terrain and the opposing forces are also very different. Second, the Russian contingent in Syria can count on the firepower and support of the Russian Navy in the Caspian and Mediterranean and the Russian Aerospace Forces from Russia proper. Last but not least, the Russians can count in the support of the Syrian military, Iranian forces, Hezbollah and, probably, t he Syrian Kurds who are now openly joing the 4+1 alliance (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah) turning it into a 4+2 alliance I suppose.

There is one important feature of this 4+2 alliance which ought to really give the Turks a strong incentive to be very careful before taking any action: every member of this 4+2 alliance has an extensive military experience, a much better one than the Turkish military. The modern Turkish military is much more similar to the Israeli military in 2006 – it has a great deal of experience terrorizing civilians and it is not a force trained to fight “real” wars. There is a very real risk for the Turks that if they really invade Syria they might end up facing the same nightmare as the Israelis did when they invaded Lebanon in 2006.

In the meantime, the Russian backed Syrian forces are still advancing. Since the beginning of their counter-offensive the Syrians have succeeded in recapturing all of the strategic locations in western Syria in slow and incremental steps and they are now threatening Raqqa. See for yourself:

The bottom line is this: the size and capabilities of the Russian task force in Syria has been expanding and the level of collaborations between the elements of the 4+2 alliance has been increasing. Add to this the capability to deploy a regimental-size (and fully mechanized) Airborne force in Latakia if needed, and you will begin to see that the Turks would be taking a major risk if they attacked Russian forces even if Russia does not threaten the use of tactical nukes. In fact, I don’t see any scenario short of a massive US/NATO attack under which Russia would use her tactical nuclear weapons.

Frankly, this situation is far from resolved. It is no coincidence that just when a ceasefire was supposed to come into effect two terrorist attacks in Turkey are oh-so-conveniently blamed on the Kurds. It sure looks like somebody is trying hard to set Turkey on a collision course with Russia, doesn’t it?

Making predictions about what the Turks and their Saudi friends will do makes no sense. We are clearly dealing with two regimes which are gradually “losing it”: they are lashing out at everybody (including their US patrons), they are terrified of their own minorities (Kurds and Shia) and their propensity for violence and terror is only matched by their inability in conventional warfare. Does that remind you of somebody else?

Of course! The Ukronazis fit this picture perfectly. Well, guess what, they are dreaming of forming an anti-Russian alliance with the Turks now. Amazing no? Just imagine what a Ukrainian-Turkish-Saudi alliance would look like: a real life “Islamo-Fascist” gang of thugs combining hateful fanaticism, corruption, incompetence, violence, strident nationalism and military incompetence. A toxic combination for sure, but not a viable one.

One of the most important books about post 9/11 war and peace will likely be one of the least read books published in recent times.

War sells; peace does not.

War has its own Public Relations (PR) agencies, its own state-subsidized industry, and its own mythology.  Peace does not.

The cowboy stories of “good guys” versus “bad guys” have been promulgated and exploited by the West and its agencies (and blindly accepted by media “consumers”) to such a degree, that the truth has literally been inverted.  White is Black, and Black is White.

Not only is Canada at least partly responsible for mass murder, the total destruction of foreign countries  , and waves of refugees,  but we are paying a price at home in terms of lost freedoms, and increasing impoverishment. Today’s Illegal wars of aggression are a plague on humanity that, at best, enrich the transnational oligarch class, as they reduce target countries to ashes.

But the lies are smothering the truth.

For example, we live in a world where, on the one hand, we profess to be fighting ISIS, even as sustainable evidence has shouted for years that ISIS and all the terrorists invading Syria, including the “moderates”, are Western proxies.

Prof. Tim Anderson clearly explains in the Preface to his recent e-book, The Dirty War On Syria:   “Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory.”

Our repeated failures to diagnose the root causes of our current dystopia is the basis of our degeneracy.  And the root causes include psychological operations (psy ops).

The age-old military strategy of false flag terrorism has triggered our expertly disguised degeneracy.   False flag terrorism involves the false attribution of a crime to a designated enemy, and most, if not all wars, are triggered by false flag terrorism.

Thus the book, Another French False Flag?|Bloody Tracks From Paris To San Bernardino, Edited and Introduced by Kevin Barrett should be a “must read” for anyone attempting to understand, and act on, the current state of permanent war afflicting humanity.

The book is actually a compilation of essays from a host of prominent public intellectuals, all of whom, with the notable exception of two, elaborate upon the tactics of false flag deceptions that are herding masses of people to embrace both racism, and permanent war:

• GIlad Atzmon
• Rasheedal Hajj abu Mutahhar
• Ajamu Baraka
• Kevin Barrett
• Ole Dammegard
• A.K. Dewdney
• Philip Giraldi
• Anthony Hall
• Zaid Hamid
• Imran N. Hosein
• Kujahid Kamran
• Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei
• Barry Kissin
• Nick Kollerstrom
• Stephen Lendman
• Henry Makow
• Brandon Martinez
• Gearoid O Colmain
• Ken O’Keefe
• James Petras
• Paul Craig Roberts
• Catherine Shakdam
• Alain Soral
• Robert David Steele
• James Tracey
• Eric Walberg

Another French False Flag?|Bloody Tracks From Paris To San Bernardino analyzes the root causes of synthetic terror events (ie false flags) and puts the onus on state authorities to prove the theorists wrong – which they have yet to do – through judicial public inquiries. Straw man arguments and “conspiracy theory” smears are becoming increasingly stale.

If the masses want peace and a “peace dividend”, where tax dollars are actually spent to improve their lives, local economies, anad a return to democracy, then Barrett’s book is a “must read”.  

If, on the other hand, we want the status quo of domestic police-state legislation, ruined economies,  destroyed countries, and an overseas holocaust perpetrated by a globalized cabal of criminal warmongers, then the book would be best left unopened.

Let’s hope that humanity’s better nature prevails.  A first step is the truth.

We [the United States] spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. … Obviously, it was a mistake… George W. Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East…

—They [President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney] lied… They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Donald Trump (1946- ), during a CBS News GOP presidential debate, on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016.

[George W. Bush] wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

—But the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.

Richard Dearlove (1945- ) Head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), (in ‘Downing Street memo’, July 23, 2002).

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

Dick Cheney (1941- ), comment made at the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Spinning the possible possession of WMDs as a threat to the United States in the way they did is, in my opinion, tantamount to intentionally deceiving the American people.

Gen. Hugh Shelton (1942- ), former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, (in his memoirs ‘Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior’, 2010)

We [the USA] went to war [in Iraq] not just against the Iraqi forces and insurgent groups but also against a large part of the Arab world, scores and scores of millions…It is a strategic error of monumental proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq… [The Iraq war] is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.

Gen. William E. Odom (1932-2008), in a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 18, 2007

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has rendered a great service to the truth and to historians in stating publicly, on Saturday, February 13, 2016, what most people by now know, i.e. that the US-led war of aggression against Iraq, in March 2003, was not only illegal under international law, it was also an exercise in pure deceptive propaganda, and it was promoted thanks to well-documented lies, fabrications and forgeries.

I personally published a book in early 2003 detailing how the Bush-Cheney administration, with the help of pro-Israel neocons in the higher echelons of the U.S. government, built a case for war under false pretenses.

The publishing house ‘Les Intouchables’ in Montreal, initially published the book in Canada, in French, under the title of ‘Pourquoi Bush veut la guerre’. It was then published in the U.S., by Infinity Publishing, in English, under the title ‘The New American Empire’. The book was also published in Europe by l’Harmattan in Paris under the title ‘Le Nouvel Empire Américain’, and later on translated into Turkish by Nova Publishing in Ankara, under the title ‘Yeni Amerikan Imparatorlu›u’.

The machinations and deceptions behind the disastrous war against Iraq, which have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and created millions of refugees, and which has completely destabilized the entire Middle East, constitute therefore a topic that I have been studying for many years.

It is no surprise that I was pleased to hear Mr. Trump forcefully conveying the truth to the American people, even though those who have engaged in war crimes under the Nuremberg Charter and the United Nations Charter have never been indicted for gross negligence and duplicity—if not outright treason—let alone prosecuted. Worse still, there has never been a serious public inquiry into this sordid episode at the beginning of the 21^st Century and how the Bush-Cheney administration planned a pre-meditated military attack against Iraq in order to bring about a political “regime change” in that country.

Let us summarize the sad series of events that have led to what American General William Odom has dubbed “the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history”. We may add that this has also led to a great disaster for the Middle East populations, and it could also prove to have been a disaster for Europe and the world as a whole, if the current mess in that part of the world were to lead to World War III.

1- DECEPTION: When George W. Bush took power in January 2001, his Treasury Secretary, Paul H. O’Neill (1935- ), the former CEO of Alcoa, recalls that the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was raised by Bush during the very first cabinet meeting of the new administration. In O’Neill’s biography written by journalist Ron Suskind and titled The Price of Loyalty, it is stated that George W. Bush fully intended to invade Iraq and was desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein. As Mr. Suskind writes it, there was even a Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts”, which included a map of potential areas in Iraq for oil exploration. Such a detailed plan for a U.S.-led military take-over of Iraq had never been mentioned during the 2000 U.S. presidential election, let alone debated.

However, a pro-Israel neoconservative think-tank, The Project for the New American Century, had drafted a blueprint for regime change in Iraq as early as September 2000. The fundamental goal was to secure access to Iraq’s oil reserves and remove a potential enemy to the state of Israel. This think-tank, founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, was mainly run by vice-president Dick Cheney; by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld; by Paul Wolfowitz, (Rumsfeld’s deputy at the Defense Department); by George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida; and by Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy.

Their document about Iraq was entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century”. It stated clearly that: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”. It was this plan that the newly elected Bush-Cheney administration obviously intended to implement in secret, eight months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It is also most relevant to mention that the document on Iraq mentioned above was mimicking a previous report written in 1996 for the Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli government and titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The latter outlined a strategy for the state of Israel in the Middle East in these terms:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq –an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right –as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

In 2001, the Bush-Cheney administration seemed to have made its own the proposed strategy.

2- POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE: To what extent was the Bush-Cheney administration negligent in not preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks? This is a legitimate question, considering that the George W. Bush White House received, on Monday August 6, 2001, 36 days before the terrorist attacks, a confidential report by the CIA entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”. Mr. Bush was then on a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and no special security steps seem to have been taken to alert various authorities of the threat.

3- A PARALLEL GOVERNMENT: Early on, the new Bush-Cheney administration established a special bureaucratic agency for intelligence gathering, propaganda and war preparations. This was the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plan (OSP) placed under the supervision of Paul Wolfowitz (image right), the Deputy Secretary of Defense. It was designed, as reported by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh, to circumvent the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, and to serve as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and its possible connection with al-Qaeda. That is also where various fake arguments were invented to steer the United States into a war against Iraq. Douglas Feith, a defense undersecretary, ran the shadow agency with the assistance of William Luti, a former navy officer and an ex-aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Something that should have been investigated, but has not been, is how some Israeli generals had free access to the OSP, as reported by Karen Kwiatkowski who worked in that agency.

4- WAR PROPAGANDA: After 9/11, few Americans were blaming Iraq for the terrorist attacks, since none of the 19 terrorists involved had any connection with Iraq. In fact, the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks of 2001 were affiliated with the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda. Fifteen out of 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, and the other 2 came from Egypt and Lebanon. None were from Iraq. And their training camps had been in Afghanistan.

That is why in polls taken soon after Sept. 11, 2001, only 3 percent of Americans mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein as the dark forces behind the attacks. Obviously, such a perception had to be changed if the Bush-Cheney administration were to start a war with Iraq. That is when the fear of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the possible links of Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda were invented, with the active assistance of neocon media. By September 2003, the propaganda had worked so well that, according to a Washington Post poll, 69 percent of Americans had come to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda, even though there had been no proof of such a link between the two. Such is the force of government propaganda when the mass media collaborate in the exercise.

This propaganda was instrumental in building a case for a war with Iraq, without regard to factual evidence. History will reckon that the United States did not retaliate against Saudi Arabia, a country that had a lot to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but it did react viciously against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

All these facts are well documented and corroborated. Future historians will have numerous sources to establish the historical truth.

Conclusion

The fact that presidential candidate Donald Trump has alerted the American people to the treachery used by the Bush-Cheney administration to go to war against Iraq is a welcome development. Undoubtedly, the Iraq War has unleashed untold destruction and misery in Iraq and in the entire Middle East. And the sequels to the initial disaster continue today, thirteen years after the 2003 U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq.

The only recent comparable historical event, when a powerful country invaded militarily another weaker country, was the decision by the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invade Poland on September 1, 1939, thus plunging Europe into chaos for many years. Let us hope that the current turmoil in the Middle East, with so many countries conducting military operations in the devastated countries of Iraq and Syria, will not lead to even greater catastrophes.

Economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”,

Please visit the book site at: http://www.thecodeforglobalethics.com/

and his blog at:

http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.htm

To write to the author: [email protected]

Washington has requested Moscow not to bomb areas of Northern Syria where US Special Forces are being deployed. These areas are under the jurisdiction of  so-called “moderate opposition” rebels who are supported by the US and its allies.  

The areas in question pertain to pockets of Northern Syria in which various US-NATO supported jihadist groups including the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al Nusrah are fighting Syrian government forces (SAA) and their allies.  These terrorist pockets are protected by the US-led coalition and Turkey:  

The Pentagon has asked Russia to stay away from parts of northern Syria where US special operations troops are training local fighters [i.e. terrorists including the Islamic State ] to combat the Islamic State group [the opposition rebels are allies of ISIS, ISIS is supported by the US and has special forces within its ranks], military officials said Thursday. The acknowledgement is significant because the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed it is not cooperating with Moscow as the two powers lead separate air campaigns in war-ravaged Syria…. (Al Monitor, AFP Report, February 18 2016)

– –

The advisory acknowledges US military presence inside Syria. Washington confirms that US Special Forces and CIA are operating within the ranks of the “Moderate Opposition”. 

Washington’s objective is twofold. First, “officially” it wants to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia as well prevent US casualties.  That’s the substance of the official  advisory. It is not the main objective.

Second: it is using the pretext of avoiding military confrontation with Russia (and US casualties) as a means to restraining Russia’s bombing campaign: Washington’s main objective is to protect remaining US sponsored terrorist positions in Northern Syria including those of the ISIS from Russian airstrikes. 

Click image to order Michel Chossudovsky’s latest book from Global Research

*      *       *

The advisory is tantamount to asking Russia not to bomb the “moderate terrorists” who are supported by US forces. In fact this was the initial position adopted by Washington at the outset of the Russian bombing campaign against the Islamic State in late September 2015.  The Obama administration blamed Vladimir Putin of “deliberately targeting  US backed forces” in Syria (i.e. moderate terrorists) rather than US Special Forces.

Washington’s concern (from a strategic standpoint) is to protect the terrorists’ positions  rather than their own forces. 

In fact, what was at stake in mid October 2015 was that Russia was killing the “good guys” namely “CIA trained rebels” whom Moscow had “mistakenly” categorized as terrorists.

According to a US official in an interview with Fox News:

“Putin is deliberately targeting our forces. Our guys are fighting for their lives.”

 Source: October 14, 2015,  FoxNews.com

Officially, America now has “boots on the ground” operating within the ranks of  various Al Qaeda affiliated “opposition” groups as well as within the ISIS in violation of Syrian sovereignty.

The special forces are in permanent liaison with US-NATO.

The Pentagon advisory requests Russia not to target US Special Forces in “broad areas” of Northern Syria, which is tantamount to restraining Russia airstrikes against the terrorists supported by the US-led coalition:  

Lieutenant General Charles Brown, who commands the US air forces in the Middle East, said US officials had asked Moscow to avoid “broad areas” in northern Syria [still under control of the terrorists] “to maintain a level of safety for our forces that are on the ground.”

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Russia had honored the request, and stressed the Pentagon only provided broad geographic descriptions of where the US troops are, not their precise location.

[The Russian military knows where US forces are operating, i.e. in the ranks of various “opposition”  groups fighting government forces]

The Pentagon last year said it was sending about 50 special operations forces to work with anti-IS fighters in Syria though officials have said next to nothing about their whereabouts and progress since.

[The number of US forces on the ground is larger, these Pentagon figures do not include mercenary forces hired by private contractors operating within terrorist ranks]

The United States has since August 2014 led an international coalition against the IS group in Iraq and Syria. [This is a lie; amply documented the US and its allies including Turkey and Saudi Arabia are protecting the Islamic State]

Russia entered the Syria conflict in September, when it began bombing rebels opposed to President Bashar al-Assad. Russia says it is attacking the IS group and other “terrorists.”

… The Pentagon has held a series of “deconfliction” talks with Russian counterparts to outline procedures in case of a mishap (Al Monitor, AFP Report, emphasis added)

It is worth noting that in mid-January in response to Russia’s airstrikes and the defeat of the US-NATO sponsored terrorist opposition forces, the Pentagon announced a new plan to train up to 7,000 new rebels inside Syria “as part of an effort to secure Turkey’s southern border”. This plan coordinated with Turkey would consist in creating a so-called safe-zone in Northern Syria. (WSJ, January 15, 2016 ).

According to a Secret Pentagon document, the ultimate objective “was” to create an Islamic State Caliphate (Salafist Principality) in Northern Syria.

Global Research has developed an archive of more than 1000 articles on Syria, which document beyond doubt Washington’s support of Al Qaeda affiliated opposition groups in Syria as well as the Islamic State.

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research Publishers, Montreal

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $14.00 

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

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.”

Os ministros da Defesa da Otan decidiram “reforçar a presença na parte oriental de nossa Aliança”. Isto serve para “nos defender das ameaças crescentes provenientes da Rússia”, esclareceu o secretário estadunidense da Defesa, Ash Carter.

Com esse objetivo os Estados Unidos quadruplicam os financiamentos para “a iniciativa de ressegurança da Europa”, que com uma rotação de forças (cerca de seis mil soldados), permitirá a realização de mais exercícios militares da Otan (os mais de 300 efetuados em 2015 não foram suficientes), a potencialização de aeroportos, o pré-posicionamento de armamentos pesados, o deslocamento permanente para o Leste de unidades blindadas. Isto, sublinhou Carter, “permitirá aos EUA formar na Europa uma força armada de alta capacidade, a implantar rapidamente no teatro regional”.

Ao acusar a Rússia de “desestabilizar a ordem e a segurança europeias”, os EUA e a Otan reabriram a frente oriental, introduzindo a Europa numa nova guerra fria, desejada sobretudo por Washington para quebrar as relações entre a Rússia e a União Europeia, prejudiciais aos interesses estadunidenses.

Ao mesmo tempo, os EUA e a Otan preparam outras operações na frente meridional. Em Bruxelas o chefe do Pentágono “acolheu” (considerando a Europa como a sua casa) os ministros da defesa da “Coalizão global contra o EI (o chamado Estado Islâmico)”, de que fazem parte sob o comando estadunidense, com a Itália, a Arábia Saudita e outros patrocinadores do terrorismo de “marca islamita”. A reunião lançou um impreciso “plano da campanha militar” na Síria e no Iraque. Lá as coisas vão mal para a coalizão, não porque o dito EI esteja vencendo, mas porque está perdendo: apoiadas pela Rússia, as forças governamentais sírias estão liberando crescentes partes do território ocupado pelo autodenominado EI e outras formações, que recuam também no Iraque. Depois de fingir durante anos combater o chamado EI, fornecendo-lhe armas por debaixo do pano através da Turquia, os EUA e seus aliados pedem atualmente o cessar-fogo por “razões humanitárias”. Em substância, eles pedem que o governo sírio pare de libertar do proclamado EI o seu próprio território, porque – segundo declarou o secretário de Estado John Kerry, invertendo os fatos – “quanto mais Assad conquista território, mais ele cria terroristas”. Ao mesmo tempo, a Otan reforça as “medidas de ressegurança” da Turquia, que visa a ocupar uma parte do território sírio na zona de fronteira.

No Norte da África, a coalizão sob condução dos EUA, se prepara para ocupar, sob o pretexto de as libertar do EI, as zonas costeiras da Líbia mais importantes econômica e estrategicamente. A intensificação dos voos a partir do hub aéreo de Pisa, limítrofe à base estadunidense de Camp Darby, indica que a operação “sob condução italiana” já começou com o transporte de armas para as bases de onde será lançada.

No mesmo quadro estratégico se enquadra a decisão dos ministros da Defesa, “sob pedido conjunto da Alemanha, da Grécia e da Turquia”, de deslocar para o Mar Egeu o Segundo Grupo Naval Permanente da Otan, hoje sob comando alemão, que vem de concluir “operações ampliadas com a marinha turca”.

A missão oficial da frota de guerra “não é deter ou repelir as embarcações de refugiados, mas fornecer informações contra o tráfico de seres humanos”, colaborando com a agência Frontex da União Europeia. Com o mesmo objetivo “humanitário”, são também enviados, por demanda dos EUA, aviões radares Awacs, centros de comando em voo para a gestão do campo de batalha.

“A mobilização atlântica é um bom sinal”, comenta “Il Fatto Quotidiano” de 12 de fevereiro (1), lembrando que “não é a primeira vez que a Aliança se engaja em uma ação humanitária”. Exatamente como na Iugoslávia, no Afeganistão e na Líbia.

Manlio Dinucci

Fonte: Il Manifesto

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho, para Resistência.

(1) Nota : “Il Fato Quotidiano” é considerado como “jornal de esquerda”.

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo

 

5,000 ISIS Militants Trained in Syria and Iraq Walk Free in Europe – Europol

By RT, February 20 2016

Between 3,000 and 5,000 so-called ‘foreign fighters’ – EU citizens trained in Islamic state terror camps – have returned to Europe and pose a “completely new challenge,” according the continent’s top police chief.

US-NATO’s “Moderate Opposition”: An Apocalyptic Vision For Syria

By Mnar Muhawesh, February 20 2016

In the first episode of MintPress News’ “Behind the Headline,” MPN editor-in-chief and host Mnar Muhawesh starts by breaking down the supposedly “moderate” Syrian opposition slated to lead peace talks to put an end to the years-long Syrian crisis.

A few days ago some European alternative press got excited about the “disclosing” to Hungarian parliament members on February 10, by prime minister Viktor Orbán, of a so-called secret pact between Germany and Turkey planning to transfer from Turkey, for distribution within the European Union, of 400,000 to 500,000 more Syrian refugees. 

It is not a scoop since the same Viktor Orbán had already declared on December 2 that he was expecting the announcement of this pact in a matter of days, although knowing that, as shown when the question was mentioned again on November 11 at the La Valette summit (and already at the difficult European Council of October 15), it would be poorly accepted.

It is not something new either. In its memo 15-5777, handed over by president Jean-Claude Juncker to president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on October 5 and published the next day, the European Commission had summarised the Action Plan prepared by a joint Turco-European commission after the informal European Council of September 23 (and maybe conceived since the dinner of May 17), and not disclosed so far, except for the clauses that have been included in the agreement of November 29. This memo, given to the chiefs of State as a short agenda for the European Council of October 15 and 16 (which would be disbanded in the evening of the 15 because of disputes), mentions some “EU resettlement schemes and programmes which could enable refugees in Turkey to enter the EU in an orderly manner”.

It is indeed not a German-Turkish agreement, even though Germany’s chancelor Angela Merkel, sent to Turkey on October 18 to negotiate in the name of the European Union, may have let president Erdoğan believe that this was again a German initiative, like the August 24 call to massive illegal intrusion, that French president François Hollande had precisely come to support in Berlin (rather than in Brussels).

The pact which is being commented upon currently has, unfortunately, nothing German, it is a clause of a Turkey -EU  agreement and the destination of the migrants (they are legally not refugees) that Turkey is supposed to provide is not Germany but the entire European Union, according to the distribution key negotiated in May, those famous quotas which were initially giving only 14,17% of the “illegal migrants” to France, who therefore insisted to get, in the end, 20% (Germany reserved 25%).

This agreement is not really a secret either. Lauriane Lizé-Galabbé had publicly denounced it on October 8, three days only after European presidents Jean-Claude Juncker (EU Commission), Donald Tusk (EU Council) and Martin Schultz (EU Parliament) had, in person, notified their acceptance to president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Stratediplo, which only comments open source information, mentioned it on October 16 (sommet de dupes), and noted on November 29, after the official signature of the agreement which did not specify any figures, that it was unclear “by how much had been raised the promise of installation in the European Union of the half-million migrants to be sent by Turkey” (victoire turque ou capitulation uniopéenne ?).

The figure given by prime minister Orbán is probably outdated. The details of this proposal were from before the Russian intervention in Syria and included giving Turkey a strip of territory in Northern Syria, as already promised by the United States on July 27. Nevertheless after the Russian intervention the European Union was not able any more to deliver this strip of Syrian territory and therefore Turkey asked for more in compensation.

Although until the end of September the European Union was considering offering to Turkey only one billion euros, the oral proposal of the three European presidents on October 5 was already up to three billion (to compensate for the impossibility to offer a piece of Syria) even though president Juncker claimed until the European Council of October 15 that he had only proposed one billion, and by the way his negotiator Merkel was forced, in Ankara on October 18, to accept the principle of a yearly renewal of these three billions (the agreement signed on November 29 would state an initial amout of three billions “subjet to reexamination”).

After the cold reception of this idea at the European Council of October 15, especially in the Višegrad group, the resistants like Viktor Orbán have probably not been kept informed of the progress of the negotiations with Turkey, and no figure was specified in the agreement signed on November 29.

But it is highly likely that the half-million “refugees from Syria” that the European Union wanted to propose, on October 5, to go get in Turkey, didn’t suffice either to compensate the impossibility to give Turkey a portion of Syria. Since the billion euros offered became three billions (yearly), it wouldn’t be surprising that the half-million “refugees” became a million and a half, which is more or less the number of real Syrians in Turkey (who will cease being refugees as soon as they pass in another country). Of course the certification of Syrian nationality relies on Turkey, since the European countries which severed all diplomatic contacts with Syria are unable to distinguish a real passport issued in Syria from a false one printed in Turkey.

Stratediplo  (draft translation from French)

www.stratediplo.blogspot.com

“Canada in Africa is a haunting chronicle of the bloodletting, destabilization and pillaging of Africa by agents and governments of Canada.

This should be required reading for every human with a conscience.” -Nnimmo Bassey, winner of the Right Livelihood Award and author of To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and the Climate Crisis in Africa. As quoted in Yves Engler’s book Canada in Africa

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:09)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Canada is typically portrayed, domestically and abroad, as a force for good in Africa and the rest of the world.

On its website, the government of Canada boasts of promoting “democracy, governance, human rights and the rule of law,” enhancing “African peace and security,” and  “supporting international development initiatives.”

Do these sentiments reflect reality?

Yves Engler would seem to disagree. He is a Montreal based political analyst and the author of several books on Canadian foreign policy, including The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy (2009), The Ugly Canadian — Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy (2012), and his latest, Canada In Africa — 300 Years of Aid and Exploitation (2015).

In this last volume, Engler details how successive Canadian companies and governments have been implicated in undermining the sovereignty, welfare and rights of the African people to the benefit of wealthy Canadian interests. Canadian involvement in Africa has included:

• Profiting from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade
• Assisting in the European colonization of Africa
• Supporting and promoting neoliberal “structural adjustment” program schemes which encourage privatization and benefit Canadian companies
• Brokering Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (FIPAs) with Burkino Faso and other countries which undermine popular control of domestic economic development to the benefit of Canadian mining companies
• Tax evasion by companies operating in African countries
• Supporting the overthrow of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lamumba
• Canadian Mining companies carrying out hazardous activities in Tanzania and elsewhere while intimidating and abusing the local population through the security personnel they employ.
• Support for the 2006 US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia

Yves Engler went on a book tour in September of 2015. The following video captures his September 29 talk at the University of Winnipeg. (Footage courtesy of Video-grapher Paul Graham) 

During this week’s Global Research News Hour, Yves Engler expands on these critiques of Canadian foreign policy in Africa. As well, he comments on the recent political turmoil brewing in Haiti, and provides his perspective on what changes, if any, have resulted from the replacement of the reviled Harper government with the much more popular Trudeau government.

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:09)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

 

In the first episode of MintPress News’ “Behind the Headline,” MPN editor-in-chief and host Mnar Muhawesh starts by breaking down the supposedly “moderate” Syrian opposition slated to lead peace talks to put an end to the years-long Syrian crisis.

When peace talks were arranged to put an end to the years-long Syrian crisis, there were some questionable parties slated to sit at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Before those talks were postponed in February as fighting escalated in Syria, media buzzed, describing theSyrian opposition leading the talks as “moderate.” Yet there was little mention of who these groups really are, who’s behind them, and their agenda beyond “get rid of Assad.”

So here’s what you need to know about these so-called “moderates”:

The Syrian opposition leading the talks is known as the Syrian High Negotiations Committee — a carefully crafted, non-descript banner, for sure.

That coalition is more complex than its name indicates: It aims to unite the thousands of opposition fighters. But those following the situation in Syria know very well that the Syrian opposition is now mostly made up of armed jihadists vying for power and who have been acting as proxies to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar since 2011 to overthrow the Syrian government.

Many of these “moderate” rebels have ripped Syria apart through sectarianism and violence. And they’ve done it all with weaponry and financial support from competing proxy nations. Further, intelligence officials from NATO member states like the US., Britain, France and Turkey were on the ground, training so-called “moderate” rebels months before the Syrian revolt erupted.

And to top it all off, this coalition to unite these foreign-supplied rebels is Saudi-backed and -sponsored. It wasn’t born in Syria; it was assembled in Riyadh.

The chief negotiator and the spokesperson for the High Negotiations Committee and the groups they represent should raise even more concern:

Salem Muslet, who worked as deputy director for the Gulf Research Center in United Arab Emirates from 1998-2011 (the year the Syrian revolt started), is the vice president of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, which receives weapons and funding from a list of nations including U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

Syrian opposition chief Riad Hijab, right, standing next to High Negotiations Committee (HNC) spokesman Salem al-Meslet, left, as they attend a press conference after Syrian peace talks, at the President Wilson hotel in Geneva, Switzerland, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016. (Martial Trezzini/Keystone via AP)

The group was formed in Doha, Qatar, not Syria, to provide its “international donors with a legitimate, unified channel for all aid to the rebellion by acting as a moderate umbrella group… to govern Syria after Assad is ousted.”

The group’s first president, Sunni Cleric Moaz al-Khatib, described that as meaning they are beholden to their foreign backers.

Al-Khatib resigned in March 2013, lamenting that, foreign powers were placing too many conditions on aid to opposition and armed rebel groups, and were trying to manipulate events for their own interests.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Alloush ,the chief negotiator, represents Jaysh al-Islam. An open ally of al-Qaida’s arm in Syria, the Nusra Front, Jaysh al-Islam is one of the most brutal Sunni Salafist rebel groups operating inside Syria. And it receives funding, arms and other support from Saudi Arabia.

Jaysh al-Islam, also known as the Islamic Front, is known for mass executions, use of starvation as a war tool (as seen in Madaya), kidnappings, pillaging and alleged rapings. They’ve publicly stated that once they oust Assad, they’ll proceed to cleanse the nation of Shiites, Alawites, Kurds, Zoroastrians and Arab Christians as they establish a Salafist Islamic state. It’s no wonder the group has been compared to ISIS.

With the talks postponed, it doesn’t even matter whether they proceed as long as negotiators are working with violent armed groups and rebels like those under the umbrella of the High Negotiations Committee. Besides being counterproductive, it’s the same policy NATO members and the U.N. have adopted in Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan, among others. And in each of those cases, those efforts sunk these nations further into civil war and chaos.

The High Negotiations Committee, and the groups it represents, work in the interests of foreign nations, not in the interests or the will of the Syrian people.

Don’t misunderstand — Syria is in desperate need for peace talks.

The ongoing crisis has led to the deaths of over 250,000 people and 11 million refugees. Syrians are in the impossible position of having to choose between living in a warzone, being targeted by groups like ISIS and competing rebels groups and the Syrian government’s brutal crackdown, or whether to fare dangerous waters to reach safety.

Smoke rises over a battle-scarred Saif Al Dawla district in Aleppo, Syria, on October 2, 2012. (AP Photo)

But anything resembling “peace” talks simply cannot proceed with jihadists and representatives of foreign nations with a blatantly genocidal, apocalyptic vision for the future of the country.

If our leaders truly care about ending terrorism maybe they should start by not participating in it.

And if our leaders truly care about democracy and freedom, then they’d allow the Syrian people choose their own fate without supplying weapons and meddling in their affairs. Maybe, for once, they’d even put people before profits.

Like most peace talks, the goal isn’t ultimately peace. These talks represent little more than political theater to subdue the masses against the tragic situation that we — Western governments and the Gulf Arab nations — allowed to unfold.

This segment of the Behind the Headlines is part of the first episode of the show.  The episode can be viewed in it’s entirety below:

Mnar Muhawesh is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups. She started her career as an independent multimedia journalist covering Midwest and national politics while focusing on civil liberties and social justice issues posting her reporting and exclusive interviews on her blog MintPress, which she later turned MintPress into the global news source it is today. In 2009, Muhawesh also became the first American woman to wear the hijab to anchor/report the news in American media. Muhawesh is also a wife and mother of a rascal four year old boy, juggling her duties as a CEO and motherly tasks successfully as supermom. Contact Mnar at [email protected]. Follow Mnar on Twitter at @mnarmuh 

In 2011, Obama announced his Asia pivot, prioritizing America reasserting its Pacific presence – intending to advance its military footprint. 

The aim is challenging China’s growing economic, political and military strength, along with checking Russia – pressuring Asian nations to ally with Washington’s agenda. 

On Friday, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lie blasted Washington’s increasing militarization of the South China Sea – escalating tensions irresponsibly.

He affirmed Beijing’s intent not to militarize the Nansha Islands and surrounding waters, sovereign Chinese territory. Installing defensive missiles on the territory is its legitimate right.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman Admiral John Kirby claimed Washington “see(s) no indication that (Beijing’s) militarization…stopped. (I)t’s doing nothing…to make the situation…more stable and…secure.”

Hong responded, saying regional demilitarization involves more than a single country. “There should not be double standards or multi-standards for demilitarization in the South China Sea, and the process requires joint efforts from countries in the region and beyond.”

Provocative US air and naval military patrols near Chinese territorial waters and airspace, along with joint exercises with area allies, increase regional tensions and instability.

Hong explained US actions are “the real militarization of the South China Sea,” risking Sino/American confrontation.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi reacted sharply to Western media reports, falsely alleging Beijing’s South China Sea militarization.

He stressed “limited and necessary national defense facilities on China’s territory” is its sovereign right, not provocative militarization.

Beijing’s Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun blasted US policy, saying China “expresses its serious concern over US activities to militarize the South China Sea region.”

“Such actions…would inevitably arouse suspicion,” indicating Washington intends regional “chaos.”

Yang’s remarks followed US Pacific Command head Admiral Harry Harris criticizing China’s legitimate right to pursue development in its sovereign waters.

Calling them “disputed” serves US imperial interests. Harris lied, claiming China’s “aggressive military buildup” undermines regional peace and stability.

Yang minced no words, saying “(t)he US side disregards and distorts the facts and plays up China’s military threat to sow discord between China and the littoral states in the South China Sea. We firmly oppose such actions.”

Last summer, Harris turned truth on its head, saying the South China Sea is “front and center in the tug-of-war between the majority of regional nations that want to maintain the status quo and China that wants to change it to suit its narrow self-interest.”

Washington demands Beijing halt land reclamation and development in its own territorial waters. John Kerry accused China of increasing militarization, ignoring Washington’s provocative actions worldwide.

Claiming legitimate Beijing activities threaten free navigation and area nations is typical US imperial arrogance, concealing its own increasing regional military footprint, risking possible Sino/American confrontation. Potentially confronting China or Russia militarily is sheer madness.

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.

 

The Threat of Nuclear War Is Now HIGHER Than During the Soviet Era

Turkey previously shot down a Russian jet.

Now, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are threatening to invade Syria.

How dangerous could this get, in a worst case scenario?

Robert Parry – the investigative reporter who broke the Iran-Contra story for the Associated Press and Newsweek  –  wrote yesterday:

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Washington’s Blog asked one of America’s top experts on Russia – Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union – what he thought of Parry’s claim.

Cohen said:

Parry is a serious man [“serious” is the highest compliment that an insider can give to someone]. I cannot say it will lead to nuke war, but it is very dangerous, as is quadrupling US/NATO forces near Russia’s borders.

Pavel Felgenhauer – a leading Russian military analyst – also believes that a nuclear war is “very likely” to arise from Russia’s skirmishes with Turkey in Syria.

Last December, U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard – a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Iraq war veteran, and Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard – warned that U.S. policy in Syria could lead to a nuclear war. And see this.

Also in December, retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard, chairman emeritus of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, retired Brigadier General John H. Johns, professor emeritus from US National Defense University, and Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations,  penned an article in Foreign Policy calling for US-Russia cooperation to de-escalate current tensions and diffuse the increasing worrisome nuclear blustering.

American security expert Bruce Blair – a former nuclear-missile launch officer – notes that Turkey’s downing of the Russian warplane at the Syrian-Turkish border “fits a pattern of brinkmanship and inadvertence that is raising tensions and distrust between Russia and US-led NATO,” and that “this escalation could morph by design or inadvertence into a nuclear threat.”

Blair writes that the threat of nuclear war is higher now that during the Soviet era:

Russia has shortened the launch time from what it was during the Cold War. Today, top military command posts in the Moscow area can bypass the entire human chain of command and directly fire by remote control rockets in silos and on trucks as far away as Siberia in only 20 seconds.

Why should this concern us? History shows that crisis interactions, once triggered, take on a life of their own. Military encounters multiply; they become more decentralized, spontaneous and intense. Safeguards are loosened and unfamiliar operational environments cause accidents and unauthorized actions. Miscalculations, misinterpretations and loss of control create a fog of crisis out of which a fog of war may emerge. In short, the slope between the low-level military encounters, the outbreak of crisis and escalation to a nuclear dimension is a steep and slippery one.

(Indeed, the U.S. and Soviets came within seconds of all-out nuclear war on numerous occasions. Andonly the courage of U.S. and Soviet individuals to say no when their superiors told them to fire nuclear weapons – in the face of mistaken readings – saved the planet from nuclear war.)

Russia expert Stephen Cohen agrees that the risks of nuclear war are much higher than people know,telling the Commonwealth Club last year that the threat of nuclear war with Russia is now greater than it was with the Soviets.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry agrees that the risk of nuclear war is higher than during the Soviet era.

Postscript:  Top Russian, American and Polish experts also warn that continued fighting in Ukraine could lead to nuclear war.

At his Friday rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, the billionaire racist and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump held forth on a variety of policy issues—including the Affordable Care Act, the intransigence of Congress, and Japan’s devaluation of the yen—before diving, headfirst, into an email chain hoax involving Muslims, pig blood, and a World War I-era Army officer. The relevant section starts at 33:00 in the video above; you can listen to secondary audio, captured by Gawker’s Gabrielle Bluestone (and beginning at 8:00), in the SoundCloud player below:

The reporter Benjy Sarlin, who also attended the rally, recounted what exactly happened for MSNBC:

Trump repeated—favorably—an apparent myth about how General John Pershing summarily executed dozens of Muslim prisoners in the Philippines with tainted ammunition during a guerrilla war against the occupying United States. “He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,” Trump said. “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the fiftieth person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem, okay?” …

The moral of the tale, according to Trump: “We better start getting tough and we better start getting vigilant, and we better start using our heads or we’re not gonna have a country, folks.”

 

Sarlin notes that the tale of General Pershing’s mass execution of 49 Muslims has been widely discredited by the website Snopes, which gathered historical records of his tour of duty in the Philippines, a cluster of islands in the western Pacific Ocean that were ruled by the United States in the first half of the 20th century. The false anecdote apparently arose from Pershing’s involvement in the Moro Rebellion, a fourteen-year conflict between the Moros, an indigenous Muslim group in the southern Philippines, and the U.S. military.

The most unsettling thing about Trump’s aside isn’t that it’s false, though. It’s that he’s indulging an openly racist murder fantasy—in which an American military officer uses dead Muslims he had killed with bullets dipped in the blood of swine (an animal whose meat and other byproducts are considered impure, and thus forbidden from consumption, by the Qur’an) to terrorize many more Muslims—in order to convince South Carolinians to vote for him.

Presidential candidates are certainly not immune to promulgating fake Internet memes. Nor has Trump been friendly to Muslims, either: In the past few months alone, he’s endorsed preventing Muslims from entering the United States, shuttering a certain number of mosques (while placing the remainder under surveillance), and registering every practicing Muslim in a national database. In that sense, today’s utterance differed in degree, not kind: Trump will say anything, for any reason, if it benefits him. At the same time, this tale gives us a good sense of what kind of person Trump is pandering to, and what exactly such a person would believe.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to think so. In fact, Erdogan is acting like Wednesday’s explosion in the capital was a gift from God. You see, Erdogan and his fellow Islamists think that if they pin the blame for the bombing on luckless patsy,  Salih Neccar, who has links to the Kurdish YPG, then they’ll be able to convince Washington that the YPG is a terrorist organization. And if they can convince Washington that the YPG a terrorist organization,  then Obama will have to break off relations with the YPG even though the Kurdish militia has been helping the US defeat ISIS in Syria.  And if  Obama breaks off relations with the YPG, then he’ll have to depend more on good old Turkey for his footsoldiers which is just hunky-dory with Erdogan  provided that Washington meet his numerous demands, that is.

So, could a bomb blast in Ankara change the outcome of the 5 year-long war in Syria?

It certainly could, if Obama is stupid enough to fall into Erdogan’s trap. But so far that looks unlikely.

The problem with Erdogan’s rationale is that the Obama administration is not convinced that the YPG is a terrorist organization. Nor are they certain that Neccar is guilty.  More important, the US maintains a crucial alliance with  the YPG in Syria which has helped them recapture strategic cities and territory from ISIS in the northern part of the country. The militia has provided the boots on the ground the US needs to prosecute its war in Syria.  Naturally, they are not going to end a relationship like that without solid evidence that the charges are true.

And there are plenty of reasons to believe the charges aren’t true. For example, the head of the Syrian PYD, Salih Muslim, has not only denied all responsibility for the Ankara bombing, but also stated that neither he nor any of his lieutenants have any idea who the perpetrator is.  (The PYD is the political wing of the YPG)

We have never heard of this person Salih Necar,” said Muslim, after which he added, “These accusations are clearly related to Turkish attempts to intervene in Syria.

Of course, Muslim could be lying, but you have to ask yourself whether or not the bombing achieves its political objectives if the perpetrators deny responsibility?  And the answer is “No, it doesn’t.” So why lie?

Here’s more from the New York Times:

…some analysts questioned the plausibility of (Erdogan’s) accusation, since mounting such an attack would jeopardize the group’s American support.

“These allegations are unfounded — lies with no truth to them,” Redur Xelil, a spokesman for the group said via WhatsApp from Qamishli, Syria.

“We are not enemies of Turkey, and our goal is to fight Daesh inside the Syrian borders,” he added, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. “We have no interest in being enemies with Turkey.”…

“Sponsoring or being involved with car bombings in Turkish cities would break its alliance structure with the U.S. and Russia,” said Michael Stephens, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security. “Neither of which the P.Y.D.-Y.P.G. wants. In short, the Y.P.G. have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being involved in this.” (“Turkey Blames Kurdish Militia for Ankara Attack, Challenging U.S.”, New York Times)

So who is responsible for Wednesday’s terrorist attack?

While no one knows for sure, many people think the Turkish government itself might have been involved which isn’t too far fetched when you consider that this same administration was implicated in a similar incident in 2014 when the foreign minister (who is currently the Prime Minister) was caught on tape cooking up a false flag operation with the head of Turkish Intel to create a pretext for invading Syria. Sound familiar? (See here for more.)

The fact that the Erdogan administration has been involved in this type of skullduggery before suggests that they might have gone to the well one time too often.. In any event, given what we know of their past,  the members of the Turkish government should, at the very least, feature very prominently on any list of probable suspects.  Add to that the fact that there’s now tons of evidence showing that the government has been arming, training and  funding terrorists in Syria, and the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that Turkey is governed by a thoroughly untrustworthy lot of  fanatical miscreants whose spurious accusations should be taken with a very large grain of salt..   Here’s more from yesterday’s Hurriyet:

“Although the PKK and the PYD are denying it, the information from the Interior Ministry and intelligence show that they are behind [the attack],” said Erdoğan, referring to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD)…….

“This process will convince our friends in the international community to understand how tight the PYD and YPG’s connection to the PKK is,” Erdoğan said, repeating that Turkey had insisted on the link, submitting documents.”

(Hurriyet)

See? This is all about convincing Washington that they’ve backed the wrong horse. Erdogan wants to muscle-out the Kurds, so he can take their place as place. That way, he can achieve his dream of annexing a 10-by-70 mile-wide strip of Syrian territory just south of the Turkish border that he wants to convert into a “safe zone” to provide a sanctuary for Sunni militants. The plan will prevent the Kurds from creating a contiguous state on the Syrian side of the border and, also, it will help keep open vital supply lines for jihadist allies conducting military operations in other parts of the Syria.

The Obama administration was sympathetic to this plan at one time, but Russia’s entry into the war in late September changed everything. Now the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Iranian Quds Forces and Hezbollah are closing in on the Turkish border which has dashed any chance Turkey might have had to seize and hold Syrian territory without a direct confrontation with Russia, which Washington definitely does not want.  Bottom line: Washington has adjusted its strategy to the new reality on the ground while Turkey and the Saudis are still grasping at straws thinking the war can be won.

Sealing the border is a top priority for Moscow which pins its hopes for ending the war largely on its ability to stop the flow of Sunni fighters crossing over from Turkey.  According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:  “The key point for the ceasefire to work is a task of blocking illegal trafficking across the Turkish-Syrian border, which supports the militants.  Without closing the border it is difficult to expect the ceasefire to take place.” (The ceasefire is scheduled to begin on Friday)

So Russia is going to persist in its plan to close the border regardless of what Turkey does. At the same time, it has tried to signal to Turkey that if it goes ahead with its plan to invade Syria, there will be hell to pay. Check this out from Today’s Zaman:

A senior Russian official threatened Turkey, saying that it will face Russia and Iran if carries out a ground intervention in Syria….. Russia proved in Syria how powerful its weapons are and showed everybody that it will not hesitate to use them if necessary.”  (“Official: Turkey to face Russia, Iran if intervenes in Syria“)

Interestingly, the Russian foreign ministry delivered another chilly warning early Friday after receiving reports that  “Turkish military vehicles had crossed into an area in Syria controlled by the Kurds and were starting to dig trenches near Meidan Ekbis, a town in Aleppo province…. Dozens of Turkish military vehicles advanced 200 meters into the Syrian Kurdish region in Aleppo province on Thursday.” (ANHA news agency)

According to AMN News: ”

Asked about the implications of any ground incursion into Syria, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters: “We view Syria’s territory as the territory of a sovereign state. Any incursion into the territory of a sovereign state is illegal.” (AMN News)

The question is whether Putin will engage the Turkish military in a full-blown war just to recapture a few hundred meters of Syrian sovereign territory. I expect Putin will let the incident slide and chalk it up to “frustration” on Turkey’s part. If that’s the only victory that Erdogan requires, then it’s a price that’s worth paying. Putin has to stay focused on the big picture, and not get diverted by trivialities.

Of course, if Erdogan plans to push further into Syria, then there’s going to be trouble. After all, Moscow’s hands are tied. The only way it can hope to extricate itself from the conflict in Syria is by defeating the jihadists as quickly as possible, clearing out the hotbeds of resistance, and reestablishing security. If Turkey enters the war, that throws a wrench in everything. The tit-for-tat fighting will drag on for years, and there will probably never be a clear winner. This is exactly what Putin hopes to avoid. So, if Turkey launches an invasion and sends in ground troops, Putin will be forced to strike with everything-he’s-got to see if one, big shock and awe display of raw military power is enough to reverse the trend and send Erdogan’s legions packing. If it doesn’t work, and Turkey digs in, Syria could devolve into the mother of all quagmires, which is why we’re a little surprised that Obama is not pursuing a plan that would draw Turkey deeper into the fray, after all, Washington gains nothing strategically from its support for the YPG. In a way, the alliance makes no sense. Does Washington care about Kurdish aspirations for a homeland?

No. Does Obama want to help Putin clear the area North of Aleppo of jihadists, militants and opposition forces?

Of course not. Then what does Washington get?

Nothing.

An alliance with Erdogan, on the other hand, provides Washington with the footsoldiers it needs to fight its proxy war with Russia. It also creates a situation where Russia could get bogged down for years in a conflict that could drain its resources, undermine morale, and precipitate social unrest at home. Isn’t that exactly what Washington wants?

Indeed, it is, but there’s one glitch to the strategy that obviously has US ruling elites so worried that they have abandoned their support for any Turkish-led invasion into Syria.

What is that glitch?

It’s the fact that Turkish ground troops would require US air-cover and that, in turn, would pave the way for a military confrontation between Washington and Moscow. And that’s why Obama and Co. have scrapped the idea and moved on to Plan B.

So as reckless as one might think US foreign policy is, Washington still does not want to mix-it-up with Russia. We can all be thankful for that.

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].

Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?

Yesterday we reported the good news that Russia had brokered a deal with the US to allow Humanitarian aid to finally enter the western- backed terrorist besieged villages of Kafarya and Foua.  While the sun never sets on the Madaya propaganda, these two villages have been left in the shade by mainstream media, International aid organisations, the UN and “regime change” intent Western governments.

Today, however,  we received the following distressing statement from the Specialist Hospital in al Foua:

Statement by the Specialist Hospital of Al Fua and the People of the Besieged Towns of Al Fua and Kefraya on the Recent UN Humanitarian Aid Delivery

Residents of the two towns besieged by al-Qaeda terrorist gangs received, with a great deal of hope, the news of an international agreement in Munich, regarding the facilitation of humanitarian aid deliveries to the besieged areas.  The hope came after a long-standing series of disappointments due to irresponsible behaviour, mistakes and the bad practices of the International organizations concerned.

Accumulated instances of malpractice have led us to conclude that these organisations have deliberately penalised the residents of Kafarya and Foua.

The hopes of the hungry children and the elderly patients quickly faded and were downtrodden as the roar of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent trucks arriving in our towns subsided and we saw the poor quality of the goods being delivered.  Many of the items were damaged or perished.  Many of the supplies had to be destroyed as they were useless.  Equally many of the items essential to ensure the continuation of hospital work and to meet civilian’s basic needs were simply not delivered.

We, in the only hospital in the towns, and on behalf of our suffering people, call the United Nations and its representative in Syria, Mr Staffan de Mistura, to listen to the following:

The United Nations and its affiliated organizations are not dealing realistically with the needs of the population. They seem to act in accordance with programs designed for other regions of the world that suffer from entirely different problems. Mr. de Mistura please take note that we are in Syria, in a rich and generous land surrounded by militants belonging to globally classified terrorist groups. We are not in Somalia suffering from famine caused by drought and desertification. We emphasize that the continuation of this policy and the ignoring of our repeated requests [ that are transmitted through officially adopted channels of communication] is forcing us to conclude that these policies are deliberate and are stemming from malicious intent rather than just negligence and irresponsibility.

International Organizations consistently ignore very specific and clear needs and are assiduously failing to meet those needs time after time. Especially for some medical supplies and essential medicines, like the anaesthesia drugs, sterilization and hygiene products. Our medical staff are wondering if they are expected to conduct surgical operations in the hospital without anaesthesia. Or is the hospital destined, by you, to become the incubator for the spread of infections rather than as a centre for healing them?

The hospital is also surprised by the lack of supplies of diabetes medications in particular, especially insulin, as well as anti-hypertensive drugs, diuretics and many other chronic disease medications. Would you, Mr de Mistura accept this situation for your own family or loved ones?  Do you feel good when the health conditions of our diabetic patients gradually deteriorate to a slow death.  A tragedy that has already befallen people in our besieged towns.

As for our suffering children, our medical staff here are demanding to know why, for 10 months, you have not supplied any vaccines. We know that these International Organisations supply these simple vaccines globally, even during peace time.  We know that they distribute them on a regular basis to residents in the surrounding areas who live under terrorist rule.  It seems that Mr de Mistura is not aware that thousands of children trapped in our towns are at risk of getting sick from diseases that could be prevented by these vaccines, that you have consistently failed to supply.

In addition to all of the above the UN continues to provide aid that is lacking specific categories of medicine, like antibiotics, cough, cold, diarrhoea, anti-spasmodic, anti-allergy drugs, dermal ointments and diapers. Thus exacerbating our original crisis resulting from the deprivation of diesel oil.

This fuel deprivation renders it impossible to access clean, safe water and subsequently leads to the inevitable spread of disease. Transportation of the sick and wounded to hospital is a slow process, especially those injuries arising from the daily escalation of Al Qaeda violations of the established ceasefire.  Added to this are the sickness and deprivation caused by the cold weather, lack of fuel for warmth, the huge decline in agricultural production and the enforced consumption of the two towns stored resources because of the siege conditions.

May we remind you that the Syrian people are, above all, a resourceful and productive people. If you were to supply us with the fuel, that would be sufficient for many of our needs.  We can even feed our neighbours from the wheat stores and the bounty from our own land.  Currently our grain stockpiles are being consumed by mould as there is no way for us to grind and bake it.  The UN even ignored our requests for preservatives to help us to conserve it more efficiently.

Lack of supplies for our radiography unit and diagnostic laboratory have closed these departments down completely.

The quality of foodstuff supplied is appalling. Much of it is decaying or stale.  There is no diversity.  We have no vegetables, fruit, meat, sugar, tea and coffee.  These essential goods are not even included in the aid deliveries or in very low quantities.  The milk that the people in Madaya complained about being in short supply, we can confirm that supplies have been non-existent to Kafarya and Foua for many months now except for scant supplies of powdered milk.

Thus, all of the above clearly demonstrates the determination of the staff of the United Nations notto deal with us as human beings that have requests and needs that should be respected. They only want to send us what overflows from the warehouses of second rate materials without regard to our needs.

As for our response; it will definitely be the continuation of resistance and attachment to our land and our homes.  We are also determined to remain true to our cultural, religious and humanitarian identity, and to stand by our political choices. As for the representatives of the international community both individuals and organizations, they will continue to be responsible for the cynical aggravation of our suffering and in so doing, they ally themselves with the forces of darkness and terrorism against our oppressed civilians.

From the Specialist Hospital of AlFua, AlFua, Idlib, February 19, 2016

Today we also received a message from a relative of 10 year old Najeb Ahmad Hallak, shot through the heart by the Ahrar al Sham thugs surrounding al Foua and Kafarya.  The message was very simple.

“I lose my friends.  I lose my family.  I lose my future.  I lose my dreams”

In Summary

When we read of the UN’s apparent deliberate malpractice towards the besieged and marginalised villages of Kafarya and Foua, their actions and inactions exacerbating the humanitarian situation as opposed to improving it, we have to again question the UN’s neutrality in Syria.

Their claims that it is the Syrian government preventing deliveries of humanitarian aid must be doubted in the light of this report. Particularly when those claims are also denied by Dr Al Jaafari, permanent Syrian representative to the UN, who is adamant that, in the case of Madaya, it was the UN who had logistical problems that delayed their entry into Madaya.

If nothing else we must question the humanity of any Humanitarian organisation that can wilfully destroy hope and reinforce despair.

Humanism is the only – I would go so far as saying the final- resistance we have against the inhuman practices and injustices that disfigure human history.  ~ Edward Said

PDF Version: Statement by the Specialist Hospital of AlFua and the People of the Besieged Towns of AlFua

***

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

Between 3,000 and 5,000 so-called ‘foreign fighters’ – EU citizens trained in Islamic state terror camps – have returned to Europe and pose a “completely new challenge,” according the continent’s top police chief.

“Europe is currently facing the highest terror threat in more than in a decade,” Rob Wainwright, Europol’s director,told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, warning of the real possibility of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or other terror groups attacks in Europe.

“We can expect [IS] or other religious terror groups to stage an attack somewhere in Europe with the aim of achieving mass casualties among the civilian population,” he said, noting that the risk of attacks by individuals has also not diminished.

However, Wainwright refused to link the unprecedented increase in the terror threat with the ongoing refugee crisis. He refuted the widespread assumption that terrorists are infiltrating Europe under the guise of asylum seekers.

“There are no concrete indications that terrorists are systematically using the stream of refugees to come into Europe undetected,”Wainwright said.

Last month, former UK Defense Secretary Liam Fox expressed concern that jihadists could sneak into the EU among asylum-seekers. Southern European countries through which they travel“have no idea whether these people are genuine refugees or asylum seekers, or economic migrants, or terrorists operating under the cover of either,” he said.

These worries were substantiated after the German domestic intelligence service confirmed in February that it had received more than 100 tip-offs alleging IS militants had arrived in the country pretending to be refugees. The news prompted further debate on EU migration policy.

Last year, FBI Director James Comey confirmed to the US Senate committee that Islamic State terrorists had obtained at least one printing machine used to provide militants with authentic-looking Syrian passports. The machine is believed to have been seized by terrorists during an IS offensive on the city of Deir ez-Zour. The revelation sparked concerns that large amounts of forged IDs can be manufactured in IS-controlled territories.

Two fraudulent Syrian passports were found at the site of the Paris attacks, which claimed the lives of 130 people in November. They are believed to belong to suicide bombers, who arrived in Europe via refugee routes.

In February, the FSB (Russian security agency) captured 14 gang members who were forging passports for Islamic extremists heading to Syria and planning to conduct terrorist and extremist activities in Russia.

According to a report on global terrorism from the Institute of Economics and Peace, since the start of the military conflict in Syria in 2011 between 25,000 and 30,000 ‘foreign fighters’ have arrived in Iraq and Syria, with Europe accounting for 21 percent of the total number.

First published in November 2015.

Erdogan is an international outlaw, He’s supporting ISIS, US proxy foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, directly involved in their oil smuggling, refining and sales worth hundreds of millions of dollars on the black market.

America and other Western  nations are well aware of what’s going on, doing nothing to stop it, aiding it by inaction and/or direct support – Russia alone intervening by bombing ISIS’ truck pipeline, transporting oil along with its facilities in Syria, 

Mowaffak al Rubaie is a former Iraqi Governing Council member/national security advisor. Interviewed by RT International, he explained “(i)n the last eight months (alone), ISIS (sold) $800 million dollars worth of (stolen) oil on the black market of Turkey.”

“This is Iraqi oil and Syrian oil, carried by trucks from Iraq, from Syria through the borders to Turkey and sold (at) less than 50 percent of the international oil price.”

“Now this either gets consumed inside, the crude refined on Turkish territory by the Turkish refineries, and sold in the Turkish market or it goes to Jihan and then in the pipelines from Jihan to the Mediterranean and sold to the international market.”

“Money and dollars generated by selling Iraqi and Syrian oil on the Turkish black market is like the oxygen supply to ISIS and it’s operation. Once you cut the oxygen then ISIS will suffocate.”

Al Rubaie stressed “no shadow of  a doubt” about Turkey’s full knowledge and involvement in what’s ongoing. Responsibility goes right to the top. Reports suggest that Erdogan’s son, Bilal, is actively engaged in illegal smuggling, selling and profiting from stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil, facilitated by Turkey’s security apparatus and intelligence.

Erdogan’s regime treats wounded ISIS terrorists in Turkish hospitals in border areas and Istanbul. Daesh recruits are trained in Turkey by CIA operatives and US special forces. They move freely cross-border to and from Syria and Iraq.

Al Rubaie said “no terrorist organization…can stand alone without a neighboring country helping it.” Complicit with Washington, Turkey is directly involved along with other NATO countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Israel.

Without this type backing, ISIS and other terrorist groups couldn’t exist. America bears full responsibility for creating them – complicit nations aiding its imperial enterprise.

Putin prioritizes crippling ISIS’ oil smuggling operations, destroying its ability to generate enormous revenues from black market  sales. None of this could go on without direct Erdogan regime involvement.

Russian pilots and drones observed and photographed a “living oil pipeline” – transporting vehicles moving as far as the eye can see and beyond the horizon, round-the-clock, heading for Turkey, returning empty to reload and head out again.

Since Russian air operations began targeting ISIS’ financial lifeline, over 1,000 oil transporting trucks were destroyed along with with depots and other facilities in Syria.

Assad’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said “Turkey continues to maintain export and transportation of oil stolen in Iraq and Syria by ISIL militants. Then, the oil is transported to ports abroad.”

Sergey Lavrov explained high-level Turkish officials “carefully protect any information about their oil smuggling deals. (It’s) transported (in) the area where the Russian plane was shot down, and (where) the terrorist infrastructure, arms and munitions depots and control centers” are located.

Retired French General Dominique Trinquand accused Turkey of “either not fighting ISIL at all or very little, and does not interfere with different types of smuggling that takes place on its border, be it oil, phosphate, cotton or people.”

On Saturday, Turkish police arrested Ankara Gendarmerie Regional Commander Major General Ibrahim Aydin, former Adana Gendarmerie Regional Commander Brigadier General Hamza Celepoglu and former Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory Head Colonel Burhanettin Cihangiroglu on charges of treason and espionage – for revealing information about regime authorities transporting weapons cross-border to ISIS terrorists in Syria.

Charges relate to a January 2014 incident when they were involved in intercepting weapons-filled trucks belonging to Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT).

In May 2015, Turkish Cumhuriyet media published information about it, posting photos of MIT trucks being inspected by security officers.

Large amounts of heavy and other weapons were heading cross-border to Syria. The publication’s editor-in-chief and Ankara bureau chief now face treason and espionage charges for exposing regime criminality.

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. 

The military draft has not been used in the United States since 1973, but the machinery has remained in place (costing the federal government about $25 million a year). Males over 18 have been required to register for the draft since 1940 (except between 1975 and 1980) and still are today, with no option to register as conscientious objectors or to choose peaceful productive public service. Some in Congress have been making “enlightened” feminist noises about forcing young women to register as well. In most states young men who get driver’s licenses are automatically registered for the draft without their permission (and virtually all of those states’ governments claim that automatically registering people to vote would just not be realistic). When you apply for financial aid for college, if you’re male, you probably won’t get it until after a mandatory check to see if you’re registered for the draft.

A new bill in Congress would abolish the draft, and a petition in support of it has gained a good deal of traction. But a significant contingent among those who sincerely want peace vehemently opposes ending the draft, and in fact favors drafting young people into war starting tomorrow. Since coming out as a supporter of the new legislation, I’ve encountered far more support than opposition. But the opposition has been intense and sizable. I’ve been called naive, ignorant, ahistorical, and desirous of slaughtering poor boys to protect the elite children I supposedly care exclusively about.

Mr. Moderator, may I have a thirty-second rebuttal, as the distinguished demagogue addressed me directly?

We’re all familiar with the argument behind peace activists’ demand for the draft, the argument that Congressman Charles Rangel made when proposing to start up a draft some years back. U.S. wars, while killing almost exclusively innocent foreigners, also kill and injure and traumatize thousands of U.S. troops drawn disproportionately from among those lacking viable educational and career alternatives. A fair draft, rather than a poverty draft, would send — if not modern-day Donald Trumps, Dick Cheneys, George W. Bushes, or Bill Clintons — at least some offspring of relatively powerful people to war. And that would create opposition, and that opposition would end the war. That’s the argument in a nutshell. Let me offer 10 reasons why I think this is sincere but misguided.

1. History doesn’t bear it out. The drafts in the U.S. civil war (both sides), the two world wars, and the war on Korea did not end those wars, despite being much larger and in some cases fairer than the draft during the American war on Vietnam. Those drafts were despised and protested, but they took lives; they did not save lives. The very idea of a draft was widely considered an outrageous assault on basic rights and liberties even before any of these drafts. In fact, a draft proposal was successfully argued down in Congress by denouncing it as unconstitutional, despite the fact that the guy who had actually written most of the Constitution was also the president who was proposing to create the draft. Said Congressman Daniel Webster on the House floor at the time (1814): “The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion…Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not…Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?” When the draft came to be accepted as an emergency wartime measure during the civil and first world wars, it never would have been tolerated during peacetime. (And it’s still not anywhere to be found in the Constitution.) Only since 1940 (and under a new law in ’48), when FDR was still working on manipulating the United States into World War II, and during the subsequent 75 years of permanent wartime has “selective service” registration gone on uninterrupted for decades. The draft machine is part of a culture of war that makes kindergarteners pledge allegiance to a flag and 18-year-old males sign up to express their willingness to go off and kill people as part of some unspecified future government project. The government already knows your Social Security number, sex, and age. The purpose of draft registration is in great part war normalization.

2. People bled for this. When voting rights are threatened, when elections are corrupted, and even when we are admonished to hold our noses and vote for one or another of the god-awful candidates regularly placed before us, what are we reminded of? People bled for this. People risked their lives and lost their lives. People faced fire hoses and dogs. People went to jail. That’s right. And that’s why we should continue the struggle for fair and open and verifiable elections. But what do you think people did for the right not to be drafted into war? They risked their lives and lost their lives. They were hung up by their wrists. They were starved and beaten and poisoned. Eugene Debs, hero of Senator Bernie Sanders, went to prison for speaking against the draft. What would Debs make of the idea of peace activists supporting a draft in order to stir up more peace activism? I doubt he’d be able to speak through his tears.

3. Millions dead is a cure worse than the disease. I am very well convinced that the peace movement shortened and ended the war on Vietnam, not to mention removing a president from office, helping to pass other progressive legislation, educating the public, communicating to the world that there was decency hiding in the United States, and — oh, by the way — ending the draft. And I have zero doubt that the draft had helped to build the peace movement. But the draft did not contribute to ending the war before that war had done far more damage than has any war since. We can cheer for the draft ending the war, but four million Vietnamese lay dead, along with Laotians, Cambodians, and over 50,000 U.S. troops. And as the war ended, the dying continued. Many more U.S. troops came home and killed themselves than had died in the war. Children are still born deformed by Agent Orange and other poisons used. Children are still ripped apart by explosives left behind. If you add up numerous wars in numerous nations, the United States has inflicted death and suffering on the Middle East to equal or surpass that in Vietnam, but none of the wars has used anything like as many U.S. troops as were used in Vietnam. If the U.S. government had wanted a draft and believed it could get away with starting one, it would have. If anything, the lack of a draft has restrained the killing. The U.S. military would add a draft to its existing billion-dollar recruitment efforts, not replace one with the other. And the far greater concentration of wealth and power now than in 1973 pretty well assures that the children of the super-elite would not be conscripted.

4. Don’t underestimate support for a draft. The United States has a much greater population than do most countries of people who say they are ready to support wars and even of people who say they would be willing to fight a war. Forty-four percent of U.S. Americans now tell Gallup polling that they “would” fight in a war. Why aren’t they now fighting in one? That’s an excellent question, but one answer could be: Because there’s no draft. What if millions of young men in this country, having grown up in a culture absolutely saturated in militarism, are told it’s their duty to join a war? You saw how many joined without a draft between September 12, 2001, and 2003. Is combining those misguided motivations with a direct order from the “commander in chief” (whom many civilians already refer to in those terms) really what we want to experiment with? To protect the world from war?!

5. The supposedly non-existent peace movement is quite real. Yes, of course, all movements were bigger in the 1960s and they did a great deal of good, and I’d willingly die to bring back that level of positive engagement. But the notion that there has been no peace movement without the draft is false. The strongest peace movement the United States has seen was probably that of the 1920s and 1930s. The peace movements since 1973 have restrained the nukes, resisted the wars, and moved many in the United States further along the path toward supporting war abolition. Public pressure blocked the United Nations from supporting recent wars, including the 2003 attack on Iraq, and made supporting that war such a badge of shame that it has kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House at least once so far. It also resulted in concern in 2013 among members of Congress that if they backed the bombing of Syria they’d been seen as having backed “another Iraq.” Public pressure was critical in upholding a nuclear agreement with Iran last year. There are many ways to build the movement. You can elect a Republican president and easily multiply the ranks of the peace movement 100-fold the next day. But should you? You can play on people’s bigotry and depict opposition to a particular war or weapons system as nationalistic and macho, part of preparation for other better wars. But should you? You can draft millions of young men off to war and probably see some new resisters materialize. But should you? Have we really given making the honest case for ending war on moral, economic, humanitarian, environmental, and civil liberties grounds a fair try?

6. Doesn’t Joe Biden’s son count? I too would love to see a bill passed requiring that congress members and presidents deploy to the front lines of any war they support. But in a society gone mad enough for war, even steps in that direction wouldn’t end the war making. It appears the U.S. military killed the Vice President’s son through reckless disregard for its own cannon fodder. Will the Vice President even mention it, much less make a move to end the endless warmaking? Don’t hold your breath. U.S. Presidents and Senators used to be proud to send their offspring off to die. If Wall Street can out-do the gilded age, so can the servants of the military industrial complex.

7. We build a movement to end war by building a movement to end war. The surest way we have of reducing and then ending militarism, and the racism and materialism with which it is interwoven, is to work for the end of war. By seeking to make wars bloody enough for the aggressor that he stops aggressing, we would essentially be moving in the same direction as we already have by turning public opinion against wars in which U.S. troops die. I understand that there might be more concern over wealthier troops and greater numbers of troops. But if you can open people’s eyes to the lives of gays and lesbians and transgendered people, if you can open people’s hearts to the injustices facing African Americans murdered by police, if you can bring people to care about the other species dying off from human pollution, surely you can also bring them even further along than they’ve already come in caring about the lives of U.S. troops not in their families — and perhaps even about the lives of the non-Americans who make up the vast majority of those killed by U.S. warmaking. One result of the progress already made toward caring about U.S. deaths has been greater use of robotic drones. We need to be building opposition to war because it is the mass murder of beautiful human beings who are not in the United States and could never be drafted by the United States. A war in which no Americans die is just as much a horror as one in which they do. That understanding will end war.

8. The right movement advances us in the right direction. Pushing to end the draft will expose those who favor it and increase opposition to their war mongering. It will involve young people, including young men who do not want to register for the draft and young women who do not want to be required to start doing so. A movement is headed in the right direction if even a compromise is progress. A compromise with a movement demanding a draft would be a small draft. That would almost certainly not work any of the magic intended, but would increase the killing. A compromise with a movement to end the draft might be the ability to register for non-military service or as a conscientious objector. That would be a step forward. We might develop out of that new models of heroism and sacrifice, new nonviolent sources of solidarity and meaning, new members of a movement in favor of substituting civilized alternatives for the whole institution of war.

9. The war mongers want the draft too. It’s not only a certain section of peace activists who want the draft. So do the true war mongers. The selective service tested its systems at the height of the occupation of Iraq, preparing for a draft if needed. Various powerful figures in D.C. have proposed that a draft would be more fair, not because they think the fairness would end the warmaking but because they think the draft would be tolerated. Now, what happens if they decide they really want it? Should it be left available to them? Shouldn’t they at least have to recreate the selective service first, and to do so up against the concerted opposition of a public facing an imminent draft? Imagine if the United States joins the civilized world in making college free. Recruitment will be devastated. The poverty draft will suffer a major blow. The actual draft will look very desirable to the Pentagon. They may try more robots, more hiring of mercenaries, and more promises of citizenship to immigrants. We need to be focused on cutting off those angles, as well as on in fact making college free.

10. Take away the poverty draft too. The unfairness of the poverty draft is not grounds for a larger unfairness. It needs to be ended too. It needs to be ended by opening up opportunities to everyone, including free quality education, job prospects, life prospects. Isn’t the proper solution to troops being stop-lossed not adding more troops but waging less war? When we end the poverty draft and the actual draft, when we actually deny the military the troops it needs to wage war, and when we create a culture that views murder as wrong even when engaged in on a large scale and even when all the deaths are foreign, then we’ll actually get rid of war, not just acquire the ability to stop each war 4 million deaths into it.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director ofWorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books includeWar Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.

War Is A Lie: Second Edition, published by Just World Books on April 5, 2016. Please buy it online that day. I’ll come anywhere in the world to speak about it. Invite me!

After their service in the Gulf War conflict from 1990-1991, hundreds of thousands of our country’s veterans began suffering from multiple and diverse debilitating symptoms including neurological and respiratory disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, psychological problems, skin conditions and gastrointestinal issues.

This cluster of symptoms came to be known as Gulf War syndrome. Independent investigations, including those conducted by many of the Gulf War veterans themselves, showed multiple causes behind Gulf War syndrome, including experimental vaccines and medications; exposure to depleted uranium (DU); toxicity from biological and chemical weapons, oil fires, and other environmental contaminants.

Yet for nearly two decades, the official word from the Veterans Administration (VA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the White House was that Gulf War syndrome did not exist. The result? Countless returning military personnel struggled for years to have their physical illnesses recognized as something other than psychological.

The latest official statistics compiled by the VA show that 25%-30%, or as many as 250,000 Gulf War veterans have suffered from this life-threatening spectrum of illnesses. (1) The number of deaths attributable to Gulf War syndrome remains elusive, however, the US government has failed to address this critical matter. A VA report released in 2014 weighs in on the disturbing oversight:

No comprehensive information has been published on the mortality experience of U.S. Gulf War era veterans after the year 2000. The 14 years for which no mortality figures are available represent more than half of the 23 years since Desert Storm. Mortality information from the last decade is particularly crucial for understanding the health consequences of the Gulf War, given the Epidemiological Research latency periods associated with many chronic diseases of interest. Despite specific recommendations over many years from both the current Committee and Institute of Medicine panels, federal research efforts to monitor the mortality experience of 1990-1991 Gulf War veterans remain seriously inadequate. (2)

How has the federal government managed to avoid taking responsibility on an issue that profoundly impacts the lives of hundreds of thousands of our veterans? Such is the power of the military-industrial complex and the political machine in Washington DC. It seems that as long as the government can deny its role in exposing our soldiers to unproven and toxic vaccines, medications, biological and chemical weapons and depleted uranium, it wouldn’t have to provide medical care to the victims of Gulf War illness. This is, quite simply, one of the largest medical scandals and coverups in American history. For nearly two decades, the American media supported the official position that Gulf War Syndrome was only in the heads of our veterans, while legions of vets and their families were hung out to dry and die. The administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have been complicit in the plot, and therefore stand accused of massive human rights violations. Yet American media denies it completely.

In this special two part investigation it will become clear that these claims are not wild conspiracy theories or anti-government rants, but based on firsthand testimony from veterans and years of solid scientific research. All these facts paint a sobering picture of the insidious corruption, lies and negligence on the part of our government, which has, quite literally, killed our own.

***

I started reporting on the alarming emergence of Gulf War syndrome in the mid nineties. In a 1994 cover story in a national publication and based on my original 2 year investigation, I discussed the disturbing link between exposure to experimental drugs and other chemical toxins and the host of serious health problems among servicemen and women who participated in the Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm. In the article, I interviewed vets who spoke not only about suffering deeply from various symptoms, but also how their attempts to bring their circumstances to light and receive healthcare were effectively stonewalled by US government.

One such serviceman was Paul Sullivan, who spoke to me about the hardships he faced, stating:

I first became ill right there in the gulf, with rashes and what we just considered runny noses. It never went away. I ended up with chronic sinusitis, chronic bronchitis, learned I had a tuberculosis infection. The rashes still haven’t gone away. The VA completely blew me off for two years until I went public·and talked on your radio station…. Before then, the VA was in the process of purging people’s records, denying them service…. This denial of the problem-that it even exists-by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is absolutely shocking, immoral, and unconscionable-absolutely outrageous. (3)

My investigative article also covered the findings of two federally appointed researchers who presented an incendiary report at a May 1994 Congressional hearing on the topic “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health?”. The report, written by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and Dr. Patricia Olsen, points to an effort by the DoD to fast-track Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of certain experimental drugs designed to protect soldiers against wartime chemical exposure. According to the report, the DoD told the FDA that botulinum toxoid (botulism) vaccine and the anti-nerve gas drug pyridostigmine bromide were safe and effective for long-term use, despite the fact that no such evidence existed. Further, the researchers showed that DoD studies on the drugs employed shoddy scientific methodology and turned up ample evidence of serious adverse side effects. Another disturbing fact was the lack of soldiers’ informed consent. I explained in the article that:

According to Zuckerman and Olson, initially the Department of Defense assured the F.D.A. that investigational drugs would be administered to soldiers on a voluntary basis. Information on the products would be provided, and soldiers would be monitored for ill effects. As it turned out, though, none of these conditions were met. The Defense Department got the F.D.A. to grant them waivers from informed-consent regulations for the use of pyridostigmine and botulinum-toxoid vaccine. As a result, many gulf veterans were not told what vaccine they were being given or what the risks were. (4)

Despite years of mounting evidence, it was not until 2008 that Gulf War syndrome was officially recognized as a distinct illness after a US Congress-appointed committee released an analysis of over 100 studies related to Gulf War illnesses. The committee concluded that there was a clear link to specific chemical exposures. The chemicals identified included pesticides, pyridostigmine bromide, and the nerve gas sarin that troops may have been exposed to during the demolition of a weapons depot. The committee’s chief scientist, Dr. Beatrice Golomb, singled out the acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor drugs such as pyridostigmine bromide as having a particularly strong connection to the development of veterans’ ill health. She also revealed that some people appear to be particularly at risk from such chemicals due to genetic variations that impair enzyme function. When exposed, these people run a much higher risk for developing symptoms and disease (5).

The committee concluded that Gulf War illnesses are certainly physical in nature and that the psychological stressors experienced by Gulf War vets, while substantial, were inadequate to account for the extent of their illnesses. The committee findings reported that more than a quarter of the 700,000 US veterans of the 1991 conflict have suffered from the illness.(6)

***

Before we dig deeper into the politics and deceit that has, and in some ways continues to suppress the Gulf War syndrome issue, let’s first take a closer look at the 25 years of scientific inquiry establishing a link between the multiple toxins to which our soldiers were exposed and the long list of Gulf War-related illnesses .

Deconstructing the Symptoms and Science of Gulf War Syndrome

The term Gulf War syndrome is not an easily defined condition, but rather encompasses a wide variety of ailments. Former congressman Steven Buyer (R-IN), whose Army reserve unit was stationed at a prisoner of war camp in the region, calls Gulf War syndrome a misnomer, explaining that he and other afflicted servicemen have been plagued with a broad spectrum of chronic disorders. Having experienced some of the symptoms firsthand, Buyer attributes the heightened frequency of illnesses among veterans to the wide variety of hazardous substances they encountered in the Gulf, including poison gases, diesel fumes, petroleum-related pollution, parasites, experimental medications, and biological warfare agents.(7) According to the Association of Birth Defect Children, Gulf War exposures include, but are not limited to: DEET, permethrin, pyridostigmine, pentachlorophenol, benzocaine sulfur, aluminum phosphide, baygon, boric acid, Sevin, amidinohydrazone, diazinon, Dursban, dichlorvos, Ficam, carbaryl, lindane, malathion, oil well fires, leaded fuels, depleted uranium, solvents, DeContam agent, malaria pills, campfires, leishmaniasis, chemical warfare agents, CARC, experimental vaccinations (including those with squalene), D-phenothrin, allethrin, paint toxins, and many others. (8)

Dr. Boaz Milner, who practiced at the VA hospital in Allen Park, Michigan, treated hundreds of patients claiming to have become ill as a result of their Gulf War experience. Milner agrees with Buyer that the collection of symptoms that have manifested can be attributed to a variety of factors, which he has categorized into five syndromes. Milner’s first category of Gulf War syndrome sufferers consists of soldiers who were exposed to excessive quantities of radiation, likely a result of the depleted uranium used in munitions. The second form was induced by the widespread use of experimental vaccines that were designed to protect the troops from the harmful elements they would encounter, while another category encompasses veterans exposed to various environmental pollutants, including the more than 700 burning oil wells that contaminated the region’s air and water. Milner believes that other soldiers may have contracted illnesses due to the presence of toxic chemical compounds, such as pesticides. The fifth form of the syndrome was brought on by the release of biological warfare agents.(9) With so many exposures, it is logical to anticipate a broad spectrum of symptoms for sufferers of Gulf War syndrome.

Chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome affects over half of Gulf War victims, according to Dr. Garth Nicolson, President and Founder of the Institute for Molecular Medicine, who, with his wife, molecular biophysicist Dr. Nancy Nicolson, spent years studying veteran health conditions. Other symptoms pointed out by Nicolson include lymphoma, cardiac ailments, memory loss, leukoencephalopathy, and neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Also common to sufferers are dizziness, nausea, stomach pains, light sensitivity, intense anxiety, breathing difficulty, muscle spasms, diarrhea, blurred vision, inexplicable skin rashes, hives, bleeding gums, eye redness, night sweats, and acute migraine-like headaches. (10)

Vaccines

The effects from the mélange of chemicals Gulf War vets were exposed to is impossible to unravel fully after examining the brutal fact that the experimental vaccines mixed with unmonitored medicine had never been proven safe. In fact, the widespread use of experimental vaccines during Desert Storm has been cited by many as a possible cause of Gulf War syndrome. Dr. Garth Nicolson elaborates, “I’m not a big fan of experimental vaccines. There have been too many mistakes. Usually you find these things out years later. Often agents that we think innocuous turn out to be harmful.”(11) Even worse, during the Gulf War, the established procedures of vaccination were neglected and ignored. Normally, only one inoculation should be given at a time, but the military insisted on giving multiple shots at once, which, according to Nicolson, is the worst thing you can do because it suppresses the immune system. (12)

The troops immunized for the Gulf became government guinea pigs. They received experimental vaccines, such anthrax and botulinum, which were not approved for use by the FDA and have since been shown to cause potentially dangerous side effects. Soldiers who were given these experimental vaccines, without informed consent, have reported suffering from a variety of neurological problems and aberrant bleeding from various parts of the body.

Neil Tetzlaff, a lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force during the Gulf War, testified at a senate hearing of his symptoms:

On the plane ride to Saudi and during my first day in-country, I was nauseated and vomited. I attributed the sickness to the plane ride and tenseness of the situation. On my second day there, I vomited again and felt different. I attributed the sickness to something I’d eaten. On the third day, I was extremely nauseated and vomited multiple times. I sought out the doctor and discussed my illness with him. We dismissed it as something I had eaten at the Saudi canteen. On my fourth day there, I vomited violently, the worst ever of my life, and was acting a bit off center and muddled. … On the morning of the seventh day, I vomited about a quart of blood. Since deployed for Desert Shield, I have been suffering moderate to severe and intolerable pain, and fatigue, and lately have developed one heck of a palsy. I’ve lost [much of] my ability to speak because I can’t recall words, have extreme problems with my short-term memory, and I had a dramatic change in my olfactory system. The last three and a half years have been extremely difficult on me and my family.(13)

Not only did the experimental vaccines pose a threat to the troops’ immune systems, the anthrax vaccination contained squalene, an unapproved adjuvant linked to devastating autoimmune diseases. The DOD made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Gulf War military personnel. (14) Despite these efforts, unusually high antibody levels for squalene have been measured in blood samples of Gulf War vets. A clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the syndrome sufferers who were injected with squalene.

This was confirmed in an investigation conducted by Insight magazine, which also reported that VA spokespeople have no explanation for these findings.(15) The mystery is compounded by the disappearance of up to 70,000 service-related immunization records. One of the scientists hired by Insight to investigate the presence of squalene in veterans’ blood elaborates on the study’s findings: “We found soldiers who are not sick that do not have the antibodies. … We found soldiers who never left the U.S. but who got shots who are sick, and they have squalene in their systems. We found people who served overseas in various parts of the desert that are sick who have squalene. And we found people who served in the desert but were civilians who never got these shots … who are not sick and do not have squalene.” (16)

According to one government official familiar with the blood test results, veterans’ illnesses were correlated with increased levels of antibodies for squalene. Another official explained, “I’m not telling you that squalene is making these people sick, but I am telling you that the sick ones have it in them.” (17)

Research immunologist Pam Asa has worked with about 150 sick Gulf War individuals. Asa reported that the autoimmune manifestations of squalene vary from person to person, depending on the patient’s genetic makeup. “In other words, patient A will have a certain spectrum of symptoms, and patient B will have another. But it’s still the same disease.” (18)

Mark Zeller is a serviceman suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. He revealed the following to me in a radio interview:

I sent my blood and got a notice back that I’m positive for this stuff called squalene, which is an adjuvant, which goes into a vaccine. This adjuvant is still not for human use. I’m here to tell you, I’ve got squalene in my body. And I said, it’s not supposed to be in humans. To this date, it’s still not used in humans except for research. I never sought to be a guinea pig out in the desert. I signed on to protect my country. At least that’s what I thought. (19)

Zeller isn’t alone. A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:

… The substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.

In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene. (20)

According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, a former principal research scientist for the government of Australia:

… This adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War Syndrome,” documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War. The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymph­adenopathy, rashes, photo­­sensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjogren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fevers. (21)

Although the US government has been reluctant to associate squalene, and vaccines in general, with Gulf War syndrome, a 2014 VA report concedes that vaccine exposure cannot be discounted:

Taken together, the scientific literature published since 2008 supports and reinforces the conclusion in the 2008 RACGWVI report that exposures to pesticides and pyridostigmine bromide are causally associated with Gulf War illness and that exposures to low-level nerve agents, oil well fires, receipt of multiple vaccines, and combinations of Gulf War exposures cannot be ruled out as contributing factors to this condition. (22)

Biological and Chemical Weapons

Disclosures by high-ranking Iraqi officials have confirmed that Iraq possessed an extensive chemical and biological arsenal during the Gulf War. After his defection in August 1995, Saddam Hussein’s top biological weapons adviser, Lieutenant General Hussein Kamel Majid, unveiled an abundance of classified information to United Nations investigators documenting the development of Iraq’s biological and chemical warfare arsenals. Prior to the Gulf War, the Iraqis engaged in a top-secret program to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that could be used against their enemies, including the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Prior to the disclosures, Iraq claimed it had only 10 people employed in its biological programs. Since then it has admitted that 150 scientists and an extensive support staff were involved in the mass development of biological warfare agents throughout the 1980s. According to UN officials, Iraq possessed at least 50 bombs loaded with anthrax, 100 bombs containing botulinum, and 25 missile warheads carrying other germ agents.

The Iraqi government’s goal was to create a diversified arsenal that went far beyond conventional weapons. For instance, one viral agent manufactured by the Iraqis was capable of generating hemorrhagic conjunctivitis, which commonly results in temporary blindness or bleeding eyes. Another agent could be used to induce chronic diarrhea, a condition quite effective in immobilizing troops. The secret Iraqi programs were also responsible for the production of at least 78 gallons of gangrene-inducing chemicals that were capable of penetrating the body and infecting wounds. Other agents included “yellow rain,” a lethal fungus responsible for bleeding lungs, and ricin, a deadly toxin derived from castor oil plants.

Was Iraq ready to use its poisons on the battlefield? Jonathan Tucker documents in the Nonproliferation Review that Iraq used them on 76 separate occasions.(23) Tucker notes that during the conflict London’s Sunday Times reported on intercepted Iraqi military communications indicating that Saddam Hussein had authorized front-line commanders to use chemical weapons as soon as coalition forces began their ground offensive.(24) The American Newsweek also reported this fact. (25)

We have military documentation to support assertions of biological and chemical weapons presence. Battlefield reports of the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade confirmed the release of anthrax on Feb. 24, 1991, at King Khalid Military City, while documentation from the following day reveals the presence of lewisite, a nerve gas that may have been released either by an Iraqi assault or from secondary explosions.

Depleted Uranium

In addition to the chemical and biological warfare, there is another disturbing legacy left by the American invasion of Iraq: depleted uranium. DU is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. Its name implies it is a harmless material, but in actuality it is still a highly poisonous, radioactive, heavy metal. The term depleted comes from the process of extracting and removing the highly radioactive isotope U-235 from natural uranium and thereby leaving the relatively stable and less radioactive isotope, U-238. After U-235 is extracted from U-238 for use in nuclear weapons and breeder reactors, only U-238 remains. Although it is considerd depleted because it no longer contains U-235, U-238 still emits one-third of its original level of radioactivity.

The DoD claims that DU is used only on bullet tips and tank shells in order to enhance penetration of steel as easily as butter. The truth is that the entire bullet or shell, not just the tips or coating, contain U-238, making them especially hazardous. Furthermore upon explosion the uranium can be present at a nano-scale. Dr. Doug Rokke, a retired major who served as the director of the US Army Depleted Uranium Project in the mid-90s is a specialist in uranium cleanup efforts. He was an advisor for DU science and health for the Centers for Disease Control, US Institute of Medicine, Congress, and the DOD. Rokke has been at the forefront in efforts to alert health and military officials about DU’s enormous health risks:

It is important to realize that DU penetrators are solid uranium 238. They are not tipped or coated! DU oxides are shed during flight spreading minute contamination all along the flight path. The Cannon bore is also contaminated as is the inside of each tank or bradley fighting vehicle or LAV.  During an impact at least 40 % of the penetrator forms uranium oxides or fragments which are left on the terrain, within or on impacted equipment, or within impacted structures.

The remainder of the penetrator retains its initial shape. Thus we are left with a solid piece of uranium lying someplace which can be picked up by children. DU also ignites in the air during flight and upon impact spreading contamination everyplace. The resulting shower of burning DU and DU fragments causes secondary explosions, fires, injury, and death. (26)

US and British forces used Operation Desert Storm as a testing ground for the widespread employment of DU during Gulf War I. It is estimated that over 940,000 30 mm uranium-tipped bullets and 14,000 large-caliber depleted rounds were released. Even before the second Gulf War, between 350 and 800 tons of DU residue, with a half-life of 4.4 billion years, permeated the ground and water of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

Such immense radioactive pollution has exposed countless people. Inhalation and ingestion of DU were unavoidable for troops in proximity to exploding shells. In addition, soldiers spent long hours sitting in tanks, handling uranium-laced shells and casings. Weapons were also taken home as souvenirs. Families of veterans came in contact with the substance after handling clothing laced with it.

The insidious adverse effects of DU in the body was illustrated by scientists at the DOD’s Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Maryland, in research presented to the American Association for Cancer Research and the Society of Toxicology. They tested the effects of embedded DU by inserting shrapnel-like pellets into the legs of rats. The researchers were surprised at how quickly oncogenes–genes believed to be precursors to cancer–formed. Another discovery was that DU kills suppressor, or health-maintaining, genes. The experiments also demonstrated that DU spreads throughout the body, depositing itself in the brain and spleen, among other organs, and that it can be passed by a pregnant rat to a developing fetus.(27)

Many of the symptoms experienced by Gulf War veterans and their families are indicative of radiation poisoning. These include nausea, vomiting, memory loss, and increased cancer rates. In addition, veterans’ children are manifesting an alarming rate of birth defects, lowered immunity, and childhood cancers. Radiation-affected sperm may be contributing these defects.

Dr. Jay Gould, author of The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors, has been an outspoken critic of low-level radiation. Gould says that exposure to DU released into the atmosphere poses the same grave dangers any other exposure to uranium. “There is nothing new about it,” Gould says, stressing that a biochemical impact of low-level radiation can immediately attack the immune response.(28) Since immune response is a key factor in maintaining good health, a weakened immune system makes people vulnerable to any kind of infection or allergic response. Consequently, everything from cancer to allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities can be activated by the uranium dust.

Gould adds that one reason why people generally ignore the dangers of low-level radiation is because it is often confused with background radiation:

Background radiation is something that humans have lived with for hundreds of thousands of years. Over that long period, our immune response has developed a capacity to resist natural forms of radiation from cosmic rays and radiation in the soil. But ever since the nuclear age began, we have introduced new fission products, like radioactive iodine and radioactive strontium that are released in the operation of a nuclear reactor or an explosion of a bomb. These have the ability to impact the immune response. This is what we mean by low-level radiation. It’s an internal radiation. In other words, if you ingest a fission product or a piece of uranium dust, it is like having a tiny x-ray go off for a tiny fraction of a second for the rest of your life. The effects of low-level radiation are quite awful, depending on which organ is affected. (29)

A University of Aberdeen peer-reviewed study of Gulf War vets equivocated on the reality of Gulf War illness. It admitted a higher, but not statistically significant, increase in death rates among soldiers who came into contact with DU and pesticides. A recent examination of the effects of DU in lung cell lines indicates that uranium changes regulatory biomolecular pathways within the lung tissues.(30) In rat tissue cells, a dramatic decrease in certain liver enzymes occurred. Other results indicate an increase in mRNA response (precursors to the cellular enzymes) to make up for the previous decrease in enzyme production.

Another paper by the Laboratoire de Radiotoxicologie Experimentale in Marseilles, France, suggests that in animal studies, DU inhalation can damage lung cells by changing DNA base pairs.(31) Introduction of DU into rat tracheae caused increased enzyme activity in rat testes three months later. In mouse cell lines, DU caused DNA mutations, and the authors point out that these were not only caused by radiation, but the actual presence of the chemical was toxic as well. (32) White blood cells of people exposed to the effects of DU in Bosnia and Herzegovina had measured changes in their genetic material.(33) In addition, an Israeli study showed that concentrations in hair, nails, and urine were directly correlated to the amounts of DU ingested in the water.(34) A further rat study shows that neurological exposure to DU may influence motor behavior and memory loss.(35) Despite the lack of extensive human cohort studies, these data suggest that DU present in bodily systems affects the various tissues throughout the body.

The University of Maryland School of Medicine studied vets who were exposed to friendly fire during the first Gulf War. During the course of a decade, vets continued to show elevated DU levels in their urine. The presence of increased DU research in the literature indicates a growing consensus that exposure to DU is a cause for concern.(36)One soldier who was struggling with terminal colon cancer described the environment where he was stationed as a toxic dump of “oil refineries, a cement factory, a chlorine factory and a sulfuric acid factory” all polluting the air. (37)

Gulf War Illness and Birth defects

Unfortunately, the suffering has not been limited to veterans. As early as 1994, the LA Times reported on birth defects appearing in the children of soldiers exposed to various chemical agents. (38) Reed West, daughter of Gulf veteran Dennis West from Waynesboro, Mississippi, was born prematurely with collapsed lungs and a faulty immune system. Joshua Miller, the son of veteran Aimee Miller, chronically suffers from unusual colds, pneumonia, and high fevers. In Waynesboro, Mississippi, the site of the National Guard Quartermaster Corps, 13 out of 15 children born to Gulf veterans suffered from serious disorders. Infant mortality rates have dramatically escalated in four counties in Kentucky and Tennessee, where the Army’s 101st Airborne Division is based; in three counties in Georgia, where the Army’s 197th Infantry Division is located; and at Ft. Hood, in Texas.(39) According to Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, a molecular toxicologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, men pass toxic chemicals on to their unborn children through their semen. (40)

According to Birth Defect Research for Children, a Florida-based association studying birth defects in Gulf veterans’ families, there is an increase in birth defects in children born to Gulf War vets. Its registry keeps track of babies born with missing limbs, chronic infections, delayed development, cancer, heart problems, and immunity defects. The center has identified a disproportionate occurrence of Goldenhar syndrome in Gulf veterans’ offspring.(41) Goldenhar syndrome (medically called oculo-auriculo-vertebral [OVA] spectrum) is a “rare disease,” yet it is popping up in the infants of Gulf War vets far too frequently. The syndrome has a wide range of symptoms, and frequently looks very different from one child to the next. Despite its dissimilarities, Goldenhar syndrome frequently produces facial deformities such as asymetrical distortions, abnormally small eyes, missing upper eyelids, ear malformations, incomplete or fused vertebral development, and numerous internal problems with the heart, lungs, kidneys, and intestines.

Persian Gulf vet Steve Miller knows this condition all too well: his son, conceived soon after his return from the Gulf, was born with Goldenhar. According to Miller, “He had hydrocephalus, spinal scoliosis, spina bifida, was missing his left eye and left ear, [and] his heart was on the right side of his body.” Miller continued to explain that “according to the National Institute of Health, [Goldenhar syndrome] is either hereditary or caused by teratogenic exposure. In our case we both tested negative in genetic testing.” (42)

So how did Miller’s child end up with such a rare disease when the genetic factors that supposedly cause Goldenhar syndrome were absent from both parents’ DNA? The answer: a multiplicity of poisons.

Mitochondria, Neurodegeneration and the Latest Scientific Evidence.

Compelling new research presented at a 2015 Conference held by the American Physiological Society (APS) has now linked Gulf War Syndrome pathology with impaired mitochondria function. Comparing the mitochondria in blood cells from from veterans who served in Gulf operations with healthy veterans who did not deploy, the research found that deployed vets had increased mitochondrial DNA and more damaged mitochondrial DNA than their healthy counterparts. The findings suggest that the toxic compounds affecting individuals with Gulf War syndrome may have directly damaged this critical component of the cellular health. (43)

These findings corroborate a study published in 2014 noting that “Mitochondrial problems account for which exposures relate to Gulf War illness, which symptoms predominate, how Gulf War illness symptoms manifest themselves, what objective tests have been altered, and why routine blood tests have not been useful.” (44)

January 2016 saw the publication of a comprehensive analysis of new research on Gulf War syndrome conducted at Boston University and several other institutions. Published in the journal Cortex, the analysis implicated exposure to pesticides, oil well fire emissions, sarin nerve gas and the ingestion of pyridostigmine bromide pills as profoundly on the neurological health of Gulf vets.(45) The analysis discussed the high incidence of “structural and electrical abnormalities” in the central nervous system, brain cancer, and reduced white and gray brain matter in among the veterans. The researchers also stressed the importance of deepening the scientific inquiry in this area so that we may finally develop effective treatments:

Further research into the mechanisms and etiology of the health problems of [Gulf War] veterans is critical to developing biomarkers of exposure and illness, and preventing similar problems for military personnel in future deployments. This information is also critical for developing new treatments for GWI and related neurological dysfunction (46)

***

Twenty-five years after the conclusion of the Gulf War conflict, there is no debating the fact that our troops suffered tremendously not only from chemical hazards on the battlefield but also from exposure to dangerous experimental drugs administered by the US military. Part 2 of this Gulf War syndrome investigation, will take a closer look at the disturbing decades-long legacy of ignorance and outright denial about this serious illness on the part of the US government.

Notes

1.  “Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Research Update and Recommendations, 2009-2013” US Dept of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/RACReport2014Final.pdf

2. Ibid

3. Null GM. The Gulf War syndrome: causes and the cover-up. Penthouse. September 1994. Reprinted with permission of the author,

4: Ibid

5. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. April 12, 2008.

6. Silverleib A. Gulf War syndrome is real, new federal report says [online article]. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/gulf.war.illness.study.

7.  Cary P, Tharp M. The Gulf War’s grave aura. U.S. News & World Report. July 8, 1996.

8.Presentation to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Veteran’s Administration [Web page].http://www.birthdefects.org/research/veterans.php.

9. France D. The families who are dying for our country. Redbook. Sept. 1994.

10. Null G. Interview with Dr. Garth Nicolson. Aug. 8th, 1997.

11. Null G. Interview with Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicolson. May 7, 1996.

12. Null G. Interview with Dr. Garth Nicolson. Aug. 8th, 1997.

13. Null G. Interview with Neil Tetzlaff. July 19th, 1997.

14. Bernstein D. Gulf War syndrome covered up. Covert Action Quarterly. 53.

15. Rodriguez PM. The Gulf War mystery. Insight Magazine, September 8, 1997.

16. Ibid.

17. Devitt M. Vaccines may be linked to Gulf War syndrome. DOD to review possible use of illegal additive. Dynamic Chiropractic. June 12, 2000.

18. Null G. Interview with Pam Asa. Aug. 9, 1997.

19. Null G. Interview with Mark Zeller. July 29, 1997.

20. Asa PB, Cao Y, Garry RF. Antibodies to squalene in Gulf War syndrome. Exp Mol Pathol. February 2000;68(1):55–64.

21. Scheibner V. Adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines. Nexus. Dec 2000;8(1)–Feb 2001;8(2).

22. “Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Research Update and Recommendations, 2009-2013” US Dept of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/RACReport2014Final.pdf

23. Tucker J. Nonproliferation Review. Spring/Summer 1997.

24. Swain J, Adams J. Saddam gives local commanders go-ahead for chemical attacks. Sunday Times. Feb. 3, 1991.

25. Masland T, Waller D. Are we ready for chemical war? Newsweek. Mar. 4, 1991.

26. IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED ON DEPLETED URANIUM, Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D.

April 13, 2004 http://www.gdr.org/depleted_uranium%20htm.htm

27. Mesler B. Nation. May 26, 1997.

28. Dr. Jay Gould. Personal interview. Oct. 28, 1996.

29. Ibid.

30. Malard V, Prat O. Proteomic analysis of the response of human lung cells to uranium. Proteomics. 2005 Nov;5(17):4568–80.

31. Genotoxic and inflammatory effects of depleted uranium particles inhaled by rats. Toxicol Sci. Jan 2006; 89(1):287–295. Epub 2005 Oct 12.

32. Stearns DM. Uranyl acetate induces hprt mutations and uranium-DNA adducts in Chinese hamster ovary EM9 cells. Mutagenesis. Nov 2005;20(6):417–423. Epub 2005 Sep 29.

33. Krunić A. Micronuclei frequencies in peripheral blood lymphocytes of individuals exposed to depleted uranium. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. Sep 2005;56(3):227–232.

34. Karpas Z. Measurement of the 234U/238U ratio by MC-ICPMS in drinking water, hair, nails, and urine as an indicator of uranium exposure source. Health Phys. Oct 2005;89(4):315–321.

35. Monleau M, Bussy C, Lestaevel P, Houpert P, Paquet F, Chazel V. Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations. Neurosci Lett. Dec 16, 2005;390(1):31–36.

36. McDiarmid MA, Engelhardt SM, Oliver M, et al. Biological monitoring and surveillance results of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. Aug 2, 2005:11–21.

37. McClain C. Cancer in Iraq vets raises possibility of toxic exposure. Arizona Daily Star. November 2, 2007.

38.  Serrano RA. Birth defects in Gulf vets’ babies stir fear, debate. Los Angeles Times. Nov. 14, 1994.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid

41. Birth Defect Research for Children Inc http://www.birthdefects.org.

42. Null G. Interview with Steve Miller. Aug. 9, 1997.

43. American Physiological Society (APS). “For veterans with Gulf War Illness, an explanation for the unexplainable symptoms.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 September 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150910185120.htm>.

44. Hayley J. Koslik, Gavin Hamilton, Beatrice A. Golomb. Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Gulf War Illness Revealed by 31Phosphorus Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case-Control Study. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (3): e92887 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0092887

45. White, Roberta F., Lea Steele, James P. O’callaghan, Kimberly Sullivan, James H. Binns, Beatrice A. Golomb, Floyd E. Bloom, James A. Bunker, Fiona Crawford, Joel C. Graves, Anthony Hardie, Nancy Klimas, Marguerite Knox, William J. Meggs, Jack Melling, Martin A. Philbert, and Rachel Grashow. “Recent Research on Gulf War Illness and Other Health Problems in Veterans of the 1991 Gulf War: Effects of Toxicant Exposures during Deployment.” Cortex 74 (2016): 449-75. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.

46. Ibid

 

 

It’s been almost two years since the cloud storage provider Dropbox appointed former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to its board. A move Edward Snowden, at the time, called “hostile” for data privacy.

Snowden’s comments on the matter first appeared in a video interview conducted by the Guardian, and were published in a July 17, 2014 article:

“Dropbox is a targeted you know wannabe PRISM partner,” he told the Guardian.“They just put … Condoleezza Rice on their board… who is probably the most anti-privacy official you can imagine. She’s one of the ones who oversaw Stellar Wind and thought it was a great idea. So they’re very hostile to privacy.”

PRISM: The NSA’s data collection surveillance program that every citizen should know about.PRISM and Stellar Wind were both approved and implemented during President George W. Bush’s administration.  (Image: (c) Adam Hart-Davis)

Dropbox and other popular cloud storage providers hold the encryption keys to hand over to the NSA should a request for your data be approved.

Snowden endorses “zero knowledge” systems. In layman’s terms, this means that cloud storage providers NOT hostile to data privacy don’t just encrypt your data, but actually host your data without their ability to access it – ever. They have zero knowledge of the contents of your data. It’s a big distinction, but one easily missed by a public inundated with confusing doublespeak on data privacy.

Snowden adds “that’s the only way they can prove to the customers that they can be trusted with their information,” and makes specific reference to one cloud company, SpiderOak, as a provider of zero knowledge systems.

Whereas Bernie Sanders claims to represent the bottom 99%, Hillary Clinton claims to represent a coalition of groups who are victimized by bigots (racists, sexists, etc.: she aims at women, homosexuals, Blacks, etc.).

Whereas Bernie seeks to mobilize the bottom economic 99% against the top 1% who have scooped up almost all of the economic benefits that Americans have gained since 1993, Hillary seeks to mobilize all bigotry-victims against all of the many types of bigots. These pitches are fundamentally different from one-another. In fact, they’re diametrically opposite diagnoses of the biggest ailment threatening the U.S. future: our perilous economy.

At the close of the Wisconsin Democratic debate on February 11th, Hillary Clinton made an appeal to members of labor unions, and then said:

I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on. … Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right. But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday.

Bernie Sanders closed instead with:

This campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.

Hillary Clinton is saying that what’s “holding people back” is bigotry.

Bernie Sanders is saying that what’s holding people back is concentration of too much power in too few people — not meaning a concentration of too much power in a freely and democratically elected government (which Republicans constantly attack as having too much power), but instead meaning a concentration of too much power in the richest 1% who buy the government, and who use it to make American workers compete against the workers in Haiti, Honduras, Vietnam, etc., so as to benefit the global stockholders of international corporations by lowering wages, instead of to benefit American workers by increasing wages.

He’s attacking a system that benefits global stockholders by lowering wages everywhere to some lowest common denominator, so as to increase profits and stock-values and executive compensation everywhere. Workers don’t receive the benefits of that; the stockholders and executives in international corporations do. That’s the “1%”, though actually it’s even more concentrated in the top 0.1%.

Hillary Clinton is saying that the main problem in America is America’s bigots — it’s no economic motivation, by billionaires who essentially buy the government, nor by anyone else. This political view, in which there are essentially no economic classes, but only bigots and their victims, is fundamentally different from Sanders’s view. It’s so different that in some other countries they would constitute two different political parties.

Sanders is saying that the main problem in America is actually America’s corruption — a system that he says has been very successfully gamed by “the billionaire class.”

That’s what the Democrats’ Presidential choice comes down to.

This choice is a stark one. Democratic voters are being asked which is the primary issue for government to overcome: countervailing excessive greed by the super-rich, or countervailing all bigotry by anyone? Both greed and bigotry are bad, but which is more the main function of government to countervail? That’s the question.

Hillary Clinton is saying that what American workers are pitted against is, essentially, bigots, individuals who are bigoted — bigoted against gays, against women, against Blacks, against Hispanics, etc.; they’re not pitted against the controlling stockholders who are collectively represented by their corporation’s management and who want higher profits from paying lower wages. Hillary Clinton focuses on the cultural divide, the various types of inter-ethnic conflicts, as being “what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back.”

Bernie Sanders is saying that the big problem American workers are up against isn’t bigots — rich and poor — as much as it’s the unlimited greed of the controlling stockholders who are represented by management (even if they’re not bigots). His diagnosis is that not only should workers have the collective-bargaining right against the corporation’s owners, just like those corporate owners themselves already possess the collective-bargaining right via managers they hire, but that workers should also be more the focus of government’s concern and sympathy than stockholders are, because there are far more workers than owners, and because a one-person-one-vote democracy is far better than a one-dollar-one-vote ‘democracy’ (the latter of which is otherwise called an “oligarchy” or an “aristocracy”), the latter of which is what Sanders campaigns to put astop to.

Hillary Clinton is saying that there is no common and shared enemy that oppressed employees have: instead, the main problem is racist bigots in the case of Blacks; it’s homophobic bigots in the case of homosexuals; it’s misogynist bigots in the case of females, etcetera; and, if a Black happens also to be a homophobe, or a homosexual happens to be also an anti-Black racist, then each one of those victim-groups will be fighting against the bigoted members of the other victim-groups. The chief job of the government, led by the U.S. President, is then somehow to punish all types of bigots equally, regardless of their particular group, so as to minimize the complaints about bigotry from, and by, all Americans. That’s a balancing of groups against groups — a balancing of ethnicities. This is Clinton’s diagnosis and cure for America’s economic problems.

Hillary’s diagnosis isn’t economic or systemic, but instead cultural and individual — it’s actually individual against individual, instead of stockholders against employees. And, just as a particular victim of bigotry can also be a bigot (for example, a Black can be homophobic, sexist, or etc.), a particular employee can also be a stockholder; some individuals stand on both sides at once, there too; but those are all individual matters, not systemic matters, and so they’re not really authentic issues of governmental policy. Hillary Clinton says that they are the main issues of governmental policy — that people’s problems are mainly individual problems, against bigots; not systemic problems, against stealers-of-the-public’s-government — and she says that the government should focus on individuals’ problems, not on systemic problems. That’s her view, which she expresses on almost every occasion, though she doesn’t put it in quite this way — a systematic way.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, is saying that the oppressed do have acommon and shared (a systemic) enemy. Here is how he expressed this in a speech to the Democratic National Committee on 28 August 2015: “We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors.”He was saying this to individuals — specifically, to the Democratic Party’s chief political agents — most of whose own career success has largely depended upon that “billionaire class,” but Sanders was up-front to them about it. He even calls this “movement” a “revolution.” He’s not trying to hide his opposition to the staus-quo.

The Democratic Party’s Presidential contest isn’t really a contest between ‘idealism’ versus ‘pragmatism,’ such as some propagandists claim. To characterize either candidate as ‘the idealist’ versus ‘the pragmatist’ is false. That characterization of this contest is actually deeply deceptive, because it focuses on vague abstractions, whereas the real issue in the Democratic Party primaries now is totally nitty-gritty, and it concerns two alternative diagnoses of what has been going wrong with America’s economy in recent decades.

In Bernie’s view, American democracy is now in the emergency room; in Hillary’s view, complainers (against anything other than bigots) are like mere hypochondriacs who simply don’t understand the experts who say that things aren’t so bad, and that therefore no “revolution” is needed.

Is America’s basic governmental problem bigotry (i.e., certain cultural and ‘values’ problems), as Hillary says; or is it instead corruption (i.e., certain economic and governmental problems), as Bernie says?

These are two very different conceptions of what the U.S. Presidency is about.

And that’s the central choice in the Democratic Presidential primaries. More than anything else, that’s what the choice between Clinton and Sanders comes down to.

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.

Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu threaten to invade Syria. Thousands of Turkish forces are mobilized along border areas. 

So far talk is just bluster. For how long remains to be seen. Everything depends on what Washington intends. Escalated war is more likely than backing off.

On Thursday, the Kurdish Hawar news agency ANHA reported dozens of Turkish military vehicles advancing about 200 meters into Aleppo province.

A trench between the towns of Sorka and Meydan Ekbis is being dug. Concrete wall construction continues. The area is mainly Kurdish.

Turkish forces continue heavy cross-border shelling, the international community doing nothing to stop it. Meaningless rhetoric substitutes for action – Erdogan permitted to attack Syrian territory, a flagrant international law breach.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported hundreds of terrorists entering Syrian territory late Wednesday through the Bab al-Salam border crossing – “under the Turkish authorities’ supervision, heading towards Azaz city.”

Erdogan is taking full advantage of Wednesday’s Ankara terrorist blast, a likely state-sponsored false flag, conveniently timed, wrongfully blamed on Kurdish freedom fighters – accused before the smoke cleared.

Evidence takes time to collect and evaluate. Kurds and an alleged Syrian refugee were blamed within hours of the incident, a clear indication of pre-planned finger-pointing – Turkish officials also outrageously claiming Syrian and Russian involvement.

Erdogan won’t invade Syria unilaterally, or together with Saudi forces, without US permission.

Syrian army spokesman Talal Salu said invading foreign troops “would become targets for the Russian air force and (government artillery) should they enter Syrian territory.”

Retaliation would likely follow anything greater than provocative border area intrusions. Whether full-scale invasion is planned remains to be seen.

On Friday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia is committed to “preserving the territorial and political integrity of all countries in the region, including Syria.”

He stressed Putin’s commitment to “defeat terrorists in order to resolve the crisis.”

RT International interviewed Assad’s political advisor Bouthaina Shaaban. She minced no words, saying:

“Anyone who carries arms against civilians, against government, against institutions is a terrorist.”

“Political opposition should be dealing with politics, should be in opposition against the government but by political means, without using arms, without killing people, without beheading people.”

“Can terrorism be moderate?” The only way to stop slaughter and destruction is by “put(ting) an end to terrorism,” including ending foreign support.

As long as it continues, endless war will rage.

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.

Precisely ten years ago (to the day), in its second bulletin of February 2006[1], warning about the imminent explosion of a «global systemic crisis”, the GEAB based its opinion on the identification of two strong signs: the end of the publication of the M3 money supply indicator[2] (suggesting a start to unusual degrees of the famous “money printing” which everyone has spoken about ever since); and the Iranian oil bourse launch – a country not yet constrained by international sanctions at the time – but a stock market based on the Euro[3]. These two strong signs enabled the GEAB team of that time to say that something big was about to happen, something which was going to bring into question the foundations of the system in which the economic-financial world was living at the time: the petrodollar and money-debt system.

Regarding the money supply, things have revolved around this subject for ten years. The initiation of this “money printing” operation, which the Americans had hoped to be discreet by ceasing the M3, had soon to be formalized via the Fed’s massive Quantitative Easing[4], and then even stopped, first relayed by the allied QE operations (about to slow down quite quickly, as well – an anticipation made by our team for six months now). End of the attempt to artificially maintain the dollar’s supremacy via the global dollar flood, and end of the system of indebtedness as a growth engine.

Regarding the sale of the Iranian oil in Euros, a major attack by a “non-aligned country” on the petrodollar system, it is particularly interesting to look at the following sequence: the announcement made by Iran regarding the launch of this oil bourse in petro-Euro early 2006, the  start of the international sanctions against this country in July 2006 causing the partial abortion of the project, then the huge attacks against the Euro through Greece from 2009 on[5], which allowed the dollar to come back to light after its tarnishing of 2008. It is even more interesting that the Greek debt crisis (although still unresolved) is finally being put aside by the media, that immediately after being freed from the sanctions Iran announced the sale of its oil in Euros … and that the next day Deutsche Bank is attacked from all sides.

One of the early assumptions we made, you may remember, is that the real “game-changer” for world supremacy of the dollar is actually the Euro. For the Euro was obviously the first currency to compete directly with the only international reserve currency status of the dollar. And when we look back for once at the sequence of the events mentioned above, one can not help thinking that the real war that took place over the past decade has been a war between the United States and Europe. A war during which the yuan, the BRICS, the New Development Bank and any alternative system to the Western system, have been quietly advancing, while the West was silently being torn a part[6].

Apparently all resistance to change is futile. Is that so…

If we were to compare what happened in 2007-8 when the crisis officially began, and this new episode which is worrying the financial world so much, a picture of the crisis of ten years is imposed upon us: the values fall experienced at the beginning of the crisis were huge, and the system was completely close to collapse. In a way, the collapse process seems as if it had been stopped just before touching the ground. Thus, it did not really break: an aborted crash somehow.

Baltic Dry Index 2006 – 2014 – Source: Business Insider[7]

And the fact is that at the time, nobody was interested in having the system broken, simply because nothing was close at hand to replace it. So: image freeze… for ten years.

Ten years during which everyone has been working hard… for better and for worse: the Chinese have refocused their economy and prepared for the inevitable transition from their world fabric status to the full-fledged economic power; the BRICS got organized and created new tools for funding mechanisms and international governance; Obama’s US helped unlock big locks planted by George W. Bush’s US (starting with the sanctions against Iran); the Russians have positioned themselves as a geopolitical counter-power; the United States of the Pentagon withdrew from many places in the world but progressed on European territory, considered as another “backyard”; the financial powers have blocked most regulatory projects that were likely to affect them… but not all of them (actually, they still lost a lot of their superb status). As for Europeans, the Euro resisted and the EU-US decoupling has still been increasing, even if a real governance of the area is still pending (… on the British referendum, as discussed further on), as well as the European common defence.

In short, eight years ago the system could not break without dragging the entire planet into a gigantic catastrophe, but today we can consider that many things are ready to “receive” the global economy as soon as the old system covers the last centimetres that separate it from the ground and the crash.

Apparently this final crash is currently underway.

The inevitable Western banking crisis, due to the shock of collapse of the oil price in dollars, is shaking the financial world. It started in China, but, as we extensively explained in our previous edition, what was shaking in China was not at all specifically Chinese: it was the Chinese part of the famous Western-centred financial system… and actually it’s already escalating to Europe.

That said, our team believes that the psychological shock (risk of government and social panic) is the most dangerous component in this banking crisis. Basically, the delusional and totally artificial valuations of the markets and banks, key players in the past financial system, one day must deflate in order to finally restructure the corresponding huge debt and have the economy restart. Besides, the giant financial power must be weakened so that governors can finally take full control of things – hoping they will continue to rule in democracy. Otherwise, this takeover by politics could end up in the pockets of the military…

Our team wishes now to further decode the forces of the global systemic crisis which gives an interesting vision from the anticipatory perspective.

When the masters of the twentieth century grounded on the shore of the 21st century, they quickly understood the new horizons opened by the emerging powers. The former “third world” – then became “developing world”, now called “emerging world” when it is actually already well “emerged” – was unfolding before their dazzled eyes. Particularly the United States, but also Europe, as a dominant club until then, rubbed their hands at the idea of a prodigious market opening at their feet.

At that point, the entire Western economy got involved body and soul into a general project of wondrous investment in order to prepare for a huge overwhelming demand. To do so, companies have come up with enthusiastic and very convincing result forecasts to obtain bank funds necessary for their new scaling. The loans were approved, convinced of a forthcoming return. Billions and billions of dollars have been printed by private banks, creating an exorbitant digital wealth based on anticipated valorisation, which nobody doubted would become real.

Let us dwell for awhile on the fundamental monetary crisis induced by that very behaviour. Everyone knows that the dollar as a currency of the second half of the twentieth century turned from a gold-supported currency to an oil-supported currency. Furthermore, the “financialisation” actually pushed it to a new stage: “the anticipated value-currency”. Indeed, when a private bank creates money to finance a project, it anticipates that this advance will create the forecasted wealth. Thus the currency remains connected to the economic reality. And the fact is that within a regularly growing economy, money actually remains money.

But, if at any time in history, delusional optimism seizes an economic system further to a false anticipation of global-scale, money becomes debt, “real debt” this time.

Well this is what has happened in 2005, and this brings into question the monetary system as it existed, as long as debt-money mingles with real money.

Indeed, the problem of the West was its failure to understand that new markets would also correspond to new competition, and that not only its own companies would benefit from the windfall, perhaps even the opposite would happen. This masterful anticipation error initially came out in 2007, and the subprime crisis was the small end of the chain of the financial system: the individuals who had been granted very easy personal loans in the wild enthusiasm based on the general economic outlook. Eight years later, it’s the other side of the chain which is catching fire: all the economy generated from this indebtedness collapses and banks, through which the crime appeared, are finally forced to admit the unreality of their value. The crisis of the CDS and of all those products that have facilitated the excessive lending process since the end of the last century, appears now to be in smoke: evaporation of ghost assets, as anticipated by the GEAB a long time ago … ten years to get there, ten years to finalise a crisis.

This description may seem frightening. Nevertheless our team continues to think the following: the “hard-landing” is primarily a beneficial “landing” even if some categories of players will leave their skin there; the world has had ten years to prepare for this outcome, which is also a solution; the banks will probably not be in default or very few will be, because the states or supra-state entities are in position now to regain control of things, contrary to ten years ago; many indicators will turn red but new indicators, already in the green, are starting to emerge; new economic dynamics (especially the whole internet-enabled collaborative economy) are already there and political systems, in command again, will not be long to find, mentor, recognize, tax them and recreate collective wealth, etc.

There will be collateral damage: by simplifying, our team is tempted to think that the “very big ones” will particularly suffer, because everything which is very big is also extremely indebted.

The oil/shale gas industry is a typical case of this debt madness: the peak oil theory in the early twenty-first century has dangled the idea of an oil price explosion which, mathematically, seemed inevitable, justifying the staggering investments based on assumptions of miraculous results. We have already seen that the ‘invented’ oil reserves are being gradually removed, since they will never be pumped; yet, they have been reported in corporate balance sheets (as a loan) and in those of the banks – evaporation of ghost assets.

Last month we anticipated serious difficulties in powerful sectors like arms, for precisely the same reasons: sin of pride, “we will cover the planet with our arms”; we will see in this issue that all the freight transport industry is in danger; we will see in the next issue that the construction sector currently valuing profits of billions in the emerging countries are making false anticipations[8]. We have also been convinced for some time now that Monsanto and other small agro-business chemists will be in big trouble… under the blow of the COP21’s effects, and by the new political control of the world.

As we have said before, our real concern is and remains the question of the democracy in this taking over by the politics. Whom will the politics serve? Order or well-being?

Notes:

[1]    Source: LEAP (old website), 15/02/2006.

[2]    Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis, 13/03/2006.

[3]    Source: The Trumpet, 12/2005.

[4]    Source: The Market Mogul.

[5]    Source: Wikipedia.

[6]    Obviously the « NATO-ization » of Europe started in 2014 should be viewed with the same glasses.

[7]    We will speak of this later on, but this index is about to fall below 300, a 50% fall compared to the last currencies … which is nothing compared to its fall from 11,000 to 600 in 2008… but they are the last centimetres before the bankruptcy wave.

[8]    Source : Les Echos, 03/07/2015

 The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces have liberated the remaining points under terrorist control in the cities of Harasta and Douma. Thus, the government forces gained full control over the Homs-Damascus highway. Next expected targets of the SAA are the pockets in northern Douma and the Industrial District of Harasta.

The Kurdish YPG units engaged in heavy fighting with the militant groups in neighborhoods of Bani Zeid and al-Ashrafiyeh and seized the hospital of Hanan in the Aleppo city. Nonetheless, the situation in the area remains complicated.

The SAA is continuing an advance along the Salamiyah-Raqqa highway clashing ISIS in the area. According to reports, the SAA is in 5 km west of Marina.

At least 28 people have been killed and 61 injured in a car explosion in the center of Ankara. The scene of the explosion took place at 16:30 GMT and is located in close proximity to Turkey’s parliament, the Presidency of the General Staff, and Army, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard commands. The attack was originally targeting military buses at traffic lights.

There isn’t information about the organizers of the attack but it comes in a serious time for the country since Turkey has been conducting massive operations against the Kurds and the Assad government forces in Northern Syria.

On Feb.17, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan said Turkey wants to establish a secure zone 10km within Syria which would include the town of Azaz. Turkey has been attempting to implement a kind of this plan for a long time. The recent attack could be used as a casus belli to launch a military intervention. SotuhFront: Analysis & Intelligence remembers Erdogan’s government already consternated a significant military force, the 2nd Army at the Syrian border.

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

In 2016, Greece faces a series of external and internal challenges shaping the situation in the country. The ongoing migration crisis and a new phase of economic reform which includes a plan to cut the country’s pension system are the most sensitive issues. Considering the pensions form one of the last social safety nets in a country where at least a quarter of the active population is unemployed, the threat of social unrest and political volatility has become especially acute.

On February 13, thousands of Greek farmers set up a protest camp in central Athens to rally against tax and pension reforms required by the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Union workers also joined the protesting farmers in Syntagma Square. Earlier, hundreds clashed with police at the Agriculture Ministry.About 10,000 demonstrators were in attendance. The violance was condudcted by the Alexis Tsipras’ government plans to raise pension contributions and taxes to deal with Greece’s budget deficit.

At the moment, Tsipras keeps a majority in the Greek Parliament by only three seats. Thus, any small rebellion within the ruling coalition could topple the government. The very same time the government, must convince creditors abroad that Greece is making enough progress to receive financial help. The biggest political challenge is keeping the government together in the face of the people’s discontent fueled by the EU bureaucracy’s policy over the Greek crisis.

Another challenge is the migration crisis which is straining Greece’s relationships in Northern Europe. Some countries believe that Athens should do more to stem the influx of asylum seekers into the European Union. Amid the EU officials’ inability to overcome the migration problems, the North European countries, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia have declared their willingness to block the so-called Balkan route by their own efforts. According to Slovakian Minister of Foreign Affairs Miroslav Lajcak, it is wrong to rely on Turkey to resolve the refugee problem. This move is contrary to the official Brussel strategy. They also could support the idea that Greece should be suspended from the Schengen Agreement, which eliminates border controls on the Continent.

While debt relief and the refugee crisis are supposed to be separate issues, they will continue to be the sides of the single problem: inability of the EU leadership to solve the problems of member states with any suitable measures. The EU bureaucracy is pushing the own agenda pursing own political and financial goals which often in contrary to the moves needed to solve the complex crisis of the European Union.

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

The fireball from this week’s blast in Ankara had barely begun to fade before the world begun bracing itself for the predictable accusation that Syria’s Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) were behind the blast. This is because Turkey has developed a transparently cynical strategy of staging blasts throughout its territory and behind to stoke fears, justify condemnation and retaliation and demonize not only it own enemies, but those of its partners in NATO and particularly, those of the United States.

Syria’s YPG was the obvious target of this blast and the barrage of accusations and threats that quickly followed because it is the YPG together with Syrian and Russian forces that now threaten to finally foil the US-NATO-GCC proxy by closing the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor, and specifically, the pivotal city of Azaz, located in Syria right along the Syrian-Turkish border.

For years Azaz has served as a nexus for foreign-backed militant operations not only in northern Syria, but as a logistical hub supplying terrorist operations all throughout the country. Its seizure by either Syria’s Kurdish YPG or the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) would effectively hobble US-NATO-GCC’s proxy war, at least in the north.

Tripping in a Tangled Web of Treachery

Over the past week, Turkey has been shelling Syrian territory, concentrating its firepower on a southwest road leading to the city of Azaz. Kurdish YPG forces have been advancing up the road, lined on both sides by small farmers and accompanying civilian houses in a bid to liberate the city long-held by both IS (Islamic State) and Al Qaeda affiliates including Jabhat al Nusra (a US State Department listed foreign terrorist organization).

Despite the bombardment, the fate of US-NATO-GCC backed terrorists held up there is inevitably doomed. Just after the blast and amid threats by Ankara to retaliate not only against the YPG, but he Syrian government itself, some 500 terrorists described as “Islamists” by the London Guardian crossed over the Turkish border and headed to Azaz as reinforcements.

Keen readers will notice the term “Islamist” is often used as a somewhat more ambiguous label to avoid accurately describing the fighters as either Al Qaeda affiliates or IS itself. Together with continued artillery fire from Turkey, what the world now sees is NATO openly fighting a combined arms battle against Syria alongside Al Qaeda shock troops.

Ankara’s threats against the YPG and the Syrian government is particularly ironic. The Washington Post in its report “Turkey accuses a Syrian Kurd of bombing Ankara and vows to retaliate,” claims:

[Turkish Prime Minister] Davutoglu said he also held embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible because Assad and his government have acknowledged on a number of occasions that they provide arms to the YPG.

However, this logic quickly breaks down when one considers the United States has also acknowledged on a number of occasions that it provided not only arms to the YPG, but also aircover.

Perhaps the United States and their junior partners in Ankara believe the public has forgotten such headlines as that in the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Airdrops Weapons and Supplies to Besieged Syrian Kurds in Kobani,” which reported:

The U.S. dropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies to Syrian Kurds fighting Islamic State extremists in the embattled city of Kobani, U.S. officials said Sunday. Three U.S. C-130 cargo planes began dropping the weapons and supplies, provided by Kurdish authorities in Iraq, on Sunday, the officials said. Over several hours, the U.S. dropped 27 bundles of small arms, ammunition and supplies.

The London Guardian’s “US-led air strikes hit key Isis targets amid battle with Kurdish forces,” points out that:

US-led coalition jets struck Islamic State positions in north-east Syria for the second day in a row on Saturday, in an area where the militants are battling Kurdish forces, a Kurdish official and a group monitoring the war said.

Despite the “logic” underpinning Ankara’s accusations and threats against both the YPG and Damascus, none should expect similar threats or retaliations to materialize against the United States, who has maintained a military presence for decades inside Turkey, itself a NATO member since the conclusion of the Second World War.

Instead, what we see is the total breakdown in the US-NATO-GCC narrative used to carry this conflict onward since 2011. The battle along Syria’s border is clearly not about any threat the YPG or the Syrian government pose to Turkey or any other NATO or GGC member. Instead, the battle along the border is clearly about the imminent strangulation of US-NATO-GCC supply lines that have fed what is now clearly appearing to be a foreign invasion, not a “civil war.”

When Syria’s borders are closed, and the “civil war” evaporates, it will be proof-positive of the ploy these foreign powers have attempted to play against Syria, and will ultimately derail similar conspiracies being organized and arrayed against other nations across the entire planet.

For the people of Turkey, with yet another blast tearing through their capital and spilling the blood of their brothers and sisters, once again coincidentally times to break a geopolitical impasse their current government faces amid its schemes abroad, they are surely taking stock of the increasing price they have so far paid for this conflict, and extrapolating the debt they will incur should it be allowed to continue on even a day further.

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

In view of the fact that, in 1947, the then newly-established United Nations represented just 57 states internationally – an obvious global minority -whereas there are now nearly 200 independent member states representing the entire global demographic, there would appear to be a legitimate case to re-submit a formal application to the United Nations International Court of Justice to rule on the competence of the UN General Assembly of 1947 to have partitioned the then region of Palestine against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants i.e. the million indigenous Palestinian Arabs, in order to facilitate the migration to there of hundreds of thousands of stateless refugees from post-war Europe, on the tenuous hypothesis that nearly two thousand years previously there had been, according to a subsequent biblical text written centuries later, a Hebrew settlement somewhere in the region.

In effect, for a newly constituted, minority representative United Nations to have resolved to partition the land of Palestine, in the Muslim Middle East,  to accommodate the victims of a war on another continent, i.e. Europe, upon the wishes of an AIPAC-influenced, American president, Harry S Truman, would appear to have been an illegitimate act of international expropriation. A concerted effort of political expediency by a lobby-influenced America to dispose of the inconvenient problem of hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens from war-torn Germany, France, Poland, Hungary and elsewhere in Europe who had lost their families, homes and livelihoods, and to dump them in a foreign land thereby divesting Europe, and America, of any liability.

It should be clearly noted that all of the Middle East states affected by the proposal to establish a foreign entity in their midst, formally voted against the proposed UN resolution and gave clear notice to the then United Nations General Assembly that such a resolution would be considered an act of war against the indigenous population and that such an illegitimate act of forced settlement would never be acceptable.   And it never has been.

‘In the face of increasing violence after World War II, the British handed the issue of Palestine over to the recently established United Nations. The result was Resolution 181(II), a plan to partition Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Jewish state was to receive around 56% of the land area of Mandate Palestine, encompassing 82% of the Jewish population, though it would be separated from Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by most of the Jewish population, but rejected by much of the Arab populace. On 29 November 1947, the resolution to recommend to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union was put to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly.’

‘The result was 33 to 13 in favour of the resolution, with 10 abstentions.

Resolution 181(II): PART I: Future constitution and government of Palestine: A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE: Clause 3 provides:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, … shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

The Arab countries (all of whom had vehemently opposed the plan) proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, but the resolution was at that time rejected.

Brussels 06/92/2016          160206_02_enIA

STATEMENT

Statement by the Spokesperson on the latest developments in Area C of the occupied Palestinian territory

In the past weeks there have been a number of developments in Area C of the West Bank, which risk undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and driving the parties yet further apart.

On 25 January Israel decided to declare 154 hectares of land near Jericho in the West Bank as state land, and according to the latest reports, decisions have been taken to permit further settlement expansion, involving more than 150 new residential units. On 3 February several Palestinian residential structures in the south Hebron hills were demolished. This is particularly concerning both because of the extent of the demolitions and also the number of vulnerable individuals affected, including children who need support.

Demolitions included EU funded structures. EU humanitarian activities are carried out in full accordance with international humanitarian law, with the sole aim of providing humanitarian support to most vulnerable people. We call on the Israeli authorities to reverse the decisions taken and to halt further demolitions.

On 18 January Foreign Ministers in the Council conclusions confirmed the EU’s firm opposition to Israel’s settlement policy and actions taken in this context, including demolitions and confiscation, evictions, forced transfers or restrictions of movement and access.

FOR FURTHER DETAILS:

• http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2016/160206_02_en.htm

• 2014 resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council relating to the question of Palestine
• https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC183L2Add36.pdf

[email protected]         London  February 2016

On February 14th, 2016, the UK Government announced that it would be setting up guidelines to prevent public bodies from supporting — through their procurement and investment policies — the legal and human rights of the brutally persecuted Palestinian people. This is despite the fact that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign — similar to the sanctions tactic successfully employed against Apartheid South Africa — is a peaceful and effective method of forcing the Israeli Government to cease its arrogant disregard for international law.

As a followup to this announcement, the invertebrate British Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock, dutifully grovelled his way over to Israel — for a joint press conference in Jerusalem with that despicable racist war criminal Netanyahu — to oblige his rapacious hosts with the view that London supported the directive “because we believe in an open and free trade and we believe that discrimination is not appropriate and should be stood up to.” This pathetic excuse for a representative of the British people was apparently oblivious of the fact that immigrant Israelis on both illegally occupied and stolen Palestinian lands, had for almost 70 years barbarically discriminated against the indigenous population.

The  hypocrisy and double standards of most Western leaders is not a  phenomenon that evolved by chance, but is one that came about as a result of well-financed and organised Zionist Jewish lobby groups that exist throughout Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and Western Europe. Yes, there is even a SAIPAC (South African Israel Public Affairs Committee) in Cape Town. Such parastatal organisations and faux-NGOs routinely exploit lawfare — the illegitimate use of domestic or international law to discredit and criminalise individuals or organisations — to spread propaganda and/or influence public opinion with a view to forcing their respective countries of residence to embrace the Israeli narrative and stifle any public debate whenever the subject of Israel’s criminality is raised.

Thanks to the Zionist hijacking of their governments, Most Western nations are selective in their condemnation of racial discrimination and crimes against humanity.

The lawfare tactic is supported by a worldwide network of Israel’s diaspora allies known as sayanim — local Jews in their countries of residence — who having received email alerts from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, will take all necessary steps to intimidate, pressurise, or simply bribe  individuals in the media and politics to adopt pro-Israel positions that are neither moral nor in the best interests of their own countries. By distorting and suppressing any criticism of Israel, they pre-empt the potential implementation of any initiatives that might undermine either Israel’s economy or the world’s perception of Israel as an innocent victim just defending itself. Needless to say, Netanyahu — never one to miss an opportunity — drew parallels between efforts to boycott Israel,  the long history of anti-Semitism, and the international community’s alleged anti-Israel bias. Netanyahu also emphasised his gratitude to Britain by stating that “I want to commend the British government for refusing to discriminate against Israel and Israelis and I commend you for standing up for the one and only true democracy in the Middle East.” Only democracy in the Middle East? How is that for fascist chutzpah?

Another recent headline-grabbing event was the interrogation by British anti-terrorism police of a student who wore a “Free Palestine” badge and wristbands to school. Rather than encouraging their pupils to learn about and support human rights, teachers at the Challney High School for Boys in Luton reported Rahmaan Mohammadi to the police for what can only be described as his commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which starts of by categorically stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Supporting such sentiments in Britain is now apparently a crime, and the teachers’ action in this case is reminiscent of the Nazi era when the roles were reversed and schoolchildren were groomed to report any “subversive” thoughts by their teachers, friends, neighbours, and even their own parents. In Britain, the existence of a Zionist Thought Police is now a reality and their suppression of free speech is killing off what little is left of British democracy.

This latest British government directive is no doubt an effort to keep in step with recent legislation in the U.S. where some states have made it illegal to either divest from Israel or to promote a boycott of Israeli products. A trade pact with Europe will also stipulate — at the instigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — that the U.S. is obliged to take retaliatory action against any European country endeavouring to boycott Israel including the West Bank settlements which the empowering legislation views as part of Israel proper. Apart form committing $25 million to a new anti-BDS task force — an admission of the BDS campaign’s effectiveness —  Israel is also working to create a mechanism for global internet censorship with a ban on any material critical of its criminal policies which it has euphemistically branded as “incitement.” Consequently Facebook and other social networking sites have started deleting from their sites any “hate speech” or “terrorism” related material including criticism of Israel which is of course “anti-Semitic.”

Policing of the internet is maintained by ever-watchful Zionist organisations including the Zionist Federation of Australia; the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM); the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) in Canada; the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF) in France; the Zionist Federation of New Zealand; and AIPAC in the United States. The financial and political power of such groups should not be underestimated and their access to government policy making ensures protection of Israel which for example in France has included legislation of hate crimes that de facto protects Jews by limiting one’s ability to criticise Israel. This has led to a French court declaring that a peaceful protest promoting the BDS campaign against Israel was illegal. So much for France’s motto of “liberté, égalité, fraternité.”

All of this reminds me of the famous and provocative poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

A FNSL ‘from below’ could be organized from among local assemblies, committees, groups and initiatives consisting of the victims of globalization (namely, the vast majority of the world’s population) who ought to join as ordinary citizens, irrespective of party affiliations and ideologies or religious and other differences, as long as they share the ultimate aim of national and economic sovereignty. The intermediate target should be the exit from the international institutions of the NWO like the EU, so that the victims of globalization could escape the present process of economic catastrophe.

Then, once the people of a particular country have broken with this criminal “Order”, they should join with peoples from other countries, also fighting for the same aims, to form new political and economic unions of sovereign Nations and the corresponding democratically-organized international institutions together, within a new international community of self- reliant nations based on the principle of mutual aid rather than competitiveness––the guiding principle behind the present criminal NWO. As long as the member countries share complementary production structures, the possibility of an involuntary transfer of economic surplus from some countries  (usually  the  weaker  ones,  as  is  the  case  in  the  EU)  to  other countries in the Union can be ruled out. Therefore, a collective kind of self- reliance could be achieved within the economic area covered by such a union, which should be based on the sovereignty of each participating country.

In other words, a FNSL would function as a catalyst for fundamental political and economic change, which is the only kind of change that could get us out of the current mire, while also revealing the attempted deception by the globalist “Left”, according to which we could somehow emerge from this catastrophe even without leaving the EU – as DIEM

 Notes:

1 Pepe Escobar, “It takes a Greek to save Europa”, RT, 11/2/2016,  https://www.rt.com/op- edge/332169-europe-diem25-yanis-varoufakis/

2  It should  be noted that the ‘Manifesto’s’  options  were also approved,  albeit indirectly,  by

George Soros, one of Varoufakis’s strongest supporters, who stressed at the same time that “Putin’s aim is to foster the EU’s disintegration, and the best way to do so is to flood Europe with Syrian refugees.” (G. Soros, “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis”, The Guardian, 11/2/2016 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/11/putin-threat- europe-islamic-state

3 Y. Varoufakis,  A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATISING  EUROPE, February 2016

4 See the official site of the European Round Table of Industrialists  http://www.ert.eu

See also the film by Friedrich Moser & Matthieu Lietaert, The Brus$€ls Business : Who Runs the European Union? (2012) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4C5SgeVK-Q

5 Takis Fotopoulos,  Τhe Transnational Elite and the NWO as “conspiracies” The International

Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2014)

6 Y. Varoufakis, A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATISING  EUROPE, op.cit.

 7 Takis Fotopoulos, Towards An Inclusive Democracy, (London/NY: Cassell/Continuum,1997), chs 5- 6

 8 see unofficial transcript of DIEM25 speeches at  https://pad.riseup.net/p/DiEM25_Transcript

9 See Takis Fotopoulos, Towards An Inclusive Democracy, (Cassell/Taylor & Francis, 1997).

10 See Takis Fotopoulos, The New World Order in Action: War and economic violence, from the Middle East through Greece to Ukraine (under publication by Progressive Press), Parts I

& III

11 See Takis Fotopoulos, The New World Order in Action, op.cit. ch 6

12 Paul Krugman, “The austerity delusion”, Guardian, 29/4/2015

13 Anthony H. Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, (London: Routledge, 1993) p. 58.

14 Bhikhu Parekh, “The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy”, Political,  Volume 40, Issue Supplement s1,  pages 160–175, August 1992

15   According  to  Aristotle,  “…I  say  that  the  appointment  by  lot  is  commonly  held  to  be

characteristic of democracy, whereas the process of election for that purpose is looked upon as oligarchic”; Aristotle, Politics, Book IV, 1294b, John Warrington, ed. (London: Heron Books)

16 Anthony Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, o.p.  p. 50.

17 John Dunn, “Conclusion” in. Democracy, the Unfinished Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993, pp. 247-48.

18   Varoufakis, A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATISING  EUROPE, op.cit.

19 ibid.

20 Takis Fotopoulos, “The real causes of the catastrophic crisis in Greece and the “Left”,  The

International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2013)

21 Editorial, “The People’s Revolt”, The Times, 11/10/2014

22 “Globalization is barbarous, multinationals rule world” – Marine Le Pen, RT, 10/1/2015 http://rt.com/news/212435-france-pen-globalization-barbarity/

23 Adam Thomson, “France’s far-right National Front seeks voters from the left”, Financial

Times, 4/1/2015

24 ibid.

25 Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Roula Khalaf, “Marine Le Pen lays out radical vision to govern France”, Financial Times, 5/3/2015

26 G. Soros, “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis”, The Guardian, 11/2/2016

27 Francis Elliott et al. ‘Working class prefers Ukip to Labour”, The Times, 25/11/2014

28 Takis Fotopoulos, “Globalisation, the reformist Left and the Anti-Globalisation ‘Movement’”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE, vol.7, no.2 (July 2001) http://www.democracynature.org/vol7/takis_globalisation.htm

 29 see unofficial transcript of DIEM25 speeches at https://pad.riseup.net/p/DiEM25_Transcript. See also the video itself at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFNJYpwv39s

30 See the “Open letter on the future of Ukraine”, signed by scores of Zizek-type globalization intellectuals, politicians et al, which declares their admiration for the Ukrainian ‘revolutionaries’: “They defended their democracy and their future 10 years ago, during the Orange Revolution, and they are standing up for those values again today “, euobserver, 27/1/2014  http://euobserver.com/opinion/122880

31 This section is based on Part VI of the forthcoming book The New World Order in Action: War and economic violence, from the Middle East through Greece to Ukraine, op.cit.

Russian intervention in Syria has not only improved the military situation on the ground for the SAA [Syrian Arab Army] and allies, Iran and Hezbollah.  Russia has succeeded where, previously, the UN and the US have failed.

Russia has, apparently,  negotiated with the US and achieved the delivery of 18 trucks, every two weeks,  of humanitarian aid to the beleaguered and battered Idlib villages of Kafarya & Foua. It is also hoped that a mobile hospital clinic will be delivered along with at least two lorries of essential fuel.

This information came in last night from Dr Ali al-Mostafa, chief surgeon for both villages.  Dr al-Mostafa has been working under punishing conditions since the full siege of Kafarya and Foua intensified from March 2015 onwards.  Prior to that, Kafarya & Foua had been under partial siege, with sporadic shelling and incursions from the Ahrar al Sham and Al Nusra factions converging on the largely defenceless and isolated homesteads.

In these five years, 1700 people have been killed by the crude hell cannon mortars or the US supplied missiles fired regularly upon this tightly knit community.  Since March 2015 when the ring of terror tightened, 300 have died from terrorist shelling, sniping,  terrorists digging tunnels under houses and detonating them or simply from starvation or lack of basic medical supplies. These people have lived with the daily threat of terrorist incursions into the villages which would have resulted in a massacre of this entire community.

Ahrar al Sham terrorists preparing rockets in preparation for bombardment of Kafarya and Foua.

“Infant Rimas Al-Nayef was one of at least 5 children killed by NATO-backed terrorists’ shelling on August 10, 2015 in the northwestern Syrian village of Foua. Another 25 residents were killed by the up to 1,500 rockets and mortars which Jebhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and other terrorist factions rained down on Foua and neighbouring Kafarya village, just north of Idlib. Scores more were injured on that day alone.” ~ Eva Bartlett:  Untold Suffering in Kafarya and Foua

One year old Rimas, murdered by Western backed terrorists. Photo taken in Kafarya and Foua and supplied to 21WIRE.

The only food supplies during the interminable months leading up to January 2016 were from precarious and extremely risky Syrian Air Force drops into the villages.  Stories of the dangers of leaving the shelter of their homes to collect the bread from the open fields where they were targets for the terrorist snipers, abounded in our media news-feeds last year but were completely ignored by mainstream media intent on portraying the Syrian Government as the villain of the piece, not the Western backed murderers and mercenaries laying siege to the villages.

“Now and then helicopters can reach the area and air-drop supplies, by parachute, including fuel. The helicopters can’t come close, so they drop supplies from a great height. but because it’s from so high up, many times the supplies misses the villages. When there are battles, the helicopters cannot reach the area.”  ~ Untold Suffering in Foua and Kafarya

In the last two weeks alone, information has been sent through to us of the worsening and heartbreaking humanitarian situation in Kafarya and Foua.

On the 17th February 2016, journalist, Eva Bartlett informed us of the Western backed terrorist murder of a 10 year old boy, Najeb, in al Foua village.  Shot through the heart.

“A Syrian friend messaged me, his voice barely coherent in his grief, mourning the murder of his 10 year old cousin in al-Foua, northern Syria.

Eva, I lost my cousin today, in al-Foua. His name was Najeb Ahmad hallak. The terrorists killed him, he was just 10 years old. They shot him through his heart.

I hate this life, Eva.

Green-eyed Najeb was returning from school when sniped by western-backed “moderate” “rebels”. He was the youngest of the family.”     ~   Remembering Ten Year Old Najeb, Shot Dead by Western Terrorists

10 year old Najeb, shot dead by Western backed terrorists in al Foua. Photo supplied by Eva Bartlett.

This child was torn from his family by Western backed terrorists using Western and Gulf supplied arms, smuggled in through Turkey.  While the Western and Gulf media keep Madaya in the spotlight spawning whole new NGO hydra heads focused on the reported Syrian Government sieges in Syria, this Western backed terrorist siege is swept under the media carpet because it would damage their propaganda road map that rides rough shod over the truth that the Syrian people are living through every day of their lives.

Soros backed Syria Campaign is running with their “Break the Siege” publicity, of course, demonizing the Syrian Government with the usual wild, unverified accusations.  The Syria Institute also partnered with PAX another Soros backed NGO has its own rendition doing the social media rounds of “Siege Watch“.  “Siege” is the new NATO buzz word to bring shame upon the Syrian government and army and nowhere in Western terrorist occupied Syria is safe from its application.  Not even Aleppo, reduced to one fifth of its normal size by the Al Nusra & ISIS occupation and terrorization, currently being liberated by the SAA and allies contrary to the Western/Gulf media portrayal.

Back to Kafarya and Foua.

On the 6th February, I reported on the death from starvation of tiny baby Zahraa:

“Yesterday tiny baby Zahra succumbed to starvation in Kafarya and Foua.

There will be no outrage from Western or Gulf media.  There will be no crocodile tears.  There will be no outpouring of venom against the Saudi wahhabi terrorist gangs that have ensured her death.  There will be no investigation.  There will be no Avaaz petitions.  There will be no Ken Roth tweets.  Robert Ford will barely raise an eyebrow.

Zahra will die unnoticed and ignored except by her extended family in Kafarya & Foua who have watched her wither away,  helplessly, unable to alleviate her suffering.” ~ Video and Report

On 12th February, I reported on this distressing information being received from inside the two villages:

“One of the most heartbreaking images sent through to me is of a family member struggling to keep their relative alive by manual artificial respiration.  There is no electricity to run the machinery that would normally keep them alive.  Family members take it in turns to maintain the vital supply of oxygen or else this patient will die. Life hangs in the balance wherever you look in Kafarya and Foua.  A malevolent, hostile force camped on their doorstep and villagers starving, cold and eking a miserable existence among the remains of their homes inside these decimated villages.”  ~  Kafarya and Foua:  The Forgotten Terrorist Siege

Family member keeps their relative alive by manual artificial respiration. Photo: Kafarya and Foua.

On Valentines day, Feb 14th, I reported:

“The situation in the terrorist besieged villages of Kafarya & Foua is worsening.  Since the full siege began in March 2015 the UN has only succeeded in sending in one fuel delivery, a meagre 10,000 Litres that finally got through to the Idlib villages in January 2016.

These photos that have just been published from inside Kafarya and Foua show the desperate and ignored plight of these villagers who are struggling with starvation, lack of heat, electricity and medical supplies.” ~ Kafarya and Foua: Worsening Humanitarian Situation Ignored by UN and Media

Photo taken on location in Kafar and supplied to 21WIRE.

.
While the US, NATO and allies, including the UN,  have coldly refused to even acknowledge the suffering being endured by these villages, Russia, it appears has been able to turn the screws to the extent that perhaps now we will see some alleviation of their Western imposed plight.  It is interesting to note that, despite the UN claiming it is too dangerous to attempt a bypass of the Ahrar al Sham check points, we now see that obstacle being miraculously cleared which could suggest, once more, the US control over the terrorist factions in Syria.  Russia must be congratulated on this achievement and the people of Kafarya and Foua will perhaps, finally, feel a little of the pressure lifting.

As one relative from Kafarya and Foua said to me last night:

“For the first time since March 2015, they will receive a delivery of flour!  Finally they will be able to bake bread in their own homes again”

From September 2015:

“She [Zahraa] now prays desperately that the neighbourhood bakery will re-open because in her child’s mind that would bring back the old days of feeling safe and well fed. Days that seem so far away now in the shell shocked homes of Kafarya and Foua.” ~ A Tale of Two Villages

There are many unreported and horrific stories that will begin to emerge from Syria as the SAA sweeps this sovereign nation clean of the US NATO GCC and Israeli proxy terrorist armies that have occupied Syria for almost 5 years.  As each story is brought to light, we will see the mainstream media and its Western backed NGO allies rushing to smear the Syrian Government in an attempt to cover up what amounts to their own war crimes, as stated very clearly yesterday by Dr Al Jaafari during his UN address on recent Turkish atrocities in Syria.

I cannot conclude this article any more fittingly than with a quote from Eva Bartlett & from Syria:

“To the family of young Najeb, the latest victim of terror-snipings on al-Foua, I cite a Syrian lamenting this child’s passing:

السلام لروحك أيها الطف

“Peace upon your soul, oh child.”

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

Mr. Salah Lamrani [pictured left], French teacher of the Romain-Rolland School of Tremblay-en-France (93290), very appreciated by his students and their parents, was arbitrarily suspended from his post on February 11th, 2016, by Isabelle Chazal, HR of the Academy of Créteil, for a period of four months.

This unilateral action was taken following slanderous letters from the FCPE (Federation of parents’ councils) and the management of his establishment seriously defaming him and making illegal use of his activities as a blogger.

We ask you to take quick action to lift this unjustified suspension, to call to order the management of the school and allow students to be reunited with their teacher who they sorely miss, so that the school community can regain the serenity necessary for success of its mission.

Editors note: you can review the whole case, with all its lurid details on Salah Lamrani’s blog, updated daily, Sayed Hasan

Click here to see the last activated signatures

List of signatories in alphabetical order

To sign click here

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) does not provide GPS coordinates of health facilities it supports in Syria to either Damascus or Moscow over fears of “deliberate” attacks, the medical charity said, blaming a recent strike on “probably” Syrian or Russian forces.

Five years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal urged her to apologize to former Army officer (and ex-CIA analyst) Ray McGovern after he was roughly arrested when he stood silently with his back turned in protest against a Clinton speech, ironically condemning foreign leaders who show intolerance of dissent.

According to an internal email recently released from former Secretary Clinton’s private email server, Blumenthal cited “an unfortunate incident” that occurred at her speech at George Washington University in Washington on Feb. 15, 2011. Blumenthal wrote that “something bad happened” and urged Clinton to have someone reach out and apologize to McGovern.

Instead, Clinton, who has declared that “supporting veterans is a sacred responsibility,” denied any responsibility for McGovern’s brutal arrest, which left the 71-year-old who was wearing a “Veterans for Peace” T-shirt, bloodied and bruised. She also offered no explanation for why she failed to stop the police when the arrest was occurring right in front of her; instead she just continued on with her speech about the need for leaders to respect the rights of dissidents.

In the email, Clinton did tell Blumenthal, “I’ll see what else can be done,” but it’s not clear what that may have been. Afterwards, McGovern became a government target because of what the State Department called his “political activism, primarily anti-war.”

Though the criminal charges against McGovern were dropped, he was placed on the State Department’s “Be On the Look-out” or BOLO alert list, instructing police to “USE CAUTION, stop” and question him and also contact the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center.

After learning of the BOLO alert, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), which is representing McGovern in connection with the 2011 incident, interceded to have the warning lifted. But McGovern wondered if the warning played a role in 2014 when he was aggressively arrested by New York City police at the entrance to the 92nd Street Y where he had hoped to pose a question to a speaker there, one of Clinton’s friendly colleagues, former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus.

After that arrest on Oct. 30, 2014, McGovern wrote,

“God only knows (and then only if God has the proper clearances) what other organs of state security had entered the ‘derogatory’ information about the danger of my ‘political activism’ into their data bases. Had my ‘derog’ been shared, perhaps, with the ever-proliferating number of ‘fusion centers’ that were so effective in sharing information to track and thwart the activists of Occupy – including subversives like Quakers and Catholic Workers?”

Clinton’s Speech

On Feb. 15, 2011, McGovern attended Clinton GWU speech, deciding on the spur of the moment – after feeling revulsion at the “enthusiastic applause” that welcomed the Secretary of State –

“to dissociate myself from the obsequious adulation of a person responsible for so much death, suffering and destruction. …

“The fulsome praise for Clinton from GW’s president and the loud, sustained applause also brought to mind a phrase that – as a former Soviet analyst at CIA – I often read in Pravda. When reprinting the text of speeches by high Soviet officials, the Communist Party newspaper would regularly insert, in italicized parentheses: ‘Burniye applaudismenti; vce stoyat’ —  Stormy applause; all rise.

“With the others at Clinton’s talk, I stood. I even clapped politely. But as the applause dragged on, I began to feel like a real phony. So, when the others finally sat down, I remained standing silently, motionless, wearing my ‘Veterans for Peace’ T-shirt, with my eyes fixed narrowly on the rear of the auditorium and my back to the Secretary.

“I did not expect what followed: a violent assault in full view of Madam Secretary by what we Soviet analysts used to call the ‘organs of state security.’ The rest is history, as they say. A short account of the incident can be found here.

“As the video of the event shows, Secretary Clinton did not miss a beat in her speech as she called for authoritarian governments to show respect for dissent and to refrain from violence. She spoke with what seemed to be an especially chilly sang froid, as she ignored my silent protest and the violent assault which took place right in front of her.

“The experience gave me personal confirmation of the impression that I reluctantly had drawn from watching her behavior and its consequences over the past decade. The incident was a kind of metaphor of the much worse violence that Secretary Clinton has coolly countenanced against others.

“Again and again, Hillary Clinton – both as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State – has demonstrated a nonchalant readiness to unleash the vast destructiveness of American military power. The charitable explanation, I suppose, is that she knows nothing of war from direct personal experience.” [For more of McGovern’s account of his arrest, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Standing Up to War and Hillary Clinton.”]

Image: Ray McGovern displaying the aftermath of his arrest during a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

In a civil court filing, the PCJF lawyers described the scene:

“As Secretary Clinton was reading from her prepared remarks regarding Egypt’s dictatorship [and] saying, ‘Then the government pulled the plug,’ the then-71-year-old McGovern was forcibly and falsely arrested by GWU police officers, grabbed by the head, assaulted, and as Secretary Clinton continued undisturbed stating, ‘the government … did not want the world to watch,’ Mr. McGovern was removed from public view with excessive and brutal force, taken to jail, and left bleeding with bruises and contusions.”

In a press release about Clinton’s emails on Thursday, McGovern’s attorneys said they had sought State Department emails related to McGovern’s arrest but had not received Clinton’s email exchange with Blumenthal. Those emails surfaced in connection with congressional inquiries about Clinton conducting State Department business using a private server outside U.S. government control.

Based on the new disclosures, it was clear Clinton knew a great deal about the incident from Blumenthal, including receiving photos of McGovern’s injuries.

Blumenthal suggested that Clinton “have someone apologize to Ray McGovern,” but referred to the incident and McGovern in condescending terms, noting that McGovern’s mistreatment has “become a minor cause célèbre on the Internet among lefties.” As for McGovern, Blumenthal said the former CIA analyst who was a presidential briefer to George H.W. Bush has “become a Christian antiwar leftist who goes around bearing witness. Whatever his views, he’s harmless.”

Clinton responded,

“I appreciate your sending thgis [sic] to me. Neither State nor my staff had anything to do w this. The man stood up just as I was starting and GW–which claims their quick actions were part of their standard operating procedures to remove anyone who stands up and starts speaking while an invited guest is talking–moved to remove him. GW claims he was not in any way injured.”

However, McGovern was not speaking, simply standing quietly until he was attacked by the police. As for Clinton, no apology was forthcoming, nor any further explanation of why she failed to stop police from roughing up a peaceful protester in her presence.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

A poll taken in Iowa before the presidential caucus found that 70% of Democrats surveyed trusted Hillary Clinton on foreign policy more than Bernie Sanders. But her record as Secretary of State was very different from that of her successor, John Kerry, who has overseen groundbreaking diplomatic breakthroughs with Iran, Cuba and, in a more limited context, even with Russia and Syria.

In fact, Clinton’s use of the term “diplomacy” in talking about her own record is idiosyncratic in that it refers almost entirely to assembling “coalitions” to support U.S. threats, wars and sanctions against other countries, rather than to peacefully resolving international disputes without the threat or use of force, as normally understood by the word “diplomacy” and as required by the UN Charter.

There is another term for what Clinton means when she says “diplomacy,” and that is “brinksmanship,” which means threatening war to back up demands on other governments. In the real world, brinksmanship frequently leads to war when neither side will back down, at which point its only value or purpose is to provide a political narrative to justify aggression.

The two main “diplomatic” achievements Clinton gives herself credit for are: assembling the coalition of NATO and the Arab monarchies that bombed Libya into endless, intractable chaos; and imposing debilitating sanctions on the people of Iran over what U.S. intelligence agencies concluded by 2007 wasa peaceful civilian nuclear program.

Clinton’s claim that her brinksmanship “brought Iran to the table” over its “nuclear weapons program” is particularly deceptive. It was in fact Secretary Clinton and President Obama who refused to take “Yes” for an answer in 2010, after Iran agreed to what was originally a U.S. proposal relayed by Turkey and Brazil. Clinton and Obama chose instead to keep ratcheting up sanctions and U.S. and Israeli threats. This was a textbook case of dangerous brinksmanship that was finally resolved by real diplomacy (and real diplomats like Kerry, Lavrov and Zarif) before it led to war.

That Clinton can peddle such deceptive rhetoric to national prime-time television audiences and yet still be considered trustworthy by many Americans is a sad indictment of the U.S. corporate media’s coverage of foreign policy, including their willful failure to distinguish between diplomacy and brinksmanship.

But Michael Crowley, now the senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico, formerly with Time and the New Republic, has analyzed Clinton’s foreign policy record over the course of her career, and his research has shed light on her Iraq War vote, her personal influences and her underlying views of U.S. foreign policy, all of which deserve serious scrutiny from American voters.

The results of Crowley’s research reveal that Clinton believes firmly in the post-Cold War ambition to establish the U.S. threat or use of force as the ultimate arbiter of international affairs. She does not believe that the U.S. should be constrained by the UN Charter or other rules of international law from threatening or attacking other countries when it can make persuasive political arguments for doing so.

This places Clinton squarely in the “humanitarian interventionist” camp with her close friend and confidante Madeleine Albright, but also in underlying if unspoken agreement with the “neocons” who brought us the Iraq War and the self-fulfilling and ever-expanding “war on terror.”

Neoconservatism and humanitarian interventionism emerged in the 1990s as parallel ways to exploit the post-Cold War “power dividend,” each with its own approach to overcoming legal, diplomatic and political obstacles to the unbridled expansion of U.S. military power. In general, Democratic power brokers favored the humanitarian interventionist approach, while Republicans embraced neo-conservatism, but their underlying goals were the same: to politically legitimize U.S. hegemony in the post-Cold War era.

The most self-serving ideologues, like Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, soon mastered the nuances of both ideologies and have moved smoothly between administrations of both parties. Victoria Nuland, Dick Cheney’s deputy foreign policy adviser, became Secretary Clinton’s spokesperson and went on to plan the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Robert Kagan, who co-founded the neocon Project for the New American Century with William Kristol in 1997, was appointed by Clinton to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board in 2011.

Kagan wrote of Clinton in 2014, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

In the Clinton White House

In her husband’s White House in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton was not an outsider to the foreign policy debates that laid the groundwork for these new ideologies of U.S. power, which have since unleashed such bloody and intractable conflicts across the world.

In 1993, at a meeting between Clinton’s transition team and Bush’s National Security Council, Madeleine Albright challenged then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell on his “Powell Doctrine” of limited war. Albright asked him, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

Hillary Clinton found common ground with Albright, and has likewise derided the Powell doctrine for limiting U.S. military action to “splendid little wars” like the invasions of Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, apparently forgetting that these are the only wars the U.S. has actually won since 1945.

Hillary Clinton reportedly “insist(ed)” on Albright’s nomination as Secretary of State in December 1996, and they met regularly at the State Department during Bill Clinton’s second term for in depth foreign policy discussions aided by White House and State Department staff. Albright called their relationship “an unprecedented partnership.”

With Defense Secretary William Cohen, Albright oversaw the crystallization of America’s aggressive post-Cold War foreign policy in the late 1990s. As UN Ambassador, she maintained and justified sanctions on Iraq, even as they killed hundreds of thousands of children. As Secretary of State, she led the push for the illegal U.S. assault on Yugoslavia in 1999, which set the fateful precedent for further U.S. violations of the U.N. Charter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

James Rubin, Albright’s State Department spokesman, remembers strained phone calls between Albright and U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook during the planning for the bombing of Yugoslavia. Cook told Albright the U.K. government was having problems “with its lawyers”because attacking Yugoslavia without authorization by the UN Security Council would violate the UN Charter. Albright told him the U.K. should “get new lawyers.”

Like Secretary Albright, Hillary Clinton strongly supported NATO’s illegal aggression against Yugoslavia. In fact, she later told Talk magazine that she called her husband from Africa to plead with him to order the use of force. “I urged him to bomb,” she said, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”

After the U.S.-U.K. bombing and invasion, the NATO protectorate of Kosovo quickly descended into chaos and organized crime. Hashim Thaci, the gangster who the U.S. installed as its first prime minister, now faces indictment for the very war crimes that U.S. bombing enabled and supported in 1999, including credible allegations that he organized the extrajudicial execution of Serbs to harvest and sell their internal organs.

On Clinton’s holocaust reference, the U.S. and U.K. did carpet-bomb Germany at the height of the Nazi holocaust, but bombing could not stop the genocide of European Jews any more than it can have a “humanitarian” impact today. The Western allies’ decision to rely mainly on bombing throughout 1942 and 1943 while the Red Army’s “boots on the ground” and the civilians in the concentration camps died in their millions cast a long shadow on today’s policy debates over Syria, Iraq and Libya.

War is always an atrocity and a crime, but relying on bombing and drones to avoid putting “boots on the ground” is uniquely dangerous because it gives politicians the illusion that they can wage war without political risk. In the longer term, from London in the Blitz to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos to Islamic State and drone victims today, bombing has always been the surest way to provoke righteous anger, stiffen resistance and reap a whirlwind of blowback. The 140,000 bombs and missiles the U.S. and its allies have rained down on at least seven countries since 2001 are the poisonous seeds of a harvest of intractable conflict that is still gathering strength after14 years of war.

The Clinton administration formalized its illegal doctrine of unilateral military force in its 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, declaring, “When the interests at stake are vital… we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power. U.S. vital national interests include… preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition… (and) ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.”

Arguments based on “vital interests” are dangerous precisely because they are politically persuasive to the citizens of any country. Butthis is precisely the justification for war that the U.N. Charter was designed to prohibit, as the U.K.’s senior legal adviser, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, explained to his government during the Suez crisis in 1956. He wrote, “The plea of vital interest, which has been one of the main justifications for wars in the past, is indeed the very one which the UN Charter was intended to exclude.”

Senator Clinton’s Iraq war vote

Sixteen years after the bombing of Yugoslavia, bombing to “prevent holocausts” and wars to “defend” ill-defined and virtually unlimited U.S. interests have succeeded only in launching a new holocaust that has killed at least 1.6 million people and plunged a dozen countries into intractable chaos. As Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee wrote of his colleagues who voted to authorize war on Iraq in 2002, “Helping a rogue President start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment...”

As the results of that decision keep spinning farther out of control, it seems increasingly remarkable that U.S. officials who authorized a warbased on lies with millions of lives in the balance still have careers in public policy. If it costs Clinton another presidential nomination, that is a small price to pay when weighed against the holocaust she helped to unleash on tens of millions of people. But what if her vote for an illegal and devastating war was not a momentary “lapse of judgment”, but was in fact consistent with her views then and her views now?

As the Bush administration lobbied Senators to support the Iraq AUMF in 2002, Senator Clinton had several private chats with Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, an old friend from Yale Law School. An unnamed Bush official, possibly Hadley, told Michael Crowley, “I was kind of pleasantly surprised by her attitude.”

But Albright’s former assistant James Rubin was not surprised by Clinton’s vote on Iraq. He found it consistent with the position of the Clinton administration and Albright’s State Department that U.S. “diplomacy” must be backed up by the threat of military force. “I think there is a connection to her vote,” Rubin told Michael Crowley, “which is recognizing that the right combination of force and diplomacy (sic) can achieve America’s objectives. Sometimes, to get things done – like getting inspectors back into Iraq – you do have to be prepared to threaten force.”

But this evades the critical question of U.S. obligations under the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat and use of force. Senator Levin introduced an amendment to the Iraq AUMF bill that would have only authorized the use of force if it was approved by the UN Security Council. Senator Clinton voted against that amendment, making it clear that she supported the threat and use of force against Iraq whether it was legal or not.

Clinton has defended her vote on the basis of providing a credible threat of force to back up the call for inspections, in keeping with her long-standing preference for threats and brinksmanship over diplomacy. But the problem with threats of force is that they often lead to the use of force, as we have now seen repeatedly since the U.S. has embraced this aggressive and illegal approach to international affairs. This is exactly why the UN Charter prohibits the threat as well as the use of force. The absolute priority of world leaders in 1945 was peace, and so the UN Charter prohibited both the threat and use of force, based on bitter experience of how the one so easily leads to the other.

The fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy since the 1980s has been to renounce peace as an overriding priority and to politically legitimize U.S. war-making. The U.S. has therefore, without public debate, abandoned FDR’s post-WWII “permanent structure of peace” based on the UN Charter. The U.S. also withdrew from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, after it found the U.S. guilty of aggression against Nicaragua in 1986, and it likewise rejects the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court.

U.S. government lawyers now pass off political arguments as legal cover for aggression, torture, killing civilians and other war crimes, secure in the knowledge that they will never be forced to defend their legally indefensible opinions in impartial courts. When President Bush unveiled his illegal “doctrine of preemption” in 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy called it, “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.” But the same must be said of this entire decades-long effort by the Clintons, Bushes, Albright, Cheney and others to liberate the U.S. military industrial complex from the restraints placed upon it by the rule of international law.

Secretary of State – Iraq and Afghanistan

Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State were consistent with her role working with her husband and Madeleine Albright in the 1990s, and in the Senate with the Bush administration, to fundamentally corrupt U.S. foreign policy. Robert Gates’s book,Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, has provided revealing insights into Clinton’s personal contributions to White House foreign policy debates on the vital issues of Obama’s first term, in which she was always the most hawkish of Obama’s senior advisers, more hawkish than his Republican Secretary of Defense.

At Clinton’s first “town hall” with foreign service officers at the State Department, Steve Kashkett of the American Foreign Service Association asked Clinton how soon the State Department’s deployment of 1,200 staff to the massive U.S. occupation headquarters in Baghdad would be reduced “to that of a normal diplomatic mission” to ease critical understaffing at other U.S. embassies all over the world.

Clinton instead launched a “civilian surge,” doubling the already overweight State Department deployment in Baghdad to 2,400. When the Iraqi government refused to allow 3,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to protect the embassy staff – and Clinton had wanted even more than that – she hired 7,000 heavily-armed mercenaries to do the job instead.

As Clinton doubled down on the failed U.S. effort to control a puppet government in Iraq whose courageous people’s resistance had already made U.S. military occupation unsustainable, she was also keen to put the lives of more U.S. troops on the line in the even longer-running quagmire in Afghanistan.

When President Obama took office, there were 34,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but only 645 had been killed in 7 years of combat. A Pew poll found that only 18% of Afghans surveyed wanted more U.S. troops in their country.

Secretary Clinton backed Obama’s first decision to commit an additional 30,000 troops to the war. Then, in mid-2009, General McChrystal submitted a request for a second increase of 40,000 troops. He also submitted a classified assessment that a genuine campaign to defeat the Taliban and its allies would require 500,000 U.S. troops for five years, acknowledging that neither 65,000 nor 105,000 troops could possibly achieve that.

Clinton supported McChrystal’s request and was eager to match it with a State Department “civilian surge” like the one in Iraq. Among Obama’s other advisers, Vice President Biden opposed any further escalation, while Secretary Gates recommended a smaller increase of 30,000 troops, which was what Obama ultimately approved.

When Obama and his aides debated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Clinton was again the most hawkish, arguing for no reduction in troop strength until 2013. In a typically arbitrary political compromise, Obama split the difference between Clinton and the doves and ordered the first withdrawals to begin in September 2012.

By the time the U.S. “combat mission” ended in 2014, 2,356 U.S. troops had met their deaths in the “graveyard of empires“. In 2016, the Taliban and its allies control more of Afghanistan than at any time since 2001, as they fight to expel the 10,000 U.S. troops still deployed there. A complete withdrawal of foreign troops has always been the Taliban’s first precondition for opening serious peace talks with the government, so the 2009-10 escalations, which Clinton backed to the hilt, served only to kill 1,711 more Americans and tens of thousands of Afghans, prolonging the war and undermining diplomacy in the futile hope of saving acorrupt regime of U.S.-backed warlords and drug-lords.

President Obama’s latest plan, to keep at least 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, ensures that the war will continue into the next administration, even as Islamic State begins to move into another failed state already devastated by more than 60,000 U.S. bombs and missiles.

Secretary of State – Libya and Syria

President Obama’s advisers were even more divided over launching a new war to overthrow the government of Libya. Despite Secretary Gates telling a Congressional hearing that the first phase of a “no-fly zone” would be a bombing campaign to destroy Libyan air defenses, a Pew poll found that, while 44% of the public supported a “no-fly zone,” only 16% supported “bombing Libyan air defenses.” Even after being caught with its pants down over Iraq, the U.S. corporate media has not lost its talent for confusing Americans into war.

Secretary Gates wrote in Duty that he was so opposed to U.S. intervention in Libya that he considered resigning. President Obama was so undecided that he called his final decision a “51-49 call.” The other advocates for bombing were UN Ambassador Rice and National Security Council staffers Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power, so Secretary Clinton was the most senior, and almost certainly the decisive voice in sealing the fate of Muammar Gaddafi and the people of Libya.

Despite a UN resolution that authorized military force only to “protect civilians,” the U.S. and its allies intervened to support forces who were explicitly fighting to overthrow the Libyan government. NATO and its Arab monarchist allies conducted 7,700 air strikes in seven months, while NATO warships shelled coastal cities. The rebel forces on the ground, including Islamist fundamentalists, were trained and led on the ground by Qatari, British, French and Jordanian special forces.

In their short-sighted triumphalism over Libya, NATO and Arab monarchist leaders thought they had finally found a model for regime change that worked. Seduced by the blood-drenched mirage in the Libyan desert, they made the cynical decision to double down on what they knew very well would be a longer, more complicated and bloodier proxy war in Syria.

Only a few months after a gleeful Secretary Clinton hailed the sodomy and assassination of Gaddafi, unmarked NATO planes were flying fighters and weapons from Libya to the “Free Syrian Army” training base at Iskenderum in Turkey, where British and French special forces provided more training and the CIA and JSOC infiltrated them into Syria. Residents of Aleppo were shocked to find their city invaded, not by Syrian rebels, but by Islamist fighters from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt. Despite the already brutal repression of the Syrian government, a Qatari-funded YouGov poll in December 2011 found that 55% of Syrians still supported their government, understanding that the alternative could be much worse.

Secretary Clinton and President Sarkozy assembled the Orwellian “Friends of Syria” coalition that undermined Kofi Annan’s 2012 peace plan by committing more funding, arms and support to their proxy forces instead of pressuring them to honor Annan’s April 10th ceasefire and begin negotiations for a political transition.

When Annan finally got all the countries involved to sign on to the Geneva communique on June 30th 2012, providing for a new ceasefire and a political transition, he received assurances that it would quickly be formalized in a new UN Security Council resolution. Instead, Clinton and her allies revived their precondition that President Assad must resign before any transition could begin, the critical precondition they had set aside in Geneva. With no possibility of agreement in the Security Council, Annan resigned in despair.

Almost four years later, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed in an ever more convoluted and dangerous war, now involving the armed forces of 16 countries, each with their own interests and their own relationships with different proxy forces on the ground. In many areas, the U.S. supports and arms both sides. Turkey, a NATO member and major U.S. arms buyer, is attacking the YPG Kurdish forces who have been the U.S.’s most effective ally on the ground against Islamic State. And the sectarian government to whom the U.S. handed over the ruins of Iraq is sendingU.S.-armed militias to fight U.S.-armed rebels in Syria.

Obama and Clinton’s doctrine of covert and proxy war, by which they still tout drone strikes, JSOC death squads, CIA coups and local proxy forces as politically safe “tools” to project U.S. power across the world without the deployment of U.S. “boots on the ground,” has destroyed Libya, Yemen, Syria and Ukraine, and left U.S. foreign policy in an unprecedented crisis.

Hanging over this escalating, out-of-control crisis is the existential danger of war between the U.S. and Russia, who together possess 14,700 nuclear weapons with the destructive power to end life on Earth as we know it. With her demonstrated, deeply-held belief in the superiority of threats, brinksmanship and war over diplomacy and the rule of law, surely the last thing the world needs now is Hillary Clinton playing chicken with the Russians while the fate of life on Earth hangs in the balance.

Based on Senator Bernie Sanders’ record in Congress, his prescient floor speech during the Iraq war debate in 2002 and his campaign‘s position statement on “War and Peace”, he at least understands the most obvious lesson of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, that it is easier to unleash the dogs of war than to call them off once they have tasted blood. Incredibly, this makes him almost unique among U.S. leaders of this generation.

But there are real flaws in Sanders’ position statement. He cites “vital strategic interests” as a justification for war, dodging the thorny problem that international disputes typically involve “vital strategic interests” on both sides, which the UN Charter addresses by requiring them to be resolved peacefully without the threat or use of force. And instead of pointing out that Clinton’s brinksmanship with Iran risked a second war in 10 years over non-existent WMDs, he repeats the canard that Iran was “developing nuclear weapons” before the signing of the JCPOA in 2015.

Senator Sanders has launched an unprecedented campaign to challenge the way powerful vested interests have corrupted our elections, our political system and our economy. But the same interests have also corrupted our foreign policy, squandering our national wealth on weapons and war, killing millions of people and plunging country after country into war, ruin and chaos. To succeed, the Sanders “revolution” must be ready to bring the same integrity to our country’s role in the world as it promises to bring to our political and economic system.

This article was first published by Who What Why

Forty-eight years ago (in 1968), the country was in the midst of another presidential campaign that came at a seminal moment in American history. Five years earlier, John F. Kennedy had been murdered, and Dr. Martin Luther King had been assassinated in April of 1968. The Vietnam War was escalating. Race riots were becoming a fact of urban life. Racial and generational politics as well as social issues were threatening to tear the country apart.

Then on the night of June 5th, 1968, after John Kennedy’s brother Robert had won the all-important California Primary, America got yet another jolt: the younger Kennedy, too, had been struck down.

Who Killed Bobby book cover and author Shane O’Sullivan Photo credit: Union Square Press / whokilledbobby.netand rfkmustdie.com

Flash forward to 2016.

Last week, his alleged killer, Sirhan Sirhan, was up for his 14th parole hearing. Sitting in the audience was Paul Schrade, one of RFK’s closest confidantes — who was also shot during the attack; Schrade, now 91, is interesting for many reasons, not the least of which is his conclusion that, assuming Sirhan was one of the shooters that night, he was not the only one. Moreover, if Sirhan fired any shots, Schrade is quite certain that the young Palestinian-American, once again being denied parole, could not have killed RFK — because it was a physical impossibility.

Author and filmmaker Shane O’Sullivan has spent 12 years examining how Sirhan might have been “programmed”, and by whom; scrutinizing the failures of the Los Angeles Police Department; bringing forth the sound and ballistic evidence showing 14 separate shots were fired; and publicizing the efforts by RFK friend Schrade to reopen the investigation. In this podcast, he talks to WhoWhatWhy’s Jeff Schectman about where the fact trail points.

Click HERE to Download Mp3

As October ended, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest announced that the U.S. would be sending “less than 50” boots-on-the-ground Special Operations forces into northern Syria in an “advise-and-assist” program for Kurdish rebels and their (essentially nonexistent) Arab allies.  Only days before, in yet another example of twenty-first-century mission creep, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had told Congress that the intensity of U.S. air attacks in Syria would rise “with additional U.S. and coalition aircraft and heavier airstrikes.”  For this, A-10 and F-15 aircraft were to be deployed to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

It was the sort of military promise from Washington — more of the same — that has grown increasingly familiar in these years and could be summed up by adapting that old DuPont ad line, “better living through chemistry”: a better world through bombing.  Unfortunately for such plans, the verdict has long been in: air power as a decisive factor in American war in this century has proven a dismal failure.  Even in skies that, with the rarest of exceptions, offer no dangers whatsoever (other than mechanical failure) to fighter jets, bombers, and drones, even in situations in which munitions can be delivered to any chosen spot with alacrity and without opposition by aircraft freely patrolling the skies overhead, air power has proven a weapon from hell in every sense of the world.  Complete “air superiority” has been a significant factor, as in Libya, in the creation of a string of failed states (and so breeding grounds for terror outfits) across the Greater Middle East. In its post-modern “manhunting” form, grimly named Predator and Reaper drones have managed to kill thousands of leaders, lieutenants, sub-lieutenants, and rank-and-file militants in various terrorist organizations, as well as significant numbers of civilians, including children.  Recently leaked documents on Washington’s drone assassination campaigns indicate that, in at least one period in Afghanistan, only 10% of those killed were actually targeted for death.  And yet the president’s drone assassination campaign in several countries (based in part on a White House “kill list” and “terror Tuesday” meetings to decide whom to target) seems only to have helped foster the exponential growth of terror outfits across the Greater Middle East and Africa.

In these years, air power has, in fact, been closely associated with one fiasco or policy disappointment after another.  To take a single recent example: President Obama began his “no boots on the ground” air campaign against the Islamic State (IS) and its “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq in September 2014.  Now, more than a year and thousands of air strikes later, though large numbers of IS militants and some of its leaders have died, the movement continues to more than hold its own in Iraq, while expanding into new areas of Syria.  There is no evidence that Washington’s air war in support of well… it’s a little unclear who — now being emulated by the Russians in support of Syria’s brutal autocrat Bashar al-Assad — has met any of its goals.

And yet from all of this, the only conclusion repeatedly drawn in Washington is to do it again.  That air power in its various forms has added up to both a war of terror (that is, on civilian populations below) and a war for terror, that it has become a recruitment poster for terror outfits evidently matters not at all.  In Washington, no conclusions are seemingly drawn from the actual record of these last 14 years, nor from a far longer historical record of air power disappointments, of repeated times in which much was destroyed and countless people, especially civilians, killed to no decisive effect whatsoever.  As Greg Grandin points out today, that phenomenon stretches back at least to Vietnam (if not Korea).  In his second piece at TomDispatch on the eternal Henry Kissinger (92 and still writing op-eds for the Wall Street Journal), based on his remarkable new book, Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman, Grandin reminds us of what a pioneer in the horrors of modernity the good “doctor” really was. Tom

Kissinger, the Bombardier: How Diplomacy by Air Power Became an All-American Tradition,

By Greg Grandin

In April 2014, ESPN published a photograph of an unlikely duo: Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and former national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger at the Yankees-Red Sox season opener. In fleece jackets on a crisp spring day, they were visibly enjoying each other’s company, looking for all the world like a twenty-first-century geopolitical version of Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The subtext of their banter, however, wasn’t about sex, but death.

As a journalist, Power had made her name as a defender of human rights, winning a Pulitzer Prize for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Having served on the National Security Council before moving on to the U.N., she was considered an influential “liberal hawk” of the Obama era. She was also a leading light among a set of policymakers and intellectuals who believe that American diplomacy should be driven not just by national security and economic concerns but by humanitarian ideals, especially the advancement of democracy and the defense of human rights.

The United States, Power long held, has a responsibility to protect the world’s most vulnerable people. In 2011 she played a crucial role in convincing President Obama to send in American air power to prevent troops loyal to Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi from massacring civilians.  That campaign led to his death, the violent overthrow of his regime, and in the end, a failed state and growing stronghold for ISIS and other terror groups. In contrast, Kissinger is identified with a school of “political realism,” which holds that American power should service American interests, even if that means sacrificing the human rights of others.

According to ESPN, Power teasingly asked Kissinger if his allegiance to the Yankees was “in keeping with a realist’s perspective on the world.” Power, an avid Red Sox fan, had only recently failed to convince the United Nations to endorse a U.S. bombing campaign in Syria, so Kissinger couldn’t resist responding with a gibe of his own. “You might,” he said, “end up doing more realistic things.” It was his way of suggesting that she drop the Red Sox for the Yankees. “The human rights advocate,” Power retorted, referring to herself in the third person, “falls in love with the Red Sox, the downtrodden, the people who can’t win the World Series.”

“Now,” replied Kissinger, “we are the downtrodden” — a reference to the Yankees’ poor performance the previous season. During his time in office, Kissinger had been involved in three of the genocides Power mentions in her book: Pol Pot’s “killing fields” in Cambodia, which would never have occurred had he not infamously ordered an illegal four-and-a-half-year bombing campaign in that country; Indonesia’s massacre in East Timor; and Pakistan’s in Bangladesh, both of which he expedited.

You might think that mutual knowledge of his policies under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and the horrors that arose from them would have cast a pall over their conversation, but their banter was lively. “If a Yankee fan and a Red Sox fan can head into the heart of darkness for the first game of the season,” Power commented, “all things are possible.”

All things except, it seems, extricating the country from its endless wars.

Only recently, Barack Obama announced that U.S. troops wouldn’t be leaving Afghanistan any time soon and also made a deeper commitment to fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including deploying the first U.S. ground personnel into that country. Indeed, a new book by New York Times reporter Charlie Savage, Power Wars, suggests that there has been little substantive difference between George W. Bush’s administration and Obama’s when it comes to national security policies or the legal justifications used to pursue regime change in the Greater Middle East.

Henry Kissinger is, of course, not singularly responsible for the evolution of the U.S. national security state into a monstrosity. That state has had many administrators. But his example — especially his steadfast support for bombing as an instrument of “diplomacy” and his militarization of the Persian Gulf — has coursed through the decades, shedding a spectral light on the road that has brought us to a state of eternal war.

From Cambodia…

Within days of Richard Nixon’s inauguration in January 1969, national security adviser Kissinger asked the Pentagon to lay out his bombing options in Indochina. The previous president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, had suspended his own bombing campaign against North Vietnam in hopes of negotiating a broader ceasefire. Kissinger and Nixon were eager to re-launch it, a tough task given domestic political support for the bombing halt.

The next best option: begin bombing across the border in Cambodia to destroy enemy supply lines, depots, and bases supposedly located there.  Nixon and Kissinger also believed that such an onslaught might force Hanoi to make concessions at the negotiating table. On February 24th, Kissinger and his military aide, Colonel Alexander Haig, met with Air Force Colonel Ray Sitton, an expert on B-52 bombers, to begin the planning of Menu, the grim culinary codename for the bombing campaign to come.

Given that Nixon had been elected on a promise to end the war in Vietnam, Kissinger believed that it wasn’t enough to place Menu in the category of “top secret.” Absolute and total secrecy, especially from Congress, was a necessity. He had no doubt that Congress, crucial to the appropriation of funds needed to conduct specific military missions, would never approve a bombing campaign against a neutral country with which the United States wasn’t at war.

Instead, Kissinger, Haig, and Sitton came up with an ingenious deception. Based on recommendations from General Creighton Abrams, commander of military operations in Vietnam, Sitton would lay out the Cambodian targets to be struck, then run them by Kissinger and Haig for approval. Next, he would backchannel their coordinates to Saigon and a courier would deliver them to radar stations where the officer in charge would, at the last minute, switch B-52 bombing runs over South Vietnam to the agreed-upon Cambodian targets.

Later, that officer would burn any relevant maps, computer printouts, radar reports, or messages that might reveal the actual target. “A whole special furnace” was set up to dispose of the records, Abrams would later testify before Congress. “We burned probably 12 hours a day.” False “post-strike” paperwork would then be written up indicating that the sorties had been flown over South Vietnam as planned.

Kissinger was very hands-on. “Strike here in this area,” Sitton recalled Kissinger telling him, “or strike here in that area.” The bombing galvanized the national security adviser. The first raid occurred on March 18, 1969. “K really excited,” Bob Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff, wrote in his diary. “He came beaming in [to the Oval Office] with the report.”

In fact, he would supervise every aspect of the bombing. As journalist Seymour Hersh later wrote, “When the military men presented a proposed bombing list, Kissinger would redesign the missions, shifting a dozen planes, perhaps, from one area to another, and altering the timing of the bombing runs… [He] seemed to enjoy playing the bombardier.” (That joy wouldn’t be limited to Cambodia. According to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, when the bombing of North Vietnam finally started up again, Kissinger “expressed enthusiasm at the size of the bomb craters.”) A Pentagon report released in 1973 stated that “Henry A. Kissinger approved each of the 3,875 Cambodia bombing raids in 1969 and 1970” — the most secretive phase of the bombing — “as well as the methods for keeping them out of the newspapers.”

All told, between 1969 and 1973, the U.S. dropped half-a-million tons of bombs on Cambodia alone, killing at least 100,000 civilians. And don’t forget Laos and both North and South Vietnam. “It’s wave after wave of planes. You see, they can’t see the B-52 and they dropped a million pounds of bombs,” Kissinger told Nixon after the April 1972 bombing of North Vietnam’s port city of Haiphong, as he tried to reassure the president that the strategy was working: “I bet you we will have had more planes over there in one day than Johnson had in a month… Each plane can carry about 10 times the load [a] World War II plane could carry.”

As the months passed, however, the bombing did nothing to force Hanoi to the bargaining table.  It did, on the other hand, help Kissinger in his interoffice rivalries. His sole source of power was Nixon, who was a bombing advocate. So Kissinger embraced his role as First Bombardier to show the tough-guy militarists the president had surrounded himself with that he was the “hawk of hawks.” And yet, in the end, even Nixon came to see that the bombing campaigns were a dead end. “K. We have had 10 years of total control of the air in Laos and V.Nam,” Nixon wrote him over a top-secret report on the efficacy of bombing, “The result = Zilch.” (This was in January 1972, three months before Kissinger assured Nixon that “wave after wave” of bombers would do the trick).

During those four-and a half years when the U.S. military dropped more than 6,000,000 tons of bombs on Southeast Asia, Kissinger revealed himself to be not a supreme political realist, but the planet’s supreme idealist.  He refused to quit when it came to a policy meant to bring about a world he believed he ought to live in, one where he could, by the force of the material power of the U.S. military, bend poor peasant countries like Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to his will — as opposed to the one he did live in, where bomb as he might he couldn’t force Hanoi to submit. As he put it at the time, “I refuse to believe that a little fourth-rate power like North Vietnam does not have a breaking point.”

In fact, that bombing campaign did have one striking effect: it destabilized Cambodia, provoking a 1970 coup that, in turn, provoked a 1970 American invasion, which only broadened the social base of the insurgency growing in the countryside, leading to escalating U.S. bombing runs that spread to nearly the whole country, devastating it and creating the conditions for the rise to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

…to the First Gulf War 

Having either condoned, authorized, or planned so many invasions — Indonesia’s in East Timor, Pakistan’s in Bangladesh, the U.S.’s in Cambodia, South Vietnam’s in Laos, and South Africa’s in Angola — Henry Kissinger took the only logical stance in early August 1990, when Saddam Hussein sent the Iraqi military into Kuwait: he condemned the act. In office, he had worked to pump up Baghdad’s regional ambitions. As a private consultant and pundit, he had promoted the idea that Saddam’s Iraq could serve as a disposable counterweight to revolutionary Iran. Now, he knew just what needed to be done: the annexation of Kuwait had to be reversed.

President George H.W. Bush soon launched Operation Desert Shield, sending an enormous contingent of troops to Saudi Arabia. But once there, what exactly were they to do? Contain Iraq? Attack and liberate Kuwait? Drive on to Baghdad and depose Saddam? There was no clear consensus among foreign policy advisers or analysts. Prominent conservatives, who had made their names fighting the Cold War, offered conflicting advice. Former ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick, for instance, opposed any action against Iraq. She didn’t think that Washington had a “distinctive interest in the Gulf” now that the Soviet Union was gone. Other conservatives pointed out that, with the Cold War over, it mattered little whether Iraqi Baathists or local sheiks pumped Kuwait’s oil as long as it made it out of the ground.

Kissinger took the point position in countering those he called America’s “new isolationists.” What Bush did next in Kuwait, he announced in the first sentence of a widely published syndicated column, would make or break his administration. Anything short of the liberation of Kuwait would turn Bush’s “show of force” in Saudi Arabia into a “debacle.”

Baiting fellow conservatives reluctant to launch a crusade in the Gulf, he insisted, in Cold War-ish terms that couldn’t fail to bite, that their advice was nothing short of “abdication.” There were, he insisted, “consequences” to one’s “failure to resist.” He may, in fact, have been the first person to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler. In opinion pieces, TV appearances, and testimony before Congress, Kissinger forcefully argued for intervention, including the “surgical and progressive destruction of Iraq’s military assets” and the removal of the Iraqi leader from power. “America,” he insisted, “has crossed its Rubicon” and there was no turning back.

He was once again a man of the moment.  But how expectations had shifted since 1970! When President Bush launched his bombers on January 17, 1991, it was in the full glare of the public eye, recorded for all to see. There was no veil of secrecy and no secret furnaces, burned documents, or counterfeited flight reports. After a four-month-long on-air debate among politicians and pundits, “smart bombs” lit up the sky over Baghdad and Kuwait City as the TV cameras rolled. Featured were new night-vision equipment, real-time satellite communications, and former U.S. commanders ready to narrate the war in the style of football announcers right down to instant replays. “In sports-page language,” said CBS News anchor Dan Rather on the first night of the attack, “this… it’s not a sport. It’s war. But so far, it’s a blowout.”

And Kissinger himself was everywhere — ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, on the radio, in the papers — offering his opinion. “I think it’s gone well,” he said to Dan Rather that very night.

It would be a techno-display of such apparent omnipotence that President Bush got the kind of mass approval Kissinger and Nixon never dreamed possible. With instant replay came instant gratification, confirmation that the president had the public’s backing. On January 18th, only a day into the assault, CBS announced that a new poll “indicates extremely strong support for Mr. Bush’s Gulf offensive.”

“By God,” Bush said in triumph, “we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

Saddam Hussein’s troops were easily driven out of Kuwait and, momentarily, it looked like the outcome would vindicate the logic behind Kissinger’s and Nixon’s covert Cambodian air campaign: that the US should be free to use whatever military force it needed to compel the political outcome it sought. It seemed as if the world Kissinger had long believed he ought to live in was finally coming into being.

…toward 9/11

Saddam Hussein, however, remained in power in Baghdad, creating a problem of enormous proportions for Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton. Increasingly onerous sanctions, punctuated by occasional cruise missile attacks on Baghdad, only added to the crisis. Children were starving; civilians were being killed by U.S. missiles; and the Baathist regime refused to budge.

Kissinger watched all of this with a kind of detached amusement. In a way, Clinton was following his lead: he was bombing a country with which we weren’t at war and without congressional approval in part to placate the militarist right. In 1998, at a conference commemorating the 25th anniversary of the accords that ended the Vietnam War, Kissinger expressed his opinion on Iraq. The real “problem,” he said, is will. You need to be willing to “break the back” of somebody you refuse to negotiate with, just as he and Nixon had done in Southeast Asia. “Whether we got it right or not,” Kissinger added, “is really secondary.”

That should count as a remarkable statement in the annals of “political realism.”

Not surprisingly then, in the wake of 9/11, Kissinger was an early supporter of a bold military response. On August 9, 2002, for instance, he endorsed a policy of regime change in Iraq in his syndicated column, acknowledging it as “revolutionary.” “The notion of justified pre-emption,” he wrote, “runs counter to modern international law,” but was nonetheless necessary because of the novelty of the “terrorist threat,” which “transcends the nation-state.”

There was, however, “another, generally unstated, reason for bringing matters to a head with Iraq”: to “demonstrate that a terrorist challenge or a systemic attack on the international order also produces catastrophic consequences for the perpetrators, as well as their supporters.” To be — in true Kissingerian fashion — in the good graces of the most militaristic members of an American administration, the ultimate political “realist” was, in other words, perfectly willing to ignore that the secular Baathists of Baghdad were the enemies of Islamic jihadists, and that Iraq had neither perpetrated 9/11 nor supported the perpetrators of 9/11. After all, being “right or not is really secondary” to the main issue: being willing to do something decisive, especially use air power to “break the back” of… well, whomever.

Less than three weeks later, Vice President Dick Cheney, laying out his case for an invasion of Iraq before the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars, quoted directly from Kissinger’s column. “As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated,” said Cheney, there is “an imperative for pre-emptive action.”

In 2005, after the revelations about the cooking of intelligence and the manipulation of the press to neutralize opposition to the invasion of Iraq, after Fallujah and Abu Ghraib, after it became clear that the real beneficiary of the occupation would be revolutionary Iran, Michael Gerson, George W. Bush’s speechwriter, paid a visit to Kissinger in New York. Public support for the war was by then plummeting and Bush’s justifications for waging it expanding. America’s “responsibility,” he had announced earlier that year in his second inaugural address, was to “rid the world of evil.”

Gerson, who had helped write that speech, asked Kissinger what he thought of it. “At first I was appalled,” Kissinger said, but then he came to appreciate it for instrumental reasons. “On reflection,” as Bob Woodward recounted in his book State of Denial, he “now believed the speech served a purpose and was a very smart move, setting the war on terror and overall U.S. foreign policy in the context of American values. That would help sustain a long campaign.”

At that meeting, Kissinger gave Gerson a copy of an infamous memo he had written Nixon in 1969 and asked him to pass it along to Bush. “Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public,” he had warned, “the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.” Don’t get caught in that trap, Kissinger told Gerson, for once withdrawals start, it will become “harder and harder to maintain the morale of those who remain, not to speak of their mothers.”

Kissinger then reminisced about Vietnam, reminding Gerson that incentives offered through negotiations must be backed up by credible threats of an unrestrained nature. As an example, he brought up one of the many “major” ultimatums he had given the North Vietnamese, warning of “dire consequences” if they didn’t offer the concessions needed for the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam “with honor.” They didn’t.

“I didn’t have enough power,” was how Kissinger summarized his experience more than three decades later.

Will the Circle Be Unbroken?

When it comes to American militarism, conventional wisdom puts the idealist Samantha Power and the realist Kissinger at opposite ends of a spectrum. Conventional wisdom is wrong, as Kissinger himself has pointed out. Last year, while promoting his book World Order, he responded to questions about his controversial policies by pointing to Obama. There was, he said, no difference between what he did with B-52s in Cambodia and what the president was doing with drones in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. When asked about his role in overthrowing Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile in 1973, he insisted that his actions had been retrospectively justified by what Obama and Power did in Libya and wanted to do in Syria.

Kissinger’s defense was, of course, partly fatuous, especially his absurd assertion that fewer civilians had died from the half-million tons of bombs he had dropped on Cambodia than from the Hellfire missiles of Obama’s drones. (Credible estimates put civilian fatalities in Cambodia at more than 100,000; drones are blamed for about 1,000 civilian deaths.) He was right, however, in his assertion that many of the political arguments he made in the late 1960s to justify his illegal and covert wars in Cambodia and Laos, considered at the time way beyond mainstream thinking, are now an unquestioned, very public part of American policymaking. This was especially true of the idea that the U.S. has the right to violate the sovereignty of a neutral country to destroy enemy “sanctuaries.” “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven,” Barack Obama has said, offering Kissinger his retroactive absolution.

Here, then, is a perfect expression of American militarism’s unbroken circle. Kissinger invokes today’s endless, open-ended wars to justify his diplomacy by air power in Cambodia and elsewhere nearly half a century ago. But what he did then created the conditions for today’s endless wars, both those started by Bush’s neocons and those waged by Obama’s war-fighting liberals like Samantha Power. So it goes in Washington.

Greg Grandin, a TomDispatch regular, teaches history at New York University. He is the author of Fordlandia, The Empire of Necessity, which won the Bancroft Prize in American history, and, most recently, Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman.