Global Research

• To win the cold war President Ronald Reagan formed a secret ‘deception committee’ for a disinformation campaign against the USSR

• On several occasions ‘disinformation’ put the world on the brink of nuclear war

• The ‘Soviet’ U-boat scare that shook Sweden in the 80s was caused by US and UK subs that penetrated Swedish territorial waters disguised as Russian ones

• Swedish military were fully aware of these operations but did not report to Prime Minister, Olof Palme

• The number of Swedes believing in a Soviet threat increased fourfold

• ‘Dove’ Palme had no choice but to take anti-Soviet stance

• He was assassinated the day before his trip to meet Gorbachev whom he saw as a like minded person

The 52 minutes documentary “Deception: The Methods of Reagan” by German director Dirk Pohlmann  premiered last May on ‘ARTE’ the French/German highbrow channel. Broadcast late at night and early in the morning, it generated no reaction.

It has not been shown in Sweden, although it throws light on two of the most dramatic episodes in modern Swedish history – the Soviet U-boat scare of the 1980s that was suddenly repeated in 2014, and the assassination of the Swedish premier Olof Palme in 1986. This film is not a Hollywood thriller, but a sequence of stories told by people who have faces, names, titles and ranks.

Several months after this documentary aired, we are hearing that Russia plans to invade the Baltic states,  that in March 2013:

“Russia’s air force practiced a nuclear strike against Sweden, according to a report by NATO’s secretary general.”

The US and NATO increase defense spending and start a massive build-up on Russian borders…

The Deception Committee

According to the documentary, after a period of détente in the seventies, the ‘hawk’ Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981, determined to win the cold war. The arms race gave the US military superiority and exhausted the Soviet Union. It was supplemented by a major disinformation campaign and a war of nerves aimed at sapping the will of the Soviet leadership.

To achieve this, an informal group, known as  the ‘deception committee’ was formed. It answered  directly to President Reagan and was headed by the director of the CIA ,William Casey. Military and intelligence  officers were responsible for operational activities, deflecting responsibility from the White House in case of disclosure.

The scale of operations was impressive. Among the plots analyzed in detail in the film, the US ramped up naval activity near the Kola Peninsula, which hosts Russia’s main nuclear submarine base. Military exercises were supplemented with  disinformation considerably overstating the scale of maneuvers, leading the Kremlin to believe the US was planning a nuclear strike.

US Secretary of the Navy of the time, John Leman, tells the filmmakers :

“We knew that any mistake could provoke an unintended war”.

Soviet strategic bombers were ready to counterattack in 1983 during ‘the Able Archer’ maneuvers. Only a miracle  saved the world from nuclear war.

‘Soviet’ U-boats were NATO’s

The Swedish episode (see viedo) of “Deception: Methods of Reagan” begins on 27 October 1981 when the Soviet diesel-electric Whiskey-class submarine C-363  hit an underwater rock in Swedish territorial waters. The Soviet military said the submarine lost its way, the Swedes said the Russians were conducting reconnaissance. The incident made a lot of noise but was ultimately settled through diplomatic channels.

A year later,  the social-democrat Olof Palme, who coined the  notion ‘common security’, challenging Reagan’s cold war strategy, became the Swedish Prime Minister. Two weeks later, a periscope was detected in Swedish territorial waters…

The documentary shows the unidentified object thought to be a submarine being chased. Military helicopters and warships dropped depth bombs and laid antisubmarine mines for the world’s cameras. No submarine was destroyed and nothing was found.

During Palme’s tenure, there were more than a hundred antisubmarine alerts: the media reported stories of people witnessing Soviet frogmen manipulating something near a Swedish naval base and published undersea tracks left by the mysterious submarines.

Every time, the USSR was blamed, and although it denied everything, no one believed it. From 1981 to 1983, the number of Swedes who perceived a Soviet threat increased from 27% to 83%.

Palme the peacemaker was forced to make harsh anti-Soviet statements instead of promoting his ‘common security’ concept. My father, Boris Pankin who was Soviet ambassador to Sweden in those days, said this caused Palme an almost physical suffering, but he had no choice.

Many years later it turned out there were submarines in Swedish waters, but they were American and British! They carried out maneuvers in Swedish territorial waters disguised as Soviet vessels. The Swedish military authorities were aware of this, but didn’t tell the head of government. Former US Defense Minister Caspar Weinberger and his counterpart in the Royal Navy said they were careful not to hit anything.

The point was that officially neutral and non-aligned Sweden was actually a US military ally, these maneuvers carried out with the consent of the Swedish military. There was supposed to be an ‘unsinkable aircraft-carrier’ near the Soviet border, a scheme the election of Palme disrupted, earning him the enduring hatred of American politicians, the Swedish military and conservative elites. He was a ‘fifth column’, ‘a public enemy’ and they were ready to use ‘whatever it takes’, according to Ola Tunander, professor at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo .

On 28th February 1986 Olof Palme was shot in the center of Stockholm. The murder has never been solved.

“This couldn’t have been done by a lone wolf. It was a political contract killing”, Mikhail Gorbachev tells the filmmakers.

Palme was killed the day before his visit to Moscow, where he was to meet with Gorbachev, his ‘common security’ associate.

The world was taken for a ride

 … The head of the Swedish Government Commission on the Submarine Incident Investigation describes sabotage carried out by his own military:

“Sweden was taken for a ride. The Swedish parliament and Swedish government were taken for a ride as well as the Swedish media. What kind of world are we living in?”

These questions make this documentary highly topical today. Seeing it, you realize that it’s easier to understand  Europe’s post cold-war history in terms of conspiracy theories rather than as  it is currently presented by the ‘free’ western press.   And you realize why there are no new Olof Palmes on the European political scene today.

Five years after the NATO war in Libya, a new war is being prepared against the North African country behind the backs of the world population. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, East Ukraine and Syria, Libya will once again become the arena for war and destruction if the Western powers get their way.

In the past week, a new war in Libya has come dangerously closer. Last Sunday, a proposal for a new “national unity government” in Libya was presented in the Moroccan seaside resort Skhirat under the watchful eye of U.N. representatives.

The main task of the new U.N. puppet government will be to make an official appeal to the so-called “international community” and allow NATO to carry out a new military intervention in Libya under the pretext of a struggle against the Islamic State (ISIS). While negotiations were underway in Skhirat, British Royal Air Force military jets were already flying over the Libyan coast.

On Sunday evening, Fathi al-Majbari, head of the Libyan presidential commission and designated Libyan prime minister, presented the list of members of a new government in Tripoli with thirteen ministers and five state secretaries. He plans to present his agreement to the parliament in Tobruk.

The latest proposal has nothing to do with any kind of “will of the people.” Rather, it came about as a result of an ultimatum by the U.N. Although all nine members of the presidential council were handpicked by U.N. experts, two of them protested and refused to put their signatures on the proposal.

For more than a year, the imperialist powers, including the U.S., Germany, England, France and especially Italy have been working intensely on a new, so-called “robust mandate” for Libya. Such a “robust U.N. mandate” would, according to the U.N. charter, allow the international “air, sea or land armed forces” to carry out measures that are “required for the protection or restoration of world peace and international security.”

In reality, however, the aims of the U.N. in Libya have nothing to do with either the “restoration of world peace,” or the “war on terror,” but rather control of the country’s resources, above all oil and natural gas, as well as strategically important access to the entire African continent.

The NATO powers already reduced the country to rubble five years ago, killing approximately 30,000 people. Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi was brutally murdered. Before his assassination, Western intelligence agencies had already carried out a covert war against the Libyan government and systematically armed Islamist groups. This prepared the way for the current chaotic situation in Libya as well as the development of ISIS in North Africa. The resulting chaos is now being used as a pretext for a renewed military intervention in Libya.

Today, at least three governments and six different militias are struggling for power in Libya. The national congress in Tripoli replaced the so-called National Transitional Council (NTC) in the summer of 2012. Two years later, Islamists built the so-called government of national salvation in competition with the internationally recognized House of Representatives that had fled to Tobruk. In 2014, ISIS began to fight ever more fiercely for control of oil resources and developed its presence along the strategically important Mediterranean coast.

Since then, the U.N. has made a desperate effort to bring together the two competing governments in Tripoli and Tobruk and enforce support for a “unity government” that would sanction a further Western military intervention. This would give the Western powers a free hand to “protect” the oil refineries and the ports from the access of ISIS and to place them under their direct control.

“The last thing in the world you want,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Rome at the beginning of February, “is a false caliphate with access to billions of dollars of oil revenue.”

Libya is the country with the largest oil and natural gas reserves in Africa. At the moment, the imperialist powers are collaborating in opposing ISIS, but at the same time there is a struggle behind the scenes over which country and which large energy corporations will have the final say and receive access to the desired resources.

At the end of January, the Pentagon made it known that it was planning a new war in Libya. General Joseph Dunford Jr., head of the U.S. Marine Corps made it clear that U.S. President Barack Obama himself approved a new bombing campaign. Dunford declared that a “decisive military action against ISIL [ISIS]” is being planned and will take place “in conjunction with the political process” in Libya. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force,” he added.

Next to the United States, Italy is playing a leading role in plans for a new campaign against Libya. Italy has a long and bloody colonial history in the regions of Cyrenaika and Tripolitania, which make up a large part of Libya today.

Italy has participated in the exploitation of Libyan natural resources since the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini with the energy corporation ENI (formerly Agip). It also played an active role in the NATO bombardment five years ago. Italian marines have been preparing for months to intervene militarily on the Libyan coast and to secure the offshore oil refineries and transfer ports.

A full year ago, at the beginning of February 2015, Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti publicly declared: “Italy is ready to lead a coalition of regional countries in Europe and North Africa in Libya in order to halt the advance of the kalifates, which have already come up to 350 kilometres from our coasts.” She wanted to prepare five thousand Italian soldiers for this purpose. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has insisted on a U.N. mandate in order to carry out a coordinated military intervention.

In May and June, 2015, the EU Military Committee (EUMC) laid down concrete conditions for the intervention. EU High Representative Federica Mogherini passed a resolution that planned the expansion of the existing EU mission in the Mediterranean and in Libyan territorial waters and on the Libyan mainland. Conditions were specified in which smuggling boats would be destroyed off the Libyan coast and both smugglers and ISIS terrorists could be pursued on Libyan territory. The EU worked out scenarios in this context for the securing of existing institutions such as airports and oil refineries and opened the way for extensive military, police and intelligence agency operations in Libya. All 28 member states agreed to the plan.

The NATO maneuver “Trident Juncture 2015,” which took place last fall with over sixty war ships and 36,000 soldiers in the entire Mediterranean also served to prepare for an intervention in North Africa. All of these scenarios depended up until now on the formation of the impending “national unity government.”

For weeks, the Italian media has been preparing the population for a new invasion of North Africa. “A military intervention in Libya comes ever closer – and this time Italy will take part,” reads the title of an article in VICE News. An article in La Repubblica on January 26, 2016 begins with the words: “at the moment it will not be discussed anymore whether one should invade Libya. The question that poses itself is only when and how. The militaries of the anti-IS coalition are already inspecting the terrain.”

The German elite has long been of the opinion that Germany’s nonparticipation in the NATO war in January 2011 was a mistake and that the geo-strategic and economic interests of Germany must be carried out above all by military means.

In January, Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen made it clear to the Bildnewspaper that the German army would take part in the Libyan intervention this time. In answer to the question whether she would shortly send German soldiers to Libya, she said:

“Libya is opposite the coast of Europe—separated only by the Mediterranean Sea. The most important thing now is to stabilise the country, and ensure that Libya gets a functioning government. The [new government] will rapidly require assistance to impose law and order in this massive state. And at the same time to combat Islamist terrorism, which is also threatening Libya.”

Then she emphasized: “Germany will not be able to escape the responsibility of making a contribution there.”

At the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party/SPD) said: “In Germany and Europe we cannot be indifferent about what takes place a few hundred kilometres to the south of Italy, on the other bank of the Mediterranean. And we definitely cannot be indifferent, when IS terror militias gain a firm foothold on the borders of Europe.” It is now “the moment to take responsibility for Libya.”

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey has seized upon a terrorist attack carried out in the capital of Ankara as a pretext for escalating its military campaign against Kurdish-dominated regions in eastern Turkey, northern Syria and Iraq.

At the same time, Ankara is pushing ahead with plans for a ground invasion into Syria. In so doing, NATO member Turkey is deliberately stoking a conflagration in the entire region and risking a military confrontation with Russia, which could rapidly develop into all-out war between the great powers.

On Thursday, the Turkish military command announced that its warplanes had bombed PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) positions in northern Iraq the previous night. Targets were attacked in the Haftanin border region—an area considered to be a stronghold of the PKK militia.

On Friday, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu boasted in a televised speech: “Our armed forces conducted a large-scale operation against the Haftanin camp. … Around 70 members of the separatist terrorist organization … were neutralized.”

In an attack on a military convoy in the Turkish capital of Ankara on Wednesday night, at least 28 people were killed and another 60 injured. All of the dead except one were members of the Turkish military. The attack took place just a few hundred metres from the parliament and Turkish army headquarters. At least six people were killed in another attack on Thursday on a military convoy in the predominantly Kurdish province of Diyarbakir in southeastern Turkey.

Davutoğlu and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan promptly assigned responsibility for the attack to the PKK along with the Syrian Kurdish organizations, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG), and vowed retaliation.

Erdoğan announced that Turkey would “use its legitimate right to defend itself at all times and everywhere. … These actions only serve to increase our determination to retaliate in Turkey and abroad to such attacks on our unity and our future.” The terror tested the patience of Turkey, Erdogan declared, adding menacingly: “If someone fires on Turkey, he will receive a clear answer.”

Davutoğlu threatened: “Yesterday’s attack was directly targeting Turkey and the perpetrator is the YPG and the divisive terrorist organization PKK. All necessary measures will be taken against them.” Davutoğlu vowed that Turkey would continue to shell YPG positions in northern Syria and equated the YPG with the terrorist organizations Al Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), insisting that they could not be a party to Syrian peace talks.

The Turkish prime minister asserted: “This attack has been carried out by the members of the terrorist organization inside Turkey together with an individual YPG member who had crossed from Syria.” Davutoglu then identified the suicide bomber as Salih Neccar, born in 1992 in the Kurdish town of Amudah in northern Syria.

Representatives of the PKK, the YPG and the PYD categorically rejected the allegations launched by Ankara. The PKK commander Cemil Bayik told the PKK-affiliated agency Firat on Thursday: “We do not know who did it. It might, however, have been in retaliation for the massacres in Kurdistan.”

A member of the YPG told reporters, “We have no connection to the man who is named as the assassin.”

The PYD denies any connection to the attacks and has no record of carrying out any actions in Turkey. Its leader, Saleh Muslim, accused the Turkish government of exploiting the attacks to escalate the fighting in northern Syria. “We vehemently deny responsibility,” Muslim said in a telephone interview with Reuters. “Davutoğlu is preparing something else. They have bombarded us for a week, as you know. I can assure you that not a single YPG bullet was fired in the direction of Turkey. They don’t consider Turkey an enemy.”

Whoever has followed events in Syria and the fiercely aggressive response of the Turkish government in recent days can only conclude that the latest terror attacks play into the hands of Davutoğlu and the Turkish government.

For the past week, the Turkish Air Force has bombarded YPG positions in northern Syria and the Turkish army has shelled them with artillery on the Turkish-Syrian border. On Tuesday, the US, which works closely with the YPG in the latter’s offensive against ISIS in Syria, called upon Turkey and the Kurdish militia to end their conflict. Erdoğan replied angrily that such a proposal was “not up for debate” and that Turkish security forces would carry out their fight against the “Kurdish terrorists in Syria” to the bitter end.

He accused the UN and the West of being passive for too long with regard to the fighting in Syria. “Right now I have difficulties understanding the United States. Why do they not call the PYD and YPG terrorists? Why do they say they support the YPG?” On Thursday, Turkey summoned the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Turkey has intensified its rhetoric in the wake of the attacks.

“Those who directly or indirectly support a group hostile to Turkey risk losing their status as a friend. … We cannot tolerate any NATO country, including first and foremost the US, having relations with a terrorist organization that attacks us in the heart of Turkey,”

Davutoğlu declared. He said the Syrian regime was “directly responsible” for the attacks, calling the YPG “a pawn” of Damascus, and insisting that Turkey had the right to take all measures against the Assad regime.

Regarding Russia, which supports the Syrian army in its offensive in northern Syria, Davutoğlu stated that Moscow’s condemnation of the attacks was a “positive sign”, but was not enough. “I warn Russia again against using terrorist organizations against innocent people in Syria and Turkey,” he said.

How can one account for the thoroughly reckless and aggressive stance of the Turkish government?

Recent weeks have seen the collapse of the Western-backed Turkish strategy to forcibly topple the Assad regime through arming and financing so-called moderate Islamist “rebels” in Syria.

An article on the news website al-Monitor states: “On Feb. 3, the Syrian army and its allies dealt a strategic blow to Ankara when they cut the land route between Aleppo and the Bab al-Salameh border crossing with Turkey in the Turkish province of Kilis.”

The road link was important for Erdoğan and Davutoğlu for one reason in particular. Al-Monitor writes:

“The fighters, weapons, munitions and various supplies that flowed via this route to Aleppo allowed the rebels to sustain their military presence in Syria’s most populous city and therefore preserve their political ambitions in the conflict. … Thus, with the fall of Aleppo, Ankara would find itself largely sidelined from the Syrian process.”

Since then, there are increasing indications that the Turkish regime is planning a ground offensive in Syria to rescue its dwindling influence and prevent the emergence of a Kurdish-occupied territory in the north of Syria. Just one day after the Syrian army occupied the Turkish-Syrian route to Aleppo, a spokesman for the Russian Defence Ministry stated that Turkey was “actively preparing for a military invasion in Syria. … We’re detecting more and more signs of Turkish armed forces being engaged in covert preparations for direct military actions in Syria.”

According to reports, the Turkish military has been reticent up until now about a military invasion in Syria. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported recently that the Turkish army would not invade Syria without a resolution from the UN Security Council.

Erdoğan and Davutoğlu have been seeking for some time to change this attitude. An article on al-Monitor, significantly entitled, “Can Erdogan bully Turkey’s armed forces into invading Syria?” reports the Turkish president pushing for an early intervention in Syria. Erdoğan has repeatedly spoken of an “mistake” in 2003 when Turkey refused to march alongside the US into Iraq. Now this “mistake” should not be repeated in Syria.

Already in 2014, Davutoğlu had sought, in his capacity at the time as Turkish defence minister, to provoke an invasion by the Turkish army. A leaked audio recording revealed that he had met with, among others, the head of the Turkish intelligence service MIT, Hakan Fidan, to discuss the possibility of an attack on Turkey from across the Syrian border, or at the grave of Suleiman Shah—a former Turkish enclave inside Syria—serving as a pretext for a full-scale Turkish intervention of Syria. At one point in the conversation, Davutoğlu declared that such an attack “in the current situation should be seen as an opportunity for us”.

Today, the Turkish government is less isolated than in 2014, and enjoys, in particular, greater support from the German government. Just two days ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed in a government statement her support for a no-fly zone in Syria, a central demand of the Erdoğan government and an important prerequisite for a Turkish military invasion in Syria. After the latest terror attacks, she stated that the German government stood “alongside Turkey in the fight against those responsible for such inhuman acts”.

The threat of another major war is becoming more acute on a daily basis. Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev warned at the Munich Security Conference last weekend against the danger of a “new world war” should Western or Arab ground troops invade Syria, adding, “The Americans and our Arab partners must think it through: do they want permanent war?”

The death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia raises a number of questions: What will be Scalia’s legacy? What will happen to the cases pending in the Supreme Court? Will President Obama successfully fill Scalia’s seat on the high court? And how will Scalia’s death affect the 2016 presidential election?

Scalia’s Record on the Court

Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, was a radical right-wing ideologue who called himself an “originalist,” purporting to interpret the US Constitution the way its framers did. He eschewed the idea that the Constitution is a living document that keeps pace with the times. And when voting to allow capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles, he rejected the Supreme Court’s precedent that the Eighth Amendment’s banning of cruel and unusual punishments should be interpreted in light of the “evolving standards of human decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Scalia favored unlimited corporate election spending and he wrote that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to bear arms. He opposed reproductive rights, universal health care, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, labor rights, LGBT rights and environmental protection. When questioned about his vote to anoint George W. Bush president in Bush v. Gore, Scalia barked, “Get over it.”

Demonstrators with the “People for the American Way” outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, February 15, 2016. (Doug Mills / The New York Times)

To read more stories like this, visit Human Rights and Global Wrongs

During the oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, the affirmative action case pending in the high court, Scalia said he was not “impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer” Black students. He added, “Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many Blacks as possible.”

Many of Scalia’s opinions demonstrate how out of touch he was with ordinary people. Authoring an opinion that created the right of police officers to chase people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, Scalia quoted Proverbs: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” He could not imagine why an innocent young person of color might run when he sees a police officer. And when voting to repeal Miranda rights, Scalia wrote in dissent, “Counsel’s presence is not required to tell the suspect that he need not speak. The interrogators can do that.” As if a police officer would be looking out for the rights of a suspect.

Scalia opposed televising Supreme Court arguments. He once sanctimoniouslydeclared, “Law is a specialized field, fully comprehensible only to the expert.”

The Pending Cases

Several cases to be decided this term have already been argued and the justices have likely voted on them. Opinions are being written. So what will happen now? Even if Obama were to nominate a replacement, he or she would not be confirmed before the current term ends in June.

Cases in which Scalia was assigned to author the majority opinion will probably be set for re-argument next term, which starts in October, hopefully with a new justice. If Scalia was part of a five-justice majority, the court will now be divided 4-4. In cases in which there is no majority, the lower court decision will be “affirmed by an equally divided court.” It will create no binding Supreme Court precedent. Some cases may be decided on narrow procedural grounds in order to avoid equally divided rulings.

Nine of the 13 US Courts of Appeals have a majority of judges who were appointed by Democrats. Thus, many cases in which the court is evenly divided and the lower court decision stands will have liberal outcomes.

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, it appeared that public sector unions would lose the right to collect mandatory dues from their members in order to fund collective bargaining. Now it appears the case will result in a tie, leaving the lower court decision in place. That means unions in California and 22 other states would retain their right to collect dues.

Evenwel v. Abbott is a voting rights case. The issue is who should be included when creating voting districts: all who reside in them or only eligible voters? A 4-4 tie would leave the lower court decision in place, which upheld the counting of everybody. People who are not eligible to vote include children, non-citizens, people formerly convicted of felonies and prisoners. With the exception of prisoners, most of these people deemed ineligible to vote live in urban areas that are largely Democratic. As a result, a tie in this case would also have a liberal outcome.

Zubik v. Burwell is a “religious liberty” challenge to a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires some employers to provide birth control to women workers if they don’t sign a form opting out. The case will be argued next month and the lower courts are divided on the issue. A 4-4 tie would result in no decision. Most lower courts across the country have upheld the “contraceptive mandate.”

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is perhaps the biggest threat to Roe v. Wadeto reach the Supreme Court. Texas imposed onerous restrictions on clinics that perform abortions. If there were a 4-4 tie, the lower court decision would stand, resulting in the closure of most clinics in Texas, but not elsewhere. Where a woman lives would determine whether she could obtain an abortion. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy might vote with the liberals to overturn the restrictions placed on women’s health clinics. But even if Kennedy does not vote with the liberals, Scalia’s absence still eliminates a broader risk that previously existed: If Scalia had participated in that decision, the court may well have allowed states to impose restrictions.

Fisher v. University of Texas is an affirmative action case about whether the University of Texas can maintain a race-conscious admissions plan. Since Associate Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had worked on the case when she was solicitor general, only seven justices can vote on it. Kennedy will be the swing vote. If he swings to the right, the university’s affirmative action program will be struck down. Scalia’s death eliminates the possibility of a tie vote.

United States v. Texas is a challenge to Obama’s plan to defer deportation for nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants. A 4-4 split would defeat the program in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the US Justice Department could secure authorizations to go forward with the plan in other circuits. Had Scalia not died, the Supreme Court would probably have imposed broader limitations on Obama’s authority to issue executive orders.

A critical climate change decision is also pending before the high court. Obama has charged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with reducing carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030. In a highly unusual recent move, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 emergency order blocking the plan, which was put on hold pending a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The circuit court, which is generally liberal, refused to grant the stay before the high court did so. The DC circuit court will hear the case this summer. The EPA could change the plan slightly and expect the circuit court to allow it to proceed.

What Happens Next?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block anyone Obama might choose to nominate to fill the vacancy on the court. The GOP candidates piled on, reiterating that Obama should refrain from nominating someone to fill Scalia’s seat so the next president could make the nomination. They know that Obama has an opportunity to change the balance of what has been a conservative court for four decades.

But Obama does not have the discretion to refrain from nominating a replacement for Scalia. The US Constitution says that when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” The language is mandatory, not permissive. There is no exception for vacancies that occur near the end of a president’s term.

Interestingly, McConnell wrote in 1970 that “the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee” and that “the president is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological direction of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a presidential platform.”

If no justice is appointed until the next president takes office, there will be a vacancy on the high court for nearly a year, hobbling its ability to carry out its constitutional function.

Republicans disingenuously claim that no Supreme Court nominee has been confirmed in an election year. But Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed in 1988, with nearly unanimous support from Democrats. And in 11 of the 13 times a vacancy occurred during a presidential election year, the Senate acted on the president’s nomination.

For the most part, the Senate has deferred to presidents’ choices for Supreme Court nominees.

Obama will probably nominate a moderate such as Srikanth Srinivasan. In 2013, on a 97-0 vote, the Senate unanimously confirmed Srinivasan, an Indian-American judge, to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He had served as principal deputy solicitor general, arguing some 20 cases on behalf of both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Although he doesn’t have a long paper trail, Srinivasan would probably vote with the liberal justices.

It appears that anyone Obama nominates will not get a vote in the Senate. A president’s nomination is referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently comprised of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. That committee should investigate the nominee’s background and hold a hearing at which the nominee is interrogated. The committee should then vote on the nominee. If the committee votes against the nominee, the nomination will not reach the Senate floor for a decision. If it does reach the Senate floor, a simple majority is required to confirm a nominee. But Republicans can filibuster the nomination, which means 60 votes would be necessary for confirmation. The Senate has 54 Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Although filibusters of Supreme Court nominations are rare, a filibuster seems possible in this case because the political system is unusually polarized. If McConnell stands by his threat to block Obama from carrying out his constitutional duty to nominate someone to the vacant seat, there could be a standoff until the election. The Democrats are likely to take back the Senate, and it would fall to the next president to fill the vacancy. Although Obama can make a recess appointment until the Senate resumes on February 22, he is much more likely to nominate a candidate in due course, and wait for the Republicans to hoist themselves on their own petard, knowing that Independents and moderate Republicans would bridle at such blatant obstructionism.

In a recent piece for the magazine Swarajya (an online and print publication based in India), its national affairs editor, Surajit Dasgupta, makes it clear that he has no time for any criticisms about the use of GMO technology in food and agriculture. He has even less time for those who voice such criticisms.

He argues that ‘activists’ concerns’ would be valid if a GMO were proved to be not substantially equivalent to its non-GM-derived counterpart and if any negative non-intended consequences of genetic engineering were detected. Although failing to cite any relevant texts, Dasgupta then argues that “Report after report will tell you that the concerns above are but an activist’s red herring.”

This is simply incorrect. There is enough evidence to contest the claim that GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GMO and that negative consequences of GM have indeed been detected.

GM is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and poses different risks. This fact is recognized in national and international laws and agreements on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For example, European law defines a GMO as an organism in which “the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” and requires the risks of each GMO to be assessed (European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J Eur Communities. 2001:1–38).

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement signed by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology, and the United Nations food safety body Codex Alimentarius, agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.

Dasgupta’s claim is scientifically inaccurate and deliberately misleading. It is not the intention to regurgitate here what has previously been written about the processes of GM. Some readers might benefit from consulting this to appreciate how GM works and how it is in fact substantially non-equivalent to conventional breeding. They may also consult this, which is (despite Dasgupta’s claims below) supported by peer-reviewed evidence and which demonstrates that GM is not substantially equivalent.

Countering the usual pro-GMO smears and spin with science

By employing all the usual spin of the pro-GMO lobby in an attempt to marginalise critics and criticisms of GM, Dasgupta’s attempt to hide behind some kind of veil of ‘objective journalism’ clearly fails. He calls critics ‘Luddites’, ‘anti-science’ and ‘half-baked intellectuals’ of the internet variety, equipped with misleading information fed by sundry dot org websites run by interest groups in the US – where these activists’ ringmasters are curiously inactive.

Really? Groups opposing GM in the US are highly active. But we’ve heard these type of smears and attacks all before, which are of course merely cheap, lazy PR spin designed by the industry to attack critics and are utterly bogus.

Throughout his piece, Dasgupta tries to convince the reader that the debate on GM is over. In order words: science has won over emotional, ignorant activists. He would do better by keeping an open mind.

For example, hardly some ignorant activist or half-baked intellectual who relies on Google for pseudo-scientific explanations, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK uses genetic engineering for medical applications. However, he has warned against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed:

“GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.”

He adds that:

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields.”

Dr John Fagan is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology.

Fagan says:

“Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.”

He goes on to state:

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.”

These two scientists are not alone in voicing such concerns. Indeed, there are numerous scientists and prestigious scientific institutes that do not give their support to GM technology and this is also reflected by scientific peer-reviewed literature. See this fully-referenced report with references which blows apart the claim that there is some kind of consensus on GM within the ‘scientific community’ (for further insight, see Who says GMOs are safe and who says they are not).

Moreover, both Antoniou and Fagan have backed up their claims in this report with reference to a wide range of studies that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, including The Lancet, Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research and many more.

Despite criticisms of GM having strong scientific underpinnings, Dasgupta insists on calling critics ‘Luddite activists’ who can only resort to slander:

“One wishes a scientist dragged them to the court on a charge of libel. No proof required! Ask them to name a particular scientist whose professional integrity can be questioned, and they can’t.”

Yet he has nothing to say on the smearing and ruining of independent scientists whose credible research highlighted findings that questioned the safety of GM. And he has nothing to say about the unscientific polemics that were used to attack Seralini and his team and the targeting of the very heart of science which occurred in an attempt to discredit Seralini’s work. And indeed there is silence when it comes to the politically and commercially motivated agenda that underpins the push to get GM accepted (which I have outlined here).

The report Seedy Business shows how science can be swayed, bought or biased by agribusiness in many ways, such as suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent US-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.

And how very convenient to overlook the systematic subversion of science to promote GM as well as the inadequate, short-term studies and concealed data which is justified on the basis of ‘commercial confidentiality’ (see this) (Dasgupta churns out a similar argument  – citing ‘patent theives’ – in an attempt to justify the secrecy around GM mustard in India).

Readers are urged to check websites such as Lobbywatch, Powerbase and Spinwatch, where they will see links between some prominent GM scientist-lobbyists and big agribusiness companies, the ultra-right group the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Scientific Alliance (described as a front group for corporate interests) and Bivings Group (a public relations company that worked with Monsanto), among others.

And these connections have resulted in well-orchestrated smear campaigns against individuals and groups (see this, this and this), pro -GM propaganda (see this about the sweet potato) and dirty tricks (for example, using fake identities to attacks critcs of GM).

At the same time, those responsible for such things carefully manage the message that they themselves are the persecuted victims of ideologically-driven anti-GM campaigners.

And this is the line Dasgupta takes: the GM project is being held back by ‘Luddites’ and ideologically-driven activists who attacking science, smearing individuals and distorting debate.

Doublespeak and hypocrisy are the order of the day.

Flawed pro-GMO advocacy masquerading as objective journalism

He then roles out a brief list of studies/reports/statements/scientists that he alleges support GM and which have no links to big biotech and are thus beyond reproach. Bear in mind that Dasgupta attacks critics of GM for referring to some kind of university of Google and activist-tainted sites to base their claims on and not peer-reviewed science.

So let us see just who Dasgupta cites to support his claims.

First, he makes use of a personal interview (not a peer-reviewed article) he once conducted. But what is perhaps more relevant is that he cites, the statement (again, not an article appearing in a peer-reviewed journal), Legally mandating GM food labels could mislead and falsely alarm consumers by the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dated 25 October 2012.

However, 12 days before California voted on the ballot initiative Proposition 37, for labeling of genetically engineered food, the board of directors of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science released the above statement that GM engineered crops “pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques” and that mandatory labeling of GMOs could therefore “mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”

US Right to Know has discovered that when the AAAS board released its statement, its chair was Nina Federoff. She was a member of the scientific advisory board of Evogene for five years, an Israeli biotechnology company, and was a long-time member of the board of directors of the biotechnology firm Sigma-Aldrich. In her role as ‘science and technology advisor’ to the State Department and US Agency for International Development, the Pesticide Action Network called her “literally the US ambassador for GE”. She even endorsed a campaign statement by opponents of Proposition 37, offering that she was “passionately opposed to labeling” of genetically engineered food.

Dasgupta then cites S Key, JK Ma and PM Drake’s 2008 paper, Genetically modified plants and human health, which he claims to be a veritable work on both advantages and challenges in GM crops. He claims this is ‘trustworthy’. He conveniently overlooks the fact that this piece contains a major falsehood and serious factual errors leading to an illogical and invalid conclusion on the safety of GM crops.

Next, he refers to The American Medical Association’s 2012 paper, Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labelling of Bioengineered Foods, which he claims explains what no ‘science-illiterate activist’ can.

According to Food and Water Watch, this report was designed to address GMO labelling, not GMO safety. Supporters of GM like to dwell on a quote pertaining to the lack of documented adverse effects on human health from GMOs.

However, GMO advocates choose to misrepresent the AMA council report’s full statement, which acknowledges the potential for adverse effects and the need for mandatory, pre-market safety assessments. The final, official AMA policy does not include the quote used by the pro-GMO activists, and it actually notes safety issues.

Dasgupta then cites the United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council’s 2004 paper Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects on the basis of its integrity.

The National Academies of Science in the US has cited safety concerns with GMOs for many years, including potential unintended consequences associated with gene manipulation and, according the paper cited above, the potential for genetic engineering techniques to raise “toxicities, allergies, nutrient deficiencies and imbalances,” the negative effects on beneficial, non-target species and the inadequacy of current regulatory safety reviews. Food & Water Watch argues that, at the time, biotech companies like Monsanto and DuPont and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade association, sat on high-level National Research Council boards and their influence may have even weakened the language and conclusions.

Dasgupta also states that ‘erudite columnist’ Anand Ranganathan put all speculative allegations regarding GM crops to rest in a three-part series. But the pieces he refers to appear on a website, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

It seems critics of GM must only cite peer-reviewed science but he can cite any source, no matter how flawed or irrelevant.

But any astute reader would already appreciate this last point. The publication for whom Dasgupta is national affairs editor recently published a piece by Shanthu Shantharam that attacked individuals and organisations and was little more than a collection of unsubstantiated slurs and claims. One need look no further to understand that the piece should never have been published because it did not comply with Swarajya’s own publication guidelines (points 2 and 4 here).

It might appear that standards of ‘objective journalism’ do not apply when it comes to promoting a pro-GM agenda.

Dasgupta then says:

“The rabble rousers better not question the honesty of these scientists and science writers, lest they should be pulled up for defamation. Wild charges levelled on the whole group with no mention of specifics, unfortunately, cannot be stopped.”

Well, what we have above are a few specifics. There are serious deficiencies in the sources Dasgupta’s cites. By using them, he fails to make the point he set out to and seriously undermines his own argument.

More smears, falsehoods and misrepresentations

What we get from thereon is a good deal of inflammatory writing and ‘rabble rousing’. He claims that critics of GM peddle half-truths and scare-mongering about GM in order to serve their own self interests. Dasgupta churns out the usual falsehood of anti-GM activists in wealthy countries keeping people in poor countries hungry by denying them food. Again, it doesn’t take much to demolish this lie and to appreciate that a fraudulent GMO project is being offered as a proxy solution by those with a strident neoliberal ideological agenda for deep-seated social, political and economic factors that are fuelled by neoliberalism and which drive poverty and hunger around the world.

And he doesn’t stop there. Dasgupta draws a comparison between critics of GM and ‘private websites promoting cults’:

“be it a Christian website damning homosexuality, a Muslim website condemning pork, a Hindu website slamming beef, a maker of tinned vegan dishes cursing non-vegetarian food, a trader’s cartel spreading paranoia about FDI in retail or an indirect player in agriculture forbidding genetic modification of crops.”

And in predictable fashion, he then attacks various people, such as Joseph Mercola, Vandana Shiva, Anuradha Mittal (Oakland Institute) and Devinder Sharma.

It’s extremely shoddy stuff.

He takes aim at organic farming and claims organic does not lead to substantially increased income for the farmers, whereas, sowing GM varieties of seeds would themselves lead to rich harvests. Again, both points are erroneous. For example, GM cotton in India has been a disaster for farmers in rain fed areas according to the peer-reviewed paper referred to in this piece, and there is enough evidence to show GM does not lead to ‘rich harvests’ but often human and ecological disaster.

Moreover, organic can lead to increases in farmer incomes and is indeed recommended as a strategy in countries like India for securing a sustainable model of agriculture and food security. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was the work of over 400 scientists and took four years to complete. Dasgupta might like to take note that it was twice peer reviewed and states we must look to smallholder, traditional farming to deliver food security in lower income countries through agro-ecological systems which are sustainable.

There is also this, which refers to peer-reviewed papers and various reports to support the claims made about agroecology, not least that increased productivity with fewer external inputs is but one advantage of the model.

Finally, early on in his piece, Dasgupta attempts to justify the secrecy surrounding GM mustard in India by referring to some high-minded notions of commercial confidentiality (patent protection from theives), despite serious allegations that the entire testing trials are based on regulatory delinquency and unremitting fraud. He forwards the ludicrous argument that openness should only occur and relevant documents released once GM mustard is given the go ahead. How convenient.

And he presents a well-established myth in an attempt to justify the entry of GM mustard into farmers’ fields. He says that by blocking genetically modified mustard developed, they (‘the activists’) “will only help foreigners sell their edible oils to us beyond the present level of 70 per cent of our needs.”

Of course, this too is another deception. GM mustard is being pushed as a Trojan horse solution on the basis it can provide better yields and that it can reduce India’s imports of edible oils. The fact is that the GM trait will add nothing to yields, and trade policies (not poor agricultural productivity) coupled with the impact of foreign agribusiness concerns operating in India, have decimated the edible oils sector within the country.

There are various other points in Dasgupta’s piece that could be addressed. But the reader will get the point. It is a cheap piece of advocacy based on falsehoods, slurs and misrepresentations born from the frustration of the pro-GMO lobby’s failure to force GM food crops into India.

The US economy died when middle class jobs were offshored and when the financial system was deregulated.

Jobs offshoring benefitted Wall Street, corporate executives, and shareholders, because lower labor and compliance costs resulted in higher profits. These profits flowed through to shareholders in the form of capital gains and to executives in the form of “performance bonuses.” Wall Street benefitted from the bull market generated by higher profits.

However, jobs offshoring also offshored US GDP and consumer purchasing power. Despite promises of a “New Economy” and better jobs, the replacement jobs have been increasingly part-time, lowly-paid jobs in domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses and bartenders.

Image: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The offshoring of US manufacturing and professional service jobs to Asia stopped the growth of consumer demand in the US, decimated the middle class, and left insufficient employment for college graduates to be able to service their student loans. The ladders of upward mobility that had made the United States an “opportunity society” were taken down in the interest of higher short-term profits.

Without growth in consumer incomes to drive the economy, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted the growth in consumer debt to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income. Under the Greenspan regime, Americans’ stagnant and declining incomes were augmented with the ability to spend on credit. One source of this credit was the rise in housing prices that the Federal Reserves low inerest rate policy made possible. Consumers could refinance their now higher-valued home at lower interest rates and take out the “equity” and spend it.

The debt expansion, tied heavily to housing mortgages, came to a halt when the fraud perpetrated by a deregulated financial system crashed the real estate and stock markets. The bailout of the guilty imposed further costs on the very people that the guilty had victimized.

Under Fed chairman Bernanke the economy was kept going with Quantitative Easing, a massive increase in the money supply in order to bail out the “banks too big to fail.” Liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve found its way into stock and bond prices and made those invested in these financial instruments richer. Corporate executives helped to boost the stock market by using the companies’ profits and by taking out loans in order to buy back the companies’ stocks, thus further expanding debt.

Those few benefitting from inflated financial asset prices produced by Quantitative Easing and buy-backs are a much smaller percentage of the population than was affected by the Greenspan consumer credit expansion. A relatively few rich people are an insufficient number to drive the economy.

The Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy was designed to support the balance sheets of the mega-banks and denied Americans interest income on their savings. This policy decreased the incomes of retirees and forced the elderly to reduce their consumption and/or draw down their savings more rapidly, leaving no safety net for heirs.

Using the smoke and mirrors of under-reported inflation and unemployment, the US government kept alive the appearance of economic recovery. Foreigners fooled by the deception continue to support the US dollar by holding US financial instruments.

The official inflation measures were “reformed” during the Clinton era in order to dramatically understate inflation. The measures do this in two ways. One way is to discard from the weighted basket of goods that comprises the inflation index those goods whose price rises. In their place, inferior lower-priced goods are substituted.

For example, if the price of New York strip steak rises, round steak is substituted in its place. The former official inflation index measured the cost of a constant standard of living. The “reformed” index measures the cost of a falling standard of living.

The other way the “reformed” measure of inflation understates the cost of living is to discard price rises as “quality improvements.” It is true that quality improvements can result in higher prices. However, it is still a price rise for the consumer as the former product is no longer available. Moreover, not all price rises are quality improvements; yet many prices rises that are not can be misinterpreted as “quality improvements.”

These two “reforms” resulted in no reported inflation and a halt to cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. The fall in Social Security real incomes also negatively impacted aggregate consumer demand.

The rigged understatement of inflation deceived people into believing that the US economy was in recovery. The lower the measure of inflation, the higher is real GDP when nominal GDP is deflated by the inflation measure. By understating inflation, the US government has overstated GDP growth.

What I have written is easily ascertained and proven; yet the financial press does not question the propaganda that sustains the psychology that the US economy is sound. This carefully cultivated psychology keeps the rest of the world invested in dollars, thus sustaining the House of Cards.

John Maynard Keynes understood that the Great Depression was the product of an insufficiency of consumer demand to take off the shelves the goods produced by industry. The post-WW II macroeconomic policy focused on maintaining the adequacy of aggregate demand in order to avoid high unemployment. The supply-side policy of President Reagan successfully corrected a defect in Keynesian macroeconomic policy and kept the US economy functioning without the “stagflation” from worsening “Philips Curve” trade-offs between inflation and employent. In the 21st century, jobs offshoring has depleted consumer demand’s ability to maintain US full employment.

The unemployment measure that the presstitute press reports is meaningless as it counts no discouraged workers, and discouraged workers are a huge part of American unemployment. The reported unemployment rate is about 5%, which is the U-3 measure that does not count as unemployed workers who are too discouraged to continue searching for jobs.

The US government has a second official unemployment measure, U-6, that counts workers discouraged for less than one-year. This official rate of unemployment is 10%.

When long term (more than one year) discouraged workers are included in the measure of unemployment, as once was done, the US unemployment rate is 23%. (See John Williams, shadowstats.com)

Fiscal and monetary stimulus can pull the unemployed back to work if jobs for them still exist domestically. But if the jobs have been sent offshore, monetary and fiscal policy cannot work.

What jobs offshoring does is to give away US GDP to the countries to which US corporations move the jobs. In other words, with the jobs go American careers, consumer purchasing power and the tax base of state, local, and federal governments. There are only a few American winners, and they are the shareholders of the companies that offshored the jobs and the executives of the companies who receive multi-million dollar “performance bonuses” for raising profits by lowering labor costs. And, of course, the economists, who get grants, speaking engagements, and corporate board memberships for shilling for the offshoring policy that worsens the distribution of income and wealth. An economy run for a few only benefits the few, and the few, no matter how large their incomes, cannot consume enough to keep the economy growing.

In the 21st century US economic policy has destroyed the ability of real aggregate demand in the US to increase. Economists will deny this, because they are shills for globalism and jobs offshoring. They misrepresent jobs offshoring as free trade and, as in their ideology free trade benefits everyone, claim that America is benefitting from jobs offshoring. Yet, they cannot show any evidence whatsoever of these alleged benefits. (See my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West.)

As an economist, it is a mystery to me how any economist can think that a population that does not produce the larger part of the goods that it consumes can afford to purchase the goods that it consumes. Where does the income come from to pay for imports when imports are swollen by the products of offshored production?

We were told that the income would come from better-paid replacement jobs provided by the “New Economy,” but neither the payroll jobs reports nor the US Labor Departments’s projections of future jobs show any sign of this mythical “New Economy.”

There is no “New Economy.” The “New Economy” is like the neoconservatives promise that the Iraq war would be a six-week “cake walk” paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, not a $3 trillion dollar expense to American taxpayers (according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes) and a war that has lasted the entirety of the 21st century to date, and is getting more dangerous.

The American “New Economy” is the American Third World economy in which the only jobs created are low productivity, low paid nontradable domestic service jobs incapable of producing export earnings with which to pay for the goods and services produced offshore for US consumption.

The massive debt arising from Washington’s endless wars for neoconservative hegemony now threaten Social Security and the entirety of the social safety net. The presstitute media are blaming not the policy that has devasted Americans, but, instead, the Americans who have been devasted by the policy.

Earlier this month I posted readers’ reports on the dismal job situation in Ohio, Southern Illinois, and Texas. In the March issue of Chronicles, Wayne Allensworth describes America’s declining rural towns and once great industrial cities as consequences of “globalizing capitalism.” A thin layer of very rich people rule over those “who have been left behind”—a shrinking middle class and a growing underclass. According to a poll last autumn, 53 percent of Americans say that they feel like a stranger in their own country.

Most certainly these Americans have no political representation. As Republicans and Democrats work to raise the retirement age in order to reduce Social Security outlays, Princeton University experts report that the mortality rates for the white working class are rising. The US government will not be happy until no one lives long enough to collect Social Security.

The United States government has abandoned everyone except the rich.

In the opening sentence of this article, I said that the two murderers of the American economy were jobs offshoring and financial deregulation. Deregulation greatly enhanced the ability of the large banks to financialize the economy. Financialization is the diversion of income streams into debt service. When debt service absorbs a large amount of the available income, the economy experiences debt deflation. The service of debt leaves too little income for purchases of goods and services and prices fall.

Michael Hudson, who I recently wrote about, is the expert on finanialization. His book, Killing the Host, which I recommended to you, tells the complete story. Briefly, financialization is the process by which creditors capitalize an economy’s economic surplus into interest payments to themselves. Perhaps an example would be a corporation that goes into debt in order to buy back its shares. The corporation achieves a temporary boost in its share prices at the cost of years of interest payments that drain the corporation of profits and deflate its share price.

Michael Hudson stresses the conversion of the rental value of real estate into mortgage payments. He emphasizes that classical economists wanted to base taxation not on production, but on economic rent. Economic rent is value due to location or to a monopoly position. For example, beachfront property has a higher price because of location. The difference in value between beachfront and nonbeachfront property is economic rent, not a produced value. An unregulated monopoly can charge a price for a service that is higher than the price that would bring that service unto the market.

The proposal to tax economic rent does not mean taxing you on the rent that you pay your landlord or taxing your landlord on the rent that you pay him such that he ceases to provide the housing. By economic rent Hudson means, for example, the rise in land values due to public infrastructure projects such as roads and subway systems. The rise in the value of land opened by a new road and housing and in commercial space along a new subway line is not due to any action of the property owners. This rise in value could be taxed in order to pay for the project instead of taxing the income of the population in general. Instead, the rise in land values raises appraisals and the amount that creditors are willing to lend on the property. New purchasers and existing owners can borrow more on the property, and the larger mortgages divert the increased land valuation into interest payments to creditors. Lenders end up as the major beneficiaries of public projects that raise real estate prices.

Similarly, unless the economy is financialized to such an extent that mortgage debt can no longer be serviced, when central banks lower interest rates property values rise, and this rise can be capitalized into a larger mortgage.

Another example would be property tax reductions and legislation such as California’s Proposition 13 that freeze in whole or part the property tax base. The rise in real estate values that escape taxation are capitalized into larger mortgages. New buyers do not benefit. The beneficiaries are the lenders who capture the rise in real estate prices in interest payments.

Taxing economic rent would prevent the financial system from capitalizing the rent into debt instruments that pay interest to the financial sector. Considering the amount of rents available to be taxed, taxing rents would free production from income and sales taxation, thus lowering consumer prices and freeing labor and productive capital from taxation.

With so much of land rent already capitalized into debt instruments shifting the tax burden to economic rent would be challenging. Nevertheless, Hudson’s analysis shows that financialization, not wage suppression, is the main instrument of exploitation and takes place via the financial system’s conversion of income streams into interest payments on debt.

I remember when mortgage service was restricted to one-quarter of household income. Today mortgage service can eat up half of household income. This extraordinary growth crowds out the production of goods and services as less of household income is available for other purchases.

Michael Hudson and I bring a total indictment of the neoliberal economics profession, “junk economists” as Hudson calls them.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

This article was first published in October 2015. Are we gearing up for a war between US-NATO-Turkey-Saudi Arabia and Syria-Russia-Iran?

US-NATO operatives are already on the ground inside Syria. In fact they have been on ground within “opposition” militia from the very outset in March 2011.

Russian Airstrikes are Targeting “Our Guys”: 

The Western media quoting US officials has reported that the Russian Air Force is not really targeting ISIS terrorists.

They are targeting CIA sponsored operatives inside Syria. 

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

‘Putin is deliberately targeting our forces. Our guys are fighting for their lives.’

Moscow is “deliberately targeting” U.S.-backed forces in Syria as part of a military campaign that has killed up to 150 CIA-trained rebels, a U.S. official told Fox News

The claims state that Russia’s apparent mission to destroy ISIS is really a facade, and that their real mission is to kill American assets. (October 14, 2015).

The “Our Guys” category (“fighting for their lives”) not only includes bona fide “moderate terrorists” trained by the Western military alliance, it also includes countless Western military advisers, intelligence agents and mercenaries (often recruited by private security companies) operating on the ground inside Syria since March 2011.

In a bitter twist, by making these accusations directed against Moscow, the Obama Administration candidly acknowledges what has been known from the outset: the presence of Western forces inside Syria in support of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Lest we forget, this constitutes an undeclared act of war against a sovereign country in violation of international  law (Nuremberg).  

Amply documented, from the outset of the Syrian insurgency, Western special forces and covert intelligence agents including British SAS, French Parachutistes, CIA, MI6  and Mossad have integrated rebel ranks. Their activities are not limited to training. They are routinely involved in overseeing the conduct of terrorist operations on the ground together with Turkish and Qatari special forces, as well thousands of mercenaries recruited from Muslim countries:

“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria [2012 report] assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.  (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

From the outset of the insurgency, Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces including ISIS and Al Nusrah are “infiltrated” by Western military and intelligence  operatives.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

.

.

(The SBS operatives referred to above are the British Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service (SBS), often recruited from the Royal Marine Commandos)

These foreign forces are also involved in intelligence  and logistics as well as terror command operations directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad. They are in permanent communication and liaison  through their satellite phones with US, NATO, Turkey and Israel military and intelligence.

.

.

Without Western support, the terrorists would not have been able to gain control over entire regions of the country. In this regard, Vladimir Putin intimates that this would not be possible without foreign support:

“The so-called Islamic State [ISIS] has taken control of a huge territory. How was that possible? Think about it: if Damascus or Baghdad are seized by the terrorist groups, they will be almost the official authorities, and will have a launchpad for global expansion. Is anyone thinking about this or not?” (Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Valdai Conference, October 2015)

Covert support to the terrorists has been provided from the outset of the war in March 2011. The CIA is supporting terrorists as a means to triggering “regime change” in Syria, implying the conduct of covert intelligence operations within Syrian territory:

“The U.S. spy agency has been arming and training rebels in Syria since 2013 to fight the Assad regime  (WSJ, September 30, 2015 emphasis added)

Reports confirm that US, British and allied Special Forces have been on the ground since the outset of the war in 2011. The underlying pattern is similar to that of Libya where Western special forces had integrated terrorist ranks prior to the launching of NATO’s military intervention.

The website of Britain’s SAS candidly acknowledges that  “…[T]here has been growing chatter indicating that British Special Forces are in some way assisting forces aligned against the Syrian regime”:

Reports from late November last year state that British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations.

More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/0501012-british-special-forces-syria.php (emphasis added)

In August 2015, Britain’s Sunday Express Tabloid headlined “SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis,” (see screen shot below)

More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country on operation Shader, tasked with destroying IS equipment and munitions which insurgents constantly move to avoid Coalition air strikes. 

It comes just days after David Cameron gave “carte blanche” for the SAS and SBS to target IS leaders as part of the Government’s “broad spectrum” response to the murder of 30 British tourists by ISIS gunman Seifeddine Rezgui in the Tunisian beach resort of Sousse. 

Though the Prime Minister is being kept informed, senior military sources last night told the Sunday Express that he would not be required to “green light” every mission.

The article portrays SAS forces disguised as ISIS terrorists acting as part of a covert British Counter-Terrorism operation. (For further details see Stephen Lendman, British SAS Special Forces Dressed up as ISIS Terrorists, Global Research, August 4, 2015)

The truth of the matter is that these SAS commandos are there to integrate rebel ranks on the ground, overseeing carefully planned terror operations against Syria, in permanent liaison with US-NATO et al.

French Parachutistes on the Ground Advising the Terrorists

The French have been actively involved since the outset of the insurgency on the ground in liaison with their US, British and Israeli counterparts. In February 2012, 13 French military officers were arrested in Homs pointing to the presence of foreign troops on Syrian soil inside rebel ranks. The report suggested that the arrested officers could have been part of “a larger contingent” of  French Parachutistes (special forces).“ (The Daily Star  March 5, 2012)

The French government initially denied the report, insisting that “not a single French soldier is on Syrian soil.” Yet sources confirmed that negotiations between Paris and Damascus were held, in all probability regarding the repatriation of the French military officers:

“A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “We deny the idea that there are French troops on the ground in Syria. A Defense Ministry spokesman added: “We have no information on this. We neither confirm nor deny it.” (Report: 13 French officers captured in Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews, emphasis added)

In the wake of Judge Scalia’s passing, we bring to your attention this article originally published in February 2014:

Referring to America’s mass internment of people of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War, current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declared:

“[Y]ou are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”

Scalia made these comments during a speech to students at the University of Hawaii on February 3. He was asked about the Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States (1944), which involved a legal challenge by two Japanese Americans—Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi—to orders to report to mass internment camps during the war. On appeal, the Supreme Court infamously declared the internment camps constitutional on the grounds of “military urgency.”

Hawaii, where Scalia was speaking, was one of the many states in which internment camps were established.

“Well of course Korematsu was wrong,” Scalia said, in comments reported by the Associated Press. “And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”

Scalia invoked the Latin expression, “Inter arma enim silent leges” (roughly, in times of war the law is silent).

“That’s what was going on—the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality,” he said.

While Scalia’s remarks took the form of nominal disapproval of the Korematsucase and mass internments, his shoulder-shrugging at “the reality” of future mass internments should be taken as a serious warning.

Since Scalia’s arrival on the Supreme Court in 1986, he has been a leading figure in the ongoing rollback of democratic and social rights. Some of the highlights of Scalia’s career include Stanford v. Kentucky (1989, upholding the death penalty for crimes committed by 16 and 17-year-olds), Bush v. Gore(2000, halting vote counting and installing George W. Bush as president), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010, removing limitations on corporate spending during elections), among many others.

There is an element of arrogant pageantry and provocation to everything Scalia does, both in his official and individual capacities. In 2004, Scalia famously went on a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney while a case involving the latter was pending before the Supreme Court, in flagrant violation of judicial ethics. Scalia’s contempt for the principle of separation of church and state is frequently on display, as in a 2012 speech arguing that the position that “our Constitution forbids anything that favors religion over non-religion is a lie.”

Scalia’s pronouncement on the inevitability of mass internment borrows not a little from fascist jurisprudence. Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt developed the theory that a national emergency could constitute a “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand) pursuant to which the executive may ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and democratic rights. Similarly, Scalia imagines a scenario in which mass incarceration in the US would technically be unconstitutional, but “in times of war the law is silent.”

With these comments, Scalia is effectively signaling that if concentration camps are established in the US (Scalia would “not be surprised”), the Supreme Court will stand aside and acknowledge itself powerless—doubtless with references to “national security,” “state secrets,” the “separation of powers,” the “war on terror,” and “deference to the executive in wartime.”

During the Second World War, some 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly removed to “War Relocation Camps,” where they lived in ramshackle barracks surrounded by machine gun nests and barbed wire. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave orders authorizing the establishment of the camps in 1942, and in major cities official notices were posted: “Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry” to report to gathering sites for transportation to the camps. Those who failed to comply were seized and prosecuted. Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times whipped up panic and xenophobia, infamously justifying the mass internment of Japanese Americans on the grounds that “we are at war with their race.”

Similar “exclusion orders” went into effect for Americans of German and Italian ancestry. The Korematsu decision justifying mass internment has long been considered a shameful chapter in the Supreme Court’s history, forming part of the anti-canon of cases that includes Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857, defining slaves as property) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, upholding segregation).

In 1988, none other than President Ronald Reagan signed an official apology for the internments, blaming what took place on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Ultimately, approximately $1.6 billion was paid in reparations to the victims.

With Western “social democracy” in free fall collapse in the first decades of the 21st century, and with world war again threatening from innumerable global flashpoints, it would be a mistake to write off Scalia’s remarks as the idle hypothesizing of an old reactionary.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, as many as 1,200 people were illegally rounded up and detained simply for being Arab or Muslim. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 expressly gives the military the power to seize and imprison any person anywhere in the world, including within the US, on “terror” allegations—without charges, evidence, or trial.

According to documents released by Edward Snowden, the US government is already using its mass spying apparatus to construct “political profiles” of individuals. Last year, the city of Boston was placed under military lockdown, with families ordered to “shelter in place” while armed commandos conducted house-to-house searches.

In this context, Scalia’s comments doubtless reflect current moods and discussions now taking place within ruling circles. If anyone does not think it is possible for mass internment camps to be set up within the US—to use Scalia’s words, “you are kidding yourself.”

At a press conference Tuesday following a two-day summit of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) held in California, President Barack Obama was confronted with a question about his administration’s intentions with regard to the escalating war in Syria.

Reflecting a growing drumbeat of criticism from Republicans and sections of the US foreign policy establishment, the reporter asked whether Obama had been “outfoxed” by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Noting that Russia’s military intervention in Syria had helped turn the tide of battle in favor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the Western-backed “rebels,” the reporter asked whether Washington would “step up military action” in support of the Islamist militias it is backing if the city of Aleppo fell to the government offensive.

Obama’s reply was a study in imperialist hypocrisy, deceit and historical falsification. Insisting, “This is not a contest between me and Putin,” the US president set out to prove that Putin was not winning.

“The fact that Putin finally had to send his own troops and his own aircraft and invest this massive military operation was not a testament to a great strength; it was a testament to the weakness of Assad’s position,”

Obama insisted.

He continued:

“That if somebody is strong, then you don’t have to send in your army to prop up your ally. They have legitimacy in their country and they are able to manage it their self, and then you have good relations with them. You send in your army when the horse you’re backing isn’t effective. And that’s exactly what’s happened.”

The result, he further argued, would be Russia’s finding itself “in a quagmire,” compelled to invest in “a permanent occupation of Syria,” which would “not be the best thing for Russia,” given the state of its economy.

One is prompted to ask, who is Obama to lecture Putin? But in the end, one has to acknowledge that if anyone knows whereof he speaks on questions of quagmires and permanent occupations, it is the president of the United States.

Just last October, Obama reneged on his pledge to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan before the end of his presidency in January 2017. Ten thousand US soldiers remain deployed there, nearly 15 years after the US invaded the country in 2001. US commanders have indicated they may ask for that number to be increased in the face of a mounting insurgency against the puppet government installed by Washington. The regime in Kabul, it can truly be said, lacks legitimacy and remains in power solely thanks to the US troops propping it up.

It is a similar story in Iraq, which the US invaded in 2003, toppling its government, devastating its society and causing the deaths of an estimated one million men, women and children. Roughly 4,000 US troops are back in Iraq following the ignominious June 2014 collapse of the puppet forces the US armed and trained, at the cost of some $24 billion, in the face of an offensive by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The number of US troops—which does not count another 2,500 deployed across the border in Kuwait and some 7,000 private military contractors—is expected to climb.

Then there is Libya, whose secular government Washington and its allies brought down in the US-NATO war of 2011, killing tens of thousands of civilians, murdering the country’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and leaving Libya in a state of permanent chaos and civil war. At Tuesday’s press conference, Obama was asked by another reporter whether another “military intervention in Libya will be necessary.” He did not rule out the idea, stressing that Washington “will continue to take actions where we’ve got a clear operation and a clear target in mind.”

If there is a “quagmire” in the Middle East, it is of Washington’s creation, the product of unending wars for regime change aimed at imposing US hegemony over the region and its vast energy resources. Syria is an integral part of this process.

Obama feigned deep concern over the fate of the Syrian people, insisting that it is their welfare, not some filthy imperialist intrigue, that motivates Washington’s actions. “The question is, how can we stop the suffering, stabilize the region, stop this massive out-migration of refugees who are having such a terrible time, end the violence, stop the bombing of schools and hospitals and innocent civilians, stop creating a safe haven for ISIS,” he said.

As Obama was speaking, there was a report from Syria that a US warplane had struck a bakery in a Syrian town near the Iraqi border, killing 15 people standing in line for bread in the early morning. Moscow, meanwhile, has rejected charges that it was responsible for the bombing of schools and hospitals the day before, while the Syrian government has charged that an American air strike inflicted the worst of the casualties.

Whatever the ratio of civilian deaths caused by US versus Russian airstrikes, the undeniable fact is that the suffering of the Syrian people is the product of a concerted drive by the US, NATO and Washington’s Middle East allies to topple the government of Assad and impose a puppet regime more subservient to Western interests.

To that end, a vast operation was mounted in which the CIA, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, organized the funding and arming of Islamist militias linked to Al Qaeda and funneled tens of thousands of foreign fighters into Syria to wage a vicious sectarian war for regime change. The results of this criminal enterprise are the deaths of some 300,000 Syrians, with another 11 million turned into homeless refugees.

That Russia may become trapped in the Middle East quagmire created by decades of US military aggression is not excluded. The Putin government, representing the interests of the capitalist oligarchy that arose through the criminal appropriation of state property following the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union, is intervening in Syria not out of altruistic concerns for the Syrian people, but for what it sees as the oligarchy’s own interests.

It fears that the toppling of Assad by US-backed Islamists will not only deprive Moscow of its only close ally in the Middle East, but also pave the way for a more concerted drive to isolate, weaken and ultimately dismember the Russian federation. A US puppet in Damascus would open the way to pipeline routes for Qatari gas and Saudi oil bound for Europe, undermining the foundation of the Russian economy. At the same time, the Islamist forces utilized in Syria could be unleashed on the North Caucasus, exploiting the resentments of the local population toward the repression carried out by Moscow.

Obama counseled the Russian government that it would be “smarter” to “work with the United States and other parties in the international community to try to broker some sort of political transition.” In point of fact, the Putin government has sought such an accommodation, but Washington is intent on using such negotiations to impose the regime change it has proved unable to accomplish by means of the proxy war, casting the Islamist militias as a “moderate opposition.”

Meanwhile, the danger of a full-scale military confrontation in Syria between the US and Russia, the world’s two major nuclear powers, continues to grow, with Washington’s allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, seeking to provoke such a clash as a means of furthering their own regional and domestic political interests.

For its part, US imperialism, whatever the immediate tactical calculations of the Obama administration, will be driven by the setbacks it has suffered in Syria and, more fundamentally, the deepening crisis of American capitalism to ever more brutal and reckless acts of military aggression and violence.

The Obama administration secured a court order from a California-based federal judge on Tuesday to force tech giant Apple to develop special software designed to compromise encryption security features embedded in the iPhone’s iOS 9 operating system.

The court decision, utilizing an obscure and antidemocratic law from the 18th century, is part of efforts to utilize last year’s attack in San Bernardino, California to intensify the assault on democratic rights and expand the police-state spying powers of the government.

The FBI and the Justice Department claim that the new software is necessary to enable federal investigators to search through an iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the attackers responsible for the mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino.

At stake, however, is far more than the data on Farook’s phone. The government wants broad authority to bypass encryption mechanisms on any communications that it is not presently able to monitor.

US agents have been unable to access Farook’s phone as a result of Apple’s built-in “auto-erase” feature, which deletes the smartphone’s data after ten or more incorrect attempts to unlock it. The phone’s security features prevent the agency from employing its preferred method of “brute forcing” entry, i.e., trying every possible password.

Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the District of Central California ruled Tuesday that Apple must find a way to “bypass and disable” the security features on Farook’s phone. Apple will appeal the ruling within days, and the case could be decided in the Supreme Court.

Government attorneys claim that the ruling compels Apple to design software that can penetrate the iPhone’s data protection systems, citing a statute known as the All Writs Act, which allows judges to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The administration has adopted a broad interpretation of the law that effectively allows the courts to overrule constitutional limitations on state powers.

Making clear that the court action has the support of the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said on Wednesday that the Justice Department and the FBI have the Obama administration’s “full support.”

The ruling is only the latest stage in the efforts of the Obama administration and the political establishment to use the attacks in San Bernardino to counter the widespread opposition to domestic spying that followed the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Along with the terror attacks in Paris, the events in southern California have become the central pretext for a new expansion of the US government’s mass surveillance programs.

Snowden spoke out against the FBI assault on encryption Wednesday, describing the events as “the most important tech case in a decade.”

“The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights,” Snowden said in a tweet.

Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and other leading firms entered into secret contracts with the US government from the mid-2000s onward, giving the NSA access to electronic communications data stored on their servers, as revealed in NSA documents released by Snowden beginning in the summer of 2013. The documents also showed that the NSA had set up numerous illegal and unconstitutional programs that seek to monitor all telephone records, emails and other communications in the US and internationally.

Pointing to the broad implications of the ruling in a letter released on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook described the government’s request as “unprecedented,” saying that the technology demanded by the FBI could be used against hundreds of millions of devices.

“It would be the equivalent of a master key,” Cook wrote. “Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features.”

“The government is asking Apple to hack our own users,” Cook wrote. The spy software could be used to “intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.” The software hack would “have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

However, lest there be any doubt about Apple’s allegiance to the intelligence establishment and its “war on terror,” Cook went on to insist that Apple has “done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help [the FBI].”

“When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it,” Cook wrote. “We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good.”

Apple’s opposition to the FBI’s anti-encryption drive flows from the material interests of its shareholders. Apple is engaged in a competitive struggle for market share on a world scale and stands to lose business, both from consumers and from foreign governments, if it is perceived as being completely penetrated by the US spy apparatus.

According to an article in the New York Times, Apple had “hoped to resolve the impasse without having to rewrite their own encryption software.” The company was “frustrated by the Justice Department’s refusal to file its demands under seal rather than airing them in court, according to an industry executive with knowledge of the case.” In other words, because the request became publicly known, the company felt compelled to release a statement opposing the ruling.

Intelligence agencies have been pressing for legislation to bypass encryption mechanisms since long before the San Bernardino attacks. FBI Director James Comey has agitated for new laws requiring the installation of “backdoor” access to encryption technology almost continuously since taking office. The attacks, however, were immediately used to escalate the “war on terror campaign” and shift the entire political establishment to the right.

One of the possible outcomes of the dispute with Apple is the passage of legislation in Congress that would explicitly authorize the government to force companies to give it access to text messages and other encrypted data on cell phones. Leading Democrats and Republicans in Congress moved quickly to back the court decision and criticize Apple for opposing it.

The basic target of these moves—as with the police-state spying apparatus as a whole—is not the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, but all opposition to the American ruling class’s policy of war and social reaction. As the United States prepares for a massive escalation of military violence, it is at the same time intensifying the assault on democratic rights at home.

Antti J. Ronkainen: The Federal Reserve is the most significant central bank in the world. How does it contribute to the domestic policy of the United States?

Michael Hudson: The Federal Reserve supports the status quo. It would not want to create a crisis before the election. Today it is part of the Democratic Party’s re-election campaign, and its job is to serve Hillary Clinton’s campaign contributors on Wall Street. It is trying to spur recovery by resuming its Bubble Economy subsidy for Wall Street, not by supporting the industrial economy. What the economy needs is a debt writedown, not more debt leveraging such as Quantitative Easing has aimed to promote. But the Fed is in a state of denial that the U.S. and European economies are plagued by debt deflation.

Michael Hudson

The Fed uses only one policy: influencing interest rates by creating bank reserves at low give-away charges. It enables banks too make easy gains simply by borrowing from it and leaving the money on deposit to earn interest (which has been paid since the 2008 crisis to help subsidize the banks, mainly the largest ones). The effect is to fund the asset markets – bonds, stocks and real estate – not the economy at large. Banks also are heavy arbitrage players in foreign exchange markets. But this doesn’t help the economy recover, any more than the ZIRP (Zero Interest-Rate Policy) since 2001 has done for Japan. Financial markets are the liabilities side of the economy’s balance sheet, not the asset side.

The last thing either U.S. party wants is for the election to focus on this policy failure. The Fed, Treasury and Justice Department will be just as pro-Wall Street under Hillary. There would be no prosecutions of bank fraud, there would be another bank-friendly Attorney General, and a willingness to subsidize banks now that the Dodd-Frank bank reform has been diluted from what it originally promised to be.

So let’s go back to beginning. When the Great Financial Crisis escalated in 2008 the Fed’s response was to lower its main interest rate to nearly zero. Why?

The aim of lowering interest rates was to provide banks with cheap credit. The pretense was that banks might lend to help the economy get going again. But the Fed’s idea was simply to re-inflate the Bubble Economy. It aimed at restoring the value of the mortgages that banks had in their loan portfolios. The hope was that easy credit would spur new mortgage lending to bid housing prices back up – as if this would help the economy rather than simply raising the price of home ownership.

But banks weren’t going to make mortgage loans to a housing market that already was over-lent. Instead, homeowners had to start paying down the mortgages they had taken out. Banks also reduced their credit-card exposure by a few hundred billion dollars. So instead of receiving new credit, the economy was saddled with having to repay debts.

Banks did make money, but not by lending into the “real” production and consumption economy. They mainly engaged in arbitrage and speculation, and lending to hedge funds and companies to buy their own stocks yielding higher dividend returns than the low interest rates that were available.

In addition to the near zero interest rates, the Fed bought US Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities (MBS) with almost $4 trillion during three rounds of Quantitative Easing stimulus. How have these measures affected the real economy and financial markets?

In 2008 the Federal Reserve had a choice: It could save the economy, or it could save the banks. It might have used a fraction of what became the vast QE credit – for example $1 trillion – to pay off the bad mortgages and write them down. That would have helped save the economy from debt deflation. Instead, the Fed simply wanted to re-inflate the bubble, to save banks from having to suffer losses on their junk mortgages and other bad loans.

Keeping these debts on the books, in full, let banks foreclose on defaulting homeowners. This intensified the debt-deflation, pushing the economy into its present post-2008 depression. The debt overhead is keeping it depressed.

One therefore can speak of a financial war waged by Wall Street against the economy. The Fed is a major weapon in this war. Its constituency is Wall Street. Like the Justice and Treasury Departments, it has been captured and taken hostage.

Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen’s husband, George Akerlof, has written a good article about looting and fraud as ways to make money. But instead of saying that looting and fraud are bad, the Fed has refused to regulate or move against such activities. It evidently recognizes that looting and fraud are what Wall Street is all about – or at least that the financial system would come crashing down if an attempt were made to clean it up!

So neither the Fed nor the Justice Department or other U.S. Government agencies has sanctioned or arrested a single banker for the trillions of dollars of financial fraud. Just the opposite: The big banks where the fraud was concentrated have been made even larger and more dominant. The effect has been to drive out of business the smaller banks not so involved in derivative bets and other speculation.

The bottom line is that banks made much more by getting Alan Greenspan and the Clinton-Bush Treasury officials to deregulate fraud than they could have made by traditional safe lending. But their gains have increased the economy’s overhead.

Do you believe Mike Whitney’s argument that QE was about a tradeoff between the Fed and the government: the Fed pumped the new bubble and saved the banks that the government didn’t need to bail out more banks. The government’s role was to impose austerity so that inflation and employment didn’t rise – which would have forced the Fed to raise interest rates, ending its QE program? source:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/15/the-chart-that-explains-everything/]

That was a great chart that Mike put up from Richard Koo, and you should reproduce it here. It shows that the Fed’s enormous credit creation had zero effect on raising commodity prices or wages. But stock market prices doubled in just six years, 2008-15, and bond prices rose to new peaks. Banks left much of the QE credit on deposit with the Fed, earning an interest giveaway premium.

(Richard Koo: “The struggle between markets and central banks has only just begun,”

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-struggle-between-markets-and-central-banks-has-only-just-begun-2015-9?r=UK&IR=T

The important point is that the Fed (backed by the Obama Administration) refused to use this $4 trillion to revive the production-and-consumption economy. It claimed that such a policy would be “inflationary,” by which it meant raising employment and wage levels. The Fed thus accepted the neoliberal junk economics proposing austerity as the answer to any problem – austerity for the industrial economy, not the Fed’s own Wall Street constituency.

According to a Fed staff report, QE would lower the exchange rate of dollar to the other currencies causing competitiveness boost for the U.S. firms. Former finance minister of Brazil Guido Mantega, as well as the chairman of Central Bank of India Raghuram Rajan, have described the Fed’s QE as a “currency war.” What’s your take?

The Fed’s aim was simply to provide banks with low-interest credit. Banks lent to hedge funds to buy securities or make financial bets that yielded more than 0.1 percent. They also lent to companies to buy their own stock, and to corporate raiders for debt-financed mergers and acquisitions. But banks didn’t lend to the economy at large, because it already was “loaned up,” and indeed, overburdened with debt.

Lower interest rates did spur the “carry trade,” as they had done in Japan after 1990. Banks and hedge funds bought foreign bonds paying higher rates. The dollar drifted down as bank arbitrageurs could borrow from the Fed at 0.1 percent to lend to Brazil at 9 percent. Buying these foreign bonds pushed up foreign exchange rates against the dollar. That was a side effect of the Fed’s attempt to help Wall Street make financial gains. It simply didn’t give much consideration to how its QE flooding the global economy with surplus dollars would affect U.S. exports – or foreign countries.

Exchange rate shifts don’t affect export trends as much as textbook models claim. U.S. arms exports to the Near East, and many technology exports are non-competitive. However, a looming problem for most countries is what may happen when ending QE increases the dollar’s exchange rate. If U.S. interest rates go back up, the dollar will strengthen. That would increase the cost to foreign countries of paying dollar-denominated debts. Countries that borrowed all dollars at low interest will need to pay more in their own currencies to service these debts. Imagine what would happen if the Federal Reserve let interest rates rise back to a normal level of 4 or 5 percent. The soaring dollar would push debtor economies toward depression on capital account much more than it would help their exports on trade account.

You have said that QE is fracturing the global economy. What do you mean by that?

Part of the flood of dollar credit is used to buy shares of foreign companies yielding 15 to 20 percent, and foreign bonds. These dollars are turned over to foreign central banks for domestic currency. But central banks are only able to use these dollars to buy U.S. Treasury securities, yielding about 1 percent. When the People’s Bank of China buys U.S. Treasury bonds, it’s financing America’s dual budget and balance-of-payment deficits, both of which stem largely from military encirclement of Eurasia – while letting U.S. investors and the U.S. economy get a free ride.

Instead of buying U.S. Treasury securities, China would prefer to buy American companies, just like U.S. investors are buying Chinese industry. But America’s government won’t permit China even to buy gas station companies. The result is a double standard. Americans feel insecure having Chinese ownership in their companies. It is the same attitude that was directed against Japan in the late 1980s.

I wrote about this financial warfare and America’s free lunch via the dollar standard in Super Imperialism (2002) and The Bubble and Beyond (2012), and about how today’s New Cold War is being waged financially in Killing the Host (2015).

The Democrats loudly criticized the Bush administration’s $700 billion TARP-program, but backed the Fed’s QE purchases worth of almost $4 trillion during the Obama administration. How does this relate to the fact that officially, QE purchases were intended to support economic recovery?

I think you’ve got the history wrong. My Killing the Host describes how the Democrats supported TARP, while the Republican Congress opposed it on populist grounds. Republican Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered to use some of the money to aid over-indebted homeowners, but President-elect Obama blocked that – and then appointed Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. FDIC head Sheila Bair and by SIGTARP head Neil Barofsky have written good books about Geithner’s support for Wall Street (and especially for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs) against the interests of the economy at large.

If you are going to serve Wall Street – your major campaign contributors – you are going to need a cover story pretending that this will help the economy. Politicians start with “Column A”: their agenda to reimburse their campaign contributors – Wall Street and other special interests. Their public relations team and speechwriters then draw up “Column B”: what public voters want. To get votes, a rhetorical cover story is crafted. I describe this in my forthcoming J is for Junk Economics, to be published in March. It’s a dictionary of Orwellian doublethink, political and economic euphemisms to turn the vocabulary around and mean the opposite of what actually is meant.

How do TARP and QE relate to the Federal Reserve’s mandate about price stability?

There are two sets of prices: asset prices and commodity prices and wages. By “price stability” the Fed means keeping wages and commodity prices down. Calling depressed wage levels “price stability” diverts attention from the phenomenon of debt deflation – and also from the asset-price inflation that has increased the advantages of the One Percent over the 99 Percent. From 1980 to the present, the Fed has inflated the largest bond rally in history as a result of driving down interest rates from 20 percent in 1980 to nearly zero today, as you have noted.

Chicago School monetarism ignores asset prices. It pretends that when you increase the money supply, this increases consumer prices, commodity prices and wages proportionally. But that’s not what happens. When banks created credit (money), they don’t lend much to people to buy goods and services or for companies to make capital investments to employ more workers. They lend money mainly to transfer ownership of assets already in place. About 80 percent of bank loans are mortgages, and the rest are largely for stocks and bond purchases, including corporate takeovers and stock buybacks or debt-leveraged purchases. The effect is to bid up asset prices, while loading down the economy with debt in the process. This pushes up the break-even cost of doing business, while imposing debt deflation on the economy at large.

Wall Street isn’t so interested in exploiting wage labour by hiring it to produce goods for sale, as was the case under industrial capitalism in its heyday. It makes its gains by riding the wave of asset inflation. Banks also gain by making labour pay more interest, fees and penalties on mortgages, and for student loans, credit cards and auto loans. That’s the postindustrial financial mode of exploiting labor and the overall economy. The Fed’s QE program increases the price at which stocks, bonds and real estate exchange for labour, and also promotes debt leverage throughout the economy.

Why don’t economists distinguish between asset-price and commodity price inflation?

The economics curriculum has been turned into an exercise for students to pretend that a hypothetical parallel universe exists in which the rentier classes are job creators, necessary to help economies recover. The reality is that financial modes of getting rich by debt leveraging creates a Bubble Economy – a Ponzi scheme leading to austerity and shrinking markets, which always ends in a convulsion of bankruptcy.

The explanation for why this is not central to today’s economic theory is that the discipline has been captured by this neoliberal tunnel vision that overlooks the financial sector’s maneuvering to make quick trading profits in stocks, bonds, mortgages and derivatives, not to take the time and effort to develop long-term markets. Rentiers seek to throw a cloak of invisibility around how they make money. They know that if economists don’t measure their wealth and the public does not see it, voters will be less likely to bring pressure to regulate and tax it.

Today’s central economic problem is that inflating asset prices by debt leveraging extracts more interest and financial charges. When the resulting debt deflation ends up hollowing out the economy, creditors try to blame labour, or government spending (except for bailouts and QE to help Wall Street). It is as if debtors are exploiting their creditors.

If there is a new class war, what is the current growth model?

It’s an austerity model, as you can see from the eurozone and from the neoliberal consensus that cites Latvia as a success story rather than a disaster leading to de-industrialization and emigration. In real democracies, if economies polarize like they are doing today, you would expect the 99 Percent to fight back by electing representatives to enact progressive taxation, regulate finance and monopolies, and make public investment to raise wages and living standards. In the 19th century this drive led parliaments to rewrite the tax rules to fall more on landlords and monopolists.

Industrial capitalism plowed profits back into new means of production to expand the economy. But today’s rentier model is based on austerity and privatization. The main way the financial sector always has obtained wealth has been by privatizing it from the public domain by insider dealing and indebting governments.

The ultimate financial business plan also is to lend with an eye to end up with the debtor’s property, from governments to companies and families. In Greece the European Central Bank, European Commission and IMF demanded that if the nation’s elected representatives did not sell off the nation’s ports, land, islands, roads, schools, sewer systems, water systems, television stations and even museums to reimburse the dreaded austerity troika for its bailout of bondholders and bankers, the country would be isolated from Europe and faced with a crash. That forced Greece to capitulate.

What seems at first glance to be democracy has been hijacked by politicians who accept the financial class war ideology that the way for an economy to get rich is by austerity. That means lowering wages, unemployment, and dismantling government by turning the public domain over to the financial sector.

By supporting the banking sector even in its predatory and outright fraudulent behavior, U.S. and European governments are reversing the trajectory along which 19th-century progressive industrial capitalism and socialism were moving. Today’s rentier class is not concerned with long-term tangible investment to earn profits by hiring workers to produce goods. Under finance capitalism, an emerging financial over-class makes money by stripping income and assets from economies driven deeper into debt. Attacking “big government” when it is democratic, the wealthy are all in favor of government when it is oligarchic and serves their interests by rolling back the past two centuries of democratic reforms.

Does the Fed realize global turbulences what its unconventional policies have caused?

Sure. But the Fed has painted itself in a corner: If it raises interest rates, this will cause the stock and bond markets to go down. That would reverse the debt leveraging that has kept these markets up. Higher interest rates also would bankrupt Third World debtors, which will not be able to pay their dollar debts if dollars become more expensive in their currencies.

But if the Fed keeps interest rates low, pension funds and insurance companies will have difficulty making the paper gains that their plans imagined could continue exponentially ad infinitum. So whatever it does, it will destabilize the global economy.

China’s stock market has crashed, western markets are very volatile, and George Soros has said that the current financial environment reminds him of the 2008 crash. Should we be worried?

News reports make it sound as if debt-ridden capitalist economies will face collapse if the socialist countries don’t rescue them from their shrinking domestic markets. I think Soros means that the current financial environment is fragile and highly debt-leveraged, with heavy losses on bad loans, junk bonds and derivatives about to be recognized. Regulators may permit banks to “extend and pretend” that bad loans will turn good someday. But it is clear that most government reports and central bankers are whistling in the dark. Changes in any direction may pull down derivatives. That will cause a break in the chain of payments when losers can’t pay. The break may spread and this time public opinion is more organized against 2008-type bailouts.

The moral is that debts that can’t be paid, won’t be. The question is, how won’t they be paid? By writing down debts, or by foreclosures and distress sell-offs turning the financial class into a ruling oligarchy? That is the political fight being waged today – and as Warren Buffet has said, his billionaire class is winning it.

That’s all for now. Thank you Michael!

President Obama, who once called the idea of “moderate” Syrian rebels a “fantasy,” has maintained the fiction to conceal the fact that many “moderates” are fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s jihadists, an inconvenient truth that is complicating an end to Syria’s civil war, explains Gareth Porter.

Secretary of State John Kerry insisted at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that the agreement with Russia on a temporary halt in the war in Syria can only be carried out if Russia stops its airstrikes against what Kerry is now calling “legitimate opposition groups.”

But what Kerry did not say is that the ceasefire agreement would not apply to operations against Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the Nusra Front, which both the United States and Russia have recognized as a terrorist organization. That fact is crucial to understand why the Obama administration’s reference to “legitimate opposition groups” is a deception intended to mislead public opinion.

President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Russian airstrikes in question are aimed at cutting off Aleppo city, which is now the primary center of Nusra’s power in Syria, from the Turkish border. To succeed in that aim, Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces are attacking rebel troops deployed in towns all along the routes from Aleppo to the border.Those rebels include units belonging to Nusra, their close ally Ahrar al-Sham, and other armed opposition groups – some of whom have gotten weapons from the CIA in the past.

Kerry’s language suggests that those other “legitimate opposition groups” are not part of Nusra’s military structure but are separate from it both organizationally and physically. But in fact, there is no such separation in either of the crucial provinces of Idlib and Aleppo.

Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it.

This reality even slips into mainstream U.S. news accounts on occasion, such as Anne Barnard’s New York Times article last Saturday about the proposed Syrian cease-fire in which she reported, “With the proviso that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, can still be bombed, Russia puts the United States in a difficult position; the insurgent groups it supports cooperate in some places with the well-armed, well-financed Nusra in what they say is a tactical alliance of necessity against government forces.”

At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar. The strategy called for supplying TOW anti-tank missiles to the “Syrian Revolutionaries Front” (SRF) as the core of a client Syrian army that would be independent of the Nusra Front.

However, when a combined force of Nusra and non-jihadist brigades including the SRF captured the Syrian army base at Wadi al-Deif in December 2014, the truth began to emerge. The SRF and other groups to which the United States had supplied TOW missiles had fought under Nusra’s command to capture the base.

And as one of the SRF fighters who participated in the operation, Abu Kumayt, recalled to The New York Times, after the victory only Nusra and its very close ally Ahrar al-Sham were allowed to enter the base. Nusra had allowed the groups supported by the United States to maintain the appearance of independence from Nusra, according to Abu Kumyt, in order to induce the United States to continue the supply of U.S. weapons.

Playing Washington

In other words, Nusra was playing Washington, exploiting the Obama administration’s desire to have its own Syrian Army as an instrument for influencing the course of the war. The administration was evidently a willing dupe.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who had been supporting an aggressive program of arming opposition brigades that had been approved by the CIA, told a January 2015 seminar in Washington, “For a long time we have looked the other way while the Nusra Front and armed groups on the ground, some of which are getting help from us, have coordinated in military operations against the regime.”

Reflecting the views of some well-placed administration officials, he added, “I think the days of us looking the other way are finished.” But instead of breaking with the deception that the CIA’s hand-picked clients were independent of Nusra, the Obama administration continued to cling to it.

Nusra and its allies were poised to strike the biggest blow against the Assad regime up to the time – the capture of Idlib province. Although some U.S.-supported groups participated in the campaign in March and April 2015, the “operations room” planning the campaign was run by Al Qaeda and its close ally Ahrar al Sham.

And before the campaign was launched, Nusra had forced another U.S.-supported group, Harakat Hazm, to disband and took all of its TOW anti-tank missiles.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were financing the “Army of Conquest,” commanded by Nusra, and were lobbying the administration to support it. U.S. strategy on Syria was then shifting toward a tacit reliance on the jihadists to achieve the U.S. objective of putting sufficient pressure on the Assad regime to force some concessions on Damascus.

But the idea that an independent “moderate” armed opposition still existed – and that the United States was basing its policy on those “moderates” – was necessary to provide a political fig leaf for the covert and indirect U.S. reliance on Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise’s military success.

When the fall of Idlib led to the Russian intervention last September, the U.S. immediately resorted to its propaganda line about Russian targeting of the “moderate” armed opposition. It had become a necessary shield for the United States to continue playing a political-diplomatic game in Syria.

As the current Russian-Syrian-Iranian offensive between Aleppo and the Turkish border unfolds, the Obama administration’s stance has been contradicted by fresh evidence of the subordination of non-jihadist forces to the Nusra Front. In late January, Nusra consolidated its role as the primary opposition military force in the eastern part of Aleppo City by sending a huge convoy of 200 vehicles loaded with fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London.

BBC reported that “thousands of troops” had just arrived in Aleppo for the coming battle. Ahrar al-Sham confirmed on Feb. 2 that its ally, the Nusra Front, had deployed a large convoy of “reinforcements” to Aleppo. The pro-Assad Beirut daily As-Safir reported that the convoys also included artillery, tanks and armored vehicles, and that Nusra had taken over a number of buildings to serve as its headquarters and offices.

How Al Qaeda Controls

An assessment published on Saturday by the Institute for the Study of War, which has long advocated more U.S. military assistance to Syrian anti-Assad groups, provides further insights into the Nusra Front’s system of control over U.S.-supported groups. One way the jihadist organization maintains that control, according to the study, is Ahrar al Sham’s control of the Bab al Hawa border crossing with Turkey, which gives Nusra and Ahrar power over the distribution of supplies from Turkey into Aleppo City and surrounding areas.

ISW points out that another instrument of control is the use of “military operations rooms” in which Nusra and Ahrar al Sham play the dominant role while allocating resources and military roles to lesser military units.

Although the Nusra Front is not listed as part of the “Army of Aleppo” formally announced to combat the Russian offensive, it is hardly credible that it does not hold the primary positions in the operations room for the Aleppo campaign, given the large infusion of Nusra troops into the theater from Idlib and its history in other such operations rooms in the Idlib and Aleppo regions.

Yet another facet of Nusra’s power in Aleppo is its control over the main water and power plants in the opposition-controlled districts of the city. But the ultimate source of Nusra’s power over U.S.-supported groups is the threat to attack them as agents of the United States and take over their assets. Al Qaeda’s franchise “successfully destroyed two U.S.-backed groups in Northern Syria in 2014 and early 2015,” ISW recalls, and initiated a campaign last October against one of the remaining U.S.-supported groups, Nour al Din al Zenki.

The official U.S. posture on the current offensive in the Aleppo theater and the proposed ceasefire obscures the fact that a successful Russian-Syrian operation would make it impossible for the external states, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to resupply the Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham and thus end the military threat to the Syrian government as well as the possibility of Al Qaeda’s seizure of power in Damascus.

Russian-Syrian success offers the most realistic prospect for an end to the bloodletting in Syria and would also reduce the likelihood of an eventual Al Qaeda seizure of power in Syria.

The Obama administration certainly understands that fact and has already privately adjusted its diplomatic strategy to take into account the likelihood that the Nusra Front will now be substantially weakened. But it cannot acknowledge any of that publicly because such a recognition would infuriate many hardliners in Washington who still demand “regime change” in Damascus whatever the risks.

President Obama is under pressure from these domestic critics as well as from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other GCC allies to oppose any gains by the Russians and the Assad regime as a loss for the United States. And Obama administration must continue to hide the reality that it was complicit in a strategy of arming Nusra – in part through the mechanism of arming Washington’s “moderate” clients – to achieve leverage on the Syrian regime.

Thus the game of diplomacy and deceptions continues.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Image. F. William Engdahl

One of my often-cited sayings is around 2,500 years old. It’s from the respected Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in his small masterpiece, The Art of War. For centuries it’s been one of the most influential strategy writings not only in Asia, but also the Western world. It goes as follows:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

In geopolitical analysis, when I examine a major political or economic development, it’s very important that I first look into myself, to feel if I’m blurring my analysis because of deep-felt personal wishes for a peaceful, more harmonious world, blurring the reality of a given nation or groups of nations. Similarly, if I take those malevolent patriarchs who dominate American and NATO policies today, I must be certain I know, not merely the surface of what an American President or Secretary of State might say on a given day. It can be a lie, a slick maneuver or it can be even honest. The work of any serious analyst is to sort out which it is, to go deeper, to “mine” the lode in order to see the real strategic implications.

Such is the case with finding out what is the real Washington policy—the economic and foreign policy today. For example, what is the real meaning and purpose behind the journey of the 92-year-old Henry Kissinger to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin and others recently? What’s the real purpose of John Kerry when he appears to follow a policy more friendly towards Russia than, say, his Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland or Secretary of Defense Ash Carter? Is it the voice of a significant faction within the foreign policy establishment that genuinely seeks a shift in Washington policy with Moscow from confrontation and war towards detente, diplomacy and a policy of peace and economic cooperation? What’s the real intent of the Roman Pope in wanting to come together with the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the first such meeting between those two churches–east and west–since the Great Schism of 1054? Is that a positive step towards world peace or is it something ominous?

Washington: confusion or deception?

It’s a widespread notion, fostered by US and European mainstream and other media, even by media in Russia and China that Washington is in confused disarray, a Superpower or hegemon which has lost its bearings. Media analysts write of a policy clash or internal factional battle that renders any US action in destroying DAESH or ISIS in Syria and Iraq a ludicrous, bumbling joke.

From years of looking at US foreign policy, I’ve learned to bring a certain respect in to my assessment. The respect is not at all admiration but an appreciation that, after all, the world’s most powerful Superpower did not come to that position of power without extraordinary skills, cunning, a remarkable ability to lie convincingly, to deceive, to very precisely manipulate the weaknesses of their opponents.

That deception has been the hallmark of American foreign policy for the entire post-1945 period, as towards the Soviet Union of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989, when Gorbachev trusted his American interlocutors who solemnly promised that the West would never advance NATO to the East. The deception is the hallmark of US economic policies since Bretton Woods in 1944 established the Dollar as supreme, and which destroyed any potential challenge to the domination of the US dollar as reserve currency—the most strategic of the American pillars of power aside from that of the US military.

Some years ago I was told by a former West Point officer that the cadets of West Point who go on to become America’s future colonels, generals and military strategists, are steeped in Sun Tzu as well as in Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, which teaches “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”

In international politics, it’s unwise to believe your enemy is stupid. It can be fatal. Mistakes, of course, they continuously make, only to re-program and correct or push on another front in their obsession with world power and control.

More useful is to assume they have a well-thought-through strategy behind a veil of Machiavellian lies and deception, rather than to assume stupidity as our operating premise. So, amid a most incredible array of contradictory indications out of Washington, what’s going on between the actors in the war against Syria and the entire Middle East today, in February 2016?

Using Russia in Syria

If we look at current US policies in the Middle East, especially in Syria and in Iraq, and assume it is a very well-thought-out strategy to reach a specific, well-defined goal, the situation looks very different.

My current conclusion is that under a smokescreen of apparent policy confusion and incompetence on the side of Washington, of the Pentagon, of the State Department and their backers on Wall Street, there is a carefully-planned strategy to ignite a war in the oil-and-gas-rich Middle East that will dramatically alter the political and geopolitical oil map of the world. Yes, another war about oil like so many of the wars of the last century, a Century of War as one of my books calls it.

The Washington-Wall Street think tanks behind the coming change are orchestrating the actions of state actors in the Middle East who, blinded by their own greed or desire for empire, Ottoman or Saudi, see not that they are falling into a fatal trap.

They apparently haven’t studied Sun Tzu, much less, even a thought of such deep themes as knowing themselves and knowing their enemy. They are mostly driven by burning hate, as with Erdogan and his Turkey today–hate for the Syrians, for the Kurds, for the Europeans, even for the Saudis with whom Erdogan claims to be allied. In Erdogan’s Kasbah, everyone has their daggers ready behind their backs.

Washington sets the trap

What can be the true strategy of Washington and their patrons in Wall Street in the present Middle East chaos called the “war to defeat DAESH” or IS?

It’s useful to go back to the end of September, 2015 when Russia surprised not only Washington, but the entire world, with the swiftness and effectiveness of its requested military intervention against DAESH and other terror groups destroying Syria.

It’s clear from the lack of an effective Washington response, and from subsequent Washington actions, that their policy strategists took time to recalculate their original regime change strategy for Syria. What emerges is the clear evidence that they decided to actually use that Russian military intervention to advance their original strategic plan for the region, much like classical martial arts teaches–use your opponent’s force against them. It smacks of Churchill’s strategy of luring Hitler into a Polish invasion in 1939 so Britain could declare war on Germany, but waiting until Germany invaded the Soviet Union before seriously acting, the period of so-called Phony War.

Washington has orchestrated events, including the apparent US-Russian accord around the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 of December 18, 2015 that led to Geneva III “peace” talks. The Geneva III talks were sabotaged from the outset by Washington’s control of the UN “peace” mediators, including US diplomat, now UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffery D. Feltman, and his subordinate, Staffan de Mistura, the Machiavellian United Nations Envoy to Syria and the Arab League. Washington acceded to Saudi demands that the large Syrian Kurdish minority, who are in the firing lines of DAESH in Syria, be excluded, and that Syrian “opposition” be determined by the oil-hungry Saudis.

Now, following the Munich talks of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) on February 12, co-chaired by Kerry and Lavrov, Russia and the USA have on paper agreed that, “cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.” Further, “The members of the ISSG reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria.”

Now there are two points that I find flashing red. The “cessation of hostilities” means that Russian highly-effective air support to the Syrian National Army and Hezbollah and other pro-Assad forces will stop or be significantly reduced at a critical point. Russian parliamentarians claim cessation will not apply to the areas around Aleppo controlled by DAESH or Al-Nusra Front, but that remains to be seen. In either case it is a trap.

That ceasefire will happen just as Syrian forces, backed by Russia are on the brink of a major victory in Aleppo, breaking the DAESH supply lines to Erdogan’s Turkey, the oatron of DAESH along with the Saudi monarchy. Second, there is no demand that DAESH or Al-Nusra cease “hostilities.” That means Russia has agreed to stop support of Assad but DAESH is no party to the deal, leaving it free to rearm with Turkish and Saudi support. Now the plot thickens and gets very dangerous.

Janus-faced Washington

Washington policy–the policy of the USA military-industrial complex and their Wall Street bankers– has in no way changed. That’s clear. I find no convincing evidence to the contrary. They plan to destroy Syria as a functioning nation, to finish the destruction of Iraq begun in 1991, and to spread that destruction now to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, and across the entire oil and gas-rich Middle East. They are simply using other means to that end given the “game-changing” presence of Russia since September 30.

While State Secretary John Kerry was working the “soft cop” routine with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the run-up to the February 12 Munich talks, on February 10 a Pentagon spokesman falsely accused the Russian military of hitting two hospitals in Aleppo, even though, by prior agreement, it was US aircraft that operated over the city on that day. The US Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Steve Warren, charged that Russian aircraft in Syria were using “dumb” bombs, “indiscriminately scattering those bombs across populated areas regardless of whether those populated areas have women and children, civilians or hospitals,” charges denied by Moscow.

Two days later in Munich, Lavrov, on behalf of Moscow, apparently compromised on its offer to impose a ceasefire in three weeks and instead accepted one week, a potentially devastating setback for the near-victory of the Syrian National Army forces to retake Aleppo and seal the Turkey DAESH supply route. It’s interesting that that decision came only nine days after Henry Kissinger met with Putin in Moscow. We may never know if there was a connection. Then on February 12, Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the committee for international affairs at the Federation Council, told TASS that the areas still occupied by terrorists such as DAESH and Al-Nusra were not covered by the Munich ceasefire.

The Pentagon is also quietly putting “boots on the ground” in Iraq. War jargon in Washington has become so dehumanized in the era of drone warfare that we no longer speak of the soldiers, merely their “boots.” They are preparing a major military move in Syria whether through Turkish and Saudi proxies or direct, or both, despite the nice sounding words about humanitarian aid and UN supervised Syrian elections in 18 months. At the same time, US military veterans are preparing the propaganda in the US for a ten-year siege before the US could drive the last DAESH terrorist out of the oil-rich Mosul, the heart of north Iraqi oil production.

On January 22 in an interview with CNBC Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that the US intends to defeat Islamic State’s greatest strongholds: the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the IS “capital” Raqqa, in Syria.

“We’re looking for opportunities to do more and there will be boots on the ground, and I want to be clear about that. But it’s a strategic question whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold rather than trying to substitute for them,” Carter said. “We’re prepared to do a great deal because we have the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. We can do a lot ourselves,” Carter said.

The US says it has already sent 50 special operations forces to northern Syria to gather intelligence and maintain contacts with local forces. “It is a keyhole through which one gets a lot of insight, and thereby allows us more effectively to bring the huge weight of coalition military power to bear on the battlefield in an effective way,” he stated. A leading Russian Duma parliamentarian, Vladimir Soloyvov, head of the Russian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, dismisses Carter’s statements as a Washington publicity move to “steal thunder in fighting terrorism in the Middle East,” a sign that some at least in the Russian policy establishment do not really know their enemy.

A spreading world war

I’m going to make a prediction which you can verify as accurate or, hopefully, not. In about two months I estimate, around late March or April it will be clear. The US Machiavellians have lured not only Turkey’s Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Salman, but now Moscow into their trap in the Middle East. The initial losers in this unfolding deadly game will be Saudi, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and likely Russia. The ultimate losers, eventually, will also be the American Patriarchs or oligarchs behind these incessant wars of destruction, but not immediately, short of a miracle.

Look carefully at the little-reported statements in recent days of two key Washington war actors–Joe Biden and John Kerry. On January 24, Vice President Joe Biden, the one who orchestrated the US coup d’ etat in Kiev in February 2014, met with Turkish President and would-be Sultan of a neo-Ottoman imperium, Recep Erdogan. Biden told Erdogan and Prime Minister Davotoglu that Washington wanted Turkey and Iraq to “coordinate” on an emerging US military plan to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul from DAESH or the so-called Islamic State. An Obama Administration official described the Mosul attack as in “hard-core planning” stages, though not imminent.

The unnamed US “senior” official, most likely Biden, stated that the US is also selecting several hundred Sunni Arabs in Syria, as well as some Turks, who Turkey says its government has identified as “potential fighters,” to help the US close the roughly 60 miles of border with Syria that remains under Islamic State control. The source added that Washington is hoping to finalize a package in coming weeks of new technological assistance for Turkey to aid in securing that stretch of border.

Biden also strongly backed Turkey’s fight against the Turkish Kurdish PKK and said that the US would strengthen its military campaign against ISIS if there is no agreement on a political solution in Syria. Joe Biden well knows that Erdogan and Turkish MIT intelligence head, Hakan Fidan fully back DAESH and fully are out to create ethnic cleansing against the Kurds in Turkey, and in Syria. He knows because the CIA worked with Fidan, a US educated Turkish military veteran, at secret Turkish bases over the past two years to train DAESH terrorists in the Washington war against Assad.

If you are beginning to smell a big skunk here, you have a healthy sense of smell.

So now we have Washington and Erdogan bringing undesired US and Turkish troops into Iraq’s Mosul region to prepare a major military operation, with or without the agreement of Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, who has repeatedly and impotently demanded the Turkish army leave Mosul.

Why Mosul?

You may fairly ask, why Mosul? To paraphrase Bill Clinton in his 1992 famous retort to George H.W. Bush, “It’s the oil, stupid.” The US failed operation dubbed Arab Spring, the failed CIA and Obama Administration backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across Middle East oil states, and now their operations with Turkey in Mosul and Syria are all about the oil.

This time, however it isn’t about taking over the rich oilfields of Iraq and Syria. It’s about destroying them. The US-engineered, French-executed destruction of Qaddafi’s Libya is the model. Iraq, as Dick Cheney’s 2001 Energy Policy Task Force discovered, holds the world’s third largest proven conventional oil reserves, on a par with Iran, with Saudi reserves the largest. The area around Mosul and the Kurd-controlled Kirkuk fields nearby are the current focus of the US military strategy. In Syria, DAESH terrorists control most all Syrian oilfields, where they illegally export with aid of Erdogan’s family to world markets to finance their terror campaign against Assad’s regime.

An ominous wire report sent a shiver down my spine when I read it. On January 28, US Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, said that the US military was on site at the Mosul Dam to assess “the potential” for the collapse. Were it to be blown up, it would send a flood of water down the heavily populated Tigris river valley. “The likelihood of the dam collapsing is something we are trying to determine right now… all we know is when it goes, it’s going to go fast and that’s bad,” MacFarland told reporters in Baghdad. The US State Department estimates up to 500,000 people could be killed and over one million rendered homeless should Iraq’s biggest dam collapse.

It would likely flood the large oilfields of Kirkuk on its path, rendering them inoperable. Whoever controls the Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, controls most of the country’s water and power resource. The dam holds back over 12 billion cubic meters of water that is crucial for irrigation in the farming areas of Iraq’s western Nineveh province. In a 2007 letter, US General David Petraeus, a key figure in the destruction of Iraq and in the creation of what became DAESH, warned Iraq’s government that “A catastrophic failure of Mosul Dam would result in flooding along the Tigris River all the way to Baghdad.”

Washington Proxy War Builds

Combine this statement by General MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria on that Mosul Dam, the Biden talks to get Turkey’s military invasion accepted by Iraq “in the war against DAESH” and the encouragement by State Secretary John Kerry of Prince Salman’s Saudi war against Yemen, as well as the recent Davos statements by Ash Carter. Add to that the fact that the Saudi and Turkish militaries just announced plans undertake joint military actions to “cooperate against common threats.”

On February 13, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed a joint Turkish-Saudi joint attack plan for invading Syria, telling press, “If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation.” xvi

Now add to that the fact that Turkish military began shelling a Syrian airbase and village recently retaken by Syrian Kurds, with the argument that the Kurds of Syria were “terrorists” like the Turkish PKK Kurds. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu confirmed the cross-border mortar shelling into Syria territory on February 13: “We will retaliate against every step (by the YPG),” he told state broadcaster TRT Haber. “The YPG will immediately withdraw from Azaz and the surrounding area and will not go close to itagain.”

Now add the fact that this week Washington repeated that it does not regard the Syrian Kurds as terrorists and that the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) have just opened its first foreign representative office in Moscow and we begin to see the outlines of Washington’s strategy of steering heated-up and hated-up Turkey and Saudi Arabia to trigger Washington’s surrogate war, a war where Turkey, a NATO member, Saudi and the Gulf Arab oil states, find themselves in a direct military confrontation with Russia in Aleppo province of Syria. The Turkish shelling at present is clearly a testing of the waters of a war with Russia to see how, in the wake of their ceasefire agreement, they will react. Will Russia retaliate by hitting Turkish military targets, in a NATO country?

Combine all that with the quiet but strategic Pentagon deployments inside Syria and Iraq with “boots on the ground,” and we have the combination for an explosion across the oilfields of the entire Middle East that would rock the world. Truly, as the old Greek saying goes, whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

I can imagine a disgusted world turning on those American Patriarchs and their proxy partners in war, telling them, to use the words of the great Freddy Mercury song, the one about rocking certain people.

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

One of the most astonishing news stories I have read of late appeared in Business Insider at the beginning of February entitled “ ‘ The Russians are going to have a cow’: the U.S.’s message to Putin ‘is a really big deal.’” The article described how the Barack Obama Administration has decided to build up “its military presence in Eastern Europe in an effort to deter Russian aggression in the region.” The “cow” and “big deal” verbal effusions were attributed to Evelyn Farkas, who, until recently was the Pentagon’s “top policy official on Russia and Ukraine.” Farkas, for what it’s worth, is of Hungarian descent and has made a career out of being suspicious of Russia. She has the usual credentials in academia so admired by the Obamaites and has served in host of government bubbles but never been in the military. As is all too often the case she and her peers will not be wearing the boots on the ground if the United States goes to war over giving Moscow a “cow.”

According to the article, the U.S. will quadruple its military spending in Europe up to $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2017. The extra money will provide heavy weapons and armored vehicles, including tanks, to America’s Eastern European associates in NATO and also to non-allies including Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Unlike previous assistance to Ukraine, the new weapons are both lethal and capable of being used offensively. The United States has also committed itself to bolstering its own presence in former Warsaw Pact states to include Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic Republics through an increase in bi- and multi- lateral training exercises in those countries. American soldiers will be eye-to-eye with those of Russia in a confrontation not seen since the Cold War ended.

The article cites Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who claims that “Russia is of course trying to leverage the entire intervention [in Syria] as a way to lap up as much real estate in the Middle East as possible.” The FDD is, of course, a neocon outfit, which is not noted in the article, and the implausible suggestion that Moscow wants to obtain “real estate” in the Middle East which would be an enormous burden and liability is given a pass without even the slightest editorial objection or contrary comment.

The article also quotes an anonymous senior administration official who explains that the more aggressive approach “reflects a new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor,” referring again to Syria and also to Ukraine. Well, maybe so if one reads the New York Post or watches a steady diet of Fox news it would be possible to come to that conclusion, but there are other issues at play, including genuine western threats on Russia’s own doorstep combined with the inability of a financial stretched Russia to engage in imperial ventures anywhere.

Moscow is in Syria because the rise of a new Islamic militancy close to its own heavily Muslim federate states in the Caucasus is a definite threat. It did not initiate the crisis in that region which was instead the fault of Washington due to its ill-advised 2003 invasion of Iraq, creating a power vacuum and empowering terrorist groups seeking to take advantage of the chaos.

Nor did Moscow initiate the political crisis in Ukraine, which was also enabled by the United States. Russia admittedly subsequently annexed Crimea, which is a vital strategic interest as it includes Moscow’s major warm water naval base, but it can hardly be seen as a move motivated by desire to be expansionistic. Crimea was, in fact, Russian territory for over two hundred years before it was administratively ceded to Ukraine by the old Soviet Union in 1954 so it is not as if there was no legitimate claim to the area when Ukraine turned hostile to Moscow egged on by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and others.

Moscow is guilty of not playing by America’s rules. As former senior CIA officer Graham Fuller puts it

“…today, although neocons in Washington will disagree, it is hard to build a credible case that Russia—under Putin or any likely leader—is gearing up to invade Eastern much less Western Europe. But yes, Russia is determined to maintain regional sway—as other great powers do in their backyards, especially when distant powers intrude.”

Simplistic analysis that leads to a preordained conclusion contrary to what Fuller has cogently observed is expected in the mainstream media but the foreign policy consensus promoted by Washington is striking in terms of its internal contradictions. Indeed, if anyone at this late date really needed any evidence that the United States government is staffed by lunatics this article about delivering cows should have been enough to change the mind of even the most stalwart advocate of the progressive nirvana launched by the pledge of “Change We Can Believe In.”

Frequenters of this site are no doubt already aware that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the western powers, most notably the United States, pledged not to take advantage of the situation by initiating a military expansion into Eastern Europe, which Russia would have to correctly perceive as threatening given its own vulnerability at that time. The dauntless globalist Bill Clinton broke that promise, enabling the 1999 accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic followed by the addition of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia and Slovenia in 2004. Russia protested but did otherwise not react.

In 2008, Georgia, bolstered by pledges of support from neocons in the U.S. as well as from demented Senators like John McCain, fought Russian troops over two disputed enclaves South Ossetia and Abkhazia. McCain was led to declare that “We are all Georgians now” but a cease fire was quickly arranged by France and Russia withdrew its soldiers. Fortunately, most Americans did not see that fighting Russia over Georgia was much of a priority and the U.S. avoided another foreign policy disaster, but more was to come in Ukraine starting in late 2013.

Ukraine was deliberately destabilized by Washington by way of the infusion of $5 billion supporting “democracy building.” Again the cry went up that “we are all Ukrainians.” The second time around worked out better for the hawks and the Ukrainian cause has been surfacing in the presidential debates. Hopefully it will eventually go the way of the manufactured Georgian crisis.

It might also be noted that it is just possible that Washington is seeking to repeat its destruction of the Soviet Union by outspending Moscow in hopes that President Vladimir Putin will seek to compete and bankrupt his country. If that is so, the crafty Putin is unlikely to take the bait and it is more than likely that the net result will be the U.S. going even deeper in debt for no purpose whatsoever, reminiscent of any number of foreign policy failures over the past fifteen years. And meanwhile the wealthy European countries will breathe a sigh of relief as Washington again rides to the rescue in defending the continent from the Red Menace.

What Farkas and company fail to see is that the United States might well have some outstanding issues with Vladimir Putin’s Russia but Moscow does not pose a threat to the U.S. On the contrary, it is Washington that poses a threat to Russia and any number of other countries through its presumption that it has a right to intervene in the affairs of other nations whenever it is so inclined. Moscow is neither able nor disposed towards become an enemy unless it is backed into a corner and something goes nuclear. That would, incidentally, destroy the United States so where is the frisson of excitement in Russia being presented with a “cow?” Beats me.

The second week of February 2016 was a banner week for racism in Israel, with shockingly racist rhetoric from Prime Minister Netanyahu, genocidal references from his backbenchers and fulsome attacks on Palestinian leaders from his entire government. These attacks appear not only to lack legitimate basis, they reveal the government’s own hypocritical alliances with convicted terrorists.

1. Netanyahu’s racist incitement.

On February 9, Netanyahu dehumanized non-Israeli Middle Eastern peoples, calling them “wild beasts.” He made the comments in the context of a visit to Israel’s eastern border, where the government is spending billions of dollars to build high-tech barriers that will ultimately envelop the entire country.

“At the end, in the State of Israel, as I see it, there will be a fence that spans it all,” said Netanyahu. “I’ll be told, ‘this is what you want, to protect the villa?’ The answer is yes. Will we surround all of the State of Israel with fences and barriers? The answer is yes. In the area that we live in, we must defend ourselves against the wild beasts.”

As analyst Nima Shirazi observes, Netanyahu and other Israeli government officials have a long history of comparing non-Israeli peoples to animals, and this “zoomorphic bigotry” has been used throughout history to justify the killing of rival groups.

The following day, Netanyahu said Palestinian culture was a “culture of death.” He made the comments in order to dismiss the claim that violent attacks by Palestinians against Israelis are the nearly inevitable result of the Israeli military occupying Palestinian people for a half-century.

“Terror is not a result of occupation,” said Netanyahu. “The terror stems from a culture of death. Its goal is not to free a state, it is to destroy a state.”

Does Netanyahu really believe Arab people are genetically and culturally inferior to Jewish people? Or does he employ his racist rhetoric because he knows it will win him more support from racist Israelis? Perhaps both of these options are simultaneously true.

Two weeks ago, Israel Incitement Watch revealed that Netanyahu’s election day anti-Arab incitement was not a spontaneous slip, but a coldly calculated strategy planned well in advance. This week provided additional confirmation in Netanyahu’s own words that his racist provocations are premeditated.

At week’s end, Israeli senior journalist Nahum Barnea revealed that behind closed doors, Netanyahu openly boasts about instrumentalizing anti-Arab racism in Israeli society in order to improve his electoral prospects. Barnea reports that some months ago, Netanyahu told his finance minister and Kulanu party leader Moshe Kahlon, “You’ll never get the Mizrahi [Jewish Arab] vote. Only I know how to get it. I know who they hate: they hate the [non-Jewish] Arabs. And I know how to bring the goods.”

2. Palestine doesn’t exist because Arabs can’t pronounce P?

While Netanyahu sets the tone of the racist discourse, he is far from the only member of his government to promote arguments that frame Palestinians as non-people unworthy of life.

On February 10, a ruling Likud party lawmaker told the Knesset plenum that Palestinians could not be a distinct people, because the language that they speak, Arabic, does not even have a letter that makes the sound P, the first letter of the word Palestine in English.

“I want to go back to history, what is our place here, about Jerusalem, about Palestine, when like we said, Arabic doesn’t even have P, so this loan-word also merits scrutiny,” said Member of Knesset Anat Berko, a 25-year veteran of the Israel Defense Forces and a college professor.

Without the letter P, the Hebrew and English words for Palestine cannot be pronounced. However, the Arabic words for Palestine and Palestinian have no letter P. In Arabic, the word for “Palestine” is “Filisteen” and the word for “Palestinian” is “Filisteenee.”

By Berko’s standards, Israel cannot be a Jewish state because the Hebrew language does not have letters that make the sounds J and W. According to Berko’s logic, Orthodox Jews do not worship the god Yahweh of the Old Testament, since they cannot pronounce the name of the Tetragrammaton.

3. New Knesset proposal declares Arabs the real occupiers.

On that same day Berko insinuated that Palestinians are not a people, another ruling Likud Party lawmaker sought to undercut Palestinian political claims by claiming that the Jewish people’s right to the land supersedes theirs. Horrifically, he did so basing this right on the supposition that the Jewish people had long ago eradicated the native inhabitants of the land. Despite this, the government voted in favor of his proposal.

Miki Zohar wrote on his Facebook profile page:

“3500 years ago, on the 10th day of [the Hebrew month of] Nisan, the Jewish people immigrated to Israel under the leadership of Joshua son of Nun, that was our first immigration to the country as the chosen people. The law that I initiated, ‘Immigration Day’ which passed its first reading, determined that Immigration Day will be celebrated every year on this date, for all the [Jewish] immigrants to the Land of Israel from other countries. In response to those at home and abroad who contend that Israel is supposedly an ‘occupying’ state, we remind them of one thing: We were here before everyone…”

Zohar’s new bill holds that the Jewish people’s historical rights to Israel are based on the biblical figure of Joshua leading ancient Israelites into the land. According to the Bible text, Joshua and the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan by genociding the residents of the city of Jericho [Joshua 6:21]: “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and she, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

The Torah text goes on to describe how Israelite forces similarly genocide five other cities: Ai, Levona, Lahish, Eglon and Hebron.

As analyst Yossi Gurvitz notes, modern archaeologists believe Joshua’s conquest of the land is nothing more than a myth, and the mass murders the Bible has him committing are entirely fictional. Regardless of whether these atrocities actually occurred or not, however, the government of Israel voted this week to predicate its physical presence upon them.

4. One man’s terrorist is an Israeli politician’s friend.

As in previous weeks, the Israeli government continued its attacks on Palestinian political representatives whose opinions it can’t countenance.

In recent months, Israeli authorities have delayed the burial of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces after attacking Israelis with knives, holding onto their bodies until their families agree to bury their kin according to Israel’s conditions. This week, Palestinian Members of Knesset met with these families to hear their concerns and mediate between them and the Israeli government. When the meeting was reported in the press, the government responded with outrage and suspended the three lawmakers; Joint List-Balad faction leader Jamal Zehalka was suspended for two months, and his faction-mates Haneen Zoabi and Basel Ghattas were suspended for four months each.

The suspensions of Zahalka, Zoabi and Ghattas were justified based on the assertion that the three had encouraged terrorism by meeting with the families of the attackers and reading the opening passage of the Koran in memory of their dead children.

If meeting with the families of alleged terrorists is a cause for a Knesset suspension, it would stand to reason that Israel’s Justice Minister should also be excused from her duties. In December, Ayelet Shaked met with the mother of Elisha Odess, whom Israel arrested in the wake of the Duma murders. In that ghastly incident, Israelis are suspected of torching to death a Palestinian father, mother and one-year-old baby in their West Bank home.

Furthermore, for years both Shaked and Education Minister Natali Bennett have publicly availed themselves of the political advice of a convicted terrorist. Jewish Home Party advisor Nathan Nathanson served just two years of a three-year sentence as part of a Jewish terrorist group that attempted to assassinate three Palestinian mayors in 1980. Nablus Mayor Bassam Shakaa lost both his legs in the attacks.

Israeli leaders’ dalliances with Jewish terrorists are not a new phenomenon. This week, Ha’aretz published a chart showing that Jewish terrorists convicted of attacking Palestinians have often been given light sentences. The accompanying article quoted Israeli author Ami Pedahzur claiming that “the fact that many members of the Jewish Underground had their jail sentences commuted was mainly thanks to their closeness to the political establishment at the time.”

After the three Palestinian MKs were suspended from the Knesset, the government moved quickly to formulate a new bill that would enable their permanent expulsion. The proposed bill would give a three-quarters super-majority of the Knesset the right to oust any legislators, though they be elected representatives.

As members of the governing coalition, Bennett’s Jewish Home Party expressed support for the bill in principle, but registered opposition to some of its specific wording. The party hoped to remove “incitement to racism” from the transgressions outlined in the bill that could merit removing a Member of Knesset.

If Jewish Home Party leaders object to the inclusion of “incitement to racism” as grounds for expulsion from the Knesset, it might be because their own lawmakers are among the Members of Knesset most often in violation of this clause. Minister of Justice Shaked is especially known for her July 2014 call to commit genocide against Palestinian mothers of those she called “little snakes.”

Much of the Israeli media joined the government in disparaging MKs Zehalka, Zoabi and Ghattas as terrorist sympathizers. Only a few journalists, among them Ha’aretz’s Chicky Arad, took the time to find out that the three legislators had met with the families of the attackers for ostensibly humanitarian reasons, to hasten the burial of their children’s bodies.

5. The Genocide convention.

At the end of Arad’s report, he notes the absurd hypocrisy in the Israeli government accusing Palestinian MKs of sympathizing with terrorists. Arad recalls a shocking October 2014 conference he attended in which Deputy Minister Eli Ben Dahan and soon-to-be-Minister Miri Regev shared a stage with Temple Mount Institute head Rabbi Yisrael Ariel.

Ben Dahan and Regev are known as some of the most racist representatives of the Israeli government. Dahan has said Palestinians “are beasts, they are not human,” while Regev called African asylum seekers “a cancer in the body” of Israel.

But the man they shared a stage with, Rabbi Meir Kahane’s former deputy Yisrael Ariel, embodies another level of fanaticism altogether.

In September 2015, Ariel called upon Jews to march on the rest of the Middle East and to exterminate all men who refuse to abandon Christianity and Islam. To this day, Ariel draws a salary from the Israeli government, with Bennett’s Education Ministry paying his organization, the Temple Institute, to lecture Israeli high school students, religious and secular.

Part Horror story, part farce: the words just jump off the pages of Preliminary Injunction Transcript of  “Abu-Jamal vs. Kerestes” from Federal Court in late December. Read them here.

At every turn, the perfidy of Laura Neal of the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the highly paid “experts” such as Jay Cowan infamously, the Medical Director for Corizon at Riker’s Island in New York,  are revealed.  Neal and company were shameless, but at the end of the three-day hearing were completely exposed.

These pages expose the DOC ‘delay and deny’ strategy as they tried every procedural exhaustion argument to get the case dismissed and lost. A highlight on the second day of trial was the release of the “The Secret Hepatitis C Protocol” that they desperately tried to hide from public view.

And the coup de grace: the Chief Medical Officer of the PA DOC noted from the witness stand that the DOC had altered and submitted his affidavit after he repeatedly told them it was false. His testimony undercut Cowan’s faulty science. Cowan stated there was a probability of Mumia developing fibrosis, a precursor to cirrhosis.  Dr. Noel stated in damning testimony that there was a 63% probability that Mumia already has extensive cirrhosis. That was the first time that anyone, including Mumia, had heard this.

This hearing exposed the fact that Mumia is just one person among many, potentially thousands, who have active hepatitis C yet are being allowed to die, alone, often chained with their right arm and left leg to hospital beds. It is undisputed that there is medical cure for Hepatitis C: one pill a day for 12 weeks. Yet for over two years 10,000 prisoners with active hepatitis C remain untreated.  Many are dying from cirrhosis, are untreated in solitary confinement “Hep C Care Clinics”. Dare we say death clinics.

The DOC testified that this Fall they began treating five prisoners who tested positive for esophageal varices. They die when the blood vessels in their throat explode and they bleed out.   The bottom line is that any other prisoner with hep C symptoms, including cirrhosis, remains untreated and at risk of death.

It’s hard to hold the knowledge of just how grossly inhumane the situation is, but it is wise to look it straight on and confront it. Prisons are a direct path from slavery to the present day commodification of Black bodies. It is cheaper for the PA contracted medical provider, Correct Care Solutions, to not treat our brothers, sisters, fathers, and loved ones. And the reason that people folks are in prison is systematic white supremacy and racism.  Important reads on this are Medical Apartheid by Harriet Washington and  Acres of Skin by Alan Hornblum.

Please know that your support made it possible for Bret Grote (Abolitionist Law Center), Robert Boyle, and Mumia’s medical team led by Corey Weinstein, MD to this case before the court. This case is historic. We can win, and we must win.

Whether or not Mumia receives life-saving treatment will be decided from the bench. In three weeks, briefs are due from Mumia’s team and the DOC. Federal District Court Judge Robert Mariani will then make his ruling, likely by late March or April.

For more information, see our hepatitis C fact-sheet here.

Luchando por la justicia y la libertad,

Noelle Hanrahan
Director

PS- Sign on to our Color of Change petition to demand hep C treatment for Mumia! Once you sign, please share with your friends, family and community.

PPS- Mumia’s Legal Fund is still open for donations! Click here to make a contribution to support his legal team’s critical work as they file their briefs.

The microcephaly outbreak in Brazil, which coincided with the spread of the Zika virus, continues to stun the world, even months after the incident was first reported.

Pregnant women all over the world have been advised to take caution. The Zika virus infection has been linked to newborn babies with the birth defect microcephaly. This is a congenital condition in which babies are born with unusually tiny heads.

The notion, however, has recently been challenged by a group of Argentine physicians. The group suspects that the Zika virus is not to blame for the rise in microcephaly cases, but that a toxic larvicide introduced into Brazil’s water supplies may be the real culprit.

Not A Coincidence?

According to the Physicians in Crop-Sprayed Towns (PCST), a chemical larvicide that produces malformations in mosquitoes was injected into Brazil’s water supplies in 2014 in order to stop the development of mosquito larvae in drinking water tanks.

The chemical, which is known as Pyriproxyfen, was used in a massive government-run program tasked to control the mosquito population in the country. Pyriproxyfen is a larvicide manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a company associated [PDF] with Monsanto. However, PCST has referred to Sumitomo as a subsidiary of Monsanto.

“Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added pyriproxyfen to drinking water is not a coincidence,” the PCST wrote [pdf] in the report.

For instance, the Brazilian Health Ministry had injected pyriproxyfen to reservoirs in the state of Pernambuco. In the area, the proliferation of the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which carries the Zika virus, is very high, the PCST said.

Pernambuco is also the first state in Brazil to notice the problem. The state contains 35 percent of the total microcephaly cases in the country.

The group of Argentine doctors points out that during past Zika epidemics, there have not been any cases of microcephaly linked with the virus. In fact, about 75 percent of the population in countries where Zika broke out had been infected by the mosquito-borne virus.

In countries such as Colombia where there are plenty of Zika cases, there are no records of microcephaly linked to Zika, the group said.

When the Colombian president announced that many of the country’s citizens were infected with Zika but that there was not a single case of microcephaly, the allegations soon emerged. Some 3,177 pregnant women in the country were infected with Zika, but the PCST report said these women are carrying healthy fetuses or had given birth to healthy babies.

Remain Skeptical

On its website, Sumitomo Chemical says pyriproxyfen poses minimal risk to birds, fish and mammals.

However, the evidence is overwhelming. The Washington Post reported in January that after experts examined 732 cases out of 4,180 Zika-related microcephaly, more than half were not related to Zika at all. Only 270 cases were confirmed as Zika-linked microcephaly.

On top of all the suspicions, however, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been careful not to explicitly link Zika to microcephaly.

“Although a causal link between Zika infection in pregnancy and microcephaly — and I must emphasize — has not been established, the circumstantial evidence is suggestive and extremely worrisome,” said WHO General Director Margaret Chan.

In the meantime, scientists are currently racing toward developing a vaccine for the mosquito-borne infection.

While there is no solid proof yet that the larvicide causes microcephaly, the local government of Grande do Sul in the southern portion of Brazil suspended the use of the chemical larvicide pyriproxyfen.

A Monsanto representative reached out to Tech Times to clarify that the company does not sell or manufacture pyriproxyfen.

“Neither Monsanto nor our products have any connection to the Zika virus or microcephaly. Monsanto does not manufacture or sell Pyriproxyfen. And, Monsanto does not own Sumitomo Chemical Company. It is, however,  a business partner like others in the area of crop protection,” the representative said.

Pyriproxyfen manufacturer Sumitomo Chemical also released a statement to reassure that its product is safe for use.

“Pyriproxyfen, after going through extensive toxicological testing, has shown no effects on the reproductive system or nervous system in mammals, and has been approved and registered for use in the past 20 years by the authorities of around 40 countries around the world,” Sumitomo said. “…despite long term and widespread use in many different settings no correlation with microcephaly has been reported.”

With Hillary Clinton ramping up her attacks on Bernie Sanders as a budget-buster—in the February 11 debate, she claimed  his proposals would increase the size of government by 40 percent—the New York Times (2/15/16) offered a well-timed intervention in support of her efforts: “Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’ Plans.”

While the “left-leaning” is no doubt meant to suggest critiques from those who would be inclined to sympathize with Sanders, all the quoted economists have ties to the Democratic establishment. So slight is their leftward lean that it would require very sensitive equipment to measure.

To be fair, as a New York Times reporter, Jackie Calmes probably doesn’t meet many left-leaning economists, so she may not be sure what they look like. (photo: Isaac Brekken/NYT)

Opinion pieces critical of Sanders often begin with a pledge of allegiance to his “impracticality.” This story, by Times reporter Jackie Calmes, is an “objective,” newsy version of that:

With his expansive plans to increase the size and role of government, Senator Bernie Sanders has provoked a debate not only with his Democratic rival for president, Hillary Clinton, but also with liberal-leaning economists who share his goals but question his numbers and political realism.

Though Sanders wants to increase federal spending on infrastructure, college tuition and childcare, as well as other programs, the bulk of his proposed increase would be for establishing a single-payer healthcare system, and that’s what Calmes’ piece focuses on. It would replace the current mix of multiple forms of public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, state and local programs) and private insurance with a unitary federal system, much like what Canada has. It would not nationalize doctors and hospitals, as in Britain; only the payment side would be socialized. Sanders refers to it as Medicare for All, which is a simplification, but close enough for politics.

The liberal-leaning economists that Calmes rounds up suggest that Clinton may have been too modest in her accusation that Sanders wants to jack up the size of government by 40 percent. No, Calmes warns that “the increase could exceed 50 percent, some experts suggest, based on an analysis by a respected health economist that Mr. Sanders’ single-payer health plan could cost twice what the senator…asserts.”

As if that wasn’t scary enough, Calmes turns to mockery: “Alluding to one progressive analyst’s criticism of the Sanders agenda as ‘puppies and rainbows,’ Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, ‘they’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.’”

Paul Krugman illustrated his column (2/16/16) with an image of this tapestry. If in his metaphor a single-payer healthcare system is a unicorn, then presumably the people poking it with spears are establishment journalists.

The theme of magic was further developed in a piece by New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman, “My Magic Unicorn” (2/16/16), in which the word “unicorn” appears six times (not counting the headline). Krugman’s column, which denounces Sanders’ proposals as hopelessly unrealistic, refers to Calmes’ news story for support, a news story that itself reads like an op-ed in disguise.

The “Mr. Goolsbee” quoted in the story is Austan Goolsbee, who was a long-time adviser to Barack Obama before he became president, and then served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. (During the 2008 campaign, Goolsbee was reported as having assured the Canadian government that Obama’s anti-NAFTA talk was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy”—New York Times, 3/4/08.) Now Goolsbee teaches economics at the University of Chicago’s business school and is a consultant to hedge funds. A very left-leaning resume there.

And the “progressive analyst” who came up with the “puppies and rainbows” line is Ezra Klein, who in mid-January wrote a harshly disparaging piece, “Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer Plan Isn’t a Plan at All,” on the website he co-founded, Vox (1/17/16). How times change: As long-time FAIR contributor Seth Ackerman showed in an incisive analysis (Jacobin, 1/25/16), Klein was once a strong proponent of a single-payer scheme.

In a 2007 piece for the American Prospect (4/22/07), Klein explored what he called “the best healthcare systems in the world,” including Canada’s, looking for lessons for the US. (Krugman liked the piece enough to put it on a 2012 syllabus for a Princeton class on the welfare state.) Klein’s conclusion, expressed in his opening sentence, was that while medicine is hard, health insurance is simple: We should emulate these other systems that achieve both universal coverage and cost control, like those of Canada, France, Germany and the UK. Though he now holds Sanders’ advocacy of single-payer in disdain, Klein specifically praised Canada’s single-payer system, citing a 2003 paper by Steffie Wooldhandler, Terry Campbell and David Himmelstein in the New England Journal of Medicine (8/21/03) that found that administrative costs were over three times as high in the US than in Canada, mainly because of the inefficiencies of private health insurance. Eliminate private insurance and you enjoy hundreds of billions in savings.

The “respected” health care economist—it’s funny how journalists stick that handle in front of some names and not others—that Calmes cites is Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, who, as she discloses, “advised the Clintons in the 1990s.”
Indeed he did; he served in Bill’s cabinet where, according to his Emory faculty bio, he “coordinated all financial estimates and program impacts of President Clinton’s healthcare reform proposals for the White House.”

Sanders has proposed paying for his single-payer health insurance program mainly by raising taxes on the rich and imposing a 6.2 percent payroll tax on employers and a 2.2 percent income tax on households (while fully exempting lower-income households and partly exempting middle-income ones from the tax). Those tax increases would replace current spending on private insurance, so it would be very wrong to call them new spending.

Thorpe’s paper argues that Sanders underestimates the cost of his single-payer health insurance scheme by close to half. More realistic assumptions would require substantial tax increases across the board and result in lower wages for the presently uninsured as employers compensate for the new payroll tax. Frightening, if true, and Calmes and her headline writer frame the article to persuade us that it is.

Woolhandler and Himmelstein, authors of the 2003 article on administrative costs that Ezra Klein used to like, are not persuaded by Thorpe. In a Huffington Post piece (1/29/16), they find his estimates of administrative savings from a shift to a single-payer system too low and his assumptions of an increase in demand for healthcare too high. He ignores the cost of tax breaks that would disappear under single-payer and assumes no savings on drugs and medical devices, despite the government’s strong bargaining position as the exclusive purchaser. (Calmes alludes to their critique in the piece with a single sentence: “Mr. Thorpe and Sanders aides and allies have been battling online.” The words “battling online” link to the Woolhandler/Himmelstein piece; a print reader would be totally in the dark.)

As Woolhandler and Himmelstein point out, in earlier studies—one done for the state of Missouri, and another for the National Coalition on Health Care—Thorpe projected large savings from single-payer reform. Now this former Clinton adviser finds the opposite.

There’s a political angle to Calmes’ piece as well, which she uses longtime Democratic economist Henry Aaron to deliver. (Aaron is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think tank that a congressional staffer once described to me as “a graveyard for conservative Democrats.”) Aaron calls the idea of single-payer a “fairy tale” in the current political climate. Citing the testimony of “other economists in a ‘lefty chat group’ he joins online,” Aaron believes that were Sanders elected, he’d destroy his political capital by fighting such a doomed fight.

I’m familiar with this line of argument from a liberal chat group I used to hang out with online (it takes its off-the-record secrecy with great seriousness)—it may be the same one, but I can’t tell for sure. It goes like this: The right so dominates the present scene that one can do nothing but play defense, hoping to salvage what remains of social spending but never daring to ask for more. Political capital, in this account, can only dwindle when put to work; unlike other forms of capital, it never pays returns. The right never thought that way when it was plotting its ascendancy from the 1950s through the 1970s.

Calmes gave the last word to Thorpe, who concludes from a failed attempt to bring single-payer to Vermont that it would be unworkable on a national scale. Vermont’s plan wasn’t really single-payer; providers would still have had to contend with multiple payers, thereby limiting administrative savings, and the state would have little bargaining power with drug and device manufacturers. The experience of a small state in a big country is hardly conclusive.

What might be more persuasive is the experience of our northern neighbor, a country very much like ours. Canada covers almost all its population at a cost of 10.2 percent of GDP. Even after Obamacare, about a tenth of the US population is uninsured, but that incomplete coverage costs us 16.4 percent of GDP.

Britain’s system costs 8.9 percent of GDP, a little over half what we pay. Both countries have longer life expectancies than we do. But we should be afraid of the unicorns.

Doug Henwood is the editor of Left Business Observer.

One might assume that economists would be against a socialist presidential candidate.

But 170 top economists have endorsed Bernie Sanders’ platform regarding Wall Street, signing a letter stating:

In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call fora bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Streets excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.

Indeed, everyone knows that the big banks have to be broken up to stabilize the economy. And even the market thinks they should be broken up.

In addition, even the guy who shattered Glass-Steagall now admits that it should be restored.

One of the signatories to the letter – Bill Black, Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri,  America’s top expert on white collar fraud, and the senior S&L prosecutor who put more than 1,000 top executives in jail for fraud – has long advocated reining in the giant banks.

Black provided the following summary of Glass-Steagall to Washington’s Blog:

It worked brilliantly for over a half-century, and banks and the economy grew strong with minimal failures – killing it violated the rule: “if it ain’t broke; don’t fix it”

It was attacked by bank CEOs because it worked so well and prevented their schemes

***

Secretary [Hillary] Clinton’s claims about the role of Glass-Steagall’s repeal in the most recent crisis are incorrect in five major ways.

a. [T]he repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed Citigroup to make investments that brought one of the largest financial firms in the world “to the brink of failure” – where they were saved only by a public bailout. Even if Lehman had not failed, Citigroup’s derivatives trading losses would have triggered the global financial crisis. Remember, Citigroup was the only huge bank that FCIC investigated in depth – and that investigation documented fatal losses.

The largest banks were frequently affiliates of the “shadow” banks that Secretary Clinton tries to blame for the crisis and the largest banks typically provided the funding that allowed even the unaffiliated “shadow banks” to cause large losses. These massive loans from the largest banks to the “shadow banks” would not have been permitted under real regulatory leaders that Senator Sanders would appoint.

b. The repeal of Glass-Steagall began producing significant losses as soon as it occurred, not just in the most recent crisis. For example, Bankers Trust, one of the largest banks in America, went heavily into investment banking activities and promptly produced severe scandals that caused severe losses to its customers, particularly P&G and Gibson. Frontline reported that P&G’s RICO lawsuit led to the discovery of tapes on which bank officers described the derivatives they sold as “a massive, huge future gravy train” and a “wet dream.” In addition, there was talk about a “rip-off factor” and that Bankers Trust “set ’em [various clients] up.” The lawsuits against Bankers Trust were so successful that its reputation was ruined and it was forced into a sale to Deutsche Bank. Other large U.S. banks that responded to the repeal of Glass-Steagall by engaging in securities activities also suffered serious losses and were pushed into mergers.

FleetBoston, the 7^th largest bank holding company and the largest bank in the Northeast, also went immediately into securities trading upon the repeal of Glass-Steagall and immediately fell into a series of scandals due to fraud. The problems proved so crippling that FleetBoston had to be sold to Bank of America.

c. Investment banking is much riskier than commercial banking. Investment banks often take equity (ownership) risks while commercial banking means making loans. Glass-Steagall forbade federally insured banks to be investment banks. Three of the five major U.S. investment banks failed during the most recent crisis – a 60% failure rate – due to fraud. But other major U.S. investment banks such as Salomon Brothers and Michael Milken’s Drexel Burnham Lambert had failed earlier due to their managers’ frauds, so the true failure rate among investment banks is even higher than a staggering 60 percent.   The huge European banks that went heavily into investment banking also suffered catastrophic losses during the most recent crisis, again largely due to fraud. Indeed, at the time this is written (February 9, 2016), the global financial markets are in turmoil because of fears about Deutsche Bank’sinvestment banking losses and recurrent scandals. Its share price is less than one-third its book value, which tells you that investors believe its assets are worth far less than its officers’ claims. It makes no sense to provide federal deposit insurance protection – which puts the public on the hook for bank losses – to the far riskier activity of investment banking as Secretary Clinton wants us to continue to do. It also makes no sense to provide a federal subsidy (deposit insurance) to investment banking – where the bank owns businesses – and let them compete against firms that receive no such subsidy.

d. Secretary Clinton said during the most recent debate, in her effort to defend her opposition to Glass-Steagall, that: “You know, we can’t just fight the last war.” She’s right, which is why it is critical to reinstate a modern Glass-Steagall. I note, and support, what the Bank Whistleblowers United explained. They say it is essential to protect against future losses and that Glass-Steagall is essential to that protection. They also explain how, without any new legislation or rules, the banking regulatory agencies can implement a modern Glass-Steagall by setting Individual Minimum Capital Requirements (IMCR) on each bank that engages in investment banking. Because investment banking is so much riskier, those capital requirements would cause, if they were properly set in accordance with that far greater risk, federally insured banks to get out of investment banking.

e. Investment banking creates another major risk for commercial banks. It brings a “trader mentality” to the fore and that means scandals. Banking experts here and in the UK have identified this mentality as one of the important changes that has created the corrupt culture of banking described and decried by UK and U.S. regulators.

It is only the big banks – and their servants in Washington, such as Clinton, Rubio, Bush,  etc. – who want to maintain the status quo.

Postscript:  While you might assume that socialists such as Sanders will destroy free market capitalism, the truth is that we don’t have free market capitalism anymore in the U.S.  (and the big banks are largely responsible).

Instead, we have socialism for the rich, crony capitalism, fascism, kleptocracy, oligarchy or banana republic style corruption.

So labels don’t carry much weight.  The question is which presidential candidate will take the actions necessary to restore the economy and give Main Street and the average American a fighting chance.

On Thursday, Press TV reported Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu accusing Syria “of being directly responsible for” Wednesday’s Ankara blast.

“The premier also accused Russia of using (Kurdish) YPG (fighters) against Turkey,” Press TV added.

Erdogan intends using Wednesday’s incident as justification for continued cross-border shelling – perhaps a ground invasion to follow, a reckless act if launched, risking war with Russia.

Heavy shelling continues for the sixth day, targeting northern Syrian YPG positions, reports indicating government strongholds attacked, trying to slow down steady anti-terrorism advances.

On Thursday, Syrian and YPG forces seized control of Kensaba, the last terrorist stronghold north of Latakia province, along with the Shellef fortress, used by their forces

Retired Lebanese General Amin Hoteit calls Russia’s anti-terrorism campaign a major turning point after nearly five years of war.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Turkey of escalating conflict, flagrantly breaching international law, undermining diplomatic efforts.

Former Turkish diplomat, opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) legislator Ozturk Yilmaz warned about Erdogan ‘steering the country toward disaster,” causing “irreparable harm.”

Nothing in prospect indicates any chance for peaceful conflict resolution – not as long as Obama wants war, Assad ousted, a US-controlled puppet replacing him.

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.

Featured image: “Stop the Cuts” rally in front of Queen’s Park in Toronto.

Governments across Canada have been caught in a fiscal bind over the entire period of neoliberalism. On the one hand, they have pursued austerity and restraint almost without interruption since the 1990s; and, on the other, they remain under pressure to deliver some minimal social security for welfare, healthcare, pensions and so forth. Since the eruption of the financial crisis in 2008 this contradiction, a core tension of meeting social needs in capitalist societies, has gotten worse. The combination of a long depression in economic growth and permanent austerity in government budgeting has further cramped government fiscal capacities. This has led to all kinds of efforts, following the new public management organization of the state, to privatize, contract-out, marketize and so on, government functions and services.

In Canada, the government of Ontario loves to trumpet its record of having the lowest per capita programme spending in the country. Since the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution of the 1990s, it has done as much – or more – to gut the capacity of the public sector as any government in Canada. The Liberals under Premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have done nothing to overturn this policy regime. Indeed, the much referenced 2012 Drummond Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services, prepared for the Liberal government, took the neoliberal public management administrative reforms a step further and gave particular emphasis to the privatization and P3ing of the public sector. An especially prominent example of the public sector crisis in Ontario is the long-term care (LTC) sector. It illustrates well how the policies of neoliberal austerity attempt to bolster capital accumulation while displacing the costs of the crisis onto workers, the elderly and the poor.

Care for Profit or Care for Needs

The critical point of tension in nursing care occurs between ‘care for profit’ and ‘care for needs’. Since 2010, seven of the largest for profit long-term care chains have received nearly $4.9-billion in direct cash transfers from the Ontario government (Table 1). The trouble is that without any financial accountability, that public money might be going to the luxury needs of shareholders and executives instead of serving the needs of residents.

Recent international research on the provision of long-term care suggests Ontario has the worst financial accountability and transparency when compared to Scandinavia, England and California. Financial improprieties in the care home sector are systemic in highly privatized systems. Whether private ‘family-run’ homes or multinational firms, there is no legitimate reason why with sums of public subsidy this huge, executive salaries and company profit margins are not available to the public.

As a crisis in care has grown due to the complex needs of an aging population, so too has the government’s financial contribution to the system. Between 2004 and 2012, health expenditures grew from $29-billion to $46.4-billion in Ontario. As a percentage of provincial GDP, health expenditure has nearly doubled. LTC is about 7 per cent of the provincial health budget or $4.3-billion per year, yet persistent understaffing continues to plague homes, with resident waiting hours for assistance with the tasks of daily living like toileting. While the province provides unprecedented sums of public money to long-term care homes, the money scarcely gets where experts say it’s most needed. Worse, there’s no system of accountability that the government has to adhere to beyond the wishes of private sector providers. In addition to $155.52 per diems per resident for care homes and capital funding of $95,000 per bed, other concessions included complete control of staffing levels and virtually no public scrutiny of profit levels.

The Consolidation of Long-Term Care Chains

To grasp the character of the crisis in care today, it is important to understand how Ontario’s LTC has evolved and why the turn to privatization will compound current problems.

The 1972 Nursing Homes Act put inspectors in regional field offices to enforce the expansions of standards and public funding to private care homes. The Nursing Homes Act was significant because it entrenched what Tamara Daly refers to as, “Ontario’s private delivery/public funding/medicalized model.”[1] Private homes received public money to provide ‘extended care’ but the system of ‘deterrence regulation’ would force care home operators abide by costly regulatory changes that only the larger corporations could afford to meet.

In 1993, the care lobby achieved a strategic aim with the passage of the NDP’s Long-Term Care Statute Law Amendment Act. First, funding was transferred through the envelope system, divided between nursing and personal care, program and support services, raw food (once part of accommodations) and other accommodations. Second, the 1993 achieved funding parity for for-profit homes, ending the relative advantages the non-profit and state sector enjoyed such as deficit financing). Third, in an effort to keep occupancy levels near 100 per cent, heavy care patients would be transferred to nursing homes as psychiatric wards were shut down. The level-of-care funding would provide money for residential acuity – a measure of chronic sickness on a case mix index deviating from a baseline of 100. This would spawn a suspicious process called “charting for dollars,” where improved funding was transferred to care home operator but without any mechanism to ensure improved staffing levels.

The Conservative Party made three fundamental changes to nursing homes between 1997 and 2002. The first was competitive bidding procurement through the Community Care Access Centres, which favoured for-profit homes. The second was the repeal of a legislated care standard and staffing ratios. Third, capital funding was allocated to LTC operators but mostly to the firms that gave generous campaign donations. As Robert MacDermid has shown, between 1995 and 1999, the Conservative Party banked $336,545.30 from the long-term care lobby, representing between 12 and 41 per cent of yearly donations. Roughly 10,000 of 14,000 beds allocated during this time went to the private sector.[2]

The Policy of Long-Term Care under the Liberal Party

A closer look at two key controversies in long-term care – understaffing and competitive bidding – puts a spotlight on the way state power is an expression of class power and the bankruptcy of the party system in Ontario. The key parameters within which the Ontario Liberals operate in this sector can be seen in their holding the line on these two important policies.

The McGuinty Liberals came to power in 2003 amid widespread calls to reform understaffing and competitive bidding structures in the long-term care sector. In order to save face but keep the corporate care lobby on his side, McGuinty had to orchestrate the “reform process” enshrined in the Long-Term Care Homes Act (LTCHA). Despite recent reports such as the 2005 Casa Verde inquest and the Romanow Commission that affirmed minimum staffing standards and public provision of care, McGuinty tasked Elinor Caplan and Shirlee Sharkey to reinvestigate both competitive bidding and understaffing and come up with the correct recommendations that wouldn’t jeopardize votes or party donations.

No Legislated Minimum Standard of Care: Ontario is the only province that doesn’t use a legislated minimum care standard, which is estimated to be between 4 and 4.5 hours per resident per day. Former Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty campaigned on a promise of a staffing standard but failed to include it. The 2005 recommendations from a Coroner’s Inquest into a brutal homicide at a care home included a legislated care standard. The “Sharkey Report”, which recommended a staffing standard by 2012, was ignored by the Health Ministry under George Smitherman.

Continuing Competitive Bidding: The other campaign promise McGuinty broke with impunity was the end of competitive bidding for licenses and proposals. Dubiously low bids and big debts on the account books ushered corporate chains into a new phase of industry consolidation. Former federal cabinet minister Elinor Caplan assisted the Liberals in a study on competitive bidding reform. The 2005 Caplan Report supported the machinery of privatization while arguing for the expansion of home care. Public backlash rose once again in 2008 when the 100-year old Victoria Order of Nurses was on the losing end of a series of competitive bids. Competitive bidding was temporarily suspended yet again. However, Elinor Caplan’s son, David, became Health Minister and retooled the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) procurement process and gave it a Liberal stamp of approval.

Competitive bidding ordains a race to the bottom in working and living conditions. As Daly explains, “Since 2003, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has expanded by 2,500 the number of full-time personal support worker (PSW) positions and by 900 the number of full-time nursing positions in long-term care homes. However, with 20,000 new beds added and new reporting and compliance procedures in place, new staffing amounts to little more than one PSW per eight residents on one shift per 24 hours.”[3] The failure of staffing levels and training to keep pace with the growth of complex needs has created alarming scenarios in care homes. A recent report by the Geriatric and Long-Term Care Review Committee showed that homicides were 41 per cent of preventable deaths in 2014. According to former MPP Donna Cansfield, behavioural symptoms like aggression worsen within 90 days of becoming a nursing home resident. To manage these symptoms, Ontario has relied on prescribing antipsychotic drugs, at a high rate of 38% for a long-term care population of about 78,000 – even when such prescriptions are unnecessary. Antipsychotic drugs are routinely used as chemical restraints for the 70 per cent of residents diagnosed with dementia. This type of “treatment” is criticized for being inappropriate for use of off-label drugs and has been linked to instances of preventable death.

Austerity and Revitalization at Toronto City Hall

The reforms by the Liberal party have had important implications for Ontario’s municipalities, which have struggled to keep up with deterrence regulations and capital renewal guidelines. Many have called in auditors and formed research committee to outline privatization strategies to stem the crisis of local government finances.

KPMG conducted a Core Services Review in 2011 under Mayor Rob Ford. The City then hired DPRA Canada and SHS Consulting to conduct a Service Efficiency Study for the Long-Term Care Homes and Services Division. The City decided to maintain control and discover efficiencies, which are identified as: (1) acquire more funding for nursing services; (2) decommission LTC transportation; (3) renegotiate collective agreements to achieve labour flexibility; (4) consolidate LTC homes and beds and sell land; (5) campus model for accommodating different levels of care; and (6) implementing staff scheduling software. One recommendation contained in these studies was the intensification of lobbying efforts toward the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to use provincial capital funding to meet the redevelopment needs of Toronto Long-Term Care Services without raising taxes.

In 2009, the City of Toronto approved the retrofitting of six of its 10 LTC homes (about 1500 beds) over 10-15 years. Fudger House, Lakeshore Lodge, Seven Oaks, Castleview Wychwood Towers, Carefree Lodge and Esther Shiner Boulevard are all set for redevelopment. These homes with 100-400 beds are structurally classified as C homes and are mandated to be upgraded by the LTCHA’s new standards. This capital renewal plan will move out the residents of some homes during the construction phase and temporarily house them in what is currently the Seaton House Men’s Shelter on George Street. The George Street shelter is a completely vilified space where underclass men are blamed for the travails of poverty, addiction and unemployment. This is used as the basis to clear the men out of the area and to allow real estate speculators to colonize the area. Ministry of Health subsidies will help pay for the displacement.

Political Parties, Social Policy and Capitalism

So what does all this say about the political parties and welfare rates today? Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been exchanged between corporate care chains and party delegates since the 1990s (Table 2). Registrations of the Ontario Long-Term Care Association show they lobby both parties around the clock for their interests, even using key Liberal Party personnel during the crucial years of the LTCHA (Table 3) like key Conservative Party people who were deployed during the important legislative window of the late 1990s.

In the neoliberal period, lobbyists with deep knowledge of the political system and public assistance programmes are sent to carve away parts of the welfare system that support an uptick in the profit rate. As Larry Patriquin has observed, welfare has been a handy prop for capitalist development with its tendencies toward unemployment, impoverishment and pauperization since the emergence of the Poor Laws in England of the 1300s.[4]

Others such as Barrow noted that social policy in contemporary times is consented to by capital only through a mandatory renegotiation. Working people and long-term care residents rarely hold state power and political representation tends to be of a corporate-liberal sort. This means social policies will not impede labour market participation but compel it; it will solicit private interests through concessions and monetary inducements; and it will expand the private market by offering monopoly profits in exchange for participation in public services. Following this logic of commercialization, the long-term care sector in Ontario contributes benefits to the corporate sector first and provide for needs second.[5]

Anti-Privatization Politics and Long-Term Care

Privatization in Ontario is an engine of economic marginalization being deployed by the Liberal government of Ontario. The often shameless looting of public assets under the Conservative Party was supposedly halted when Dalton McGuinty was elected Premier. Styling the party as non-ideological and against the market-worshipping ideology of Mike Harris, the Liberals instead pursued policies of pragmatic privatization, bringing in the private sector through ‘partnerships’ in order to safeguard public services. With hostility to privatization mounting, provincial and municipal governments increasingly rely on ludicrous claims from outside consultants such as Don Drummond, Elinor Caplan, and KPMG to push marketization ever deeper into social programs such as health, education and welfare. These ‘experts’ push the same misguided story of neoliberals: the inventiveness of the private market is a necessary antidote for the evils of state regulation and public provision of goods. Defiant workers, volunteers and residents in long-term care services, for example, are opposing this narrative pushed by the state and big corporations working in cahoots. It is plain to see that corporate enrichment off of long-term care subsidies putting any promising practices in care under extreme duress.

It is crucial that privatization in long-term care be resisted and a project for socialization and democratization of the sector be taken up. The work of Pat Armstrong, Ruth Lowndes and Tamara Daly has shown how the privatization of long-term care services such as laundry, meal prep and cleaning can have a negative impact on health. Contracted-out ancillary services exert outsized control over the pace and rhythms of care work because where, when, how and by whom food is served is determined by private companies and not the residents themselves. Care work and daily lives are bent to the whim of outsourcing forced upon begrudging homes by a bewildering system of regulation.

A coalition of anti-privatization forces needs to be watchful of Toronto’s structural upgrade policies and work to stamp out the perils of understaffing and competitive bidding. Community and union forces need to form across the province to fight austerity and the impacts on long-term care. This involves building up alliances within the long-term care sector but also beyond it, in the other realms of public utilities and services, in a broad-based effort to defend the interests of working people and those depending on welfare supports.

Justin Panos is a graduate student at York University studying aging, ownership and welfare in Ontario’s long-term care sector. This research is part of the “Re-Imagining Long-Term Care: An International Study in Promising Practices” project, which just published an e-book on promising practices in long-term care. His twitter account is @justinpanos.

Notes:

1. Tamara Daly, “Dancing the Two-Step in Ontario’s Long-Term Care Sector,” p. 42.

2. Bob MacDermid, “Contributions of the Long-Term Care Industry to Political Parties,” unpublished manuscript, table 3.

3. Tamara Daly, “Dancing the Two-Step in Ontario’s Long-Term Care Sector: Deterrence Regulation = Consolidation,” Studies in Political Economy, 95, Spring 2015, pp. 48-49.

4. Larry Patriquin, Agrarian Capitalism and Poor Relief in England, 1500-1860: Rethinking the Origins of the Welfare State, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

5. Barrow, Clyde, Critical Theories of the State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993, p. 41.

As Americans are once again suffering through a barrage of nonstop negative political advertising during yet another “hold your nose and vote” election cycle, they yearn, desperately, for things to be different. Featuring a host of lackluster candidates pushing misleading issues, the 2016 presidential election is up for grabs. Stocks, bonds, commodities, and currency markets around the world are weakening.

Odds are that America’s relentless “War on Terrorism” overseas will again flashback to the homeland, and there is an increasing certainty that humanity is experiencing a devastating change in the climate. All of this poses a grave threat to the continuation of the United States as a free and democratic republic. Will the new president-whoever she or he is-be capable of resolving these dangerous issues and preserving the Constitution? What should Americans demand of all political candidates, and what should be their qualifications?

Recognizing that partisan politics is not the same as statecraft, can anything be done to attract statesmen (gender neutral) to stand for elections, address the true issues, and to represent the interests of voters? Must the financial elite and corporations be allowed to continue their wholesale corruption of kowtowing politicians who prostrate themselves before stacks of campaign cash and pander their office following election?

Statecraft. This is not the first time in history that a republic has been threatened by corruption, militarization, and dictatorship. Once they rid themselves of their monarchy, the Romans established a representative republic that lasted for four hundred years until Julius Caesar used his army to overthrow the government and establish himself-not only as a dictator-but as a living god.

We can read about these events in the extensive writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero. His works survived destruction by the orthodox Christians because he was declared a righteous pagan saint by early church leaders. Cicero was honored-not only as a philosopher and writer, but because he was a great statesman. His rediscovered work influenced the culture of the Renaissance and inspired the founders of the United States. Thomas Jefferson considered Cicero to be among a handful of men who created the concept of “public right” and acknowledged his contribution to the Declaration of Independence.

In The Republic, his classic six-volume publication, Cicero writes about the Roman republic and those who served in it. He rated governance of the Commonwealth as the noblest exercise of virtue, and he taught that those who used their counsel and authority to expertly manage the public business surpassed all “other men in useful knowledge.”

Cicero bemoaned office seekers “who are so totally devoid of experience” and who “know not how to govern.” He recognized that wise men were reluctant to seek the administration of public affairs; however, he believed philosophers should study the art of public speaking and the science of civil legislation. For Cicero, there was a difference between statesmen-who accepted public office as a duty-and mere politicians, who sought election as a means of gaining power and wealth. Ultimately, Cicero’s brilliant head was chopped off as the price he paid for his opposition to dictatorship and devotion to the Republic.

Preparing for Public Service. Avoiding the embarrassing question of whether anyone among the current gaggle of candidates for President of the United States has the intellectual, philosophical, and practical qualifications to be the alleged “Leader of the Free World”, what-if anything-can be done to improve the field of candidates in the future? Given the grave militaristic, environmental, and economic threats to the survival of humanity, much less the continuation of representative democracy in the United States, what can the American People do to improve their lives and safeguard their freedoms?

Not only must young people receive civic education in a free society-if they are to become informed and responsible voters-but elective office, whether as a duty or career, must have improved educational and ethical standards. Otherwise, voters will continue to be misled by greedy and power-hungry candidates, who will persist in catering to the plutocracy, rather than caring for the voters who elect them. That powerful force is so entrenched, it can be overcome only by a massive, nonpartisan political movement that leads to substantive constitutional change. The United States Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA) provides a nonviolent path toward these objectives.

First, the USVRA is a comprehensive voters’ bill of rights―in that it will remedy the destructive practices that have eroded the tenuous voting rights granted to the People by Congress and the states. The USVRA not only guarantees the basic right of all citizens to vote-which, amazingly, does not presently exist in the Constitution-but it also includes other provisions that ensure the votes cast by the People are effective in defining what they want their government to do and how they want it done. These include defining equal rights for women; maximizing voter participation and outlawing the suppression of voting; eliminating corporate personhood; controlling campaign contributions; supporting public funding of elections; prohibiting gerrymandering; increasing congressional representation; improving political education and public information; articulating policy issues; deciding policy issues by voting; eliminating the Electoral College; curtailing lobbying; and prohibiting conflicts of interest.

Second, in relation to the discussion of statecraft and the need to prepare young people for public service, the most pertinent of the USVRA provisions is Section Nine which states “It shall be a primary function of the government to ensure that the People are supplied with truthful, unbiased, objective, and timely information regarding the political, economic, environmental, financial, and social issues that affect them, and that all students are educated in the nature and responsibilities of representative democracy.”

The Amendment also establishes George Washington’s unrealized dream of a national university. The University of the United States will have as its primary goal the teaching of the values of liberty and freedom upon which the nation was founded. It will be a forum where all students discuss the nature of representative democracy and the rights, duties, and responsibilities of voting.

The university will include all of the military service academies under its umbrella―so future military officers are first indoctrinated with the nature and values of the government they will later learn to serve and defend. Moreover, the University will include other service academies-such as justice, education, health, nutrition and agriculture, energy, transportation, economics, science, environment, government, and diplomacy-where students can specialize after learning the essential values of a free and democratic government. Much like the present military service academies, admission could follow the existing nomination and merit scholarship process, with an obligatory period of national public service in the field of study. Graduates who later choose to enter electoral politics will be far better prepared to more effectively represent and care for those who elect them.

Choices. The current popularity of the anti-establishment presidential candidacies of Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left demonstrate there is a deep well of discontent-indeed anger-among a majority of Americans toward their government.

Elections should not be reality game shows played by dilettantes to amuse and entertain the electorate, and voters must plug their ears to the siren calls of demagogues. Instead, through the power of their vote, the People of the United States must demonstrate, once again, that they have the wisdom, ability, and resources to take matters into their own hands and to transform their government into one worthy of emulation. They stand at the tipping point, and the whole world is watching.

William John Cox is a retired public interest lawyer. His new book, “Transforming America: A Voters’ Bill of Rights” presents the United States Voters’ Rights Amendment. He can be reached at[email protected].

I thought about writing this essay when I was working in Iraqi Kurdistan, not far from the city of Mosul, one of the areas overrun by ISIS.

Since my last visit at the end of 2014, the entire “Kurdistan Region” has been collapsing. Unemployment has been on the rise, unofficially reaching 50%, poverty is rampant, official numbers are massaged. Salaries have not been paid for months, and the influx of refugees arriving from Mosul are often in near starvation, relying only on their relatives and friends for help.

But the West has been singing the praises of this obedient part of Iraq. It is because – like several countries in Africa or Indonesia – the Kurdistan Region has been willing to sacrifice its own people. As long as Western and Turkish corporations could fill their coffers here and as long as they were satisfied, why bother with the local people and their misery?

There is one reality – one that could be seen and confirmed, one described by the local population, if one would bother to listen.

The second reality is that constructed by Western propaganda. Here, the Kurdistan Region has been portrayed as safe, secular, democratic and friendly towards the West.

*

At night in Erbil, I tried to watch the news. I could not find any familiar channels: RT, PressTV or TeleSUR.

The Syrian army was finally liberating the city of Aleppo. Russia was providing air support. Hope was slowly returning to a country that has been totally ruined by Western, Turkish and Saudi interests and by several, directly NATO manufactured, terrorist groups.

Thanks to the Syrian-Russian coalition, more than one million internally displaced people have already been able to return home.

I got this information first hand, because I am based in Lebanon and work all over the Middle East.

And I can testify that the coverage provided by the best “alternative” media outlets, such as the RT, has been consistently detailed and objective.

Now, being stuck in this extremely uninformed pro-Western enclave, I was in need of an urgent update. But my hotel only allowed those official propaganda outlets of the Empire like CNN, Fox and the BBC – outlets beaming their vitriolic propaganda 24/7.

Both CNN and BBC were blasting visuals from the Syrian-Turkish borders. The narrative was the same on both channels: people are fleeing Aleppo, trying to cross into Turkey to save their lives. Turkey “does all it can to help”.

Syrian and Russian gains were portrayed as a disaster, a true calamity.

These two television stations are influencing billions of people worldwide, dictating how the most important events should be perceived on all continents. They are manufacturing one uniformed narrative, one dogma.

As I gazed at the screen, it suddenly occurred to me that the world now has two realities: a true one, consisting of human stories and testimonies, and one “hyper reality”, twisted and manipulated, but increasingly dominant.

No good deed, no objectively positive event could bring optimism and joy to the people of our planet, if it is against the interests of the Empire. The propaganda media would simply bathe it in filth and nihilism, as well as dark sarcasm.

Images of a group of refugees at the Syrian-Turkish border, with a perfectly tailored propaganda narrative repeated again and again by the BBC announcer, are so tailored as to convince the world that the Syrian and Russian initiatives have not been saving Aleppo, the most populous Syrian city, but on the contrary, they have been destroying it!

After two minutes of watching the “news” on the BBC, I began to feel unwell.

The contrast between Reality as I have witnessed it with my own eyes, and the farce, was too great.

I wondered, how those journalists and reporters who serve the Empire, can face themselves in the morning, looking into the mirror.

I turned off the box and opened the RT site on my computer. It was so easy. It was still so easy! At least for me and for those who were still not contaminated!

*

You come to Ecuador, a country on the rise, with its brilliant public places, medical posts and endless cultural institutions, but you are soon told that the nation is corrupt and unwell. You reply that you knew it before, decades ago, when it was like Peru, racist, depressing, dirty and totally against its own people. They still insist: it is a failure; immediate change is needed!

You go to Brazil, to the Amazonia. You talk to people in the jungle and in what used to be appalling urban slums. People tell you that things are now good, that they are much better off than before, with a socialist government in place for so many years. But then you turn on O Globo at night, and it is all shit once again.

You are in Zimbabwe, where you are told to expect filth and misery. You come from pro-Western Nairobi where over 50% of people live in horrible slums. In Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, there are almost no slums, but there is culture and public projects, as well as the highest literacy rate in the entire African continent. The city is clean. But you read the Economist and almost all other major British publications, and you are told that the country is in ruins.

You go to China… Everything is upside down from what you would expect, reading the Western press. In the PRC you see clearly an extremely forward-looking Communist nation, with much more intellectual and artistic freedom than what you would encounter anywhere in Europe, and also with many more possibilities. But when you return to Paris or London and speak of what you really saw, you are laughed at.

Pseudo reality has won. Especially in the West, almost everyone is hooked on it, stoned by it.

Humble and genuine reality is spat on, humiliated, ridiculed, and not only by the media and propaganda outlets, anymore. The great majority of those common people of the West are now submissively and self-righteously volunteering: they feel that they have to demonstrate their allegiance to the narrative of the regime. They do it, while bragging loudly about democracy, freedom and liberties in their part of the world. Paradoxically, the more brainwashed, servile and un-free they are, the louder they promote themselves as the true and only flag carriers of democracy.

It all feels so fascist and hopeless!*

Two realities: one genuine but beaten into silence. The other one – loud, aggressive, supported by billions of dollars, but based on lies, manipulations and Machiavellian goals.

To use the words of my dear friend Eduardo Galeano: What can those who still have some dignity left, philosophers, reporters, writers and filmmakers with passion for that beautiful lady called Reality, do?

They can, they should, and they are obliged, to repeat again and again what is obvious even with an unarmed eye. They have to tell the truth, even if the indoctrinated masses would relentlessly spit in their faces.

It is not so difficult, and it goes like this:

Iraqi Kurdistan betrayed the Middle East and it is now collapsing, abandoned by its Western handlers.

Syrian forces and Russia are, right now, liberating the great Arab city of Aleppo.

Latin American revolutions are injured mainly from the outside, and also by those 5^th columns inside their own countries. But many of them are still standing, solid. We will fight and defend them until our last breath. And we will speak about and write about them, with passion, relentlessly.

Jaroslav Seifert, a Czech poet, Nobel Prize laureate and author of some of the most beautiful lyrical verses written in the 20^th century, once shouted at his fellow authors:

“A writer is the conscience of his nation … If anyone omits the truth, it could be seen as a strategic maneuver. If a writer omits the truth, he is a liar!”

Writers and true thinkers are obliged to defend reality: that real one, that shy and genuine one.

And the truth is, there is only one reality! What the Empire and its propaganda has managed to manufacture as the “second” or “parallel reality”, is nothing less than a destructive narrative, which is there to prevent people from thinking, comprehending, and most importantly, from dreaming about a much better world that is based on humanism, truth and justice.*

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

GR Editor’s Note

This incisive article was written prior to the latest timely terrorist attack in Ankara, which resulted in 28 dead and 61 wounded.  President Erdogan has vowed to retaliate.  

“Turkey will not shy away from using its right to self-defence at any time, any place or any occasion,”

Turkey has been hit by a series of attacks in recent months, and there have been increasing concerns that the country could be targeted by another big attack.

It is not clear who was behind the blast in Ankara. Security sources blamed both so-called Islamic State (IS) and militants from the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Reuters reported.

Is the right of self defense being used to justify military intervention in Syria? 

This article documents the history of Turkey’s use of False Flag Terror.  (M.Ch. GR Editor)

*      *      *

Terror attacks have repeatedly rocked Turkey over the last year.

The government has blamed ISIS and Kurds for the attacks … and is about to use this “justification” to launch troops into Syria.

But there is an alternative explanation.  Specifically, government officials have admitted that Turkey has repeatedly carried out false flag attacks.

For example:

(1) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(2) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special.

Turkish false flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:

• The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)

• Terror attacks in Turkey kill hundreds (1971)

• Shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977)

(3) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

(4) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

Two members of the Turkish parliament stated:

Sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen.

***

The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime …

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam  – previously reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.

As Hersh noted:

We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.

Indeed, it’s long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey.

(5) While Turkey pretends it’s fighting ISIS, Turkey is actually one of the main supporters of ISIS.

Relations with North Korea are once again in crisis mode. North Korea, we are told, inexplicably launched dual provocations with its nuclear and ballistic missile tests, threatening the security of the United States. It is a simple story, with North Korean irrationality and belligerence on one side, and Washington’s customary desire for peace and stability on the other.

Omitted from the standard narrative is anything that would make sense of recent events.

North Korea’s nuclear test on January 6 drew fierce condemnation and calls for fresh sanctions. It is interesting to contrast Western outrage over North Korea with the treatment given other nuclear-armed nations operating outside of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Israeli military receives $3.1 billion annually from the United States while U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed furnishing Pakistan with $860 million in aid next fiscal year, including $265 million in military materiel. Aid to India is more modest, but the United States maintains good relations with India and military cooperation between the two nations is expanding.

Clearly, there is a double standard at play, with pats on the back for Israel, Pakistan and India, and brickbats for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – the official name for North Korea). The reason is not difficult to fathom. North Korea is the only one of the four nations that the U.S. has targeted in its operational war plans. The United States and South Korea signed the latest operational plan in June of last year. Dubbed Oplan 5015, it covers limited war scenarios and includes a preemptive strike on the DPRK’s strategic targets and “decapitation raids” to kill North Korean leaders.

The more North Korea’s nuclear weapons program advances, however, the less likely Oplan 5015 can ever be implemented.

Couple Oplan 5015 with the annual military exercises the U.S. conducts with South Korea, and is it any wonder that North Korea feels threatened? In the West, military exercises are sloughed off as a routine matter and North Korean reaction as overly sensitive. Imagine the hysteria, however, that would greet a joint Russian-Cuban military exercise in the Caribbean, practicing the invasion of the United States. Now multiply that perception by the lopsided power imbalance between the DPRK and the United States, and the North Korean reaction appears more rational. North Korea feels threatened because it is threatened.

During the George W. Bush Administration, U.S. officials counselled their North Korean counterparts to take note of the Libyan example. Libya abandoned its nuclear program in exchange for better relations with the United States and North Korea can do it too, went the message. These days, that message looks rather different, and the DPRK points out that it has found the Libyan example instructive, as well as those of Yugoslavia and Iraq. For a small targeted nation like North Korea, a nuclear deterrent is seen as a means of warding off attack. As a North Korean news commentary put it, the nuclear test was not intended to threaten or provoke, but to cope with the “undisguised hostile policy” of the U.S. and avert “the danger of war with the help of the strongest deterrence.” Given Washington’s propensity in recent years for bombing, invading, destabilizing and overthrowing governments, North Korea’s concern does not seem misplaced.

For all the outcry over the nuclear issue, it must be pointed out that the United States has only itself to blame for the recent turn of events. For the past several years, the DPRK has repeatedly asked the United States for negotiations, only to be snubbed each time. The U.S. position is that the DPRK must substantially denuclearize as a precondition for negotiations. In other words, the U.S. must be given its end goal upfront and all the DPRK would receive in return would be the mere promise of talk. This one-sided approach has been an effective means of blocking the threat of a diplomatic solution.

Little more than a year ago, North Korea offered to temporarily suspend its nuclear weapons program if the United States would do the same with its anti-DPRK military exercises, in the interests of “easing tension.” North Korea added that it stood ready “to sit with the U.S. any time” to discuss the proposal. It was an opening bid in what was hoped would lead to dialogue. Predictably, U.S. officials were rudely dismissive and the opportunity to negotiate a resolution of differences was lost.

One month after its latest nuclear test, North Korea launched an earth observation satellite into orbit, further inflaming Western sensibilities. The reaction was as fierce as it was unreasoning, and there was a deliberate effort to obfuscate the distinction between a ballistic missile test and a satellite launch. The two are not the same.

A satellite launch vehicle relies on an engine with a low-thrust, long-burn time in order to achieve a trajectory high enough to place a satellite into orbit. Testing a ballistic missile requires a flatter trajectory, aimed at maximizing strike distance. For North Korea to test the same missile for ballistic purposes, it would need to redesign the engine. Furthermore, a ballistic missile test requires a reentry vehicle, possessing a heat shield able to withstand the high temperature of passing back through the atmosphere. The DPRK has never tested a reentry vehicle.

Relying on the medium-range Unha satellite launch vehicle as a stepping stone to ballistic missile capability is essentially a non-starter. According to German aerospace engineer Markus Schiller, “I assume that they are doing the best they can with the Unha, showing a very slow but continuous progress toward a small satellite launch capability. Turning this program into a real weapon that is deployed in numbers and could hit cities at the push of a button will take decades at that pace.”

UN Security Council Resolution 1874 prohibits the DPRK from “any launch using ballistic missile technology.” This demand raises an interesting conundrum. Article I of the international space treaty specifies that outer space “shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind.” What is the hierarchy when a Security Council resolution contravenes international law to deny a right to one nation that is the entitlement of all? The UN Security Council is a political organ, not judicial.

All five permanent members of the UN Security Council have agreed on the need for a new sanctions resolution but differ sharply on its nature. China and Russia want sanctions to focus on curtailing nuclear weapons development, whereas the United States, South Korea, and Japan want collective punishment of the entire population of the DPRK.

It has been reported that the proposed resolution, as drafted by the United States, bans North Korean ships from docking at foreign ports, in an effort to sharply limit international trade. It also includes measures to block the DPRK from access to international banking. Furthermore, U.S. officials seek a total ban on oil shipments to North Korea. As the DPRK has no oil of its own, that measure could be expected to produce national economic collapse and impoverishment of the population.

Behind the scenes, U.S. officials are pressuring China to cancel its contracts to import minerals from the DPRK, and to deny North Korean planes from entering Chinese airspace. The United States is also demanding that China terminate food shipments to the DPRK. With eighty percent mountainous terrain, North Korea has limited arable land, and food imports are needed to supplement agricultural output. If the United States is successful in forcing China to halt food shipments, much of North Korea’s population would be driven into hunger and malnutrition. The brutality of the measures the U.S. is hoping to implement is rather breathtaking.

Getting China and Russia onboard with such punitive sanctions is not going to be easy. American officials respond to Chinese and Russian recalcitrance with the technique they know best: bullying. The Chinese government-linked Global Times points out, however: “Washington should be clear that it cannot push China around.”

Independently, the United States and South Korea are moving ahead on bilateral sanctions. There is talk of implementing secondary boycotts against any bank doing business with North Korea. Given that international transactions process through U.S. banks, this measure would have the effect of dissuading any bank from dealing with the DPRK. According to a South Korean government official, “South Korea and the U.S. are pushing to employ all possible means to take relevant measures that can effectively bring pain to North Korea.”

Seoul, for its part, closed down operations at the Kaesong Industrial Park in North Korea, the last inter-Korean agreement remaining in place. It also resumed cross-border loudspeaker broadcasts. These are only the opening moves in a wide-ranging plan to impose hardship on North Korea. A South Korean official has revealed that the government intends to lean on Southeast Asian nations that employ North Korean labor to sever that relationship and eliminate another source of hard currency for the DPRK.

It has also been announced that South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will meet with President Obama in the coming weeks to discuss further ways to ratchet up the pressure on North Korea.

China and Russia point out that the only viable solution to the dispute is dialogue. That is not how U.S. officials perceive the matter, as they sternly lecture the Chinese on the need for a harsher approach. North Korea has a nuclear weapons program because it feels threatened. The U.S. position is that threatening North Korea has not worked. Therefore, more threats are needed. This circular logic can only convince the DPRK of the correctness of its course.

It may be that U.S. officials are more interested in capitalizing on North Korea’s nuclear program as a pretext to accelerate the Asia Pivot and tighten the military noose around China. The United States and South Korea have agreed to station a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in the latter nation, ostensibly directed at North Korea. The AN/TPY-2 radar accompanying the radar can be set in two modes, however. In terminal mode, it can detect incoming missiles, but in forward mode it can cover a broad swath of China and a portion of Russia, tracking missiles in their ascending phase and feeding that data to U.S.-based missile defense sites thousands of miles away. By accepting a THAAD battery, South Korea is being incorporated into the U.S. military build-up against China.

South Korea has also been drawn into a tripartite plan for sharing military information with Japan and the United States, further entangling it as a junior member in U.S. regional plans. South Korea’s military operations center will be joined directly to the U.S. system via Link 16, the data exchange network currently used by NATO and the United States.

The United States wasted little time in demonstrating its disinterest in dialogue, sending a B-52 bomber from Guam to overfly South Korea, in a not so veiled message to the DPRK. U.S. military officials are also consulting with the South Korean military on the possible deployment of B-52 and B-2 bombers on South Korean soil, along with F-22 fighter planes.

It has already been announced that the annual Key Resolve and Foal Eagle military exercises, slated to run from March 7 through April 30, will be the largest ever held. The exercises, rehearsing the invasion of North Korea, will include the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, the USS North Carolina submarine, B-52 and B-2 bombers, and F-22 fighters. The newly minted Oplan 5015 will play an important role in the exercises.

North Korea points out that as long as the United States maintains its hostile policy, “our suspension of nuclear development or nuclear abandonment cannot happen.” The formula for resolving the dispute is clear. The DPRK’s legitimate security concerns must be addressed if North Korea is going to give up its nuclear program. Only negotiations can accomplish that.

But diplomacy is the one option that Washington rules out, and there is an excess of reckless and dangerous rhetoric. Instead, the United States is pursuing measures that could seriously threaten regional security. China and Russia are firmly advocating negotiations as the only sensible solution. It remains to be seen whether anyone in Washington is listening or not.

The move is in the tradition of grand power politics. Officially, it has been sweetened as something more, a goodwill gesture by Washington that is designed to rope in and keep partners in the Asian-Pacific area close to its bosom.  More to the point, state of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are being pushed into making choices about their security interests – coddle up to China, the way that Laos is, or seek the comforts of a Washington promise for greater security.

If commentators and activists were looking for other areas of reform – innovation, for instance, in human rights, and the maturing of democratic practice – then this California session at Sunnylands was not one of them. The member states of ASEAN have several concerns with China (by no means are their concerns identical), and it is a point that the Obama administration has been feeding with interest.

Of less interest is the politically deficient nature of the various regimes engaged in negotiations.  Malaysia’s Najib Abdul Razak remains clouded by a bribery scandal he claims is a plot of external manufacture. The Sultan of Brunei persists in riding roughshod over a range of religious protections, banning, for instance, Christmas and the singing of carols as threats to the Muslim faith.  Thailand continues to be in the firm hands of military rule, without promise of elections.

The very fact that Obama has engaged in such a strategy has also been perplexing to observers in the US.  ASEAN is, at best, a toothless assemblage of ethnically diverse states, haphazardly united by geographical circumstance and occasional pronouncements.  “When I need to call ASEAN [in a crisis] whom do I ask for?” asks Robert Manning of the Atlantic Council.  “The answer is nobody.”[1]

Such a view ignores the obvious point of economic growth, which Washington wishes to secure.  On January 1 this year, the idea of the ASEAN Economic Community was launched, an effort that envisages a common economic market, laced with lower tariffs and the easier exchange of goods and services.

Not that this vague concept was necessarily impressing students on the subject.  In the normative language of hope, Raman Letchumanan suggested that ASEAN “make a concerted effort to convey in specific quantitative, if not qualitative, terms what it had planned to achieve and how well it is doing, regularly throughout the year.”[2] Such consistency is precisely what ASEAN is not about.

The ASEAN-US agenda covered a range of talks on maritime security (absentee China was very much present on that score); trade in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (again, China, the point of targeted interest); and the issue of North Korea, where Beijing again tottered in spectral prominence.  The only theme not exclusively directed against China was the issue of Islamic State.

It is true to say that China has not been particularly well-behaved on aspects of the South China Sea lanes.  Construction has been taking place in the form of military installations, man-made islands, and infrastructure that shows encroachment and claim. Surface-to-air missile batteries have been deployed, another sign that Beijing is readying itself for entrenchment. This has sent some states scurrying for cover.

The added complication here has been rival geopolitical stomping. Having reasserted the US credentials as a Pacific power, the Obama administration was never going to let Beijing move quietly.  A certain degree of mischief making and reassurance to regional powers has been taking place.

The US desire to have a bite of this cherry by spurring Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam on has angered Beijing’s officials.  In the sharp words of China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, “Relevant countries from outside the region should not flex their military muscles in the South China Sea and should not entice regional countries to carry out joint military exercises or patrol activities targeting a third party.”[3]

The jab at China over its maritime interests is coupled with Obama’s insistence that ASEAN countries now a part of the TPPA hit their strides in ratification and implementation.  Others are also being encouraged to apply.  This has various political figures in the region worried, not least because it seems to be taking place in the amoral atmosphere of growth figures and economic development.

Such instruments, in reality, do much to empower the corporate market place and risk making vital medicines, to name but one example, inaccessible for citizens.  Middle to low-income states stand to lose most.  Adding judicial teeth to company claims against governments who make policy pernicious to profit margins further deepens the problem.

According to the vocal Malaysian politician Charles Santiago, MP for Klang, “The rush to sign onto the TPPA is a symptom of a larger problem throughout Southeast Asia, where in efforts to promote trade, investment, and GDP growth, ASEAN governments have continued to allow human rights and the dignity of all citizens to take a backseat.”[4]  This feature, and the anti-China bias, continues to be all too readily exploited back in Washington.

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

Notes:

Twenty years after the so-called “trial of the century,” FX is presenting the miniseries “The People v. O.J. Simpson.” Like 100 million other people across the country, I watched the 1995 murder trial on television. I also was a legal commentator for CBS News and Court TV. “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice,” a book I co-authored with veteran CBS News correspondent David Dow, was based largely on the Simpson case. I use transcripts and examples from the trial in my evidence and criminal procedure classes at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. I am still convinced that race played a major role in the not-guilty verdict.

It is no surprise that the miniseries begins with the vicious 1991 beating of Rodney King and the riots that ensued after the 1992 acquittal of the four Los Angeles Police Department officers who assaulted King. The incident, which had been recorded on videotape, went viral.

The jurors in the Simpson trial were well aware of the King case. Nine of the jurors were African-American, and one was Latino. The case was tried in downtown Los Angeles. These jurors knew the LAPD was notorious for committing misconduct, especially against blacks, and they could well believe that the police had framed Simpson. The prosecution made several strategic errors that enabled the jury to find reasonable doubt. Since the jurors were sequestered for nine months, they became a tight unit. It didn’t take them long to agree on the not-guilty verdict.

O.J. Simpson reacts in 1995 as he is found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. At left is defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey and at right, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. (Myung J. Chun / AP)

During the preliminary hearing, LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman denied that he had used the N-word in the previous 10 years. At trial, the defense presented two witnesses who testified that Fuhrman had recently used the expletive. Since the preliminary hearing was televised, these defense witnesses came forward after seeing Fuhrman’s testimony on TV. The issue shifted from Simpson’s guilt to Fuhrman’s racism.

As prosecutor Marcia Clark intoned during the trial, there was “a mountain of evidence” against Simpson. His blood was discovered at the crime scene in Brentwood, an affluent neighborhood of Los Angeles, and blood matching the victims, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, was found on a glove. Three different laboratories analyzed the DNA, but Simpson’s “dream team” of top lawyers challenged the collection of the blood evidence and raised the issue of possible contamination. The jury apparently believed that Fuhrman, a racist, could have planted the bloody glove on Simpson’s property.

Blacks and whites, by and large, reacted differently to the not-guilty verdict, according to a Los Angeles Times poll. While most white people thought Simpson was guilty, many African-Americans felt vindicated by the verdict. For blacks, Columbia professor John McWhorter wrote in The New York Times, “it was about the centrality of police brutality to black Americans’ very sense of self.”

Viewing the verdict 20 years later through the prism of the Black Lives Matter movement, it is not difficult to understand. We see unjustified killings of black men all too often. Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Michael Brown and many others come to mind. “Talk to most black people about racism,” McWhorter noted, “and you need only count the seconds before the cops come up.”

The country’s polarization between “black lives matter” and “all lives matter” and the pundits’ divergent opinions on Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime performance parallel the racial divide we saw in the aftermath of the Simpson trial. Many white people have tried to dilute the critical slogan “black lives matter” by saying, well, “all lives matter.” Of course they do, but the history of this country is permeated with institutional racism and prejudice. Beyoncé’s dancers were dressed as Black Panthers, and in her video for her newest single, “Formation,” released the day before the Super Bowl, she dramatized the racist response to the Katrina tragedy by lying on a New Orleans police car as it sank into floodwaters.

We have come a long way since the days of slavery and Jim Crow, and we do have a black president. But institutional racism is unfortunately alive and well in the United States. Mass incarceration, racial profiling, infant mortality and lack of access to quality education and health care all disproportionately affect African-Americans.

As we ponder whom to support in the presidential primaries, let us ask ourselves which candidate will passionately and tirelessly fight racism on the institutional level. That means creating jobs, implementing universal health care, ending the militarism of the police and advocating legislation to reduce the draconian sentences that disproportionately impact African-Americans.

It is commonly thought that Hillary Clinton is more committed to the black community than Bernie Sanders is. But in the 1980s, when Clinton was the first lady of Arkansas, she vilified public school teachers and their union. Many or most of them were African-American, and as legal scholar and “The New Jim Crow” author Michelle Alexander has pointed out, the U.S. prison population increased more under Bill Clinton than any other president. He supported racial disparity in sentencing and the heavy-handed “three strikes.”

When Hillary Clinton advocated for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which created 60 new death penalty offenses, provided $9.7 billion for prisons and eliminated inmate education programs, “she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals,” Alexander wrote in The Nation. Clinton said at the time, “They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended that way, but first we have bring them to heel.” Bring them to heel. …

When civil rights icon John Lewis announced that the political action committee of the Congressional Black Caucus was endorsing Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, he said he had never encountered Bernie Sanders during the civil rights movement. But as Tim Murphy points out in Mother Jones, Sanders was very active in the movement at the University of Chicago. As president of the University of Chicago’s Congress of Racial Equality, Sanders organized pickets and sit-ins. He was arrested for resisting arrest when he protested segregation.

As Democrats make their choice for presidential nominee, all of us must ask which candidate would better serve the interests of all of us and work to end racism in every possible way.

The end of January a news article appeared, “Ecuador To Sell A Third Of Its Amazon Rainforest To Chinese Oil Companies,” and has resurfaced again and again on the internet. Posted on progressive websites such as Reader Supported News, Daily Kos, “The PeoplesVoice.org,” “ThinkGlobalGreen.org,” the story often comes with maps of the affected area, and include pictures of indigenous peoples living peaceably with nature or protesting against oil drilling.  

Almost all these stories refer back to one article three years ago, in March 2013, in Australian online journal Business Insider:

Ecuador is planning to auction off three million of the country’s 8.1 million hectares of pristine Amazonian rainforest to Chinese oil companies, Jonathan Kaiman of The Guardian reports.” And, “Ecuador owed China more than $7 billion — more than a tenth of its GDP — as of last summer. In 2009 China began loaning Ecuador billions of dollars in exchange for oil shipments. It also helped fund two of the country’s biggest hydroelectric infrastructure projects, and China National Petroleum Corp may soon have a 30 per cent stake in a $10 billion oil refinery in Ecuador. [i]

The rest of the article becomes a platform for Adam Zuckerman of the US based NGO Amazon Watch to spin his tale of China colonizing Ecuador, with President Correa willingly selling out the environment and the indigenous peoples to pay off his China debt.

The problem is that the story is an invention. This same story slamming Ecuador President Correa and China for forcibly displacing indigenous people and destroying the rainforest for the sake of oil profits reappeared in June-July 2015. This just happened to coincide with a rightwing  protests in Ecuador against Correa, over his raising taxes on the rich.

Business Insider takes its disinformation story from another March 2013 Guardian article titled, “Ecuador auctions off Amazon to Chinese oil firms” [ii]  an article which provides no evidence to support its title. This Guardian article also mostly relies on Zuckerman of Amazon Watch.

Both articles never state Ecuador did actually sell Amazon rainforests to Chinese companies; they allege Ecuador “planned” to sell a third, though this “plan” is not corroborated by any evidence.  Now almost three years later, no rainforest has yet to be sold to China, but the same concocted story is repeated.

Last November, International Business Times reported Ecuador’s China debt totaled $5 billion, while the country’s central bank said entire foreign debt was $20 billion,[iii] making China’s share only a quarter of the total. Ecuador also has one of the lowest foreign debt to GDP (22.4%) in Latin America.[iv] This hardly substantiates the view that Ecuador is in hock to China.

The Guardian has a history of dishonest reporting on Ecuador. Christian Tym[v], Aliya Alwi,[vi]

and Carlos Abad[vii], Ecuador Ambassador to Britain, have all addressed it.

What has happened is that in January 2016  – three years after the Guardian article – Ecuador sold exploration rights to a Chinese company for $80 million to search for oil in an area of the Amazon one and half times the size of Los Angeles. To place this in context, global oil exploration is an almost trillion dollar business.[viii]

Certainly Ecuador has a right to explore for oil, as do Chinese companies, which unlike Western corporations, agree to technology and technological know-how transfers to the countries they do business with.

And, for comparison, the Alberta tar sands oil fields are 1,500 times the size of the small area Ecuador opened up for oil exploration in the Yasuni. In comparison, too, last May Obama approved oil drilling in the Artic Sea, where 20 billion barrels of oil and 90 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are now more available due to the melting of Arctic ice sheets.

Why do we repeatedly see dishonest news articles about President Correa sacrificing the environment and the indigenous to China’s thirst for oil? This has even developed into an anti-Correa campaign by some US NGOs such as Amazon Watch, which is sullying its well-deserved reputation as a leader in the struggle to make Chevron pay for its environmental crimes in Ecuador.[ix]

There has been a several year old campaign attacking both Correa and China for drilling for oil in the Amazon, supposedly against the wishes of the indigenous who live there.  However, as former president Humberto Cholango of the Ecuadoran indigenous federation, CONAIE stated, 

“Many nationalities of the Amazonia say “look, we are the owners of the territory, and yes we want it to be exploited.” [x]  They find it against their interest to leave valuable natural wealth untouched while their people go without adequate schools, housing, roads, medical care and employment.

This anti-Correa campaign happens to coincide with the successes of Ecuador’s legal case against Chevron to make it pay up the $9.5 billion owed for its deliberate oil pollution of a vast area of the Amazon.  Chevron, with its powers as a giant multinational corporation, has fought back in and out of court, even seeking to take to court the 30,000 victims and their lawyers. [xi]

Christian Tym also notes, “Ever since Julian Assange was granted asylum, western media and NGOs have been taking free hits at Ecuador.”[xii]

The Amazon Watch campaign against President Correa

Amazon Watch has waged a continual disinformation campaign against Correa’s Citizens Revolution in Ecuador.[xiii] In 2013 the West snubbed Ecuador’s Yasuni Initiative, a proposal to keep Yasuni rainforest oil untouched in a revolutionary anti-global warming initiative if the Western countries reimbursed Ecuador for half the value of the oil. Amazon Watch used the Initiative’s failure not so much to expose Western government indifference to real action on global warming, but declared, “Correa’s own contradictory policies and mismanagement of the initiative may have been its ultimate undoing.”[xiv]

Perhaps Amazon Watch’s most outrageous article was one supporting the right-wing backed anti-Correa protests in August 2015.  “While police massacre indigenous protesters and citizens, the Government of Rafael Correa dances in the Presidential plaza….All of the rights won by the indigenous nationalities have been repealed, just as the system of bilingual intercultural education, indigenous health services, economic funds, and political organization….Violent confrontations with citizens ensued and resulted in numerous people disappeared, imprisoned, tortured, and dead across the country.”[xv]

That this is deliberate disinformation can be seen from a film of the protestors that day attacking the police in an attempt to seize the presidential palace.[xvi]

It may not be clear why Amazon Watch engages in this disinformation against this target of the US government, President Correa. But it is clear this NGO relies on corporate backed funders,[xvii] and markets to corporate elite clientele tours to the “pristine” Amazon and its “natives.” [xviii]

It is also clear the US rulers are preoccupied with combating China as the only world power it sees directly threatening its global domination[xix], a central reason for the anti-China TransPacific Partnership (TPP). In fact, China provides loans at low interest rates, does not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, respects other countries’ paths of economic and political development, and encourages South-South cooperation as a counter to Western hegemony. It cannot be coincidence that Amazon Watch – or the Guardian – portray China as the new colonizer, as the global power responsible for the concocted environmental and human rights abuses they attribute to Correa.

Some things are better done under cover of night. This appears to be when Jocelerme Privert functions best. At 3:43 a.m. on Sunday, February 14, 2016, Mr. Privert got decked in a red-and-blue sash and was sworn in as Interim President of the Republic of Haiti. Only 10 minutes earlier, he was managing his own election by the country’s not-quite fully seated parliament. In this procedure, Mr. Privert functioned not only as a candidate for the position, but also as the speaker of the senate, the chair of the legislative committee of 15 that defined the criteria for the job search, and a voter from the larger legislature.

Apart from Priver’s failure to appreciate the notion of a conflict of interest, other aspects of his rise to the presidency raise doubts about his capacity to conduct free-and-fair elections. In a country where the average assembly worker earns about 45 cents per hour, the candidacy for interim presidency required a fee of $10,000. Consequently, only Privert and one senator sympathetic to Michel Martelly, Edgard Leblanc Fils, were considered for the post. There was one other candidate, Dejean Belizaire, but he did not pay, and he got essentially no votes. Mezi lajan w, mezi wanga w (So much money, so much magic).

The swearing in ceremony for Privert, and everything else that will soon transpire in Haiti unless the population crushes it, were concocted also at night, on February 5-6. Although the Haitian Constitution does not allow for deals between the executive and legislature, Martelly, Privert, and the Speaker of the House signed a plan for the political unraveling of Haiti. Officially, the Organization of the American States (OAS) brokered this agreement, which, if followed, will do away with all remaining legitimate aspects of government and tighten the foreign grip on the country.

According to this midnight deal that foreshadowed Privert’s ascent and forestalled a popular revolt by removing Martelly, the former occupation president gave a goodbye speech and handed his presidential sash to Privert. The real damage is yet to come, and it will be as follows:

1. Designation of a Prime Minister. As the Interim President, Privert will pick Haiti’s next Prime Minister, in consultation with the Speakers of the House and Senate. The choice of PM is important in Haiti, because the PM and his cabinet run the government, not the President, who is the head of the armed forces and whose role is otherwise more ceremonial. With few exceptions, Haiti’s PMs have been foreign-designated and controlled since the 1970s.

2. Creation of an Interim Electoral Council. Privert will appoint, by decree, the members of an Interim Electoral Council (CEP) to manage the new elections. This CEP will do nothing about the highly flawed legislative elections of 2015 but merely carry out a new round of presidential and local elections, without verifying the contested elections.

3. Renewal of United Nations Mission. Although this is not spelled out in the agreement, the schedule of the elections is such that they will not be concluded in time for the spring United Nations General Assembly’s decision about whether or not to renew its Haiti mission (MINUSTAH). Privert will probably ask MINUSTAH to remain in Haiti for yet another year to oversee the elections.

4. In every case above, the parliament will probably rubber-stamp Privert’s decisions.

Jocelerme Privert is not trained in law. He began his career as a tax auditor in Haiti’s Directorate General of Taxation (DGI) during Jean-Claude Duvalier’s regime in 1979. Privert worked his way up the career ladder at the DGI until he became its Director General in 1995. He was named Secretary of State for Finance in 2001 and then Minister of the Interior in 2002 during Aristide’s presidency. This does not imply that he was pro-Aristide. In these capacities, he worked directly under the prime ministers who served the international community while Aristide was president. Privert was elected to the senate in the flawed 2010 elections that brought Martelly to power, and he served as the chair of the senate finance committee for four years. He was presumably elected to the senate again in the fraudulent elections of 2015.

Many of Privert’s political decisions are known. Some of them have been favorable to Martelly. In 2013, Privert was among the senators who abstained from the decision to impeach Martelly in connection with the suspicious death of the Canado-Haitian Judge Jean Serge Joseph, who had been investigating Martelly’s wife and son for allegations of money laundering and other crimes. Privert also came quite close to helping Martelly stay in office until 2021. Currently a Haitian president may only serve two nonconsecutive five-year terms. In 2011, however, Jocelerme Privert participated in a notorious legislative committee to amend Haiti’s Constitution. The committee’s work was scrapped after an alert senator discovered, at the conclusion of a rushed legislative session, around midnight on May 10, 2011, that an amendment to allowconsecutive five-year terms had been kept in writing in the document after the legislators had verbally voted against it.

Jocelerme Privert is most famous for having spent about two years in prison, together with the Lavalas Prime Minister, Yvon Neptune, starting in 2004. Because of the political climate after Aristide’s removal, the two men’s imprisonment was attributed to political persecution and treated as a badge of honor, but they were actually indicted by a judge in September 2005 for their alleged involvement in the massacre of more than 40 people in the neighborhood of La Scierie, in the city of Saint Marc. Some aspects of Privert and Neptune’s incarceration were rather curious. Their imprisonment became a cause célèbre for the foreign mainstream press, even though they were associated with the much maligned Lavalas party. Part of their time in prison under UN orders was spent in a private house that the UN described as being an annex to the National Penitentiary. When they undertook a hunger strike that was broadly publicized, their own lawyer seemed to be unaware of it. The OAS’ Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR) took it upon itself to decide on the case of Yvon Neptune, and it declared that he had been “detained unlawfully and arbitrarily.” This decision is often presumed to be the reason why the case was not pursued. In fact, it was dropped because the Head of the Appeals Court in the city of Gonaives, Judge Hugues Saint-Pierre, was run over by a car in a highly suspicious accident that killed him just as he was about to pronounce his final judgment on the case.

Since the US’ dissolution of Haiti’s parliament in 1917 as part of its first occupation of the country, there has not been another time when Haiti was in greater danger of losing its sovereignty than today. Haiti’s 1987 Constitution serves as an important guide here. Haitian human rights organizations have cautioned again and again that the country’s parliament is being turned into a den of bandits because legislators are immune from criminal prosecution. The La Scierie massacre case is unresolved, as the rights groups continually point out. Therefore, according to the Constitution, Jocelerme Privert cannot hold high office, because this privilege is denied to people who have been indicted for a serious crime. There is an important reason for this. If, for argument’s sake, an organization has evidence to inculpate a high-level Haitian official in an alleged crime, then the organization’s power over Haiti’s government might become absolute via its control of this official. This is not a chance that one ought to take. As numerous Haitian organizations have recommended, the Chief Justice, or his next in command in the Supreme Court, should become the Interim President who leads Haiti through free-and-fair elections. This is not only prudent but also prescribed by Article 149 of the Constitution.

Sources: Haiti Chery | News Junkie Post | Dady Chery is the author of We Have Dared to Be Free | Photographs one and five from OAS; two by Blue Skyz Studios; three by M. Shattock; four and six by Alesa Dam; seven by Alex Proimos; eight by Chad Sparkes; and nine byRon Savage.

On February 1 the New York Times ran a front page story by two of their journalists confirming the intentions of the United States to increase its occupation of and military presence in Europe particularly the east. Under the title “U.S. Fortifying Europe’s East to Deter Putin” the story sets out just one in a continuing series of acts of aggression against Russia. At the same time as the Americans announced this action they pretended to negotiate with Russia in Geneva about a solution to the American and allied aggression against Syria.

Of course, the story begins with the lie in the headline of a need to “deter Putin.” It then continues with the standard set of lies and propaganda about world events that we always get from the government of that country. No one outside the United States can read these things without laughing or crying, but of course they are intended to justify the criminal actions of the American government and ruling elite to the people who have to pay for the criminal wars they conduct, that is, to justify the unjustifiable, to the citizens of the United States.

There is no need to enter once again into the real history of events in Ukraine, Syria, Europe, Asia, Africa and all the places in the world where American and European meddling have wreaked havoc and loosed Chaos with the dogs of war. The history is well known by those who are interested. But there is a need to comprehend the meaning of what the United States is doing by announcing that it will increase its military budget for eastern Europe by 400%, from a current budget of $789 million to $3.4 billion in 2017. Since the Russians are not the threat in the region, but the United States and NATO are, the placement of military hardware to support a full armoured combat brigade in the region, and right on top of Russia’s borders can have only one other purpose, aggression.

Once can even argue that the pattern of moving equipment and forces continually nearer to Russia’s border, the continuous military exercises and their increasing control of the governments of the east European states in lockstep with this military build up, looks far too much like Nazi Germany’s build of forces prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. History never repeats itself exactly, we have learned that much. But the overall pattern is very similar and the objectives and motivations remain the same.

The story also quoted American officials as stating that the equipment could be used in Syria, another threat to Russia. But the main threat is against Russia itself. Indeed the writers stated,

“Still, there is no doubt the primary target of the funding is Russia.”

The Times admits that the 1997 agreement known as the NATO-Russia Founding Act stipulates that neither side can place forces along their respective borders and admits that the deployment of American and NATO troops along Russia’s borders is a clear violation of the agreement. But, being the weasels that they are, they always state that wrong is right and so they simply deny they are in violation of the agreement or excuse it based on ”Russia’s incursion” into Crimea. This makes no sense of course since the United States took over Ukraine as its protectorate in the coup in 2014. Its forces have been there ever since and it has been in violation of the agreement from the day it was signed as NATO occupied, one by one, the countries formerly protected from NATO by the Soviet Union. The agreement means nothing to them. They just shrug their shoulders if it is mentioned and chew their gum.

Since the build-up of American forces in Europe is explicitly directed at Russia and since a few months ago an American general stated that they expected Russia to engage in “hybrid warfare” in the Baltic states and regard this as a “certainty” for which NATO has to prepare, an objective observer must ask whether the US itself intends to stage a series of provocations in the Baltic and blame them on Russia.

The Americans, British and Turks have created a series of provocations in the past weeks, accusing Russia of killing civilians in Syria, of violating Turkish, therefore NATO airspace, of murdering Russians abroad on the personal orders of President Putin, and as with other leaders they have attacked and murdered in the past, now accuse President Putin of corruption, a charge they levelled at President Milosevic when he was attacked and then finally arrested in Serbia.

This writer had the opportunity of meeting with Serbian officials who were in charge of the case against Milosevic at that time and I asked them if the corruption charges were true. They told me that they were completely false but that the Americans pushed them to charge Milosevic in order to undermine support for him in Serbia and as an excuse to hold him until they could kidnap him and take him in chains to their NATO tribunal in The Hague. They further told me that the Americans had threatened to bomb them again if they refused to cooperate.

The accusations made against President Putin are in line with this strategy of setting him up to be labelled in the west as a criminal with whom negotiations are impossible and therefore, setting the stage for sowing confusion amongst the Russian people about their own leaders, and undermining support for their government. But this is only one purpose and since the Russian people are very aware of how the game works, it is unlikely that this campaign of defamation against President Putin will have any success inside Russia. So, the primary objective is to demonise him in the eyes of the western public in order to justify further aggression against Russia and since these stories receive saturation coverage in the west, the NATO propagandists are succeeding.

It took nearly ten years for Operation Barbarossa to be set up and put into effect, from the time that Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany and began to discuss with the British and French his intentions of attacking the Soviet Union. The British and French were very content for the Nazis to do that and there is no doubt that the primary objective of Hitler was always the crushing of Russia. That the attack failed is one of the reasons the NATO leaders snubbed the Moscow Victory Parade last summer since they now identify themselves with the objectives of the defeated Nazi regime.

Some doubt that the NATO powers will actually attack Russia and risk a world war and point out that the forces being placed in eastern Europe are too weak to mount any attack. But they miss the point, which is that the build up is steady, and it is increasing, along with the propaganda and increased economic warfare. The Americans are really prepositioning resources, stores, equipment and headquarters and logistics bases that can be rapidly used to build up NATO forces at the right moment. The question is when that moment will be.

Unless the European powers can escape the American pressure and become independent states once again and unless a new regime dedicated to peace arises in the United States, neither of which look likely for the foreseeable future, it rests with us, the citizens of the world to get off our chairs and get on the streets and demand that these preparations for world war be stopped. For, unless that happens, the march to war by the Americans and their NATO lieutenants appears to be inexorable.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Syrian forces are continuing military operations against militants in the city of Aleppo, mainly focused on the districts of Bani Zaid and Layramoun. Bani Zaid is situated next to Aleppo’s most densely populated neighborhoods which conducts additional obstacles for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). This doesn’t allow the SAA to use the all its firepower.

Militants groups have reportedly formed a new coalition in order to oppose advances of the SAA.

This alliance is reportedly headed by Ahrar al Sham leader, Hashim al-Sheikh and includes such groups as Ahrar al Sham, Fastaqem, Sultan Murad Division, Suqur Jabal and Muntasir Brigade. This organization will reportedly spend most of its time attempting to stop the SAA advances in the city of Aleppo.

Pro-Western propagandists have already called this group a “major opposition alliance”. However, the ideology of included units clearly shows that this group is common terrorists.

The UNSC discussed the shelling of the hospitals and schools in Northern Syria on Feb.15 which left close to 50 people dead. However, the UNSC reached “no agreement” on this topic because of the so-called “different sources” of information on the incidents.

On Feb.15, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claimed that the hospital had been struck by a ballistic missile launched by a Russian warship deployed in the Caspian Sea. However, the Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement that Russia has no ships in the Caspian Sea fleet that could have hit the Syrian hospital in Idlib province with a ballistic missile.

The Russia’s Caspian Sea fleet is aimed on the regional security purpose and doesn’t have a capacity to destroy targets located in the area. All previous targets which have been hit by the fleet are located much closer to the Caspian region.

Experts believe Turkey backed by the Western media launched a full-scale propaganda campaign against the winning forces of the Syrian war to push the idea of establishing a ‘No Fly Zone’ in support of the terrorists in the country.

Donate to South Front! PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

El pasado sábado 30 de enero, los equipos forenses españoles encontraron los restos mortales requeridos por los familiares de un ciudadano español, Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá, fusilado en 1939 por las fuerzas franquistas aduciendo “auxilio a la rebelión” y enterrado con 22 cuerpos más (ver  nota  de Eldiario.es). En esa misma nota periodística leemos, por parte de la jurista Ana Messuti, abogada argentina que ayudo durante largos años a los descendientes de esta víctima del franquismo, en particular a su hija Ascensión Mendieta Ibarra, que: ” Este día es mucho más de lo que jamás pude prometer. Cuando Ascensión se presentó le dije lo único que no le puedo prometer es la exhumación. Era algo casi imposible, pero para Ascensión no hay nada imposible“. Cabe señalar que los equipos forenses españoles iniciaron los trabajos de exhumación el pasado 19 de enero del 2016 (ver nota de El País). A una semana de iniciada la exhumación, los expertos confirmaron que la fosa común excavada era bien la de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá (ver  nota  de ABC del 26 de enero del 2016). Imágenes de esta exhumación reunidas en este  enlace  permiten apreciar con mayor precisión los alcances de los trabajos realizados. Con estos hallazgos del último fin de semana del mes de enero del 2016, Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá se convierte en la primera víctima del franquismo en ser exhumada a solicitud de la justicia de Argentina ¿Cómo puede explicarse que la exhumación de una persona fusilada en 1939 en España (y cuyos restos mortales yacen con otros en una fosa ubicada en territorio español) deba ser tramitada ante un juzgado en Buenos Aires? Es lo que se intentará brevemente aclarar en las líneas que siguen.

Un Estado español ausente

El extenso movimiento de solidaridad expresado en estas últimas semanas desde diversas partes de España y desde varias latitudes a los familiares de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá encuentra su origen en el hecho siguiente: esta exhumación, a diferencias de muchas otras realizadas en España, es la primera que haya sido ordenada por la justicia. No la de España, sino la de Argentina. En efecto, debido a los obstáculos encontrados ante las autoridades estatales españolas y ante el mismo aparato judicial español (Nota 1), los familiares optaron en este caso por recurrir a la justicia de Argentina. La nieta de Doña Ascensión, Aitana Vargas escribió en este artículo reproducido en este enlace que: “Ni en su más remota imaginación habría podido soñar mi abuela con un recibimiento en tierras extranjeras como el que protagonizó. Arropada y escuchada por el Congreso de los Diputados de Buenos Aires, el Senado, y por las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, logró luego sobreponerse a una terca fiebre y a la vejez incómoda para declarar en el Juzgado de la magistrada Servini, que amablemente prestó sus oídos a la causa de mi abuela”.

Como es sabido, pese a incesantes reclamos de víctimas, familiares de víctimas, colectivos de abogados y ONG españolas, la falta de investigaciones y la impunidad campean en la materia en España (Nota 2). En un reciente estudio sobre las fosas colectivas españolas, desde la perspectiva historiográfica, se lee que se trata de: “tumbas colectivas que contienen los restos de aquellos que murieron víctimas de la represión. Un tipo de inhumación que representa una prueba irrefutable de la barbarie y que fue utilizado, por el bando franquista, como un instrumento pedagógico que extendió el miedo a la población. Una forma de castigo que principalmente perseguía el olvido, borrar a los vencidos de la faz de la tierra y ocultarlos para siempre del recuerdo” (Nota 3).

En noviembre del 2015, ante el hermetismo de las entidades públicas en España para investigar lo ocurrido, una asociación canaria de víctimas (denominada ACVF) presentó una denuncia con 1800 nombres, la cual se incorporará al expediente tramitado ante el Juzgado Nacional en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal número 1 de Buenos Aires, Argentina (ver  nota  de prensa).

Con relación a las víctimas del régimen franquista, en mayo del 2013, el Ejecutivo español solicitó suspender una videoconferencia acordada por la justicia argentina desde Buenos Aires con varias de ellas en España, aduciendo que para realizar este tipo de diligencias, su concurso era necesario: según las autoridades españolas, se debía aplicar “el tratado bilateral de extradición y asistencia judicial en materia penal de 3 de marzo de 1987, requiriendo, de acuerdo con lo previsto en los artículos 30 y 41, la solicitud debidamente cursada mediante comisión rogatoria dirigida al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, como Autoridad Central, tal y como ha sido el caso respecto a diligencias similares practicadas con anterioridad” (ver  nota  de El País). No se tiene seguridad que las “diligencias similares practicadas con anterioridad” refirieran a recabar los testimonios de víctimas del franquismo ante un juez argentino.

En donde en cambio hay una gran certeza es con relación a la ausencia del Estado español en las exhumaciones de fosas comunes: la primera exhumación de una víctima de la guerra civil en España fue realizada directamente por familiares, sin intervención judicial alguna (ni de ninguna autoridad estatal) en octubre del año 2000. Los restos encontrados de Emilio Silva Faba, fusilado en 1936, fueron confirmados por análisis de ADN de laboratorios en el 2003 (ver  nota  de El País del 2003). En aquel momento, el nieto de esta víctima del franquismo, Emilio Silva Barrera, quién fundó posteriormente la Asociación por la Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica (ARMH), señaló: “Sólo se cierra un ciclo personal, se abre el colectivo“.

Memoria histórica y gobiernos recientes

Desde su creación,  la ARMH (ver  sitio ) ha establecido una importante red en el territorio español para recabar información así como para proporcionar ayuda a los familiares de víctimas de la guerra civil y del franquismo. Se lee en su sitio que: “A raíz de fuerte repercusión mediática que tuvo la exhumación en Priaranza del Bierzo (León), cientos de cartas, llamadas y correos electrónicos llegaron a los responsables de los trabajos. En ese punto y dado el volumen de casos de asesinatos extrajudiciales y desapariciones llegados desde todo el país y siempre con el mismo patrón: secuestro-asesinato-desaparición. Se decide crear por primera vez en España una Asociación civil que canalice todos esos casos y que intente dar respuesta a unas preguntas que el estado español nunca ha dado”.

Esta primera exhumación en el año 2000 de una víctima fusilada en 1936 durante la guerra civil española se dio durante el segundo período del Gobierno de José María Aznar en España: a diferencia del primer período (1996-2000), para el segundo período (2000-2004), Aznar contó con una mayoría de escaños obtenidos en las elecciones de marzo del 2000. Difícilmente el Estado español acompañaría con algún tipo de reforma legislativa o con algún cambio de actitud por parte de sus autoridades, el clamor de las víctimas del franquismo.

Notemos que la recuperación de los restos mortales de ciudadanos españoles fallecidos no fue del todo ausente en la gestión de las autoridades españolas de la época: una antropóloga forense costarricense indica no obstante (en un artículo sobre su experiencia trabajando en las fosas comunes en España) que el interés de Aznar se centró en solamente algunos de ellos, al escribir que ”… no es ningún secreto que el Presidente Aznar y su Gobierno hizo posible la disposición de millones de pesetas disponibles para financiar la repatriación de los restos de aquellos que pertenecieron a la División Azul que pelearon en colaboración con los Nazis en la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y que al mismo tiempo se resistió enérgicamente para proveer fondos para las exhumaciones de las fosas Republicanas. Esta situación abocó a la insuficiencia de equipo e infraestructura para obtener resultados óptimos. Estas circunstancias, unidas al miedo y a la estigmatización existente en muchos de los Republicanos causa que el trabajo forense se dificulte para todos los involucrados” (Nota 4).

En el 2002, la precitada ARMH exigió al jefe del Ejecutivo español una declaración política de condena al franquismo y de ayuda para los familiares de las víctimas (ver  nota  de prensa de noviembre del 2002), sin mayor éxito. Años después, se oiría de este personaje de la política española que: “Tenemos que recuperar un espíritu de concordia y unidad perdido en gran medida (…) nacido en la transición española. Que eso no se hace removiendo tumbas ni removiendo huesos ni tirándose a la cabeza, se hace trabajando todos los días seriamente, pensando en el futuro del país” (ver nota de prensa sobre declaraciones recientes particularmente duras de alcaldes en España sobre las víctimas del franquismo, y video en Youtube que recoge las cuestionables declaraciones del susodicho personaje).

De manera que un lector poco familiarizado con exhumaciones de víctimas del franquismo pueda tener una descripción más completa de su alcance y de su significado, lo remitimos al informe detallado de una exhumación de ocho cuerpos realizada en la localidad de Olmedillo de Roa (Burgos) en el 2003, la cual concluye (ver   informe  ) que: “4. Todos las muertes puede calificarse de carácter violento homicida a juzgar por las heridas por arma de fuego localizadas en los cráneos. 5. Las evidencias recuperadas y el análisis de conjunto permiten una interpretación de los hechos que concuerda fielmente con las versiones previamente recogidas a través de testimonios”.

Familiares y abogados persistentes

Ante el hermetismo de las entidades públicas españolas, la perseverancia y la insistencia de los descendientes de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá llevaron a sus abogados a interponer una demanda en Argentina en el 2010. La jueza argentina María Servini de Cubría obtuvo de las autoridades judiciales de España, en aplicación del principio de jurisdicción universal, que sea exhumada esta fosa común ubicada en Guadalajara, ubicada a unos 50 kilómetros de Madrid.
La solicitud hecha en el 2014 por la jueza desde Argentina precisaba (ver  nota ) que: “Líbrese exhorto diplomático al Titular del Juzgado Territorial, que por razones de turno corresponda, con jurisdicción en Guadalajara (…) a fin de solicitarle arbitre los medios necesarios para que en presencia de quien suscribe se proceda a la exhumación del cuerpo sin vida que se encontraría inhumado en la fosa n° 2, ubicada en el patio n° 4 del cementerio de Guadalajara, ocupando el penúltimo lugar, comenzando de arriba hacia abajo, o segundo lugar de abajo hacia arriba, de diecisiete cuerpos que se hallarían apilados en forma vertical“. Se indica en este  sitio  sobre la memoria histórica en Guadalajara que el ayuntamiento español respondió al juez español a cargo de tramitar la solicitud argentina que: “El informe, fechado el 27 de junio de 2014 y remitido al Juzgado de Instrucción Número 1 de Guadalajara, explica que la fosa en la que fue enterrado Timoteo es una fosa común cuyo primer enterramiento data del 16 de noviembre de 1939 y el último el 9 de septiembre del mismo año. En la fosa se enterraron, según consta en el informe, 22 o 23 personas ejecutadas por el Juzgado Especial de Ejecuciones, según los distintos registros“. El documento elaborado por el ayuntamiento de Guadalajara y sus diversos anexos están disponibles en esta  nota .

Pese a la información muy detallada proveída por el ayuntamiento, la primera respuesta de la justicia española a la petición proveniente de Argentina fue negativa: en su escrito de enero del 2015, se alegó por parte de la jueza española incertidumbre sobre la localización exacta del cuerpo para ordenar una exhumación. Según se lee en esta nota de prensa, para la jueza española María Lourdes Platero “de la inspección ocular realizada y de las manifestaciones efectuadas no queda acreditado fehacientemente que en la fosa nº2 del patio 4 del Cementerio de Guadalajara se encuentre el cuerpo sin vida de D. Timoteo Mendieta”.

Una segunda solicitud enviada desde Argentina en marzo del 2015 logró finalmente que se procediera a la exhumación, iniciada en esta tercera semana del mes de enero del 2016. Resulta oportuno precisar que el inicio de esta exhumación ha contado con una inédita presencia de autoridades españolas esta vez: “En el cementerio de Guadalajara se hicieron presentes hoy un juez y un fiscal, algo poco habitual” se lee esta  nota  periodística de Telam (Argentina).

El pasado de España enterrado en fosas comunes

En su artículo precitado, la antropóloga forense costarricense (quién ha participado en exhumaciones en distintas partes del mundo, además de España), Roxana Ferllini Timms, concluye de su experiencia en tierras españolas que: “España constituye una excepción dentro del proceso de transición de justicia, ya que el paso a la democratización no buscó conciliar la violencia y abusos de los derechos humanos que ocurrieron durante la Guerra Civil y el régimen Franquista. La transición creó en 1977 el pacto del olvido, el cual fundamentalmente dio cabida al silencio, neutralizando toda temática concerniente a ese pasado, incluyendo la exclusión de dichos temas en cursos de historia española” (Nota 5). Otra antropóloga costarricense, Ariana Fernández Muñoz, con una vasta experiencia internacional, también ha participado en la exhumación de fosas españolas (ver  nota  publicada en La Nación).

En España, se estima a unos 150.000 los desaparecidos durante la guerra civil española. En la precitada  nota  de El País del año 2003, “Priaranza se convirtió en el primer pueblo de España donde, tras la recuperación de la democracia, se abría la tierra para sacar a los muertos republicanos de las cunetas y llevarlos a los cementerios”.

Según el mapa oficial de fosas comunes elaborado después de la adopción de la ley sobre la memoria histórica en el 2007, existen más de 2000 fosas comunes en el territorio español (ver mapa). En el año 2011, se adoptó un “Protocolo de actuación en exhumaciones de víctimas de la guerra civil y la dictadura” (ver  texto  publicado en el Boletín Oficial del Estado del 27 de septiembre del 2011). A enero del 2012, se lee que las exhumaciones de 278 fosas comunes en busca de víctimas de la guerra civil española entre  el 2000 y el 2011 se habían realizado directamente por parte de familiares y organizaciones de la sociedad civil, sin intervención judicial de ningún tipo (Nota 6). A diferencia de lo que ocurre en otras latitudes, existe un registro bastante preciso en los archivos de las autoridades españolas sobre el lugar exacto en los que están enterrados muchas de las víctimas del franquismo. En esta  nota  periodística relacionada con la fosa común de Guadalajara, se lee que “De entrada, los arqueólogos no entienden por qué una fosa tan grande. «Estamos trabajando a 2,80 metros de profundidad, sobre el cuerpo número 13. Si se cumple lo que señala el registro, hay 22 cuerpos, por lo que pasaremos de los 4 metros», cuenta René Pacheco, director de la exhumación. «Una fosa de estas dimensiones solo se explica desde la premeditación total de lo que iba a ocurrir en este lugar». En la misma zona hay otros 350 ejecutados. Y en el mismo camposanto una fosa común que alberga los restos de otros 800. Pero lo que cuesta entender es por qué el régimen dejó registrados los asesinatos. Hay cuatro libros en el archivo municipal que recogen pormenorizadamente los datos de todos los fusilados. «Estaba dentro de su legalidad, por eso está documentada toda la represión», aclara Pacheco. A lo que añade un dato clarificador: «los sepultureros cobraban por cada cuerpo que enterraban, por eso lo dejaban anotado», añade”.

Algunas consecuencias de principios adoptados en el plano internacional

Cabe recordar que la ley del 2007 sobre memoria histórica se aprobó en España a pocos años de la resolución  60/147  sobre “Principios y directrices básicos sobre el derecho de las víctimas de violaciones manifiestas de las normas internacionales de derechos humanos y de violaciones graves del derecho internacional humanitario a interponer recursos y obtener reparaciones” (adoptada en diciembre del 2005 por la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas,  ver  texto ). En el 2006, se adoptó además un instrumento vinculante: la Convención Internacional para la protección de todas las personas contra las desapariciones forzadas (aprobada por la Asamblea General en su resolución 61/177, de 20 de diciembre de 2006). Este instrumento internacional (que cuenta en la actualidad con un centenar de firmas y solo unas 50 ratificaciones) fue suscrito por España en septiembre del 2007 y ratificado en septiembre del 2009 (ver  estado oficial  de firmas y ratificaciones).

De la misma manera, el Protocolo antes mencionado sobre exhumaciones en España se dio a pocos años de la adopción de la resolución 12/12 aprobada en el 2009 por el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho a la verdad (ver  texto ): esta resolución encuentra su origen en una resolución adoptada por la Comisión de Derechos Humanos (Resolución 2005/66 “El derecho a la verdad”) adoptada en abril de 2005 en Ginebra, a iniciativa de Argentina.

Notemos que estos esfuerzos del Estado español fueron precedidos por iniciativas en algunas comunidades autónomas: por ejemplo,  Cataluña adoptó en junio del 2009  la  Ley 10/2009 “sobre la localización e identificación de las personas desaparecidas durante la Guerra Civil y la dictadura franquista, y la dignificación de las fosas comunes” (ver  texto ). En septiembre del 2009, fue la Junta de Andalucía la que adoptó la “Orden de 7 de septiembre de 2009, por la que se aprueba el Protocolo Andaluz de actuación en exhumaciones de víctimas de la Guerra Civil y la Posguerra” (ver  texto ). En septiembre del 2011, pocos días antes de que España adoptara un Protocolo, el País Vasco adoptó un “Protocolo de Actuación en materia de Exhumaciones en el País Vasco” (ver  nota  de prensa y texto del Protocolo en el Anexo I (pp. 22-28) de este  documento  oficial del Gobierno Vasco titulado “Plan Vasco 2015-20 de investigación y localización de fosas para la búsqueda e identificación de personas desaparecidas durante la Guerra Civil”).

La situación de las víctimas y sus familiares ante la justicia en España

Si bien existen algunos tímidos avances en materia legislativa en España (como la ley del 2007 y el protocolo del 2011), y regulaciones adoptadas por varias comunidades autónomas, las autoridades españolas y la misma justicia en España se han mostrado extremadamente reservadas con relación a investigar y a sancionar a los crímenes perpetrados durante la guerra civil española. Las interpretaciones restrictivas sobre el alcance de las cláusulas de los instrumentos internacionales aplicables a la materia han impedido que una simple solicitud de acceder a restos mortales por parte de familiares reciba algún tipo de respuesta. Expertos internacionales han puesto de manifiesto que la interpretación que se ha hecho en España de algunas leyes nacionales es sumamente cuestionable al impedir investigaciones: remitimos en particular a la entrevista al jurista Ariel Dulitsky (ver entrevista) en la que, a propósito de la ley española de amnistía adoptada en 1977, precisa que: “Otra interpretación posible sería la siguiente: para determinar si este hecho que yo tengo denunciado está cubierto o no por la Ley de Amnistía, primero debo investigarlo para saber quiénes fueron las víctimas y quiénes fueron los responsables y una vez hecha toda esta investigación es posible determinar si los hechos están cubiertos o no por la Ley de Amnistía. Pero, jamás debería impedirse la investigación desde un principio”.

En esta  nota  de prensa se puede leer la percepción que tiene de la justicia española la hija de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá, Ascensión Mendieta Ibarra, y que posiblemente comparten muchos familiares de víctimas españolas: “En España no ha habido justicia para las víctimas ni solidaridad, lo ha impedido la tan cacareada ley de amnistía, que en realidad a quien amnistió fue a los personajes que participaron en las atrocidades que se cometieron contra los ciudadanos de este país” /…/, y añade que las víctimas de la dictadura no tienen “un estatuto jurídico como sí otras víctimas, por ejemplo las del terrorismo, que me alegro mucho por ellas, pero hemos viajado muy solitos“.

En una de sus visitas a España en mayo del año 2014, la jueza argentina que investiga varios casos de víctimas del franquismo, y que ha optado por venir a oír personalmente sus testimonios en territorio español (ver  nota ) indicó: “Lo que se ve es el miedo y el terror de cada persona a declarar. A veces quieren omitir nombres o no dan detalles de las circunstancias en las que ocurrieron los hechos. Se emocionan, lloran. Lloran incluso los nietos que no han conocido a sus abuelos. Es duro, es difícil”.

En una  entrevista  del 2013, el juez que se puede considerar como el más conocido fuera de las fronteras españolas, Baltasar Garzón Real, declaró: “Me da mucha pena que tenga que ser en Argentina donde se investiguen estos crímenes porque España en su día paralizó el proceso, cuando me suspendió y con el auto posterior del Tribunal Supremo que cerraba todas las vías para las víctimas“.

El examen reciente ante Naciones Unidas

Ante el Comité sobre Desapariciones Forzadas de las Naciones Unidas (establecido mediante la precitada Convención Internacional para la protección de todas las personas contra las desapariciones forzadas), una coalición de ONG españolas detalló en años recientes (ver  nota ) el panorama actual en España: “Los datos son elocuentes: más de 150.000 desaparecidos, más de 30.000 niños robados, al día de hoy, y más de 2.232 fosas documentadas de las que sólo 390 han sido abiertas. Un dato que convierte a España en el segundo país en el mundo en número de fosas comunes. Y todo ello sin ningún procedimiento judicial abierto en demanda de verdad, justicia y reparación, y no por falta de voluntad de afectados, sean familiares o ciudadanos interesados en ello”.

En sus observaciones al informe oficial presentado por España al Comité de Naciones Unidas sobre Desapariciones Forzadas en diciembre del 2012, la fundación Baltasar Garzón hizo ver el error interpretativo de las autoridades españolas, al indicar que: “A este respecto, debe ponerse de manifiesto que España incurre en un grave error de interpretación cuando afirma que la fecha a partir de la cual debe informar al Comité, es la de entrada en vigor de la norma, es decir, el 23 de diciembre de 2010. El Estado español realiza una interpretación en detrimento de las decenas de miles de víctimas de desapariciones forzadas cometidas durante la guerra civil y el franquismo, en nuestro país. La interpretación que aporta, quebranta clamorosamente el principio internacional consolidado de no impunidad de este crimen, máxime cuando ha sido cometido en forma sistemática y contra sectores de la población civil y como parte de la política del Estado (crímenes contra la humanidad)” (ver   informe  de la Fundación Baltasar Garzón, p. 2).

En sus observaciones al informe presentado por España (ver  informe CED/C/ESP/CO/1, dado a conocer en diciembre del 2013), el Comité sobre Desapariciones Forzadas de Naciones Unidas le señaló a España que: “12. El Comité, teniendo en consideración el régimen de prescripción vigente en España en relación con los delitos de carácter permanente, insta al Estado parte a que vele por que los plazos de prescripción se cuenten efectivamente a partir del momento en que cesa la desaparición forzada, es decir, desde que la persona aparece con vida, se encuentran sus restos o se restituye su identidad. Asimismo, lo exhorta a que asegure que todas las desapariciones forzadas sean investigadas de manera exhaustiva e imparcial, independientemente del tiempo transcurrido desde el inicio de las mismas y aun cuando no se haya presentado ninguna denuncia formal; que se adopten las medidas necesarias, legislativas o judiciales, con miras a superar los obstáculos jurídicos de orden interno que puedan impedir tales investigaciones, en particular la interpretación que se ha dado a la ley de amnistía”.

En noviembre del 2013, los integrantes de otro mecanismo de Naciones Unidas, el Grupo de Trabajo sobre las Desapariciones Forzadas o Involuntarias, luego de realizar una misión a España (ver  informe ) concluyeron, entre otros,  que: “Adicionalmente, no se ha tenido en cuenta que el carácter de delito de lesa humanidad de las desapariciones cometidas durante la Guerra Civil y la dictadura. Esta interpretación es contraria a las obligaciones internacionales de España y se recomienda su modificación. El Grupo de Trabajo insta al Estado español a juzgar las desapariciones forzadas a la luz de estas obligaciones internacionales y a establecer legislativamente la imprescriptibilidad de las desapariciones forzadas o la determinación de que la prescripción solo puede comenzar a computarse a partir del cese de la desaparición forzada”.

En otro informe sobre España del año 2014, (ver documento A/HRC/27/3/Add.1, disponible  aquí ), el Relator Especial de Naciones Unidas sobre la promoción de la verdad, la justicia, la reparación y las garantías de no repetición, consideró en sus conclusiones (punto 102) que: “El Relator Especial nota que varios representantes del Gobierno en las reuniones que mantuvieron enmarcaron las discusiones en el siguiente esquema: “o todos concluimos que ya estamos totalmente reconciliados o la única alternativa es el resurgir de odios subyacentes, lo cual implicaría un riesgo demasiado alto”. En opinión del Relator Especial, esta posición no le hace justicia a los avances logrados durante el proceso de democratización en España. Recalca que, considerando la fortaleza de las instituciones y la ausencia de riesgos para la estabilidad del orden democrático, resulta especialmente sorprendente observar que no se haya hecho más en favor de los derechos de tantas víctimas”. En el párrafo 99 de su informe, se precisa por parte del experto de Naciones Unidas que: “El Relator Especial alienta al Estado a retomar cuanto antes este análisis y reitera su disposición para acompañar este proceso en el marco de su mandato. Recalca que estudios comparados de otras experiencias de países que han enfrentado retos similares, incluyendo en el contexto europeo, como Alemania, pueden resultar sumamente provechosos”.

En marzo del 2015, a raíz de una decisión de España de no extraditar a 17 ciudadanos españoles acusados por la justicia argentina de ser responsables de violaciones de los derechos humanos cometidas durante el régimen franquista, un grupo de expertos de Naciones Unidas denunció nuevamente a España. Externaron, en una carta pública, que las autoridades españolas tienen la obligación de extraditar a estas personas, mientras no se tomen medidas en España para garantizar el acceso a la justicia y el derecho a la verdad de las víctimas ante las instancias legales españolas. En este  comunicado de prensa  de Naciones Unidas, se precisa, por parte de los expertos internacionales que: “La denegación de la extradición deja en profundo desamparo a las víctimas y a sus familiares, negando su derecho a la justicia y a la verdad”.

Un breve balance

Como se puede apreciar, son muchos y muy variados los señalamientos hechos al Estado español por parte de organismos de la sociedad civil y asociaciones de familiares de víctimas en España; en el 2008, a raíz de una maniobra de la justicia para inhibirse de conocer la causa de las víctimas del franquismo planteadas ante los juzgados españoles (Nota 7), Amnistía Internacional circuló un  comunicado  denominado “Para pasar página, primero hay que leerla“, reuniendo la firmas de diversos  especialistas y juristas españoles así como de América Latina. En el  texto  se puede leer que “España tiene el deber  de poner fin a la prolongada injusticia de la que han sido objeto las víctimas de desaparición forzada y otros crímenes y sus familiares, llevando a cabo las investigaciones  necesarias para dar con el paradero de los restos de estas personas, y esclarecer las circunstancias en que tan graves abusos se produjeron”. Los firmantes expresaron también que: “Los que suscriben el presente manifiesto ya observaron, con motivo de la aprobación de la Ley 52/2007, por la que se reconocen y amplían derechos y se establecen medidas a favor de quienes padecieron persecución o violencia durante la guerra civil y la dictadura, que en ella no quedaban plasmados los estándares internacionales fijados en materia de desapariciones, exhumaciones y recuperación de cuerpos”. Finalmente, nos parece oportuno precisar que, en esta misiva colectiva, los firmantes expresaron sin ninguna contemplación para el Estado y de forma vehemente, la peculiaridad de la situación en España, al señalar (con relación a las exhumaciones y a la recuperación de restos mortales) que: “No existe antecedente alguno en que un Estado haya trasladado a las familias de las víctimas las tareas, costos y responsabilidades de dichas acciones”.   

Como lo hemos brevemente reseñado, en los últimos años, los señalamientos sobre los incumplimientos por parte de España han también provenido de expertos y de entidades de Naciones Unidas internacionales encargadas de velar por el debido cumplimiento de las obligaciones contraídas por el Estado español.

A diferencia de los procesos realizados en América Latina sobre graves violaciones de los derechos humanos ocurridas en el pasado, que han dado lugar a una variada experiencia en el plano nacional y a una extensa jurisprudencia elaborada por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (desde sus primeros fallos contra Honduras en los años 80) (Nota 8), el Estado español se ha mostrado extremadamente reacio a replicar algunas de estas experiencias. Para las víctimas y sus familiares, el sistema judicial español no tiene cómo implementar y desarrollar figuras jurídicas tales como el derecho a la verdad, la obligación de investigar y de sancionar a responsables de cometer graves violaciones ocurridas en el pasado, o garantizar a los familiares de las víctimas el denominado derecho al duelo o derecho al luto (Nota 9).

En este  artículo  de Página12 (Argentina) sobre el caso de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá, las lágrimas que brotaron en los ojos de Ascensión Mendieta Ibarra, al momento de ser informada del tan anhelado “sí” de la justicia española para poder finalmente proceder a la exhumación de los restos de su padre, ilustran el dolor lancinante de muchos familiares en España: “– ¿Por qué llorás? –preguntó la abogada argentina. –Lloro porque pienso en él; toda la vida bajo tierra –respondió. En opinión de la letrada, esa expresión revela el sufrimiento del familiar de un desaparecido, al que no ha visto morir ni sabe dónde está. “Para el familiar, el desaparecido no está muerto hasta que ve sus restos”.

Ante esta permanente y apremiante incertidumbre con la que convive diariamente un familiar en estos casos, y ante la ausencia de respuestas a las solicitudes de exhumar las fosas comunes españolas, el tiempo ha transcurrido sin que la justicia española logre superar las resistencias que se mantienen desde su interior. Desde el 2010, (ver, entre muchas otras, esta nota  de El País) se advirtió que los “tiempos” del único juez español interesado en investigar los crímenes del franquismo estaban siendo “manejados” por el Tribunal Supremo. Ello culminó efectivamente con la separación del juez Baltasar Garzón Real de la judicatura española el 10 de febrero del 2012 (ver sobre el particular esta otra  nota  de El País). Menos sutil, el rechazo (sin mayor sustento) a la primera solicitud de la jueza argentina del 2014 evidencia el profundo temor del aparato judicial español. No obstante, algunas acciones esporádicas intentan romper el cerco impuesto por la justicia española: en marzo del 2015, se leyó en El País (ver nota) que en la localidad de Soria, “… con un auto del pasado 17 de marzo, la titular del juzgado de instrucción 1 de Almazán acaba de iniciar, 78 años después, una investigación por aquellos asesinatos”. En esta misma nota de prensa se lee el drama vivido por un niño que vio algo en 1936 (y que posiblemente lo haya perseguido durante toda su existencia como adulto): “Casi una vida después, en julio de 2013, Matías Bonilla, que tenía 9 años aquel 14 de agosto de 1936, señaló a antropólogos forenses el lugar donde habían sido enterrados”.

Más allá del plano estrictamente jurídico, la sociedad española sigue manteniendo una histórica deuda consigo misma y con todas las víctimas del franquismo que exigen que se haga justicia. Sobre las razones dadas para aplazar una y otra vez el debate en España sobre este delicado tema, una reciente publicación del Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad de Deusto, explica sobre este punto preciso que: «[d]urante la guerra civil y la dictadura, no era el momento para que los familiares de desaparecidos reclamaran saber dónde estaban ni tampoco justicia, pues su seguridad e integridad estaba en peligro. Durante el proceso de transición de la dictadura a la democracia, tampoco fue el momento de tratar y solucionar el problema de los desaparecidos. Han pasado casi treinta años desde la transición, y ya es hora de que estos familiares, como víctimas también de violaciones de derechos humanos, tengan “su” momento» (Nota 10).

Esta misma publicación finaliza con una frase poco esperanzadora para las víctimas españolas y para sus familiares: “A fecha de hoy ya han pasado más de esos treinta años, y en lo que respecta a la inmensa mayoría de los tribunales de justicia en España, todo indica que «su momento» ni ha llegado aún, ni probablemente llegará”. Era sin contar con la perseverancia de los descendientes de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá.

Conclusión

La exhumación del cuerpo de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá permite a sus familiares, en particular a su hija Ascensión, una incansable mujer de 90 años, acceder a sus restos mortales: desde sus 13 años, edad que tenía cuando su padre fue fusilado, anhelo toda su vida el momento vivido este sábado 30 de enero del 2016. Se lee en esta nota de prensa del pasado 21 de enero que: “A mi padre lo enterraron de los primeros, debe estar al final de todo… Ahora lo voy a tener conmigo. Me voy tranquila, feliz”. Por parte de uno de los nietos de esta víctima fusilada en 1939, Francisco Vargas Mendieta, podemos percibir la misma sensación: “Estamos muy felices y contentos. Ahora misma es como si estuviéramos de luto por la muerte de un familiar y nuestro deseo ahora es poder enterrar a mi abuelo donde queramos no donde eligieron sus verdugos.” (ver  nota ).

La tenacidad de Doña Ascensión viene ahora a interpelar ante los ojos de España y del mundo el sistema judicial español y a poner a prueba a sus autoridades: en particular de cara a las obligaciones internacionales contraídas por España en varios instrumentos internacionales y a las interpretaciones hechas por el juez internacional de varias de sus cláusulas.

La exhumación del cuerpo de Timoteo Mendieta Alcalá bien podría convertirse en un emblemático precedente para muchas otras víctimas de la guerra civil española y para sus familiares. También podría contribuir a relanzar el debate en el seno de la sociedad española sobre la pesada deuda que mantiene con su pasado.

Nicolás Boeglin

Notas

Nota 1: Remitimos al lector al artículo siguiente: LÓPEZ LÓPEZ P., “Los crímenes del franquismo y el derecho internacional”, Vol. 20, Revista Derecho y Realidad (2013), pp. 279-318. Artículo disponible  aquí .

Nota 2: Véase la obra siguiente sobre el particular: CABRERA MARTÍN M., La impunidad de los crímenes cometidos durante el franquismo. Obligaciones del Estado español bajo el derecho internacional, Asociación Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos (AEDIDH), 2014. Texto integral de esta obra disponible  aquí .

Nota 3: Véase GIMÉNEZ PORCEL J., “Las fosas comunes de la guerra civil: análisis historiográfico”, Universidad de Barcelona (UB). Facultad de Geografía e Historia, 2013, p. 30. Texto del artículo disponible aquí.

Nota 4: Véase FERLLINI TIMMS R., “Experiencias en antropología forense: perspectivas de una voluntaria extranjera”, Número 18, Boletín Galego de Medicina Legal e Forense (Enero 2012), pp. 69-78, p. 71.  Artículo disponible  aquí .

Nota 5: Véase FERLLINI TIMMS R., op. cit.,  p. 76. ( texto del artículo disponible  aquí ). Sobre su experiencia como perito internacional, remitimos a esta  entrevista  realizada en la Revista Cultural Mito a esta profesional de Costa Rica. Con relación a las dificultades encontradas para desarrollar la antropología forense en Costa Rica, remitimos a esta  entrevista  a Roxana Ferllini Timms publicada por La Nación (Costa Rica) en 2013.

Nota 6: En un artículo publicado en España en el año 2012 se lee que:”… es bien sabido que las exhumaciones de la Guerra Civil en España no están siendo realizadas bajo la tutela judicial a excepción de algunos casos puntuales que han sido investigados desde los respectivos juzgados de instrucción…”: véase ETXEBERRIA GABILONDO F., “Exhumaciones contemporáneas en España: las fosas comunes de la guerra civil”, Número 18,  Boletín Galego de Medicina Legal e Forense (enero 2012), pp. 13-28, p. 19. Artículo disponible  aquí . Los gráficos incluidos (pp.14-15) por el autor permiten tener una idea del número de cuerpos encontrados y la repartición geográfica de los trabajos de exhumación en España realizados entre el 2000 y el 2011.

Nota 7: Sobre este episodio de la justicia española, leemos que. “El fiscal jefe de la Audiencia Nacional se opuso a la apertura de la causa por entender que se trataba de delitos comunes ya prescritos. El pleno de la Sala de lo Penal del tribunal decidió, en una reunión convocada con una insólita urgencia, paralizar las exhumaciones ordenadas por Garzón, quien poco después, en noviembre de 2008, se inhibía a favor de 62 juzgados territoriales donde estaban las fosas” (ver  nota  de El Pais del 2009 titulada “El tiempo se acaba para las víctimas de Franco”).

Nota 8: Con relación a los Estados del hemisferio americano pesan estas y muchas más obligaciones, tal y como lo señaló la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en un  informe  del 2014 titulado “Derecho a la verdad en América” (sus conclusiones en páginas 115-117 precisan los desafíos existentes en la región en cuanto a su debida implementación). En un reciente artículo en el que se analiza el caso de las negociaciones de paz en Colombia, se concluye por parte del autor que: “El caso colombiano es ilustrativo de la posición prudente que asume la Corte Interamericana frente a contextos de justicia transicional. Sin embargo, es en el marco de ese caso particular donde serán desarrollados los futuros debates sobre la compatibilidad de las medidas y mecanismos implementados para la terminación negociada de un conflicto armado interno con las obligaciones estatales emanadas del derecho internacional”: véase GUTIÉRREZ RAMÍREZ L.M., “La obligación internacional de investigar, juzgar y sancionar graves violaciones a los derechos humanos en contextos de justicia transicional”, Vol. 16, Estudios Socio-Jurídicos (2014), pp.23-60, en  pp.53-54. Artículo disponible aquí.

Nota 9: En un caso contra Bolivia (caso de detención, tortura y desaparición forzada de José Carlos Trujillo Oroza),  la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos indicó en el 2002 en su sentencia sobre reparaciones que: “115. En este sentido la Corte considera que la entrega de los restos mortales en casos de detenidos-desaparecidos es un acto de justicia y reparación en sí mismo. Es un acto de justicia saber el paradero del desaparecido, y es una forma de reparación porque permite dignificar a las víctimas, ya que los restos mortales de una persona merecen ser tratados con respeto para con sus deudos y con el fin de que éstos puedan darle una adecuada sepultura” (ver  texto  de la sentencia del 27 de febrero del 2002, Caso Trujillo Oroza Vs. Bolivia).

Nota 10: Véase CHINCHÓN ÁLVAREZ J., El tratamiento judicial de los crímenes de la Guerra Civil y el franquismo en España. Una visión de conjunto desde el Derecho internacional, Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao, Número 67, Cuadernos Deusto de Derechos Humanos (2012), p. 142.  Texto integral disponible aquí.

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

Turkish cross-border shelling of Kurdish PYD forces and civilian areas in northern Syria continued for the fifth day, showing no signs of stopping.

An unnamed Ankara official said “(w)e want a ground operation. If there is consensus, Turkey will take part.” 

“Without a ground operation, it is impossible to stop this war” – code language for Russian air power and Syrian troops turning the tide of battle, perhaps decisively, Washington and its rogue partners desperate to change things in their favor, unable to so far.

Neither Turkey or Saudi Arabia intend launching ground and/or air operations without US permission, an American proxy force if unleashed, a reckless act, upping the stakes hugely, risking war with Russia.

Its forces will challenge any threat to their security, authorized by Moscow, local commanders given discretion to act on their own. Make no mistake. They won’t hesitate.

According to Turkish deputy prime minister Yalcin Akdogan, Ankara want to annex a 10 km “secure strip” inside Syrian territory, further aggression if attempted, on the phony pretext of creating an area “free from clashes.”

Government ground forces, likely supported by Russian air power, will contest any lawless Turkish attempt to seize Syrian territory, a potential flashpoint, risking dangerously escalated war.

On Tuesday, Security Council members met in closed-door session, requested by Russia, current SC president Venezuelan envoy Rafael Ramirez, saying:

SC “members are concerned with the Turkish attacks on a number of Syrian regions. (They) agreed to ask Turkey to comply with international law” – a hollow gesture without teeth.

US veto power blocks responsible action, including holding Washington fully responsible for waging war on Syria, using ISIS and other terrorist groups as proxy foot soldiers.

Following the closed-door session, Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari minced no words, saying:

“Turkey (is) push(ing) all sides to escalate (conflict) in Syria.” Its “hostile acts (got some of its allies) to express concern.”

He explained “the complicity of Turkey with Qatar and Saudi Arabia (along with Washington and other rogue partners) against Syria and its allies.”

These “terrorism-supporting countries are suffering from hysteri(a) due to the Syrian army’s progress on all fronts” – effectively smashing ISIS and and other terrorist fighters.

Addressing followers in Beirut on Tuesday, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah highlighted the steadfastness of Syrian forces to defend their national sovereignty against US/Turkish/Saudi/Israeli-supported foreign terrorist invaders, saying:

“Syria will remain for its people who will determine their destiny and decide Syria’s future, constitution and leadership, and it will remain the pole of the resistance tent in the region.”

“The project of Turkey to establish Ottoman Empire has failed, and the Saudi project failed too in Syria as it reaped only disappointment.”

“Turkish and Saudi (threatened ground invasion) came after the failure of the terrorists” they support.

Israel “considers the developments in the region a golden opportunity to present itself as a friend” to Arab nations it otherwise considers longtime enemies.

It’s allied with despotic Arab regimes “to hinder any settlement of the crisis in Syria.” Their complicity with Washington may unleash regional war.

Nasrallah reaffirmed his support for Syria, its people and national sovereignty. Obama opposes peace, stability and fundamental freedoms worldwide.

America’s rage for global dominance is humanity’s greatest threat.

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. 

Why Aren’t Public Health Organizations Like CIDRAP Warning Pregnant Women to Abstain from Aluminum or Mercury-containing Vaccines?

Image: Hector Pieterson being carried by Mbuyisa Makhubo after being shot by South African police. His sister, Antoinette Sithole, runs beside them.

South Africa’s apartheid system will always be known for the tragic example of the institutionalized racism that it was as well as for all of the horrific acts of oppression, violence and dehumanization it produced. Much of what took place under the system will never be revealed as both its victims and perpetrators have taken the information to their graves. However, what is known already is more than enough to prove that such a system must never be instituted again.

A number of years after the end of the apartheid system in South Africa, a Truth and Reconciliation Committee was established to reveal the wrongs that had been committed against the people of South Africa and to begin the process of healing and reconciliation between the parties. Yet even during the process of “uncovering” many of the atrocities committed against black South Africans some of that information has been largely ignored throughout the decades after the system ended; most notably, a system of attempted genocide of black South Africans by means of a national vaccine program.

Some of that information came to light in January 1997 when Wouter Basson was finally arrested by South African authorities. A cardiologist by trade Basson was also the head of Project Coast, South Africa’s secret chemical and biological warfare program.When searching his car, hundreds of secret documents were found that revealed the program’s covert operations including connections, contacts, and murder weapons.

As Jerome Amir Singh wrote in his article for Endeavor, entitled “Project Coast: Eugenics in Apartheid South Africa,”

The following year, with Basson and others giving evidence before the country’s landmark Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the details of Project Coast began to emerge: poisoned umbrellas, screwdrivers and secret stockpiles of lethal bacteria, chemicals and drugs had been produced and weaponized for use against enemies of the apartheid government [2]. Far less attention has been paid to allegations of a eugenic thrust to the program.

During the course of the Truth and Reconciliation hearings, a number of shocking allegation were made regarding the eugenic-based agenda of the South African authorities connected to Project Coast. A number of these claims were made by Dr. Adriaan Goosen, founder of the front company Roodeplaat Research Laboratory, a front company for the project.

According to Goosen, research at RRL was focused on developing a “bacterial agent that would selectively kill black people.” Goosen stated that the project and the program had been described by South Africa’s then Surgeon General, Dr. Neil Knoble, as “the most important project for the country.”

Goosen himself had plenty of faith in the ability to create this type of weapon. In fact, he even claimed that an unknown European scientist had already developed a strain of bacteria capable of “only affecting, making sick, and killing pigmented people” as far back as the early 1980s.

“Under oath, Goosen went on to state that the government could have used such a weapon as a ‘negotiation back-up’ (to stay in power) and to ‘maintain peace’ (between local whites and blacks),” writes Singh.

Goosen claimed that the plans to connect with the European scientist were eventually abandoned for security reasons, but that South African scientists continued to work on the project. Goosen also stated that Project Coast was far down the road in creating an anti-fertility weapon that would be used to selectively target the black majority.

The delivery mechanism?

A vaccine.

Goosen staetd that one of the most important aspects of the anti-fertility vaccine was that it would not be detectable and even if it was detected it would not be able to be traced back to “clandestine application.” Goosen stated he was convinced that the production of this type of drug was “definitely possible” after an extensive literature search.

Goosen was backed up in his claims by another Project Coast scientist, Dr. Schalk van Rensburg, who confirmed that the development of an anti-fertility vaccine was indeed a major goal of the program and even made up 18% of all RRL projects. Goosen fingered Basson as the leader and creator of the eugenics-based CBW program.

Basson of course argued that this type of vaccine should be designed to prevent the pregnancy of female soldiers and to keep down the population in refugee camps. But van Rensburg revealed otherwise and confirmed what Goosen claims in terms of the real targets of the vaccine.

Singh writes,

Although van Rensburg testified that Blacks were physiologically, biochemically and endocrinologically identical to Whites so it would not be possible to develop a vaccine that worked on one ethnic group and not the other [25], it might be possible to skew the delivery of the vaccine along racial lines. He further testified that while he had warned that such a vaccine could not be racially based, covertly administered and would be reversible, Basson had insisted the laboratory proceed with the research [26].

More specifically, it appears that the Project Coast anti-fertility vaccine was directed largely at women, although some suggestions were that the vaccine would work better in men.

Singh writes,

There also seems to have been a discussion about the most appropriate strategy for such a vaccine. Since there were certain antigens found only on sperm, it would be easier to make males sterile, argued van Rensburg [27]. Basson, however, was keener to develop a female infertility vaccine, he told the commission.

The TRC also heard from Dr Jan Lourens, the head of Protechnik (another Project Coast front organization), who testified that before starting the company, he had designed equipment for animal experiments taking place at RRL. These included a ‘restraint chair’ into which baboons were strapped for experiments, a transparent ‘gas chamber’ into which the chair and baboon were fitted for tests and a ‘stimulator and extractor’ to obtain semen from baboons [22]. Lourens named Dr Riana Borman as the scientist in charge of the baboon experiments ‘to control virility and fertility’ with a view to reducing the birth rate among Blacks [22].

For his part, Basson denied working on any such project. Even more so, Basson denied that any such science existed and was even possible. Still, after having researched the program in depth, Singh comes to a different conclusion which tends to back up the claims made by Goosen and van Rensburg.

As Singh writes,

While Basson may have been technically correct in dismissing the scientific and technical validity of successfully pursuing an ‘infertility vaccine’ the testimony of Goosen, van Rensburg and Lourens strongly suggests that malevolent and potentially genocidal motives were behind some of Project Coast’s operations.

Basson’s statement that such science is not possible is in fact quite laughable. Published studies reveal even in the late 1980s that successful anti-fertility vaccines were being developed. What is also laughable if it were not so tragic is the fact that anyone who suggested that the South African government was developing such a thing as an anti-fertility vaccine to target the general population would have been dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Singh’s article, however, and the testimony of the South African scientists reveal that not only was it possible but that it actually existed. For that reason, one must ask why we are to believe that we are currently outside of history and why such a program with all the technological developments that have occurred since the early 1980s and world governments’ increased focus on population reduction – particularly in the Third World – that such a program does not exist currently.

Remember, it was not so far back in history that the now infamous think-tank, Project for a New American Century stated that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes, may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” (source)

One can also not forget the number of reports coming out of places like Africa and the Third World detailing mass sterilizations at the hands of vaccines. No doubt, the victims, and those reporting on the sterilizations are labeled paranoid conspiracy theorists with an extra insult of anti-science thrown in for the mix. Yet the proverbial egg is on the proverbial faces of those who mock and ignore claims of covert sterilization programs and population reduction initiatives, particularly in the Third World. A detailed study of what is currently happening in Africa and much of the rest of the third world (as well as the first) is not possible in this article. But if skeptics are looking for capability, they need look no further than Singh’s article and the testimony of Goosen and Van Rensburg. If they are looking for motive, they can look in the same place. If precedent is what they are seeking, Singh’s article has that, too. If evidence for a program currently under way is what they are searching for then the evidence is at their fingertips.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

It’s that time again — time for the pandemic outbreak propaganda machine to cry “Wolf!” and justify the mass use of vaccines and the necessity for chemical remediation. The World Health Organization (WHO) has already declaredanother global public health emergency.1 We’ve seen a string of these over-hyped virus scares over the past six years, from the bird and swine flu to Ebola — all of which died down as suddenly as they emerged, without causing the predicted widespread catastrophic damage in the real world. This year, it’s the Zika virus, which is being blamed for a rash of reports of microcephaly2,3 among infants born in Brazil. The condition, in which babies are born with unusually small heads, is said to have surged from an average of about 150 cases annually to more than 4,780 cases since October 2015.

Microcephaly Cases Vastly Over-Reported

The Brazilian government has already admitted that overly generous parameters resulted in dramatic over-reporting of the rare condition public health officials have associated with the Zika virus, which has been dubbed by the media as the “shrunken head” virus. To be on the safe side, when Zika-affected areas began seeing a rise in microcephaly, the Brazilian government asked health officials to report any case in which a child was born with a head circumference smaller than 33 centimeters. False positives were expected, and when they realized that most of these babies were in fact healthy and normal, the threshold was lowered to 32 centimeters in December. The limit may be lowered even further, to 31.9 centimeters for boys and 31.5 centimeters for girls. As reported by The New York Times:4

Of the cases examined so far, 404 have been confirmed as having microcephaly. Only 17 of them tested positive for the Zika virus… Another 709 babies have been ruled out as having microcephaly … underscoring the risks of false positives making the epidemic appear larger than it actually is. The remaining 3,670 cases are still being investigated. [Emphasis mine]

.

As noted by The New York Times, there’s actually very little scientific evidence tying the Zika virus to this particular condition. Still, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus a global health emergency5 on February 1, noting that the “main worry” is the virus’ potential link to microcephaly and subsequent brain damage. According to WHO, the Zika virus may have infected as many as 4 million people in the Americas, and public health officials in Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador are reportedly all researching the effects of Zika infection in pregnant women.

Poverty, Pollution, and Vitamin Deficiencies May Affect Microcephaly Rates in Brazil

The Zika virus was initially identified in 1947 in Uganda, where it was originally limited to rhesus monkeys. It’s an arbovirus, meaning the disease is transmitted via mosquito, tick or flea bites. According to ATCC,6 a “global biological materials resource…organization whose mission focuses on the acquisition, authentication, production, preservation, development, and distribution of standard reference microorganisms,” the Zika virus7 — which they sell for about $500 — causes paralysis and death.

In humans, Zika infection typically causes only mild flu-like symptoms, if any, and there does not appear to be any prior evidence suggesting it might cause birth defects. That certainly doesn’t exclude the possibility, of course, but there are many other factors and co-factors that offer a far more likely and rational explanation for the rise in microcephaly in this area of Brazil, besides Zika-carrying mosquitoes. For starters, the “outbreak” is occurring in a largely poverty-stricken agricultural area of Brazil that uses large amounts of banned pesticides.8,9,10

Between these factors and the lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency, you already have the basic framework for an increase in poor health outcomes among newborn infants in that area.11 Environmental pollution12,13 and toxic pesticide exposure have been positively linked to a wide array of adverse health effects, including birth defects. When you add all these co-factors together, an increase in microcephaly doesn’t seem like such a far-fetched outcome.

Vitamin A Deficiency Linked to Microcephaly

Vitamin A and zinc deficiency is considered endemic in Brazil,14,15,16 and both of these nutritional deficiencies are known to depress immune function.17,18,19 More importantly, vitamin A deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of microcephaly specifically,20,21 and zinc is known to play an important role in the structure and function of the brain.22 Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists malnutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals as two of the three known risk factors. The third is certain infections during pregnancy, including rubella, cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, and others.23 Researchers24 have also noted that microcephaly follows “an apparent autosomal recessive pattern,” and may be the result of a recessed gene.

Atrazine Also Implicated in Microcephaly

The pesticide Atrazine also appears to be a viable culprit. According to research25 published in 2011, small head circumference was listed as a side effect of prenatal Atrazine exposure. Atrazine is used to prevent pre- and post-emergence weeds and is the second most commonly used herbicide after Roundup. As noted by Sott.net:26

The most obvious cause of birth defects in this area is direct contact and absorption of pesticides. A study of pesticide use on tomatoes27 in the Northern State of Pernambuco, Brazil, indicates high exposure to pesticide workers and poor application methods which threaten the ecology of the area. Women washed the pesticide application equipment, generally in the work environment, without protective clothing or without observing the recommended three-fold washing process … Of the women workers, 32% reported being pregnant more than five times … Almost three-quarters of the women (71%) reported miscarriages, and 11% reported having mentally and/or physically impaired offspring.

Why Is Brazil Overlooking Teratogenic Larvicide Added to Drinking Water in Affected Area?

A report28,29 by an Argentine physician’s organization called “Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns” also challenges the theory that Zika virus is responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil. They note that for the past 18 months, a chemical larvicide that causes malformations in mosquitoes (pyroproxyfen) has been applied to the drinking water in the affected area of Brazil. Pyroproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, long-term strategic partners of Monsanto, and has been used in a state-controlled program to eradicate mosquitoes. This chemical inhibits growth in mosquito larvae, thereby producing malformations that disable and/or kill the mosquitoes. According to “Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns,” it’s also an endocrine disruptor and teratogenic, meaning it causes birth defects. The organization also points out that Zika virus has never been associated with birth defects previously, even in areas where 75 percent of the population has been infected. According to the report:

Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added Pyroproxyfen to drinking water are not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on the Zika virus for this damage.

Aerial Spraying of Neonicotinoids Also Causes Skeletal Malformations

The list of pesticides that have the potential to disrupt fetal development is long. Yet another suspect is Imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid. In October 2012—around the same time that these women would have been getting pregnant–Brazil lifted its ban on aerial spraying of neonicotinoids. In30 2001, it was reported that Imidacloprid fed to pregnant rats and rabbits in “maternally toxic” doses caused skeletal malformation in a small percentage of fetuses.31,32 In December 2013, the U.K. Daily Mail33 also reported that neonicotinoids were suspected of causing developmental problems in babies and children. Another 2013 study34 showed adverse events with embryo development and neonicotinoids. Perhaps it’s not any single one of these pesticides that is to blame. Perhaps the rise in microcephaly cases is the result of exposure to a terrible mixture of toxic pesticides before or during pregnancy?

Mandatory Vaccination Program of Pregnant Women Took Effect 2015

Also, in October 2014 the Brazilian government mandated that all pregnant women must receive the pertussis-containing Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis) vaccine, effective as of 2015.35 The fact that birth defects began rising toward the end of 2015 seems more suspicious in light of this mandate than the possibility that Zika infection is solely responsible — especially when you consider that pertussis vaccine has previously been linked to brain inflammation and brain damage in infants, and the safety of administering Tdap to pregnant women has never been proven.36 In the summer of 2015, Dr. Kathryn Edwards, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program, received a $307,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to study the immune responses of pregnant women receiving Tdap, the vaccine in question.37 Her conclusions remain to be seen. But a number of previous studies have demonstrated that stimulating the immune system of a pregnant woman is a very bad idea. So why mandate Tdap vaccine but not vitamin A and zinc supplementation for pregnant women? Studies showing adverse health effects from maternal immune activation include but are not limited to the following samples:

Are Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes Linked to Zika Infection?

Interestingly enough, the Gates Foundation has also financed the development of genetically-engineered (GE) mosquitoes,44designed by a biotech company called Oxitec to combat dengue fever and Zika — a project some suspect may have somehow backfired, resulting in a Zika outbreak instead.45 Considering the fact that the transgenic mosquitoes are designed to kill the offspring before they reach breeding maturity — they’re carrying a “suicide” or “self-destruct gene”46 if you will — you may wonder how such mosquitoes could possiblypromote the spread of Zika. Well, they can’t. Not intentionally, anyway, which is what some people have suggested. There are some potential problems though.

This genetic “kill switch” starts to fail in the presence of the antibiotic tetracycline.47 Brazil is the third largest consumer of antibiotics for food and animal production48 and, according to a 2009 analysis,49 an estimated 75 percent of the tetracyclines administered to farm animals end up being excreted in waste. The use of manure and sewage sludge as fertilizers is a major route of spread of antibiotics in the environment. (Little is known about the environmental impact of tetracycline, but Brazilian researchers50 have found alarming situations where the presence of these drugs in drinking water has resulted in bacterial resistance.) According to Oxitec documents,51 in the presence of tetracyclines the survival rate of the GE mosquitoes’ offspring may be as high as 15 percent. However, aside from not decimating the mosquito population as efficiently as intended, there’s really NO evidence to suggest that these GE mosquitoes are somehow intentional carriers of the Zika virus. That said, while the GE mosquitoes are supposed to be all male, which don’t bite, if females either happen to slip through the process, or for some reason survive, there may be a risk that they could transfer their modified DNA to the host. What the ramifications of this might be is unclear.

GE Mosquitoes Claim Success — Yet We Need Harsher Pesticides?

Oxitec released the first batches of transgenic Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands in September 2009.52 Malaysia releases followed in 2010. In July 2012, the company had set up a large-scale transgenic mosquito farm in Brazil. The GE mosquitoes were released into the wild in Juazeiro, Brazil in the summer of 2015, and shortly thereafter Oxitec announced53 they had “successfully controlled the Aedes aegyptimosquito that spreads dengue fever, chikungunya, and zika virus, by reducing the target population by more than 90 percent.” Research54 findings published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases claim the sterile breed had reduced the mosquito population in one Brazilian suburb by 95 percent. Despite such claims of successful decimation of the disease-carrying insect, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff recently made an announcement saying: “each federal public official has to transform into a combatant against the mosquito and its reproduction.” Thousands of soldiers and state employees have been enlisted to eradicate mosquitoes wherever they may lurk. “We will do everything, absolutely everything in our reach to protect you,”President Rousseff said55 in her speech, addressing all the mothers and future mothers of Brazil — and then she turns around and orders women and children to be fumigated with toxic chemicals! Oh, the tragic irony!

‘Health Experts’ Call for Return of DDT

Groups like the Manhattan Institute are even calling for the return of DDT56 to address the mosquito problem! This is despite the fact that DDT passes freely through the placenta during pregnancy,57 where it gains direct access to the developing fetus and its brain.58 Studies have linked DDT to high blood pressure, decreased fertility, premature delivery, adult diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.59Moreover, DDT has also been linked to microcephaly,60 so using this toxin would definitely not be the answer to the current problem! As noted by STAT News:61

“The United States banned DDT in 1972 after it was found to persist in the environment for decades, build up in food chains, and kill eagles, pelicans, and other wildlife. But the pesticide was never banned globally. Though the 2001 Stockholm Convention called on countries to eliminate use of DDT and related chemicals, DDT is still used in African and other countries to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes (which, as predicted, evolved widespread resistance to the chemical). A significant concern about DDT is that when a mosquito population evolves resistance to it (as individual insects that harbor DDT-defying mutations leave countless more descendants than vulnerable insects), the creatures also develop resistance to other, safer insecticides… Epidemiologist Brenda Eskenazi, Ph.D. of the University of California, San Francisco, who led a 2009 study raising concerns about the human health effects of DDT exposure, agreed that DDT might not work in Brazil and other countries where Zika is spreading. ‘They should use whatever they can to control the virus,’ she said, ‘but they have to do it safely.’ According to news photos, ‘men in hazmat suits are spraying pesticides around women and children’ who have no protective clothing or anything else, she said, ‘which is horrible and upsetting.'”

Foggers and Mosquito Sprays Don’t Work on This Mosquito

It’s astounding how short-sighted many are, but that’s what happens when you incite panic — people don’t stop to think. In this case, recommendations to use toxic foggers and sprays is bound to do FAR more harm than good, if for no other reason than the fact that they’re ineffective against Aedes aegypti, the species of mosquito in question.62 These tiny black and white striped mosquitoes do not fly far — their range being a mere 300 to 600 feet. Since it’s so difficult to catch them airborne, insecticidal sprays and foggers are mostly useless for controlling them. Also, they feed during the daytime, not at night, which is typically when the fog-trucks will roll through the neighborhood. As noted by Medicinenet.com:63

To feed, they have to stick close to their intended targets, a.k.a. us. They live under decks, patio furniture, and in homes that don’t have cool air — they don’t much like air conditioning. They especially love the drip trays that collect extra water under potted plants … They ‘can breed in incredibly small amounts of water,’ says Joe Conlon, spokesman for the American Mosquito Control Association.‘When I was in Suriname, South America, several years ago, I saw them breeding very happily in discarded soda bottle caps,’ he says. In New Jersey, researchers at Rutgers University found them breeding in water that had pooled in discarded snack-size potato chip bags.‘These mosquitoes are in people’s backyards,’ says Dina Fonseca, Ph.D., an entomologist and associate professor at Rutgers. They live in containers, she says, and are ‘urban, domestic mosquitoes.'”

Other questionable suggestions on the table include using X-rays and/or Gamma rays to sterilize mosquitoes. According to Reuters:64

Such laboratory-bred male mosquitoes could then be released in the wild to mate with the females of the species who then bear eggs that never hatch, thus reducing the number of insects in a given area without killing any animals or using chemicals.

Emergency Declaration Begins Another Round of Massive Profiteering

.

The emergency declaration begins another round of massive profiteering for drug and vaccine companies. And this year, the chemical- and biotech industries get to ride gunshot too. This is how they survive — scaring the heck out of people at regular intervals while making tons of money in the process. As expected, Zika vaccines are in the works, with companies racing to become the first to deliver a remedy,65,66 no matter how poorly tested and ultimately dangerous they might be — all under the auspices of saving tons of lives, of course.

Yet it’s worth remembering that any pandemic vaccine fast tracked to market in the U.S. during a “public health emergency” is completely shielded from liability for injuries and deaths.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck are all looking to develop a Zika vaccine. The Indian company Bharat Biotech somehow got a head start, and began working on two Zika vaccines in November 2014.67 Would it surprise you to find out that this company is also linked to the Gates Foundation? They received $50 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to research and conduct human trials on a malaria vaccine.68 Merck, Syngenta, and Bayer are also partners in the Gates Foundation, as are chemical giants Monsanto69 and DuPont. This unholy alliance is just one of the reasons why I don’t trust Bill Gates’ philanthropy, he might be one of the most dangerous individual powers on the planet.70

U.S. Overreacts Based on Poorly Constructed Fear Porn

Like many other nations, the U.S. has overreacted to the news and is increasing mosquito eradication efforts. According to some models, an estimated 200 million Americans, or over 60 PERCENT of the U.S. population, may become infected with Zika this summer.71 So far, about three dozen cases of Zika virus infection have been confirmed in 11 U.S. states — most of which, according to the report, were thought to have been acquired by people while out of the country. The CDC urges pregnant women to avoid traveling to countries with reported transmissions of the infection — a total of 24 countries so far.72 As noted by Reuters:73

“With no specific federal guideline yet in place to control the spread of the Zika virus in the United States, some mosquito-heavy states like Florida are stepping up spraying and education programs. But, the North and West have yet to boost prevention. Only one out of the more than 30 confirmed cases of Zika in the country appears to have been transmitted locally, in Dallas, Texas. Public health officials are bracing for the time when warmer weather increases the number of mosquitoes that can transmit the virus by biting an infected person and spreading it to others. The types of mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, are common in Florida, where mosquito season is year-round, and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, including Houston.”

Panama, India, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Florida in the U.S. are also slated to receive Oxitec’s “self-destruct” mosquitoes74,75 and the longer the Zika scare continues, the more likely these little critters will be released in mosquito-ridden areas across the world. Is this wise? Chances are we may be in for some nasty surprises. As noted by Helen Wallace in 2012, a British environmentalist with the organization GeneWatch:76

This mosquito is Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, plain and simple. To open a box and let these man-made creatures fly free is a risk with dangers we haven’t even begun to contemplate.

We may not like the mosquito, but that doesn’t mean it serves no function in the ecosystem. If we successfully eradicate this mosquito, what might the ramifications be ecosystem-wide?

How Does U.S. Explain 25,000 Microcephaly Cases Annually — Without Zika?

In the U.S., approximately 25,000 infants are diagnosed with microcephaly each year.77 Brazil has about 70 percent of the population the U.S. has, and now reports just over 400 cases, 17 of which tested positive for the Zika virus. So is this reallythe global emergency it’s being made out to be? And more importantly, is Zika virus really responsible for these birth defects? Colombia reports that 3,177 pregnant women have tested positive for Zika virus, yet no cases of microcephaly have occurred.78

The evidence suggests implicating Zika virus may be a matter of convenience — leaders of the public-private partnership between industry and government are quickly blaming the rise in microcephaly on disease-carrying mosquitoes in order to sell more GE mosquitoes, to sell more toxic insecticides, and to have an excuse to develop and sell more vaccines. All the while, they are keeping hidden some of the most likely culprits — poor nutrition and toxic environmental exposures like pesticides, as well as vaccines given during pregnancy when the fetus is most susceptible to harm.

By throwing up a convenient veil in the form of Zika-infected mosquitoes, business can not only go on as usual, but grow and expand profits to boot. I have no immediate answers to this problem, other than a firm suggestion, and that is to put on your thinking cap and assess the situation based on what the actual evidence shows, and do not just go by the sound bytes regurgitated by the talking heads.

Sooner or later the insanity must end. We cannot expect a healthy infant and child population when pregnant women are assaulted with toxins at every turn.

And MORE toxins is NOT the answer! This really should be self-evident.

For all intents and purposes my review of the available evidence strongly suggests that the Zika virus is just another fabricated threat designed to support even further use of profitable but unproven and highly ineffective products like vaccines.

Notes

click here to access the references (1-78)

Putin’s intervention last year in Syria was a geopolitical masterstroke – battling US-supported ISIS and other terrorist groups, halting their advance, systematically smashing them, confronting America’s regional imperial agenda, so far effectively foiling it.

Ousting Assad and installing a US-controlled puppet regime in Damascus is key to Washington’s aim for regional dominance, a vital step toward isolating Iran before attempting to overthrow its government belligerently, the same strategy used against Libya, Syria and elsewhere – raping and destroying countries to rule them, loot their resources and exploit their people.

It’s too early to declare victory. So far things look good. Hopefully Putin foiled Obama’s dirty scheme. It began five years ago on February 17, 2011 against Libya, continued weeks later on the Ides of March (the 15th) against Syria.

America systematically raped and destroyed both countries – the same way it ravaged Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and other nations – an unparalleled record of global criminality and pillaging.

At a US-ASEAN press conference in California, Obama lashed out at Putin showing frustration and desperation – ignoring his aggression on Syria using ISIS and other terrorists as US foot soldiers, bashing Putin’s responsible intervention: :

“(t)he fact that (he) had to send his own troops (support personnel alone are there, no ground combat forces) and his own aircraft and invest this massive military operation (it’s relatively modest compared to how much greater it could be and may become ahead) was not a testament to great strength. It was a testament to the weakness of Assad’s position.”

“(I)f somebody is strong…you don’t have to send in your army to prop up your ally.”

“(W)hat I said (earlier) was that Russia would involve itself in a quagmire. Absolutely it will. If…anybody…thinks that somehow the fighting ends because Russia and (Syrian forces) made some initial advances, (much) of the country (remains) control(ed)” by US-supported terrorists.

Obama ignored reality, calling them “folks other than Assad” – cutthroat killer “folks” armed and trained by CIA operatives in the fine art of committing atrocities, including use of chemical and other banned weapons.

Obama and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state orchestrated the raping of Libya and Syria, the highest of high crimes.

Obama claiming he wants to “stop the suffering (of the Syrian people), stabilize the region,” stop the human flood of refugees, “end the violence, (and) stop (the killing of) innocent civilians,” belies his ruthless agenda – fully responsible for all of the above.

Putin has no intention of occupying Syria or getting bogged down in endless conflict. Obama claiming otherwise is one of his many Big Lies.

He wants Putin to abandon Assad, stop what he  called “indiscriminate bombing,” let Washington and its rogue allies freely use ISIS and other proxy terrorist groups to eliminate Syrian sovereignty, transforming the nation into another US vassal state – without Russian interference.

Obama supports the terrorist scourge he claims to oppose. Putin is committed to degrading and reducing it to a shadow of its peak strength, letting Syrian forces smash its remaining elements.

As long as Washington remains committed to replacing Assad with a puppet regime it controls, and keeps supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups, endless conflict, vast destruction and human suffering will continue.

America is fully responsible for genocidal high crimes against Syria and other independent states targeted for regime change. Russia is a deterrent to US imperialism, an antidote to America’s ruthless rampaging.

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.

Investors are losing confidence in central bank policies. (They) have done all they can do, and these policies may not improve economic growth or may not support financial markets. — Anthony Valeri, investment strategist at LPL Financial

Zero rates and QE have stopped working and that has investors worried. Very worried.

If you want to know why stocks have been taking it on the chin lately, look no further than the quote above. Mr. Valeri nails it. The Central Banks have lost their touch which is why investors are cashing in and heading for the exits. This has nothing to do with the slowdown in China,  bank troubles in Europe, capital flight in the emerging markets,  droopy oil prices, or the deceleration in the global economy. Forget about that stuff.  The real problem is that investors have lost confidence in the Fed. And for good reason.

Keep in mind, that for the last 5 years or so, bad news has been good news and good news has been bad news. What does that mean?

It means that every report that showed the economy was underperforming or getting worse was greeted with cheers from Wall Street because they knew the Fed would promise additional accommodation (QE) or continue to maintain zero rates into the future.  The Fed conditioned investors to ignore fundamentals and merely respond to the Pavlovian promise of more cheap money. That cheap money helped fuel a rally that tripled the value of the S&P 500 while inflating asset bubbles across the spectrum. But now the impact of low rates appears to be wearing thin which has investors concerned that the Fed has run out of bullets.

Why? What changed?

In the last couple of weeks, the second and third biggest central banks (The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) either announced or launched additional easing programs, but to no effect.  The BOJ implemented negative rates (NIRP) expecting the yen to weaken and stocks to rally. Instead, stocks fell off a cliff losing an astonishing 7.6 percent on the Nikkei while the yen strengthened by nearly 10 percent against the dollar. In other words, the results were the opposite of what the BOJ wanted.

The same thing happened to the ECB although Mario Draghi has not actually increased QE yet. The ECB is currently buying €60 billion of mainly sovereign bonds per month under the existing program ostensibly to trigger credit growth and boost inflation. Draghi increased speculation that he would boost the bank’s monthly purchases (by €15) at the World Economic Forum in January when he said:

We have plenty of instruments. We have the determination, and the willingness of the governing council to act and deploy these instruments.

Usually, a strong statement like that would be enough to send stocks into the stratosphere, but not this time. Since then, EU markets have tanked and the euro has strengthened against the dollar. Once again, the results have been the exact opposite of what was intended.

So the question is: If the promise of easy money and QE is no longer working in Japan or Europe, why would work in the US?  Or, put differently: Has radical monetary policy lost its ability to prevent stocks from going into freefall? (The Bernanke Put)

This is what investors want to know.

Keep in mind, QE has not increased inflation in any of the countries where it’s been implemented. Nor has it boosted lending, triggered a credit expansion or strengthened growth. It’s a total fraud.  But it has had a big impact on stock prices, which is why central banks love it.

But now that’s changed. Now QE is backfiring and zero rates have lost their potency. Investors know this. They know that monetary policy has run-out-the-clock and that overpriced stocks –which have been outpacing flagging earnings for years–are going to return earth with a thud. This is why the selloff could continue for some time to come.

Of course, now the focus has shifted to “negative interest rates”, the latest fad in central banking that is supposed to boost lending by charging banks a small fee on excess reserves. It’s another nutty attempt to prove that if you put money on sale, people will borrow. But what we’ve seen over the last seven years is that there are times when people won’t borrow no matter how cheap money is. The Fed can’t seem to grasp this. They can’t see to wrap their minds around the simple fact that reducing the cost of borrowing, does not always make it more desirable. Households that are trying to pay down their debts, increase their equity or save for retirement might not want to borrow regardless of how cheap the rates might be.

In any event, negative rates (NIRP) have already been implemented in Europe and Japan where the results are mixed. Here’s how Nomura’s chief economist Richard Koo summed up the phenom in his recent newsletter:

In my view,  the adoption of negative interest rates is an act of desperation born out of despair over the inability of quantitative easing and inflation targeting to produce the desired results. That monetary policy has come this far is a clear indication that both ECB President Mario Draghi and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda have fundamentally misunderstood the ongoing recession…..” (“Macro and Credit…The Vasa Ship, Macronomics)

Indeed. Now compare Koo’s comments to those of  OECD Economic Committee Chairman, William White, who was asked what he thought the effects of negative rates would be on the economy in a recent Bloomberg interview:

William White: “The truth is, nobody really knows. The thing about these experiments, is that they’re experiments. We have no historic precedence for this kind of behavior by central banks at all. EVER. So the answer is: We don’t know.  The general idea is that if you charge negative interest rates on the reserves that the banks hold at the central banks that somehow this will translate into lower lending rate and more stimulus for the economy.  But you have to realize that these negative rates will actually squeeze the banks margins, squeezing bank profits. This is something we actually don’t want because we want them to make more money so they can build up capital buffers. So what are the banks going to do?

Well, one possibility is that they lower the deposit rates for customers. That’s possible, but then people might take money out. The other possibility is that you simply raise the rate for people to borrow, which is the exact opposite for which the policy was intended. So, I repeat, this is all experimental. We’ll wait and see how it turns out. But I’m rather skeptical.

(“OECD’s White Says More Wage Growth Attention Needed“, Bloomberg)

In other words, it’s just not a very well thought-out plan. Either the banks take the hit or the borrowers do. Either way, the plan won’t boost lending, generate a strong credit expansion or grow the economy. After seven years of this same nonsense, we should be willing to admit that reducing the price of money will not lead to an economic recovery. Of that, we can be 100 percent certain.

So, what will generate a strong recovery? This is the question Bloomberg put to White after he expressed his reservations about negative rates. Here’s his advice:

Those who have fiscal room to maneuver, should use it.

I think there should be more attention paid to wage growth, which has been too low and so spending has been too low in consequence.

We need much more public infrastructure which is an asset to go with a government liability.

We need more systematic approaches to debt reduction and debt relief.

And we need a lot more structural reform to get that low hanging fruit to allow the economy to grow faster and to allow debt service to be more easily managed.  (“OECD’s White Says More Wage Growth Attention Needed”, Bloomberg)

Fiscal stimulus?  Wage growth?  Debt relief?  Progressive reforms?

In other words, we’ve piddled-away seven-long years on radical monetary experiments that have achieved nothing and led us right back to where we began, at plain-old Keynesian fiscal stimulus, the only reliable way to put people back to work, stimulate growth, and get the economy back up-and-running.

Better late than never, I guess.

Equality loving people breathed easier after Justice Scalia’s last breath.  And labor activists partied like it was New Years eve. Their would-be hangman dropped dead and unions gained a stay of execution.

Scalia’s timely departure implies that the landmark union case “Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association” will be a 4-4 stalemate, meaning the pro-labor status-quo prevails. As they cheer the last minute pardon unions shouldn’t forget they’re still on death row. The solace is temporary.

Unions can’t assume the next Justice won’t be another Scalia. The worst should be prepared for; being unprepared last time nearly cost labor its head. The same corporate groups who backed Friedrichs will try again, soon, with a fresh case, new plaintiff, and possibly facing an equally anti-union Supreme Court.Obama’s nominee is unlikely to be pro-labor. The old assumption that Democratic presidents appoint pro-labor judges may now be false. Times have changed. Pundits are speculating that Obama will nominate a Judge the Republicans will support. Progressive legal expert Scott Horton spoke on Democracy Now:

… I doubt [the Supreme Court nominee] is going to be the left equivalent of a Nino Scalia. It’s going to be someone who is more of a moderate, more of a centrist, someone who in normal times would be able to count on Republican support.

Nowadays the Republican Party is viciously anti-union. And while Republicans hate several demographics, unions have become — like African Americans in general — a group that Democrats take for granted and attack when convenient.

Republicans would be especially excited about an anti-union peace offering from Obama. Such a nominee could represent a “grand bargain” to avoid a constitutional crisis, where Obama is allowed to successfully end his presidency and the right wing maintains its dominant position on the Supreme Court.

The Friedrichs case provokes a unique zeal from the right wing because of its vast economic consequences. If unions lose Friedrichs, the labor market would be shifted sharply in favor of corporations. The “natural” pro-corporate laws of the market would accelerate, putting workers at a steeper disadvantage.

Wages in the public sector would quickly drop as union density shrinks, creating knock off effects in broader areas of the labor market. Employers would exploit this new leverage at the bargaining table, slashing benefits and lowering wages. An anti-union Friedrichs decision could set a precedent for a national law affecting all unions, public and private sector alike.

Would Obama actually please Republicans over the bones of unions? Yes, if his record is any indication. He began his presidency with a super majority in Congress, and instead of the bold pro-labor initiatives he promised, he slammed on the  brakes, reaching out to racist Republicans who’d rather torch then touch him.  Obama is too smart not to realize he was throwing away his mandate: the big banks that financed his campaign got their money’s worth.

When it comes to unions, Obama is a moderate Republican, just like the pro-corporate “Blue Dog” Democrats that run the Democratic Party. Obama’s flagship national educational program, “Race to the Top,” was even more anti-union than George Bush Jr.’s “No Child Left Behind.” The two-party system now bonds over anti-unionism.

It’s no coincidence that Obama was completely absent from the two biggest union actions in decades: The 2011 Wisconsin Uprising and the 2012 Chicago Teachers strike. The president’s absence spoke much louder than the few hesitant words he spoke on the subjects.

While every Republican in Illinois was mobilizing to attack the Chicago teachers, Obama’s former Chief of Staff was leading the anti-union charge. The battle lines were adjusted to reflect the new political reality: Democrats and Republicans versus the unions.

Anti-unionism is now a bipartisan issue. As the big banks boomed, union power shrunk, luring the Democrats further to the right; their stance on labor changed from ambivalence to hatred. Now they are staunchly in the Republican camp on the front lines in the class struggle against unions.

This new consensus is reflected in many of Obama’s “top contenders” for Supreme Court nominees. Judge Sri Srinivasan, who earned his current position on the Court of Appeals by a 97-0 vote of the current Congress, is someone whose name has been broadly discussed. The lack of controversy was due, in part, to his years as a corporate attorney. Corporate attorneys are habitually anti-union.

Another top contender is 9th Circuit Judge Paul Watford, yet another corporate attorney who hasn’t dirtied his hands with anything progressive.

The two-party system is so anti-union that it’s possible Scalia’s death won’t even matter; a current judge could easily flip on Friedrichs against unions. Scalia’s death doesn’t freeze the anti-union trajectory of the establishment; a lot of momentum has already been built up.

The establishment is unlikely to sit on their hands, and unions cannot afford to either. Hoping that a pro-union Justice is appointed is not a political strategy, but Russian Roulette; a tactic that can work for a while but always ends the same.

Historically unions have only won at the Supreme Court when expressing their power. The establishment only shows respect when you demand and fight for it.

The “progressive” Supreme Court under Warren Burger that favored unions was a response to the mass movements and active labor movement of the 60’s and 70’s. Burger himself was appointed by Nixon, though moved to the left by the political ground shifting beneath his feet.Labor’s biggest Supreme Court victories came during the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt under a Conservative Supreme Court that was forced to respond to a union-led mass movement. Without mass action the labor movement shrivels.

After the nationwide actions of organized labor in the 1970’s, the establishment chose to appease this power. But now they’ve decided to test it, through Friedrichs. Future tests are inevitable.A prior test provoked the Wisconsin Uprising, showing the potential power of all unions. This is why Friedrichs is actually a gamble for the ruling class; they’re hoping that a national version of Wisconsin doesn’t happen. Unions must dash these hopes through organizing and other actions. A quiet labor movement will go quietly to the gallows; and Scalia was preparing the rope when he died.

The death of Scalia should empower unions to mobilize, not rest on their already-withered laurels. Without constant pressure the establishment will feel comfortable continuing in an anti-union direction. Power must be met with power.

Just like the 15now campaign has been mobilizing at the Democratic debates to amplify their issue, so should unions borrow the tactic to promote a Friedrichs victory. The Democratic nominee must feel the pressure to publicly advocate a pro-union decision.

Forcing this issue into the debates would send a very strong message. And organizing mass demonstrations around Friedrichs — as several labor bodies have called for — will send an even louder message. Unions must re-learn how to express their power. They’ve forgotten, but doing is the best way to practice.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at [email protected]

Featured image: Robert F. Kennedy and Paul Schrade Photo credit: MALDEF / YouTube

This article was first published by WhoWhat Why

The ban on video and audio recordings at Sirhan Sirhan’s parole hearing on February 9 meant the world depended on the one reporter allowed inside the hearing to tell us what happened. He had to condense “more than three hours of intense testimony” into 854 words.

Elliot Spagat’s lively account of the proceeding for the Associated Press omitted one very important document that shooting victim and Kennedy family friend Paul Schrade presented to the parole board. This was a letter from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (image right) to US Attorney General Eric Holder, dated September 25, 2012, supporting Schrade’s request for a new investigation of his father’s murder:

Paul was a close friend and advisor to my father. He was standing beside my father when Daddy was killed and Paul was himself wounded by a bullet. With boundless energy and clear mind, Paul continues to pursue my father’s ideas, an endeavor to which he has devoted his life. He organized with the support of my mother and my family the building of the new Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools on the former Ambassador Hotel site. Paul and his team…strongly believe this new evidence is conclusive and requires a new investigation. I agree and support his request for a new investigation.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The request for a new investigation was partly based on a new analysis of the Pruszynski recording, the only known audio recording of the shooting. After studying the tape, forensic audio expert Phil Van Praag concluded 13 shots and 2 guns were fired in the Ambassador Hotel pantry on the night of the shooting.

At Holder’s direction, the FBI Laboratory conducted a very limited and deeply flawed examination of the Pruszynski recording and reportedly “could not confirm the number of shots or determine the identification of specific weapons.”

The FBI refused to accept the papers Van Praag had written detailing his methodologies and discoveries. In fact, the Bureau refused to communicate with him in any way.

The FBI’s examination report, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, shows the FBI used outdated methodologies and failed to provide their own analyst with critical background materials about the shooting scene.  These included witness statements, the autopsy report and movements of key people, including Stanislaw Pruszynski himself, at the time of the shooting.

The analyst describes searching for videos of Van Praag’s work on Youtube and working from low-resolution screen grabs of my film on Van Praag’s discoveries in an effort to find out precisely where to look, how to look, and what to look for. These are details he could have discovered by simply picking up the phone and calling Van Praag or inviting him to the FBI’s Quantico laboratory  for a briefing.

Philip Van Praag

When he agreed to release the 2012 letter to the parole board at Sirhan’s hearing,  Robert Kennedy Jr. signaled publicly, for the first time, his support for a new investigation of his father’s murder. “You’re doing the right thing,” he told Schrade, days before the hearing.

Three years ago, Kennedy Jr. told Charlie Rose that the evidence was “very, very convincing” that his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, was not killed by a lone gunman, and that his father had been privately dismissive of the Warren Commission findings.

As federal authorities have no criminal jurisdiction over Robert Kennedy’s 1968 murder, at the end of Sirhan’s hearing, Paul Schrade formally requested the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Jackie Lacey, to open a new investigation into the case:

I am requesting a new investigation so that after nearly 50 years, justice finally can be served for me as a shooting victim; for the four other shooting victims who also survived their wounds; for Bob Kennedy; for the people of the United States who Bob loved so much and had hoped to lead; just as his brother, President John F. Kennedy, had led only a few years before; and of course for justice, to which Bob Kennedy devoted his life.

Paul Schrade

Schrade addressed his remarks to David Dahle, a retired prosecutor representing the district attorney’s office. Dahle had earlier said Sirhan was guilty of “an attack on the American political process…[and] has still not come to grips with what he has done.”

Schrade reportedly chastised Dahle for the “venomous” statement from the D.A.’s office opposing Sirhan’s release, and asked Dahle to inform District Attorney Lacey of his request for a new investigation. Schrade, who firmly believes a second gunman — not Sirhan — killed Kennedy, plans to make the same request to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.

*****

As AP reported, Sirhan again stuck to his story that he didn’t remember shooting Robert Kennedy. He felt remorse for the victims but couldn’t take full responsibility for the crime: “If you want a confession, I can’t make it now…I just wish this whole thing had never taken place.”

At first, Sirhan didn’t want to attend this week’s hearing. According to one of his attorneys, Laurie Dusek, he was physically sick for hours after his mistreatment at the last hearing in 2011, but his brother Munir and Dusek urged him to reconsider. At the end of the hearing, he said, “This is such a traumatic…horrendous experience, that for me, to keep dwelling on it is harmful to me…”

AP noted that, if released, Sirhan hoped he would be deported to Jordan or could move in with his brother in Pasadena, “to live out my life peacefully, in harmony with my fellow man…”

*****
Victims of a crime have the right to make a statement at the end of parole hearing. They can say what they want and have as much time as they want, so Paul Schrade’s appearance Wednesday “provided much of the drama”, according to the AP report.

Meeting Sirhan for the first time since the 1969 trial, Schrade apologized to Sirhan for not attending his previous parole hearings or doing more to win his release: “I should have been here long ago and that’s why I feel guilty for not being here to help you and to help me.”

AP reported that “Schrade’s voice cracked with emotion during an hour of testimony” but what did he actually say? We won’t have a transcript for 30 days, so drawing on the full text of his prepared remarks, here’s a summary of his testimony below:

“While Sirhan was standing in front of Bob Kennedy and his shots were creating a distraction, the other shooter secretly fired at the senator from behind…”

I am here to speak for myself, a shooting victim, and to bear witness for my friend, Bob Kennedy.
 Kennedy was a man of justice. But, so far, justice has not been served in this case. And I feel obliged as both a shooting victim and as an American to speak out about this — and to honor the memory of the greatest American I’ve ever known, Robert Francis Kennedy. In order for you to make an accurate determination of Sirhan Sirhan’s parole, you need to know my feelings on this case and the full picture of what actually happened.

When Schrade turned to address Sirhan, he “angrily ignored” the commissioner’s instructions not to speak or make eye contact with the prisoner. He said he believed Sirhan did not know where he was or what he was doing and therefore was not responsible for his actions at the Ambassador Hotel:

Sirhan, I forgive you. The evidence clearly shows you were not the gunman who shot Robert Kennedy. There is clear evidence of a second gunman in that kitchen pantry who shot Robert Kennedy…The fatal bullet struck Bob in the back of the head…You were never behind Bob, nor was Bob’s back ever exposed to you…the evidence not only shows that you did not shoot Robert Kennedy but it shows that you could not have shot Robert Kennedy.

Sirhan Sirhan

Sirhan nodded politely and seemed appreciative as Schrade told him he wasn’t guilty and that Robert Kennedy would be appalled, not only by the parole board’s unjust treatment of Sirhan, but by the fact that he was not being given parole based on his rights under law.

Schrade then directed the panel’s attention to documents submitted in advance of the hearing, which proved “Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot — and could not have shot — Robert Kennedy”:

A copy of the autopsy report describing the fatal shot fired from an inch behind Kennedy’s right ear; Phil Van Praag’s declaration showing evidence of 13 shots and 2 guns on the Pruszynski recording; and witness statements from Ambassador Hotel maître d’s Karl Uecker and Edward Minasian confirming Sirhan’s firing position several feet in front of Kennedy. Together, he said, these documents proved:

Sirhan only had full control of his gun at the beginning, when he fired his first two shots, one of which hit me. Sirhan had no opportunity to fire four precisely placed, point-blank bullets into the back of Bob Kennedy’s head or body while he was pinned against that steam table and while he and Bob were facing each other.

After an hour, commissioner Brian Roberts reportedly asked Schrade to wrap up. “Quite frankly, you’re losing us,” he said. “I think you’ve been lost for a long time,” Schrade replied, before concluding:

What I am saying to you is that Sirhan himself was a victim. Obviously, there was someone else there in that pantry also firing a gun. While Sirhan was standing in front of Bob Kennedy and his shots were creating a distraction, the other shooter secretly fired at the senator from behind and fatally wounded him…I hope you will consider all of the accurate details of this crime that I have presented in order for you to accurately determine Sirhan Sirhan’s eligibility for parole. If you do this the right way and the just way, I believe you will come to the same conclusion I have: that Sirhan should be released. If justice is not your aim, then of course you will not. Gentlemen, I believe you should grant Sirhan Sirhan parole…And I ask you to do that today in the name of Robert F. Kennedy and in the name of justice. Thank you.

As Sirhan got up to leave, Schrade reportedly shouted, “Sirhan, I’m so sorry this is happening to you. It’s my fault.” AP reported that Sirhan tried to shake hands with Schrade but a guard blocked him.

Schrade refused to shake hands with the commissioner. Addressing him directly, Schrade told Roberts, “What you’ve done to this man is appalling and Robert Kennedy would find what you did appalling” before turning away.

Schrade found the hearing “very abusive” and upsetting. He later told reporters waiting outside that “Sirhan was being tortured in there.” In a radio interview, he said the parole board was “cold and ruthless about keeping this guy in jail, knowing there’s evidence [of his innocence] in the files”. He found the panel’s treatment of Sirhan “despicable,” destroying his dignity with petty questions that made the commissioners “look like amateur psychiatrists.”

Sirhan was again denied for five years because he “did not show adequate remorse or understand the enormity of his crime” – a statement which the transcripts of Sirhan’s previous parole hearings show is just not true.

*****

Another important document submitted to the parole board two days before the hearing was a new declaration by Dr. Daniel Brown, a psychologist from Harvard Medical School. Since May 2008, Dr. Brown has spent over 100 hours with Sirhan, including a two-day visit last September.

The aim of these sessions was threefold: to “conduct a detailed forensic psychological assessment” of Sirhan’s mental status; to allow Sirhan “to develop a more complete memory…for the events leading up to and of the night of the assassination”; and to determine whether or not Sirhan was the “subject of coercive suggestive influence” at the time of the shooting and if this accounted for his amnesia.

The declaration states that, in Dr. Brown’s expert opinion, Sirhan is normal, does not have a psychiatric condition or personality disorder and shows no evidence of any violence risk if released (the primary consideration for any parole panel).

In his sessions with Sirhan, Dr. Brown found “a variety of personality factors that are associated with high vulnerability to coercive suggestive influence: an extreme dissociative coping style; hypnotically-induced altered personality states; extremely high hypnotizability; and high social compliance”:

Mr. Sirhan is one of the most hypnotizable individuals I have ever met, and the magnitude of his amnesia for actions not under his voluntary [control] in hypnosis is extreme. This unusual combination of personality factors makes Mr. Sirhan the type of individual extremely vulnerable to coercive social influence [and accounts for his] uncharacteristic behavior and strong amnesia for that behavior on the night of Senator Kennedy’s assassination…

Dr. Brown’s declaration traces the seeds of this “coercive suggestive influence” back to his experiences at a local race track, where “Mr. Sirhan regularly practiced self-hypnosis with fellow stable boys…Mr. Sirhan was observed to quickly enter a very deep state of hypnotic trance…and to then respond compulsively and uncritically to suggestions he behave in certain ways for which he subsequently became amnesic.”

“Mr. Sirhan recalls being in the hospital for several weeks. Sometime thereafter he was taken to a military firing range and trained to shoot upon command at vital human organs while in an hypnotic state.”

After a fall from a horse at a ranch in Corona in 1966, Sirhan was briefly hospitalized but, as Dr. Brown notes, “his mother and best friend both state that he was missing for two full weeks. Mr. Sirhan recalls being in the hospital for several weeks. Sometime thereafter he was taken to a military firing range and trained to shoot upon command at vital human organs while in an hypnotic state.”

Dr. Brown notes that Sirhan’s “dissociative vulnerability” causes him “on rare occasions to shift self-states”:
On more than one occasion, I was able to find the cue to induce ‘range mode’, wherein upon hypnotic cue, Mr. Sirhan takes his firing stance, hypnotically hallucinates that he is shooting at circle targets at a firing range, automatically starts shooting, and subsequently is completely amnesic for the hypnotically induced behavior.

This altered personality state only occurs while Mr. Sirhan is in a hypnotic or self-hypnotic state, and only in response to certain cues. This state never spontaneously manifests. While in this altered personality state, Mr. Sirhan shows both a loss of executive control and complete amnesia…This distinctive self-state is cue-specific and state-dependent…and is likely the product of coercive suggestive influence and hypnosis.

On the night of the assassination, Sirhan recalls being led in the Ambassador Hotel pantry by a girl in a polka-dot dress. As Robert Kennedy was approaching him, Dr. Brown writes, “this same woman tapped him on the elbow twice (a common hypnotic cue) [and] he immediately went into ‘range mode’, and believed he was shooting at circle targets at a local firing range.”

Given the new evidence of a second gunman found on the Pruszynski recording, it is Dr. Brown’s expert opinion “that Mr. Sirhan was trained through a variety of coercive persuasion techniques to serve as a distractor on the night of the assassination, so that a second professional shooter could render the fatal shot…”

Sirhan fired his gun on cue, carrying out an involuntary post-hypnotic suggestion and his “strong dissociative coping style…would cause him to be ‘out of it’ and be confused and amnesic for such actions”:

Given the likelihood that Mr. Sirhan was in such a state at the time of the assassination, it should not be assumed at the parole hearing that he should manifest either knowledge of, remorse for, or clear memory for an event wherein his behavior was likely compulsively induced, involuntary, and for which he still has little memory.

The self-incriminating writing in Sirhan’s notebooks has always been cited as primary evidence of premeditated murder. The most famous page begins: “May 18 9.45 AM – 68 My determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming more the more of an unshakable obsession.” Underneath it are a series of concentric circles that bear a strong resemblance to targets at a firing range.

After exploring Sirhan’s “responsiveness to automatic writing in hypnosis,” Dr. Brown concluded that the automatic writing in his notebooks was “a product of coercive persuasion by a third party”:

Mr. Sirhan was an avid enthusiast of short wave radios. He had a short wave radio in his bedroom, and spent most nights before the assassination communicating on his short wave radio to third parties. Mr. Sirhan frequently entered a hypnotic state while communicating with other parties on the short wave radio. While in trance, Mr. Sirhan would automatically write down what was communicated to him, and subsequently was amnesic for the content of his automatic writing in the spiral notebooks.

Dr. Brown compares the notebooks to “a coerced internalized false confession” and claims they should have been ruled inadmissible at trial. He concludes:

Mr. Sirhan has been in prison for over four decades for a crime that in all likelihood he never committed…Extensive psychological testing by me and others shows no evidence for any clinically significant psychiatric condition and low evidence for violence risk, combined with the new evidence that raises reasonable doubt that Mr. Sirhan was the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, and also reasonable doubt about his previous written and verbal self-incriminating statements being voluntary and reliable, there is, in my opinion, no justifiable reason to deny his parole.

Since he has spent all of his adult life in prison for a crime that he may not have committed, nor has volition about, knowledge of, nor memory for, the compassionate response would be to let Mr. Sirhan live the remainder of his life free. There is little risk here.

*****
On Thursday, after 16 days, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) finally responded to my request seeking the legal justification for the ban on televising parole hearings: “It is at the Executive Officer’s discretion to decide which, if any, media members or other observers to allow into a parole hearing.”

This non-answer is clearly at odds with the relevant title code of CDCR regulations, which states:

2032. (b) Television and radio coverage of Board of Prison Terms’ parole hearings will be authorized, unless such coverage would create a risk to the security of an institution, obstruct the hearing process, pose a risk to the personal safety of any person, or have the potential for prejudicing judicial proceedings…

Without such access, several TV reports on Wednesday ran misleading footage from Sirhan’s 2011 hearing, uncaptioned, and none ran any quotes of what Sirhan said at his own hearing.

Five years ago, the CDCR suddenly stopped allowing televised parole hearings. My question — which they still refuse to answer is —  why?
*****

Jackie Lacey

With the support of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Paul Schrade has now formally requested a new investigation from the L.A. County District Attorney. Sirhan’s attorneys will take his case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Sirhan will continue to work with Dr. Brown to solve the mystery of what happened to him nearly 48 years ago.

2018 will mark the 50th anniversary of Robert Kennedy’s death and 50 years of Sirhan’s confinement. The release of the remaining JFK assassination records next year may give some insight into Robert Kennedy’s private skepticism regarding the Warren Report. It may also lead to growing public acceptance that the Kennedy assassinations were more complex than they seemed, and that one of the victims is still being held in prison in San Diego.

Shane O’Sullivan is an author, filmmaker and researcher at Kingston University, London. His work includes the documentary RFK Must Die (2007) and the book Who Killed Bobby? (2008). He blogs on the Sirhan case at http://www.sirhanbsirhan.com

Statement prepared for the UN Human Rights Commission on behalf of Yemen by Sheba Rights.

Article 1 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions states that:

“An obligation never to use, produce, transfer or stockpile cluster munitions. It also includes several positive obligations to ensure no further use and to redress past harm caused by the weapons.”[1].

A cluster munitions, is an explosive device containing multiple explosive sub munitions. Like landmines, these sub munitions can remain a fatal threat to anyone in the area long after a conflict ends.

Decades after the initial bombing, these sub-munitions still have potential to claim lives, often surpassing even landmines in their threat to civilians.  Their continued use is met with almost universal abhorrence. The Convention on Cluster Munitions banning their use has 113 signatories[2].

Even countries that haven’t signed the treaty are still bound by customary international humanitarian law, specifically that:

“An indiscriminate weapon is a weapon that cannot be directed at a military objective or whose effects cannot be limited, and the use of such inherently’ indiscriminate weapon is prohibited. [3] Rule 71

Cluster bombs are indiscriminate weapons that are imprecise at the time of use and leave behind submunitions that remain a threat for anyone in the area long after use. When the CBU-52B/Bs are used,[4] it disintegrates in mid-air, depositing up to 220 bomblets at a time on an area roughly the size of a football field.

These weapons should never be used under any circumstances. Saudi Arabia and other coalition members – and the supplier, the US – are flouting the global standard that rejects cluster munitions because of their “long-term threat to civilians,” according to Human Rights Watch arms director Steve Goose.[5]

“The use of cluster munitions in populated areas may amount to a war crime due to their indiscriminate nature,” the UN spokesperson pointed out.[6]

“The coalition’s repeated use of cluster bombs in the middle of a crowded city suggests an intent to harm civilians, which is a war crime.  These outrageous attacks show that the coalition seems less concerned than ever about sparing civilians from war’s horrors.”

More than 7,500 people have been killed and over 14,000 others injured since the strikes began. The Saudi war has also taken a heavy toll on the impoverished country’s facilities and infrastructure. [7]

Since the beginning of the war on Yemen, Sheba Rights Coalition (SRC) has collected credible evidence that Saudi-led coalition used cluster bombs in air strikes on Yemen’s on 56 occasions. [8]

Below are the attacks documented by Sheba Rights coalition:

• Sanaa (1 strike),
• Saada (34 strikes),
• Aden (1 strike),
• Hajjah (11 strikes),
• Taiz (6 strikes),
• Lahj (1 strike),
• Ibb (1 strike), and
• Marib (3 strikes).

Sanaa:

In the early morning hours of January 6, 2016 the Saudi-led coalition air-dropped cluster bombs in densely populated residential neighborhoods of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa.

The areas that were targeted were: Madbah, Sawad Hanash, Al-Sunaina, Hayel Street, Al-Rabat Street, Al-Ziraa zone, Kuwait Street, Tunis Street, the university zone, and Bir Al-Shaif neighborhood.  All the above mentioned areas are densely populated by civilians due to their close proximity to civil facilities such as schools, hospitals and universities.

Deaths and Injuries: A child was killed, and ten civilians injured in the attack.

Damage to Property and Infrastructure:  33 homes were damaged, 5 cars were burnt with 6 other cars damaged.  A girls school was also damaged in the attack.

Eyewitness Accounts:

Eyewitnesses reported hearing dozens of small explosions that were the result of the bomblets dispersed over their neighborhood by coalition jets.  In the morning, eye-witnesses confirmed what appeared to be the aftermath of the detonation of the bomblets with several buildings and cars in the neighborhood having been newly pockmarked by the shrapnel from the bomblets. Some eye-witness testimonies documented finding fragments of the bomblets in their cars and on the street.

1- Shaker Ghaleb Ahmed Shaker: A 25-year old resident on Al-Adel Street was critically injured when a cluster bomb penetrated through his bedroom roof, where he, his wife and his daughter were asleep.  The bomb exploded upon impact with the bedroom floor and shrapnel flew in all directions.  He sustained several shrapnel injuries to his chest, stomach and right arm.  He was rushed to the Republican hospital in critical condition after shrapnel from the bomb got lodged near his kidney, but was transferred to Al-Thawra hospital due to the lack of supplies at the Republican hospital, a result of the air, sea and land blockade imposed by the coalition on Yemen.

2- Mohammed Hamoud Shalaan al-Hashidy: The 30-year old guard of a girls school that was damaged in the strike reported that as he prepared to leave his house, located in the vicinity of the school, for the morning prayer, he heard jets overhead and soon after he saw the sky light up in a fiery red glow and what appeared to be small ball-sized bombs dispersing over a wide area of the neighborhood.

 Three of these bomblets fell on the school grounds causing loud explosions and sending shrapnel flying across the ground causing damage to windows, walls and the school’s water tanks.

2)    HAJJAH

In the afternoon of Saturday, 6th June, 2015, Saudi-led coalition jets targeted a camp for the internally displaced people in Dhughayj located in Hairan district of Hajjah province, just across the border of Yemen with Saudi Arabia.  There were 210 internally displaced families that had set up make-shift camps in the area after having left their homes in Haradh.    The examination of the remnants of the weapons used has identified the weapons as US-made ground-launched M26 cluster munitions rockets.  Coalition members Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates all possess M26 rockets and their launchers.  Unexploded M77 DPICM were also found at the scene.

Deaths and Injuries: 5 civilians were killed and 37 others injured among them several women and children.

Eye-witness Accounts: Upon arrival at the scene of the strikes, 8 cluster munitions that failed to detonate were found, along with 3 rockets and tank shells that were spread over an area of two kilometers pausing a threat to children and livestock grazing in the area.

1- Adel Hassan Ahmed Abdo: 20 year old Adel, a resident of the area stated that he saw apache helicopters striking the camp from a farm he was in located approximately 1 kilometer from the IDP camp.  When the strikes stopped, he and others rushed to the camp where they found several people injured and several unexploded shells and munitions on the ground and across neighboring farms.  On the day following of the attack, two children came across an unexploded bomb while grazing their livestock. They attempted to carry the unexploded bomb but it detonated injuring both children.

3)    SAADA

According to a report from the Legal Center for Rights and Development in Yemen,[9] on June 15, 2015 the coalition fired four cluster bombs on BaniRabia in Razih district of Saada.  The bombs were strewn over a vast area that was used for agricultural purposes.

On July 2, 2015 more than ten civilians were injured when cluster bombs exploded on their homes in al-Nadheer in Razih district. Five homes were damaged by the strike.

On July 22, 2015 the coalition dropped cluster bombs that looked like children’s toys in al-Nadheerdistrict, in Saada

Recommendation

Khiam rehabilitation centerand SALAM for Democracy and Human rights and Sheba Rights coalition call for the UN Human Rights Council to take stronger action in response to widespread and grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Yemen. We urge your delegation to ensure that the UN Human Rights Council adopts at its 31^st  session a resolution under agenda item 4 to:

• Request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to urgently dispatch investigation teams, with expertise in weapon of mass destruction, to investigate crimes under international law and other widespread and serious violations and abuses of human rights in Yemen, and provide recommendations for accountability.
• Refer the situation in Yemen to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Such a step would make clear to all sides that those who instigate, collude with or carry out war crimes & by default,  crimes against Humanity, will be held accountable for their actions
• Call the 116 nations that are part of the Convention on Cluster Munitions to take immediate action in accordance with the Article 21 (2) of the Convention, to prevent any use of cluster munitions in Yemen or in any other nation.
• Ensure the effective protection& sanctity of civilian lives.  Acknowledge the multiple,  extensive forms of abuse, victimization & repeat victimization. Address the need for accountability.  Ensure intensive and conclusive investigations into the continued use of banned weapons on Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition.
• Allow access for an independent humanitarian assessment of besieged areas and communities;
• Protect humanitarian workers, including medical personnel.  Facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of relief supplies, and safeguard the sanctity of hospitals and all medical transport vehicles.

Notes:

The U.K. government today announced that it is now illegal for “local [city] councils, public bodies, and even some university student unions … to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products, or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.” Thus, any entities that support or participate in the global boycott of Israeli settlements will face “severe penalties” under the criminal law.

This may sound like an extreme infringement of free speech and political activism — and, of course, it is — but it is far from unusual in the West. The opposite is now true. There is a very coordinated and well-financed campaign led by Israel and its supporters literally to criminalize political activism against Israeli occupation, based on the particular fear that the worldwide campaign of Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment, or BDS — modeled after the 1980s campaign that brought down the Israel-allied apartheid regime in South Africa — is succeeding.

The Israeli website +972 reported last year about a pending bill that “would ban entry to foreigners who promote the [BDS] movement that aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinian rights.” In 2011, a law passed in Israel that “effectively ban[ned] any public call for a boycott — economic, cultural, or academic — against Israel or its West Bank settlements, making such action a punishable offense.”

But the current censorship goal is to make such activism a crime not only in Israel, but in Western countries generally. And it is succeeding.

This trend to outlaw activism against the decadeslong Israeli occupation — particularly though not only through boycotts against Israel — has permeated multiple Western nations and countless institutions within them. In October, we reported on the criminal convictions in France of 12 activists “for the ‘crime’ of advocating sanctions and a boycott against Israel as a means of ending the decadeslong military occupation of Palestine,” convictions upheld by France’s highest court. They were literally arrested and prosecuted for “wearing shirts emblazoned with the words ‘Long live Palestine, boycott Israel’” and because “they also handed out fliers that said that ‘buying Israeli products means legitimizing crimes in Gaza.’”

As we noted, Pascal Markowicz, chief lawyer of the CRIF umbrella organization of French Jewish communities, published this celebratory decree (emphasis in original): “BDS is ILLEGAL in France.” Statements advocating a boycott or sanctions, he added, “are completely illegal. If [BDS activists] say their freedom of expression has been violated, now France’s highest legal instance ruled otherwise.” In Canada last year, officials threatened criminal prosecution against anyone supporting boycotts against Israel.

In the U.S., unbeknownst to many, there are similar legislative proscriptions on such activism, and a pending bill would strengthen the outlawing of BDS. As the Washington Post reported last June, “A wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S.” Numerous bills in Congress encourage or require state action to combat BDS.

Eyal Press warned in a must-read New York Times op-ed last month that under a Customs Bill passed by both houses of Congress and headed to the White House, “American officials will be obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations,” a provision specifically designed “to combat the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, a grass-roots campaign.” But as Press notes, under existing law — which is almost never discussed — “Washington already forbids American companies to cooperate with state-led boycotts of Israel.”

The real purpose of this new law, as Press explains it, is to force American companies to treat settlements in the West Bank — which virtually the entire world views as illegal — as a valid part of Israel, by outlawing any behavior that would be deemed cooperative with a boycott of companies occupying the West Bank. U.S. companies would be forced to pretend that products produced in the occupied territories are actually produced in “Israel.” The White House announced that it will sign the bill despite its opposition to the AIPAC-backed pro-settlement provision.

Rahul Saksena of Palestine Legal said that “the BDS provision in the federal customs bill, and the dozens of anti-BDS bills being introduced in Congress and state legislatures across the U.S., are examples of the lengths that Israel’s fiercest advocates and the lawmakers who bend over backward to accommodate them will go to shut down any conversation critical of Israeli policies and supportive of Palestinian freedom.” Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs for J Street (which opposes BDS), told The Intercept: “The references in the Customs Act to ‘Israeli-controlled territories’ are just one instance of a larger effort to sneak Green Line-blurring language into legislation at both the state and national level.”

Under the existing laws, American companies have been fined for actions deemed supportive of boycotts aimed at Israel. For decades, U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries, for instance, have been required by law to refuse to comply with the Arab League boycott of Israel. Penalties for violators include up to 10 years of imprisonment.

In 2010, G M Daewoo Auto & Technology Company, a Korean firm owned by General Motors, was fined $88,500 by the Office of Antiboycott Compliance for 59 anti-boycott violations, including the “crime” of declaring on a customs form: “We hereby state that the carrying vessel … is allowed to enter the Libya ports [sic].” At the time, Libyan law did not allow Israeli goods or ships that had previously stopped in Israel to enter Libyan ports, and the company’s seemingly banal declaration that it was complying with Libyan law was deemed by the U.S. government to constitute support for a boycott of Israel, and it was thus fined.

The suppression of anti-occupation activism is particularly acute on American college campuses. Among other things, that is deeply ironic. In the U.S. over the past year, there has been a widespread media debate over censorship on college campuses. Notably, the pundits who have most vocally condemned this censorship and held themselves out as free speech crusaders — such as New York’s Jonathan Chait — have completely ignored what is far and away the most widespread form of campus censorship: namely, punishment of those who engage in activism against Israeli actions.

This campus censorship on behalf of Israel was comprehensively documented in a report last year by Palestine Legal titled “The Palestine Exception to Free Speech.” The nationwide censorship effort has seen pro-Palestinian professors fired, anti-occupation student activists suspended and threatened with expulsion, pro-Palestinian groups de-funded, and even discipline for students for the “crime” of flying a Palestinian flag. The report documents how pro-Israel campus groups and alumni “have intensified their efforts to stifle criticism of Israeli government policies.” The report explains: “Rather than engage such criticism on its merits, these groups leverage their significant resources and lobbying power to pressure universities, government actors, and other institutions to censor or punish advocacy in support of Palestinian rights.”

Notably, the students and administrators justifying the campus censorship of anti-Israel views invoke the very same “PC” rhetoric of “safe spaces” and “hate speech” denounced by ostensibly free-speech pundits. The University of Illinois student who led the campaign to fire Steven Salaita for his pro-Gaza tweets, himself a former AIPAC intern, told the New York Times: “Hate speech is never acceptable for those applying for a tenured position; incitement to violence is never acceptable. … There must be a relationship between free speech and civility.” Another “pro-Israel” student demanding Salaita’s firing said, “It’s about feeling safe on campus.”

This was a classic and extreme case of oppressive censorship on campus — the University of Illinois ended up paying Salaita close to $1 million to settle the resulting lawsuit — yet very few of the pundits who turned “college censorship” into a nationwide cause uttered a peep about this case or the countless other instances of suppression of anti-Israel criticism.

It is now routine for students advocating BDS or otherwise working against Israeli occupation to be disciplined or endure other forms of sanctions. As the Palestine Legal report documents:

These heavy-handed tactics often have their desired effect, driving institutions to enact a variety of punitive measures against human rights activists, such as administrative sanctions, censorship, intrusive investigations, viewpoint-based restriction of advocacy, and even criminal prosecutions. Such efforts intimidate activists for Palestinian human rights, chill criticism of Israeli government practices, and impede a fair-minded dialogue on the pressing question of Palestinian rights.

This report, the first of its kind, documents the suppression of Palestine advocacy in the United States. In 2014, Palestine Legal — a nonprofit legal and advocacy organization supporting Palestine activism — responded to 152 incidents of censorship, punishment, or other burdening of advocacy for Palestinian rights and received 68 additional requests for legal assistance in anticipation of such actions. In the first six months of 2015 alone, Palestine Legal responded to 140 incidents and 33 requests for assistance in anticipation of potential suppression. These numbers understate the phenomenon, as many advocates who are unaware of their rights or afraid of attracting further scrutiny stay silent and do not report incidents of suppression. The overwhelming majority of these incidents — 89 percent in 2014 and 80 percent in the first half of 2015 — targeted students and scholars, a reaction to the increasingly central role universities play in the movement for Palestinian rights.

As we reported in September, the University of California — the largest academic system in the country — has been debating proposals to literally outlaw BDS activism by formally equating it with “anti-semitism”: as though opposition to Israeli government oppression (opposition shared by many Jews) is somehow the equivalent of, or is inherently driven by, animosity toward Jews. If anything, what is actually “anti-Semitic” is to conflate the Israeli government with Jews generally (an ugly anti-semitic trope with a long history). Yet that is the Orwellian tactic being used to justify the criminalization of anti-occupation activism, as it converts that activism into “anti-semitism” or “hate speech” and then bans it on that basis.

This attempt to formalize suppression of anti-occupation advocacy on college campuses is long-standing and widespread. The New York state legislature actually passed “a bill that would suspend funding to educational institutions which fund groups that boycott Israel.” Such legislation is becoming commonplace, as the group United With Israel boasted just last month:

Florida became the fifth state in the U.S. to introduce a resolution to confront the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement when it passed a law on December 21, similar to the first anti-BDS legislation introduced in Tennessee last April.

By doing so, Florida has joined Tennessee, New York, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Another 35 states are reportedly considering similar legislation.

The commendably consistent pro-campus-speech group FIRE, while expressing some criticisms of the BDS movement, has repeatedly documented and denounced attempts to outlaw BDS advocacy on campus:

FIRE’s position on the Israel-focused BDS movement is driven by our concern for academic freedom — for students and professors, and for its continuing importance as a meaningful concept in and of itself. Students and professors must be perfectly free to support boycott, divestment, and/or sanctions against Israel or any other country they wish, and they must not face punishment for this support. As you might expect, FIRE has opposed attempts to punish organizations for supporting BDS, and we have certainly defended professors’ rights to be highly critical of Israel — or, frankly, any other country, person, or idea.

Yet this censorship effort to ban BDS and other forms of Israel criticism continues to grow, in multiple countries around the world. It’s not hard to understand why. The Israeli government and its most powerful supporters have invested vast sums of money and considerable political capital into the campaign to institutionalize this censorship.

Last year, GOP billionaire Sheldon Adelson and Democratic billionaire Haim Saban donated tens of millions of dollars to a new fund to combat BDS on college campuses. Also last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “decided to implement a 2014 resolution to establish a special task force to fight the anti-Israeli sanctions”; that task force has funding of “some 100 million Israeli shekels (roughly $25.5 million).” BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray reported in 2014 that anti-BDS legislation has become a major goal of AIPAC. As part of the controversy at the University of California, Richard Blum, the mega-rich investment banker and husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, threatened the university that his wife would take adverse action against the university if it did not adopt the harsh anti-BDS measures he was demanding.

None of this is to say, obviously, that suppression of anti-occupation activism is the only strain of free speech threats in the West. The prosecution of Western Muslims for core free speech expression under “terrorism” laws, the distortion of “hate speech” legislation as a means of punishing unpopular ideas, threats and violence against those who publish cartoons deemed “blasphemous,” and pressure on social media companies to ban ideas disliked by governments are all serious menaces to this core liberty.

But in terms of systematic, state-sponsored, formalized punishments for speech and activism, nothing compares to the growing multi-nation effort to criminalize activism against Israeli occupation. Rafeef Ziadah, a Palestinian a member of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, told The Intercept:

“Israel is increasingly unable to defend its regime of apartheid and settler colonialism over the Palestinian people and its regular massacres of Palestinians in Gaza so is resorting to asking supportive governments in the U.S. and Europe to undermine free speech as a way of shielding it from criticism and measures aimed at holding it to account.”

It is, needless to say, perfectly legitimate to argue against BDS and to engage in activism to defeat it. But only advocates of tyranny could support the literal outlawing of the same type of activism that ended apartheid in South Africa merely on the grounds that this time it is aimed at Israeli occupation (some of Israel’s own leaders have compared its occupation to apartheid). And whatever else is true, commentators and activists who prance around as defenders of campus free speech and free expression generally — yet who completely ignore this most pernicious trend of free speech erosion — are likely many things, but an authentic believer in free speech is not among them.

Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law. His most recent book, No Place to Hide, is about the U.S. surveillance state and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the world.

Pension investments are the last huge liquid asset of the middle class since the devastation of the Global Financial Crisis. They have been relentlessly targeted by corrupt and criminal groups. Corrupt politicians trade pension investment choices for favours like political funding.

Norwegian victims of a massive fraud/embezzlement had documents that overwhelmingly showed the Swiss authorities corruptly covered up financial crimes in which Credit Suisse had directly participated. Switzerland’s sacred Bank Secrecy was abused (raped?) to protect and otherwise assist the bank and other alleged criminals. The Swiss rudely refused to cooperate with Norwegian crime authority OKOKRIM, who then refused to continue with the case.INTERPOL documents in our possession showed an unbelieveably rude and arrogant refusal by the Swiss, making OKOKRIM’s capitulation utterly humiliating. Some would say it was a betrayal of their country to an unfriendly foreign power.

We are in possession of documents from OKOKRIM showing a flippant disregard for their duty. The pattern of robbing pensioners is a global phenomenon. The nation’s lifeblood – its currency – has been expropriated to off-shore secrecy jurisdictions & replaced by debt.

The U.S. based Blackwater Group has reportedly abandoned the Ta’iz front in western Yemen after suffering heavy casualties over the last two months while fighting alongside the Saudi-led Coalition forces and the Hadi loyalists.

Local activists have reported this news after they intercepted a communication between Blackwater officers and members of the Saudi-led Coalition in the coastal province of Ta’iz.

In a matter of two months, the Blackwater Group has lost well over 100 casualties at the volatile Ta’iz front, including operatives from a dozen countries around the world.

Most of the Blackwater operatives killed in Yemen were believed to be from Colombia and Argentina; however, there were also casualties from the United States (U.S.), Australia, and France.

Blackwater Group’s withdrawal from the Ta’iz Governorate comes just four days after the Houthis and the Yemeni Army’s 48th Brigade of the Republican Guard seized Jabal Al-Shabakah.

Sir Robert Owen appears to have lacked the legal qualifications to chair the recently-concluded Inquiry in the Alexander Litvinenko [pictured left] death case. His report released on January 21 sparked international controversy when he concluded the murder was likely ordered by Vladimir Putin himself. Now Britain is faced with deciding what to do with Owen’s hopelessly flawed final Inquiry report. (See “Six reasons you can’t take the Litvinenko report seriously.”)

The consequences of this botched report are grave. Tensions have seriously risen between Russia and the UK. Some even plead that more sanctions be imposed upon Russia.

That hands Prime Minister David Cameron a hot potato. Will he continue to bluff his way through, contending that Owen’s report is legitimate? Or will he do the right thing and recall the bogus document?

What was deficient about Owen’s qualifications? There is one overriding issue:

The law requires that an official Inquiry be conducted impartially. Indeed, the Inquiries Act of 2005 carries a clear “requirement of impartiality.”

However, Owen has established an official record for himself that dispels any presumption of impartiality. Earlier, while acting as coroner in the case, he embarked upon a mission to pin culpability on the Russian state. He did that despite the fact that the Coroners and Justice Act specifically prohibits assigning blame. The Act says a coroner is forbidden from issuing a determination of criminal or civil liability.

The mandate is so strong that it enjoins even the appearance of placing either criminal or civil blame. And still worse for Owen, he was forbidden by law from even expressing an opinion on the subject. His job was to ascertain “who the deceased was,” and tell “how, when, and where the deceased came by his or her death.” Finding who to blame was not part of his mandate.

When Owen flatly refused to carry out his statutory duties, Home Secretary Theresa May literally laid down the law. On July 17, 2013, she officially told him to stop his illicit criminal investigation and concentrate on his actual duties. In response, Owen finally capitulated. On December 18, 2013, he wrote:

“I have therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russian state responsibility should also be withdrawn from the scope of the inquest.”

In my book Litvinenko Murder Case Solved I commented on his statement:

“That is an extremely startling development. Previously, Owen had said that the possible culpability of the Russian state was of central importance in the case. Much of Owen’s work had been focused on finding a Russian culprit.”

Now back to the official Inquiry: What’s significant is that Owen had plainly admitted that as coroner he was pursuing Russian state responsibility. He had taken on the pursuit entirely on his own, despite the legal prohibition.

What’s not to understand about Owen’s obvious partiality? Instead of following the law that instructed him not to place blame, he pursued culpability with a vengeance. That means he lacked an overriding qualification for chairing the official Inquiry. He was not impartial. He lacked objectivity.

In a March 2014 report, a select committee in Parliament addressed the problem of objectivity when conducting an official Inquest. It declared:

“One thing is clear to us. Establishing an inquiry should not be a matter of politics.”

That was not to be in the Litvinenko case, however. Owen’s inquiry was hastily authorized as Prime Minister David Cameron was joining in the Russia sanctions frenzy that erupted over the MH17 tragedy. It’s no wonder that laws were overlooked and an illogical verdict was reached.

What we have then is an official Inquiry report with conclusions that are wildly flawed and hard to take seriously, that was written by a retired judge who couldn’t meet the most fundamental qualification, that of impartiality.

There’s little doubt that justice mandates that Owen’s report must be recalled. But will Prime Minister David Cameron now have the courage to do that?

So-called “incitement” is a phony Israeli catch-all pretext for detaining, brutalizing or murdering anyone considered resisting its occupation – illegal under international law.

On Tuesday, Washington Post Jerusalem bureau chief William Booth and reporter Sufian Taha (a city resident) [both pictured left] were detained on spurious grounds of “incitement.”

They were questioned about an alleged plot supposedly involving Arab youths confronting Israeli police, despite no evidence suggesting it.

Both journalists were interviewing Old City residents when detained. WaPo reporter Ruth Eglash witnessed what happened, saying Booth and Taha were ordered not to speak to each other when  taken in for questioning.

Separately, she twittered

#Israeli border policemen arrest  #journalists at the Damascus Gate, accusing them of incitement!!”

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said both journalists were interrogated about an “unspecified” incident, then released after cleared of involvement in what never happened.

Jerusalem police concocted a phony scenario about an unidentified

“passerby (a likely security force plant) complain(ing) he was witness to the intention on the part of a number of people to stage a provocation…and disturbance (instigated) by young Arabs directed at police (for) propaganda purposes.”

No evidence was presented proving it. None exists, the episode one of multiple daily assaults on fundamental Palestinian rights, including extrajudicial assassinations, journalists frequently targeted, WaPo reporters briefly victimized.

Longtime WaPo editorial policy supports Israel.  Nonetheless, a statement issued by its foreign editor, Douglas Jehl, called what happened “extremely troubling.”

An Israeli government press office apology rang hollow, claiming “(f)reedom of the press is a supreme value of Israeli democracy.”

“Democracy” is pure fantasy, press freedom increasingly jeopardized, Palestinian and Israeli Arab journalists frequently arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for exposing regime crimes.

Jewish bloggers and social media users must now submit their material to a military censor, posting only what’s approved, subject to arrest and prosecution otherwise.

The Foreign Press Association blasted the arrest of WaPo journalists, saying it was based on an “absurd accusation.”

“We do not think it is coincidental that a baseless accusation of ‘incitement’ was made at a time when blanket accusations of bias are being leveled against the foreign press by Israeli officials and commentators,” – as well as Jewish and Arab journalists.

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. 

Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower have made major advances across the battlefield along multiple fronts.

Around Aleppo, Syrian forces have cut supply lines from Turkey that were for years, supplying terrorists operating inside the country. Just east of a growing encirclement of the city of Aleppo, a secondary encirclement of so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) forces is forming as the offensive to relieve Kuweris Airbase has evolved into a northern advance toward Al Bab – a critical logistical hub used by US-NATO-GCC backed terrorists during the initial invasion of Aleppo in 2012 and onward.

Deeper within the interior of Syria, Syrian forces have advanced eastward into the Al Raqqa Governorate, approaching the Tabaqa Airbase. The airbase is a crucial waypoint toward seizing back the city of Al Raqqa itself, which has become the defacto capital of ISIS.

Advances Against ISIS in East Only Possible After Cutting NATO-Fed Supply Lines in North

This second operation aimed at ISIS in Al Raqqah has only been made possible because of successes amid the first operation around Aleppo and along the Turkish-Syrian border. It is now demonstrably clear that the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity originated almost exclusively from NATO-member Turkey’s territory and more specifically, from between the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor.

So far, NATO has been unable to account for this obvious fact, or explain why it has been unable to secure the Turkish border from the Turkish side, particularly when nations including the United States and United Kingdom have for years been conducting military and intelligence operations precisely in the same locations ISIS supplies have been crossing over into Syria from.

As Syrian and Kurdish forces backed by Russian airpower close one logistical corridor after another along the border, the fighting capacity of ISIS has withered to the verge of collapsing.

As ISIS Folds US-NATO-GCC Mount Rescue 

For several days now, Turkey has been firing across the border at the pivotal Syrian city of Azaz. The city is on the verge of being overrun by Kurdish fighters who will for all intents and purposes shut down one of ISIS’ last remaining logistical hubs supplying their fighters in Syria from Turkey.

Turkey has vowed not to allow the city to fall and has implied that it is willing to go as far as invade Syria to ensure that it doesn’t.

While Turkey poses as an enemy of ISIS and has not mentioned its presence in the city of Azaz or why it would attempt to protect them, it would be in 2013 that the BBC itself would declare Azaz “seized” by the terrorist group. In their article, “Isis seizure of Syria’s Azaz exposes rebel rifts,” the BBC would report:

…the Free Syrian Army lost the town of Azaz to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or Isis, the most hardline group linked to al-Qaeda on the rebel side. As a measure of the grip the jihadis have in Azaz, one eyewitness inside the town said no-one was smoking on the streets – tobacco is forbidden according to strict Islamist doctrine.

Other reports from last year indicated that ISIS was either near or in the city – suggesting not that it had ever lost control of Azaz – but that at various moments during the conflict, it suited the West and its regional allies better to pretend “moderate rebels” held it instead.

It should be noted that in all Western media stories, it is never precisely mentioned who the Kurds are fighting in Azaz – because it is ISIS.

Considering this, Turkey would be quite literally intervening to save ISIS and other hardcore terrorist groups sharing the city with it.

Saber-Rattling or Wider War? 

An invasion into Syria would constitute an act of war – and beyond that – affirmation that NATO was behind the ISIS menace from the beginning. While leaks like that of the United States’ own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 2015 have exposed this rhetorically, a NATO invasion of Syria to save an ISIS stronghold from destruction would prove it demonstrably.

The fact that the US is attempting to distance itself politically from both Turkey and Saudi Arabia – who has also pledged to carry out ground operations in Syria amid the collapse of terrorist fronts across the country – indicates a possible attempt to produce plausible deniability ahead of a much larger provocation or intervention.

Just as US policymakers had plotted in 2009 to use an apparent “unilateral” attack by Israel upon Iran to provoke a retaliation the US could then use as a pretext to “reluctantly’ go to war, a similar strategy appears to be materializing along Syria’s borders today.

While the US and Europe attempt to distance themselves from Turkey, they have at the same time committed to a campaign of disinformation attempting to frame ongoing security operations moving ever closer toward Turkey’s border as “targeting civilians” and attacking “moderate rebels” at the expense of fighting ISIS. This is to lend Turkey and Saudi Arabia rhetorical cover, however tenuous, ahead of any actual intervention.

What will ultimately determine whether this remains mere “saber-rattling” or transforms incrementally into wider war, will be the actual deterrence Syria and its allies, including nuclear-armed Russia, are prepared to meet continued provocations with.

The next few days pose a critical test to Syria and its allies – a test that may determine whether or not this conflict passes through the gateway toward greater war.

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

One of the most significant losses to the world’s cultural heritage among the many which have resulted from the Syrian civil war has been the destruction of the ancient market town of Aleppo;

Free Syrian Army (FSA) units and various terrorist groups destroyed and set fire to the shopping streets at the beginning of the conflict.

Economic data this week from China and Japan, respectively the world’s second and third largest economies, point to the deepening global slump that underlies the turbulence on financial markets.

Japan’s economy contracted at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, worse than the expected figure of 1.2 percent. The main reason was a significant fall in consumption spending, which dropped by an annual rate of 3.3 percent for the quarter, reflecting the lack of wages growth.

According to Sumitomo Mitsui Trust economist, Genzo Kimura: “The gap between prices and slow wage growth continues to widen, taking away the purchasing power from households in Japan. We’re now facing an economic bottleneck.”

Total wages in Japan have not risen by more than 1 percent for any year since 1997. For the past four years they have fallen in real terms when inflation is taken into account.

Public investment was also down, contracting at an annual rate of 10.3 percent. Far from providing a stimulus to the economy, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government is actually imposing austerity.

Growth for the full year of 2015 was just 0.4 percent, following zero growth in 2014. The results have shattered the government’s claims that so-called Abenomics would provide a stimulus to the economy.

The announcement of the latest downturn came in the wake of the surprise decision at the end of last month by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) to cut the interest rate on new deposits placed with it to minus 0.1 percent. While the rate cut was not reflected in the output results for the last quarter, it could have an impact on future consumption spending. Economists warn that consumers will not react favourably, viewing the minus rate as evidence of growing economic problems and decide to hold back on spending.

Central bankers eschew claims that they are cutting rates to lower the value of the national currency, lest they be accused of engaging in a currency war. Nevertheless, although that was not the stated aim of the rate cut, it was expected that the value of the yen would fall. However, because of increased turbulence in the global financial system, the currency’s value has actually risen since the BoJ announcement.

Since the start of the year, the yen has risen by 5.6 percent against the US dollar, eroding the competitiveness of Japanese exports.

In anticipation of the poor growth figures, BoJ deputy governor Hiroshi Nakosa called for the government to undertake decisive action to pull the country out of deflation.

The main emphasis of his remarks in a speech last weekend was the need to implement so-called structural reforms aimed at scrapping labour market regulations and implementing changes to the pension system. In other words, deepening attacks on the position of the working class, supposedly with the aim of “unlocking” economic growth.

The economic news from China was as bad as that from Japan. Exports for January fell by 11.2 percent in year-on-year terms, compared to a forecast 3.6 percent decline, while imports contracted by 18.8 percent.

The Chinese trade figures reflected the worsening slowdown around the world. Exports to the US were down by 9.7 percent year-on-year, and those to the European Union fell by 11.9 percent. Exports to Japan and South Korea, China’s two largest trading partners in Asia, fell by 5.3 percent and 15.9 percent respectively.

The Chinese slowdown was graphically revealed in figures for imports of two key industry raw materials. Coal imports were down by 9.2 percent year-on-year while the quantity of oil imports dipped by 4.6 percent.

The fall in imports overall may have been worse than the official figures indicate. The decline of 7.6 percent in December was likely understated because companies used overcharged invoices for imports as a means for moving money out of the country.

The overcharging of imports, by which mainland Chinese companies use a trading partner in Hong Kong to shift out money, is just one aspect of a growing capital flight.

The New York Times carried a report last weekend that wealthy Chinese families were trying to move large sums out of the country, fearing that the currency’s value will fall sharply and they will suffer heavy losses of wealth. The article noted that over the past year individuals and companies have moved nearly $1 trillion out of China. Foreign currency reserves, which once stood at $4 trillion, are now down to $3.23 trillion and have declined at the rate of more than $100 billion for each of the past two months.

“The swell of outflow is a destabilizing force in China’s slowing economy, threatening to undermine confidence and hurt a banking system that is struggling to deal with a decade-long lending binge,” the report said.

The Peoples Bank of China (PBoC) is trying to prevent a rush for the exits. It is using the country’s foreign exchange reserves to prevent a fall in the renminbi. But the continuing rundown in reserves, far from calming the situation, is only adding to concerns that the currency may be heading for a dramatic fall.

The Times article cited a Hong Kong money manager who sits on the boards of numerous state-owned enterprises in China. He said pessimism was becoming the consensus. Among the companies with which he was in contact, “all of them have the intention of moving money out of the country.”

In a bid to quell the outflow, PBoC deputy governor Zhou Xiaochuan gave an interview to the financial magazine Caixin in which he insisted there was no basis for concerns over the falling value of the renminbi. He dismissed suggestions that authorities would introduce tighter capital controls.

“It is normal for foreign reserves to rise and fall as long as the fundamentals face no problems,” he said, adding that it was necessary to distinguish between capital outflow and capital flight.

But it is precisely in the “fundamentals” where the problems of the Chinese economy lie. Key sections of industry have significant overcapacity, debt problems are rising and property values, while still rising in major cities, are falling elsewhere.

Figures released on Monday showed non-performing loans at Chinese banks rose by 51 percent last year, lifting the bad-loan ratio to 1.67 percent of assets, from 1.25 percent in 2014.

The percentage levels might appear small but the amounts involved are huge. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, Chinese indebtedness rose from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion by the middle of 2014.

“Three developments are potentially worrisome: half of all loans are linked directly or indirectly to China’s overheated real estate market; unregulated shadow banking accounts for nearly half of new lending; and the debt of many local governments is probably unsustainable,”

it said.

Turkey is pressing for the US and its allies to launch a ground invasion as the only means of ending the nearly five-year-old civil war in Syria, an official in Ankara told the media Wednesday. “We are asking coalition partners that there should be a ground operation,” said the official, who was authorized to speak on the condition of anonymity. “We are discussing this with allies.”

While adding that such an invasion would not take the form of a “unilateral military operation from Turkey in Syria,” the official insisted, “Without a ground operation, it is impossible to stop the fighting in Syria.”

The potential support for such an escalation of the Syrian war has found expression in a concerted propaganda campaign, particularly in Europe, over the deaths of some 50 civilians in attacks on hospitals and schools in northern Syria on Monday. The Western media and several European governments have blamed the deaths on the Syrian government and the Russian forces supporting it, charges that both Damascus and Moscow have denied.

Earlier this month, both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which, like Turkey, are key patrons of the Islamist militias in Syria, announced that they were prepared to send troops into the country. The Saudi royal regime transferred four of its warplanes to Turkey’s Incirlik air base.

Asked what the goal of such a ground operation would be, the Turkish official replied, to remove “all terror groups from Syria,” adding that Turkey included in this category not only the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but also Syrian Kurdish forces and the Syrian government itself.

While insisting on the need for the “international coalition” to participate in any invasion, the Turkish official left open the possibility of unilateral action if this failed to materialize. “Of course, it is difficult to reckon what could happen in 10 days,” he said. “If conditions change, there might be some options.”

These statements came as Turkey continued its bombardment of northern Syria with long-range artillery for a fourth consecutive day. The target of the Turkish fire is the YPG, or People’s Protection Units, the Syrian Kurdish militia.

Backed by Russian air strikes, the YPG has made major military advances near the Turkish border against Al Qaeda-linked Islamist forces supported by Ankara and the West. Meanwhile, troops loyal to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad have scored similar victories around Aleppo, which was Syria’s largest city and commercial center before the US-orchestrated war for regime-change. This war has claimed the lives of over a quarter of a million Syrians and turned 11 million more into homeless refugees.

During a visit to Ukraine—undoubtedly staged in a deliberate bid to ratchet up tensions with Russia—Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Tuesday that Turkey would continue its bombardment of Turkish territory until the YPG withdrew from the strategic border town of Azaz.

The Turkish shelling and demands for an outright invasion of Syria reflect the growing desperation of the imperialist powers and their regional allies over the reversals suffered in their attempt to overthrow the Assad government by arming and funding Salafist jihadi forces in a sectarian civil war.

The government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has declared its support for the so-called war against ISIS initiated by the US with bombing campaigns in both Iraq and Syria. Ankara has used this campaign, however, as a cover for launching its own military assault against Kurdish forces in both of those countries, together with a bloody crackdown against the population in Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish provinces. It has drawn an equal sign between ISIS, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military arm, the YPG, branding them all as “terrorist.”

Ankara’s immediate concern is to prevent the YPG advances from linking up two separate Kurdish enclaves in northwestern and northeastern Syria, effectively creating an autonomous Kurdish territory on Turkey’s southern border.

At the same time, both the Erdogan government and the Saudi monarchy are determined to prevent the advances by the YPG and Syrian government forces from cutting off the last supply routes that have been used to funnel massive quantities of arms and supplies to the Islamist militias in an operation coordinated by the CIA.

Any Turkish-Saudi intervention would be directed at crushing the Kurds and supporting the Islamists. Both these aims would quickly pose the direct threat of a military confrontation with the Syrian government and the Russian forces that are supporting it.

Given Turkey’s premeditated ambush of a Russian warplane on the Turkish-Syrian border last November, it is certain that any attempt to send Turkish planes into action over Syria would provoke a swift response. Russia has deployed advanced S-400 antiaircraft weapons systems in Syria for just such a purpose.

Less than a week after the US, Russia and the other 15 members of the International Syria Support Group agreed in Munich on a “cessation of hostilities” by the end of this week, the five-year-old conflict appears to be closer than ever to erupting into a regional and potentially global conflict.

Syrian President Assad issued a warning to this effect on Monday, saying that any ground invasion of Syria would have “global repercussions” and that Turkish and Saudi forces would find that such an adventure would be no “picnic.”

Assad’s statement follows similar warnings by Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev, who said last week that such an intervention would pose the danger of “sparking a new world war.”

The hysteria being whipped up over the 50 civilian casualties reported on Monday is an indication that the threat of a wider war is steadily growing. The French and British governments followed Turkey in alleging that the Syrian and Russian governments were guilty of “war crimes.”

More substantively, German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced her support for a “no-fly zone,” a long-time demand of the Turkish government, which wants to carve out a cordon of Syrian territory as a means of better organizing the war for regime-change, quelling the Kurds and containing the flow of refugees.

Russia denied responsibility for the attacks on the schools and hospitals, insisting that it had no forces capable of firing the missiles that were said to have hit them. The worst of the attacks took place in Azaz, where Prime Minister Davutoglu vowed Turkey would mount “a severe response” to the Kurdish offensive.

The Syrian ambassador to Moscow, Riad Haddad, charged that one of the hospitals had been the target of a US air strike.

The furor over alleged Russian and Syrian government “war crimes” stands in stark contrast to the utter silence of Western governments and media over the deaths of civilians resulting from air strikes by the US-led coalition, which have killed roughly 1,000 in Iraq and Syria since they began in August 2014.

Amid the growing international tensions, it was announced in Syria that Hashem al-Sheikh, also known as Abu Jaber, has been named the new commander of the so-called “rebels” resisting the Syrian government advance on the city of Aleppo. He was, until last September, the leader of Ahrar al-Sham, a hardline Salafist jihadi militia founded by Al Qaeda veterans from Afghanistan. It has fought in close alliance with Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the al-Nusra Front, as well as Chechen Islamist fighters. These are the elements that Washington and its allies routinely refer to as the “moderate opposition.”

On Thursday, 12 February, US Secretary of State John Kerry met his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Munich. Kerry announced that a ceasefire agreement could be implemented «within days». Lavrov replied that «the main result of meeting in Munich was a confirmation of the UN resolution on Syria».

Many media sources say that «the West», largely represented by the United States and its British amanuensis, are in a panic because Russian military assistance to Syria has turned the tide of battle in the proxy, not civil war against the Syrian government in Damascus. Kerry is in a hurry now to stave off disaster and a remarkable Russian «victory».

In fact, the Syrian Arab Army is encircling Jihadist terrorists in Aleppo and moving toward the Turkish border to cut off their supply routes. What sweet irony, the Jihadists who encircled government-held Aleppo, now themselves risk encirclement. Turn-about is fair play everywhere except for the western Mainstream Media (MSM).

The US role in the proxy war against Syria is well known – except in the United States apparently.

The Obama administration has directly or indirectly supported ISIS and various iterations of Al-Qaeda in Syria and is now rushing to save them through a ceasefire agreement that would let them survive and replenish themselves.

US policy is redolent of another Munich agreement in September 1938 when Britain and France sold out Czechoslovakia to get on better terms with Nazi Germany. Then as now, the Russians played a positive role, seeking to organise resistance against an aggressor. The aggressor in 1938 was Nazi Germany; in 2016, the aggressor is a «western» coalition led by the United States, and including various NATO and regional vassal states, amongst them, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. All these desperados would be appropriate candidates for a police lineup in The Hague. In 1938, the idea was to break up Czechoslovakia; in 2016, the idea is to breakup Syria, by overthrowing the legal government in Damascus. In 1938 the Czechoslovak government chose to capitulate; in 2011 the Syrian government chose to fight. Whereas the USSR did not intervene militarily in 1938, the Russian government took a big risk in 2015 and intervened at the request of Damascus to fight the foreign backed, foreign Jihadist armed forces entrenched in Syria.

You would think that Kerry would have chosen another place to meet with Lavrov to avoid the odium of association with another western evil deed done in Munich almost eighty years ago. This time it’s the United States and its vassals waging war against Syria. In fact, as I write these lines, Turkey is bombarding Kurdish and Syrian Arab Army positions in northern Syria. The United States is reported to be pleading with its Turkish NATO ally to stop attacking US Kurdish allies who are fighting against Jihadists who are also US allies.

It’s «illegal», some western commentators like to say about the war against Syria, but that’s just a politically correct euphemism for aggression. There’s no other way to put it unless you believe western fairy stories about spreading «democracy». But who gave the West the right to spread «democracy» at the point of a gun, allied with Arab absolute monarchies?

Yet suddenly the United States has become a humanitarian and wants to stop the fighting it has brokered and nurtured for five years. We have to help refugees leaving Aleppo, the Americans say, to escape Russian bombing, to save children and innocents being threatened by that «barrel-bombing» tyrant, President Bashar al Assad. Trouble is refugees from Aleppo headed for safety in Turkey are reported to be Jihadists on the run from the advancing Syrian Arab Army.

Oh, how the West hates those «others» who do not bow to western hegemony.

We have to provide «humanitarian aid» to help starving Syrians. «This is what the world wants,» say US shills, «Global opinion is clear… We are seeing a lot of people killed… The Russians are bombing hospitals, murdering civilians…» Here we go again. Will Pot ever stop calling Kettle black? Will the West ever stop thinking it represents «global opinion»? Will the US and its vassals ever be shamed by their preposterous hypocrisy and double standards? Clearly not.

This bogus western script is redolent of «Responsibility to Protect» (R2P), the spurious US justification for aggression against Iraq and Libya. It is now a returning refrain, this time, to protect foreign supplied, foreign Jihadists. The Western Mainstream Media has become hysterical about the Russian bombing of «moderate» Jihadists, though there are no «moderate» Jihadists.

And have you noticed? There is virtually no mentioning now in the MSM about the composition of ISIS and Al-Qaeda forces fighting in Syria, about the foreign Jihadists estimated to come from at least forty countries, and numbering several tens of thousands. In fact, the MSM talks about Saudi Arabia and Turkey committing more resources to fighting ISIS. Who does the MSM think it’s fooling? In fact, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the principal arms purveyors and quartermasters of ISIS and their Al-Qaeda allies. The former is an intimate US vassal, the latter a NATO member. An American report indicates that «US allies have [just] delivered a massive shipment of ground-to-ground ‘Grad’ missiles to rebels in Syria». That was one day after the conclusion of the «ceasefire agreement». One wonders how ordinary Europeans and Canadians feel about NATO members backing a Jihadist proxy war against Syria and risking a confrontation with Russia in defence of their faltering «moderate» Jihadist allies.

Of course the «moderate opposition» is an imaginary cover to justify R2P. A German intelligence source estimates that 95% of combatants fighting against the Damascus government are not Syrian. As one commentator puts it, the «moderates» are only to be found «in fancy suits in Western hotel lobbies». The «four or five» moderates armed by the United States at a cost of $500 million are all that existed as a military force on the ground in Syria. What a fiasco. US armed «moderates» are long gone, either ran away or gone over to Al-Qaeda. «If you want to ask why Assad is still the president of Syria», says the above mentioned commentator, «the answer is not simply Russia or Iran, but the fact that his army remains resilient and pluralistic, representing a Syria in which religion alone does not determine who rises to the top».

Can you imagine anything more despicable than the West’s role in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East? Now we have Munich 2016 where the West is again on the wrong side. Of course, a ceasefire would save the Jihadists from defeat, allow them to resupply and refit from Turkey, Jordan, and apartheid Israel, and enable them to fight another day. The US is still talking about an «interim government» without Assad. So are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Humanitarian aid would eventually be delivered not by airdrops but by US and other western military forces on the ground, allied with «moderate» Al-Qaeda derivatives, which would then attack the lawful government in Damascus. It is reported that Britain is sending 1600 troops to Jordan to train for action against Russia. Who are they kidding? And to be sure it’s just a coincidence that the MSM is talking up humanitarian aid to the Syrian people in need thanks to western military aggression against them. Kerry’s proposal for a ceasefire has nothing to do with «humanitarian aid» and everything to do with giving new life to the Jihadist proxy war against Syria. It has everything to do too with saving face. Can you imagine the humiliation in Washington, and the US cartoonists’ field day with the Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama, portrayed as a cowardly pipsqueak who cannot stand up to Russia?

Kerry’s ceasefire proposal is a formula for permanent war in Syria and the Middle East. During a ceasefire, will Turkey stop supplying ISIS and Al-Qaeda across its borders? Will Saudi Arabia and Qatar stop funding Salafi Jihadist forces in Syria? Of course, they will not. And what about Iraq? Who will stop ISIS in Iraq from strengthening itself and gaining strength from ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria? One American dissident group says the Munich ceasefire is not worth the paper it’s written on, incidentally, the same metaphor used for the Munich accords in 1938.

Lavrov insists that there will be no ceasefire against ISIS and the al-Nusra Front. That’s all to the good. But what about the other Jihadist groups, backed by the US and its vassals? Minister Lavrov undoubtedly knows that Kerry is trying to finesse Russia into stopping its support of the Syrian Arab Army, so that the US can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Time will tell whether Kerry succeeds or not. Will Russia sell out its friends to buy off its enemies, as the West did at Munich in 1938? Not this time. Once burnt, twice shy. I hope that Lavrov will be not be fooled again by his double-dealing, Russophobic western «partners».

T Sabri Öncü ([email protected]) is an economist based in Istanbul, Turkey.

Just an hour before my wife and I landed in her native Puerto Rico last month, the island’s government had defaulted on $1 billion in bond interest payments. It was the second default in five months for the cash-strapped government whose debt now totals $72 billion. None of this was evident as we waded through the crowds in Rafael Hernández airport in Aguadilla, which had been converted into a civilian airport after the closure of Ramey Air Force Base 40 years earlier. People hugged their relatives, welcoming them back home or bidding them farewell. It was a normal scene you’d see at any airport in the world. But the situation in Puerto Rico is not normal, and you don’t have to spend long there to see how regular people are suffering more every day under the crushing burden of debt.

You notice every time you make a purchase at the store or get the check at a restaurant. The sales tax in Puerto Rico now stands at 11.5 percent, after being raised 64 percent in July from 7 percent. The measure was approved by the island’s governor, Alejandro García Padilla, in conjunction with a package of austerity measures to raise money to pay the interest on the island’s debt to creditors.

This might not sound like an astronomical amount, but the impact is felt more in Puerto Rico than it would be in any of the states. Sales taxes are regressive. People with lower incomes spend more of their earnings on things that are taxed than those who can afford to store their income as savings. This means the lower your income, the harder you will be hit by the sales tax.

Puerto Rico’s median average income of less than $20,000 is 50 percent less than the poorest American state. For families already struggling to pay the bills on such meager earnings, the additional sales tax burden is eating away their little disposable income, or worse, forcing them to borrow to pay for their basic necessities.

Outside a beachfront restaurant in Aguada, I noticed an SUV with a bumper sticker that summed up the feelings of many Puerto Ricans. “The debt is not ours, it belongs to the Empire,” it read. Many people may believe this represents Puerto Ricans failing to take responsibility for running up a tab they now can’t pay. But this would falsely assume that Puerto Rico exercises independent control over the conditions that created the debt. In reality, Puerto Rico is a colony whose political and economic structures are determined by the dictates of the empire they belong to.

Constrained by the neoliberal capitalist system of the United States, Puerto Rico is unable to chart its own course for independent economic development. The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution makes it impossible for Puerto Rico to protect its own industries. They must allow American businesses equal access to Puerto Rico’s markets. The Cabotage Laws make shipping to and from Puerto Rico prohibitively expensive, impeding demand for exports and driving up prices on imports.

The detrimental effects of U.S.-imposed restrictions on Puerto Rico’s economy have forced them to incur debt to pay for social spending. Unlike every other industrial country in the world, the United States does not provide universal health care to its citizens. The federal programs that are supposed to guarantee insurance for the poor and the elderly do not apply equally to Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico only receives half the rate of federal healthcare funding as the 50 states, even though its residents pay the same rates in payroll taxes. This strain was further exacerbated last month when the U.S. government cut payments to Puerto Rico’s Medicare Advantage program by 11 percent. My in-laws told us how their prescription deductibles and their co-pays under their Medicare Advantage plans had increased. The Puerto Rican Healthcare Crisis Coalition (PRHCC) called the decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services a “blow to the health of the entire Puerto Rican community.”

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which is supposed to guarantee health insurance to the rest of the population, does not apply equally to Puerto Rico either. While Puerto Rico passed its own laws requiring features of Obamacare – such as prohibiting denial of insurance based on pre-existing conditions and caps on coverage – there is no individual mandate. The result is a “death spiral” for private insurance plans. Elderly and sick people purchase coverage, while younger and healthier customers, who don’t need the same level of costly care, opt not to participate. This drives up premiums drastically, making plans prohibitively expensive for those who need them most.

With federal government spending and local tax revenue insufficient to meet the population’s health care needs, the Puerto Rican government must assume more debt to cover the difference.

Privatization of Public Assets

Like countries across the global South who have found themselves indebted to U.S.-run institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, Puerto Rico has been encouraged to privatize its public assets and use the money to pay its creditors.Under former Governor Luis Fortuño in 2009, Act 29 was passed to allow government to enter into public-private partnerships for infrastructure and other projects. It created the Public Private Partnership Authority (PPPA) to “identify, evaluate, and select the projects that shall be established as Public Private Partnerships.”The first target for private takeover of Puerto Rico’s public infrastructure was the island’s most traveled highway, PR-22. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (Metropistas), was awarded a 40-year lease for $1.49 billion to operate both the PR-22 and PR-5 highways. The company is a consortium of a Goldman Sachs infrastructure investment fund and a Spanish toll concession company.
PR-22 runs from San Juan west through 12 municipalities towards Aguadilla. Metropistas recently raised the toll prices after the expiration of an initial period where they were prohibited from doing so. But apparently tolls are not the only way they are generating revenue.

A friend explained how the electronic toll collection system, AutoExpreso, had been malfunctioning and issuing fines for not having enough money in your account to pay the toll, even when the account did actually have money. He said that he received four separate fines, none of which was valid. When he tried to contest the fines he was told that based on a technicality (not submitting an appeal in writing by an arbitrary deadline) the fines would stand, even though they should have never been issued in the first place. When he complained, he was told he had a choice to pay or to find another route. Of course, the only alternative for commuters in that heavily populated area of the island is to use inaccessible and inconvenient back roads.

Puerto Rico’s main airport, Luis Muñoz Marin in San Juan, was also recently privatized. The Mexican company Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste SAB de CV and private-equity firm Highstar Capital received a 40-year lease to operate the airport. The deal was negotiated under the previous administration, but did not take effect until García Padilla took office. Unsurprisingly, the first time I visited after the privatization I discovered the airport no longer offered free Wifi.
That Puerto Rico’s public assets have been turned into investment opportunities for American and foreign creditors should come as no surprise. Since its inception as a Commonwealth (a euphemism for colony), the interests of capital have taken priority over the general population. Puerto Rico’s Constitution grants creditors first priority for payment, ahead of even the population whose will the Constitution is supposed to represent.

Daliah Lugo explains this mystifying legal arrangement in her Opinion and Order blog: “That’s right: the entity we know as ‘Puerto Rico’ was in fact set up by Congress and its allies as a corporation, its first duty always to its investors.”

A political arrangement that does not prioritize the people who purportedly consent to it is farcical. Puerto Rico has never achieved self-determination, despite the fact the UN removed the island from its list of Non-Self-Governing territories in 1952. The UN’s Special Committe on Decolonization has recognized this as recently as 2014 when they called on the United States to end their “subjugation” of Puerto Rico and allow its people to “fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination.”

But the United States does not want to acknowledge that, having failed to grant sovereignty to Puerto Rico, they legally hold “the obligation to promote to the utmost … the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories,” according to Article 73 of the UN Charter. Only the U.S. Congress – not Puerto Rico’s legislature – has the ability to change Puerto Rico’s political status. But they have never given any indication they intend to do so, despite a 2012 referendum in which Puerto Ricans decisively rejected the current colonial status.

Few Americans are aware of the social and economic crisis consuming Puerto Rico, which is rarely covered by mainstream news organizations (other than some notable exceptions). But as expenses rise – for housing, health care, groceries, utilities – and economic opportunities disappear, families find themselves in a more and more precarious situation. A change in political status that would finally grant the Puerto Rican people a right to govern themselves in their own interest is the only hope to reverse the devastation 117 years as a debt colony has wrought.

Matt Peppe writes the Just the Facts blog. He can be reached on Facebook and Twitter or by email at [email protected].

In an article in a British newspaper Russia’s ambassador to the UK reveals the Russians were told by the Western powers that after the US proclaimed a no-fly zone ISIS would capture Damascus

Alexander Yakovenko, Russia’s ambassador to Britain, dropped something of a bombshell on Monday, though one that has gone completely unnoticed.

In a piece in the print edition of the London Evening Standard defending Russian policy in Syria he made the following extraordinary disclosure:

Last summer we were told by our Western partners that in October Damascus would fall to IS (ie. the Islamic State – AM).

What they were planning to do next we don’t know.  Probably, they would have ended up painting the extremists white and accepting them as a Sunni state straddling Iraq and Syria.

The summer – when these conversations between the Western powers and the Russians allegedly took place – was the time when the US was in discussions with Turkey and Jordan about setting up a no-fly zone and safe havens in Syria.

I discussed in this article how “no-fly zone” is today simply a euphemism for a US bombing campaign.

What Yakovenko is therefore in effect saying is that the US was planning in the summer to start a bombing campaign to overthrow the government of Syria in the knowledge that this would result by October in the victory of the Islamic State and its capture of Damascus.

ISIS’s flag – flying by now over Damascus if Russia had not intervened

Russia Insider has previously explained that it was to stop the US proclaiming a no-fly zone– i.e. commencing a bombing campaign aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government – that Russia intervened in Syria.

The fact Yakovenko says the US told the Russians this would result in the Islamic State capturing Damascus by October explains why the Russians felt they had to act as they did.

Is Yakovenko however telling the truth?

The first thing to say is that the British and US governments have not denied what he is saying.

That however is not conclusive.  It is not difficult to see why the British and US governments might think that in light of the incendiary nature of what Yakovenko is saying denying it would simply give his comments more publicity if they denied them and that the better approach is silence.

If so, then the fact Yakovenko’s comments have been almost entirely ignored shows this approach has worked.

Is Yakovenko however senior enough to know the details of the discussions that took place in the summer between the Russians and the Western powers as he says?

The answer to that question is almost certainly yes.

Though London is no longer the most important diplomatic posting for a Russian ambassador in Western Europe, it remains an important posting, and any official appointed to be Russia’s ambassador to Britain is by definition a senior official whom Moscow will ensure is kept well-informed.

If there were discussions of the sort Yakovenko says, he would almost certainly have been fully briefed about them.

What Yakovenko says is also consistent with things we know.

In the summer – having just captured Palmyra – the Islamic State was on a roll, making it not implausible that it might reach Damascus by the autumn.

The Syrian army in the meantime had suffered a succession of heavy defeats, and had been forced to withdraw from Idlib province.

In light of all this, in the context of a US bombing campaign, it is not implausible the US was telling the Russians in the summer that the Islamic State would seize Damascus by October.

As for the US’s discussions about setting up a no-fly zone and safe havens, there was nothing secret about those, and they were openly acknowledged.

Why however would the US tell the Russians that they expected the Islamic State to seize Damascus by October?

That is not a difficult question to answer.

No-one in the early summer thought there was any likelihood the Russians would intervene militarily in Syria.  The US probably thought it was not risking anything by telling Moscow its military plans and what their likely consequences would be.

Probably what the US expected was that the threat of a bombing campaign leading to the seizure of Damascus by the Islamic State would terrify Moscow and persuade the Russians to force Assad to stand down, which has been the US objective all along.

In that case the US seriously underestimated the Russians’ resolve and their willingness to act to prevent what the US was threatening from coming to pass.

Overall Yakovenko’s disclosure makes sense, and is therefore probably true.

What it shows is how reckless the US’s Syrian policy had become.

At the very time the US was pretending to fight the Islamic State it was in fact preparing steps that it knew would facilitate its victory.

Even if this was intended as a diplomatic play it was an extraordinary thing to do.

The families of US victims of jihadi terror would surely feel betrayed if they were ever find out about it, whilst it is not difficult to imagine the consternation and recriminations in Washington when the Russians unexpectedly pre-empted the US strategy by intervening in the way they did.

As for the people of Damascus – spared not just US bombing but rule by the Islamic State – and the people of Europe – who would have faced a far bigger refugee flood if what Washington was telling the Russians had come to pass – they both have reason to be grateful to the Russians for making sure that things turned out otherwise.

The genocide in Rwanda was one hundred percent the responsibility of the Americans. Boutros Boutros Ghali Nov. 21, 2002.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali had the unfortunate role of being secretary general of the United Nations just when the United States proclaimed the New World Order. In ordinary language, that meant the US World Order, where one superpower decided on everything. Mr. Boutros-Ghali still believed in a multipolar, or at least a bipolar world. Here is how the former secretary general described the behaviour of the United States in a 2002 interview.

They didn’t want someone who would question their decisions. They wanted everything, and everything at once! You know, when people have power … I have worked with absolute rulers all my life. They cannot accept discussion; they cannot accept even a minimum of contradiction. I want that! And that’s all. What? You want to discuss the issue? I am the God of Gods, and I will have what I want. And you’re saying that you would like to think about it for a while? [1]

Boutros-Ghali began his mandate as secretary general of the United Nations in January 1992. He was the first African to hold the position. Among the most serious challenges during his mandate was the war in Rwanda that reached a climax in 1994. Washington so disliked Boutros-Ghali, whom US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called “Frenchie,” that they engineered a coup to have him removed and imposed their veto on a second term. He was replaced by Kofi Annan in 1996.

Washington offered Boutros Boutros-Ghali the sort of honours offered to other leaders who they remove. President Clinton promised to receive him at the White House, American Universities would grant him honorary doctorates, and more, but in return he had to step down as Secretary General of his own volition. Boutros-Ghali replied that he did not accept tips.

With his departure it is worth remembering what he said about the Rwandan tragedy:

“The genocide in Rwanda was one hundred percent the responsibility of the Americans.”

Is it a wonder that he was so unceremoniously removed as secretary general of the UN?

Note

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of France’s state of emergency, it is the road to Freedom which is littered with gags and shackles. One teacher most of all: Mr Salah Lamrani has learned what it costs to speak “en Français.”

France continues to project this aura of democratic fortitude; lecturing the world on how countries should behave and govern themselves, due to some colorfully narrated history as the “République” representing Freedom, Equality and Fraternity, when in fact it’s on course to become the very despot it warns against.

A police state hiding behind the veneer of Western democratic sainthood, France is in fact a racist and intolerant state vying for complete political, social, economic and intellectual control … Of course one cannot ignore the religious sphere. In the land of Voltaire, one should not overtly say God; only deny his existence, worshiping instead at the altar of secularism.

Where France once stood for Freedom, its state now wrestles with selective freedoms. Paris is actively looking to thin out the rights civilians are still allowed to practice. How beautiful the French Marianne today! How strong the 5^th Republic …

What is left to say of a state which persecutes its intellectuals and teachers? What is left to say of a system which promotes witch-hunting and fear-mongering, targeting those with views that differ from the Establishment’s?

Isn’t intellectual diktat the very character of a dictatorship? Has France lost all sense of republican pride and identity that it stooped to policing its most dedicated teachers in the name of politica conformity?

In February 2016, Professor Salah Lamrani, a French Literature Middle School tenured teacher in the Paris popular suburb of Seine Saint Denis was unjustly, and unlawfully suspended for four months following phantasmagorical claims he espoused radical tendencies.

Mr Lamrani, whose professional file remains without so much as a blemish, exemplifies France’s descent into ultra-national fascism – this new sense that France needs to stand puritan and absolute in the declaration of its values – even if it means … actually, especially if it means, silencing those who still dare live pluralism as a God given right.

It all began with one teacher’s love for writing and a passion for the French language. A tradition which gifted the world of the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile Zola and Baudelaire has risen today a tyrant, surpressing thoughts, words and philosophies, wielding fear and repression to better bully so-called potential dissidents into not just silence but intellectual uniformity.

A free thinker, Mr lamrani came to clash with a narrow-minded head-teacher, both a product and a tool of the “system”, for he dared express certain opinions on such matters as politics and foreign policy on his personal blog, outside the sphere of control his office could have ever claimed to exert upon his person. Still, he was castigated.

Lamrani openly challenged France’s state of emergency. He dared suggest Russia and Iran were in fact abiding by the spirit of international law in their resistance against Daesh in Syria. An opinion that saw him likened to those rag-tags mercenaries whose blades have inspired only disgust and fear.

In an interview I conducted with him on February 14, Mr Lamrani explained how his troubles stemmed from the implacable authoritarianism his school’s most senior figureheads demonstrated against his person.

I was suspended without any investigation and in spite of my formal complaint for moral harassment and slander due to my school authoritarian management – who didn’t like my Union and blogger activities, and who accused me publicly of being a dangerous terrorist.

In times such as ours such claims should not be taken lightly as they can result in dramatic repercussions – not the least Mr Lamrani’s personal safety, and freedom.

Mr Lamrani’s “crimes” were that he denounced state repression, while proclaiming personal political truths on a platform which was his own, outside school hours, and without any effect on his work as a teacher.

Because one head-teacher, Mrs Khadidja Bot, imagined herself a “keeper” of the establishment, a self-appointed tyrant of the national education complex, one man’s life and future now stand in jeopardy. Because, she, a person of authority, chose to slander and label, to better assert her “power”, a valuable teacher has been shunned by his community and vilified by his colleagues. Without so much as a shred of evidence, without the authorities ever bothering to open an inquiry into his alleged “radicalism”, one man was stripped of his professional dignity.

This is France’s state of emergency! How it treats its nationals, how it rewards free-thinking and intellectualism. France has many lessons to teach the world when it comes to totalitarianism.

But if Mr Lamrani has lost a battle against the Establishment, he is not admitting defeat. In fact, he has vowed to expose the very system which has claimed his freedom and attempted to silence his voice, so that others will learn to speak unhindered.

It was Jean Jaures who said:

All of us forget that before everything else, we are men, ephemeral beings lost in the immense universe, so full of terrors. We are inclined to neglect the search for the real meaning of life, to ignore the real goals – serenity of the spirit and sublimity of the heart … To reach them – that is the revolution.

–