Palestinian human rights activists are calling on Oscar nominees not to accept travel vouchers supplied by the Israeli government as part of the gift bag that will be given to the nominees in the acting and directing categories.

statement from the Israeli ministry of tourism boasted that its initiative is a chance to have “leading opinion-formers” share their visit “among millions of fans and followers”.

Omar Barghouti from the Palestinian BDS National Committee, the largest coalition of Palestinian civil society organisations that leads the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, said:

“There are no Hunger Games in Gaza but there is real hunger, and it is induced by years of Israeli occupation and siege. We hope Oscar nominees will take the moral path of rejecting this free propaganda gift from Capitol while its brutal troops and settlers burn and colonize our District 12.”

In 2012, it was revealed that Israel used “calorie count” to severely limit food supply to the 1.8 million Palestinian under siege in Gaza. A top advisor to Israel’s prime minister in 2006 said:

“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

“Israel is desperately trying to fight its increasing international isolation through bribes and intimidation rather than by ending its occupation and apartheid.”

An increasing number of Israeli politicians and intellectuals have admitted that Israel is practicing apartheid against Palestinians. The publisher of Haaretz, a prominent Israeli daily, has recently written that “only international pressure will end Israeli apartheid.”

A recent US poll has shown a significant shift among the Democratic Party’s “opinion elites,” whereby 47% of the party’s “opinion elites” viewed Israel as a “racist state” and as high as 31% supported boycott and sanctions against it.

“Just as Jonathan Demme and Martin Scorsese founded Filmmakers United Against Apartheid to protest the racist regime in South Africa in the 1980s,” added Barghouti,

“Palestinian artists and civil society expect Hollywood figures to act with conscience by refusing to lend their name to Israel’s desperate attempts to cover up its war crimes and racism against the Palestinian people.”

“The proposed tour sets out to create the impression that occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, is part of Israel despite the fact that the UN, including the US, recognises it as occupied Palestinian territory. This comes at a time when Israel is accelerating its ethnic cleansing and killing of Palestinians in Jerusalem and entrenching its colonialism and apartheid policies.”

Two of this year’s Oscar nominees, Mark Ruffalo and Mark Rylance, have criticised Israeli policies.

The European Union has issued guidelines stating that governments should not recognise Israeli sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.

The news about the decision of the Academy to allow Israel to use the awards as a propaganda vehicle comes in the midst of the #OscarsSoWhite scandal. Israel has over 50 racist laws that directly discriminate against its indigenous Palestinian citizens on the basis of race, meeting the UN definition of the crime of apartheid.

“The Academy’s association with Israel further tarnishes its image regarding racism and evokes memories of Hollywood’s past collaboration with criminal regimes,” said Barghouti.

The nonviolent BDS movement for Palestinian rights, launched by Palestinian civil society in 2005, seeks freedom, justice and equality in accordance with international law.

Israeli officials associated with the “Brand Israel” campaign have repeatedly admitted that Israel uses culture as a propaganda tool to show its “prettier face” and whitewash its crimes in an attempt to counteract the fast growing reach and impact of the BDS movement.

Celebrities such as Roger Waters, Elvis Costello and Lauryn Hill have refused to perform in Israel. Thousands of artists and cultural figures in Canada, South Africa, Ireland, the UK, Norway, and elsewhere have come out in support of an institutional cultural boycott of Israel.

Major European firms VeoliaOrange and CRH have all recently quit Israel as a result of BDS campaigns.

Foreign direct investment in Israel dropped by 46% in 2014 as compared to 2013, according to a UN report, partially due to BDS campaigning, as stated by one of the report’s authors.

The Israel Export Institute has revealed that Israel’s exports in 2015 have dropped by 7% over 2014.

Moody’s, a leading credit ratings agency, has warned that “the Israeli economy could suffer should BDS gain greater traction.

Several mainline US churches and student governments across the US have voted to support divestment from companies and banks that are implicated in Israeli violations of international law.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestinians Call on Oscar Nominees to Reject Israel Propaganda Trip

Hillary Clinton’s Very Bad Night

February 11th, 2016 by Robert Parry

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s stunning 22-point loss to Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire is even more devastating when looked at in the context of the modern history of this first-in-the-nation primary: No one has ever lost by such a margin and gone on to win the presidency.

Among Democrats, no one who lost by even half that margin in New Hampshire has recovered to win the party’s nomination. In 2008, Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton by 2.6 percentage points; in 1992, Bill Clinton lost to Paul Tsongas by 8.4 percentage points; in 1984, Walter Mondale lost to Gary Hart by 9.4 percentage points; in 1972, George McGovern lost to Edmund Muskie by 9.3 percentage points.

In two of those cases, New Hampshire did favor neighboring politicians – Sen. Tsongas from Massachusetts and Sen. Muskie from Maine – but Tuesday’s 22-point margin for Vermont Sen. Sanders cannot be explained simply by making the “nearby-favorite-son” argument. Sanders swept nearly every demographic group, including women, losing only to Clinton among New Hampshire’s senior citizens and the state’s small number of non-white voters. Sanders’s margin among young voters was particularly impressive, 82 percent, roughly the same proportion as the Iowa caucuses last week.

If Hillary Clinton hopes to overcome her New Hampshire drubbing, she would have to look for encouragement from the legacy of Republican George W. Bush who lost the 2000 New Hampshire primary to Sen. John McCain by a margin of 49 percent to 30.2 percent, but even Bush’s landslide loss represented a smaller margin of defeat than Clinton suffered on Tuesday.

A Worried Establishment

Clinton’s failure to generate momentum or much enthusiasm in her pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination presents the Democratic Party establishment with a dilemma, since many senior party leaders fret about the risk that Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” might lead the Democrats to the kind of electoral disaster that Sen. George McGovern did in 1972.

Though the Democrats rebounded in 1976 with Jimmy Carter’s victory amid Republican disarray over Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal, the Republicans soon reestablished their domination over presidential politics for a dozen years with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. For the Democrats to reclaim the White House in 1992, it took a “New Democrat,” Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, to repackage the Democratic message into one proposing “neo-liberal” (anti-regulatory, free-trade) economics, embracing Republican tough-on-crime tactics, and rejecting “Big Government.”

President Clinton also emphasized “micro-policies,” best illustrated by his call for “school uniforms,” rather than proposing “macro-policies” for addressing poverty and other structural problems facing Americans. Though the economy performed fairly well under Clinton – his success lessening pressures from liberal groups – he also opened the door to Wall Street and other corporate excesses (by supporting deregulation of the financial and media industries).

At that point in the 1990s, the “neo-liberal” strategies had not been tested in the U.S. economy and thus many Americans were caught off-guard when this new anti-regulatory, free-trade fervor contributed to a hollowing out of the Great American Middle Class and a bloated Gilded Age for the top One Percent.

The full consequences of neo-liberalism became painfully apparent with the Wall Street Crash of 2008 and the resulting Great Recession. The suffering and hopelessness now affecting many Americans, including the white working class, has led to an angry political rejection of the American Establishment as reflected in the insurgent candidacies of Donald Trump and Sanders.

A Legacy Campaign

Hillary Clinton (like Jeb Bush) faces the misfortune of running a legacy campaign at a time when the voters are angry about the legacies of both “ruling families,” the Clintons and the Bushes. Though Sanders is a flawed candidate faulted for his muddled foreign-policy prescriptions, he (like Trump) has seized the mantle of fighting the Establishment at a time when millions of Americans are fed up with the Establishment and its self-serving policies.

In some ways, the Iowa and New Hampshire results represented the worst outcome for establishment Democrats. Clinton’s razor-thin victory in Iowa and her slashing defeat in New Hampshire have left Democratic strategists uncertain as to whether they should rally behind her – despite her lukewarm to freezing-cold reception from voters – or try to recruit another candidate who could cut off Sanders’s path to the nomination and represent a “more electable” choice in November.

If Clinton continues to stumble, there will be enormous pressure from Democratic leaders to push her aside and draw Vice President Joe Biden or perhaps Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the race.

If that were to occur — and, granted, the Clintons are notoriously unwilling to admit defeat — the Democrats could experience a political dynamic comparable to 1968 when anti-Vietnam War Sen. Eugene McCarthy challenged the prohibitive favorite President Lyndon Johnson and came close enough in New Hampshire to prompt Sen. Robert Kennedy to jump into the race — and to convince Johnson to announce that he would not seek another term.

Many idealistic Democrats who had backed McCarthy in his seemingly quixotic fight against Johnson were furious against “Bobby-come-lately,” setting up a battle between two anti-war factions of the Democratic Party. Of course, the history of the 1968 campaign was marred by the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and then Robert Kennedy, followed by the chaotic Chicago convention, which handed the nomination to Johnson’s Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Then, after Republican Richard Nixon secretly sabotaged Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks, Nixon managed to eke out a victory over Humphrey.

While Campaign 2016 reflects a very different America – and the key Democratic issue is “income inequality,” not the Vietnam War – some parallels could become obvious if the presumptive nominee (Johnson in 1968 and Clinton in 2016) is pushed out or chooses to step aside.

Then, the Democratic choice would be plunging ahead with a back-bench candidate (McCarthy in 1968 and Sanders in 2016) or looking for a higher-profile and more mainstream alternative, such as Biden who (like Humphrey) would offer continuity with the sitting president or Warren who shares many of Sanders’s positions (like Robert Kennedy did with McCarthy) but who might be more acceptable to “party regulars.”

A Warren candidacy also might lessen the disappointment of women who wanted to see Hillary Clinton as the first female president. At the moment, however, the question is: Did New Hampshire deal a death blow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign or can she become the first candidate in modern U.S. political history to bounce back from a 22-point loss in the first-in-the-nation primary?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Very Bad Night

US Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen testified Wednesday before the Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives, presenting the central bank’s semiannual Monetary Policy Report. Yellen will appear today before the Senate Banking Committee.

In her opening statement and her replies to questions from Democrats and Republicans on the committee, Yellen sought to reassure financial markets in the US and around the world that have taken huge losses since the beginning of the year and are being further pummeled by recessionary pressures and signs of a new banking crisis.

Yellen broadly hinted that the Fed would hold off on a further increase in its benchmark federal funds interest rate when its policy-making Federal Open Market Committee meets again in mid-March. At the same time, while not ruling out a possible reversal of the quarter percentage point increase the central bank imposed in December, its first interest hike in nine years, Yellen said the Fed stood by its announced intention to institute incremental and gradual increases in the course of 2016.

Yellen’s prepared statement, released early Tuesday morning along with the Monetary Policy Report, helped fuel a rebound on European stock markets. They had fallen for six straight sessions amid new indications of slowing growth in the US as well as China and further declines in the price of oil and other industrial commodities, combined with mounting concerns over the financial stability of major European banks.

US stocks initially rose in response to Yellen’s testimony, but her assurances proved insufficient to overcome the general mood of gloom and foreboding. The US indexes closed mixed, with the Nasdaq registering a gain, the Standard & Poor’s 500 ending flat, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 99 points.

The slide toward global recession was sharply expressed this week in the descent of Japanese government bond yields into negative territory. In the US, the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds has plunged well below 2 percent, reflecting the same deflationary trends.

The proliferation of super-low and even negative interest rates is wreaking havoc on banks that remain burdened with bad loans and stand to incur more losses from energy-related assets that are souring due to the collapse of oil prices and its impact on energy revenues and profits.

Bank stocks in Europe are down an average of 27 percent so far this year, with Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest, suffering a loss of more than 40 percent. In the US, bank stocks are down 18 percent, with shares of Bank of America and Morgan Stanley having dropped 27 percent and 28 percent, respectively.

US stocks overall have fallen by more than 9 percent since the beginning of the year, and stocks in Europe have declined even more sharply. In the US, tens of thousands of job cuts have been announced in both the industrial and retail sectors. Among the major non-retail firms announcing layoffs are Johnson & Johnson, Norfolk Southern, US Steel, Yahoo and Altria. Energy and mining firms have laid off thousands more workers.

The worsening social crisis impacting broad sections of the US population is reflected in the wave of store closings and layoffs by major retail chains, including Wal-Mart (269 stores, 16,000 job cuts), Macy’s (40 stores, 4,500 layoffs) and Sears-Kmart (more than 50 stores, thousands of job cuts).

US economic growth is estimated by the government to have slowed to 0.7 percent in the final quarter of 2015, and data on manufacturing continues to show recessionary conditions.

US corporate profits are also down. Profits reported by firms in the S&P 500 index for the fourth quarter of 2015 are down 4.1 percent from a year earlier. Sales are down 3.5 percent. This means profits have declined, year-on-year, for two straight quarters, the first time that has occurred since 2009. Sales have fallen for four consecutive quarters.

The near panic in financial circles was summed up in a statement released last week by strategists at Citibank, which declared, “The world appears to be trapped in a circular reference death spiral.” Predicting that the world economy would grow by only 2.7 percent this year, far below the already depressed projections of the International Monetary Fund, Citibank warned of “a proper/full global recession and dangerous disorder across financial markets.” Its report concluded, “The stakes are high, perhaps higher than they have ever been in the post-World War II era.”

Leading economists, including former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, are raising their estimates of the chances of a recession in the US this year. Summers, echoing estimates by JPMorgan Chase, puts the likelihood at one in three. Others say the recession has already begun.

In her statement and her responses to members of the House committee, Yellen played down the prospect of an economic contraction in the US. However, she acknowledged the slowdown in the US and pointed to other trends, such as falling share prices, higher interest rates for high-risk borrowers, and a further appreciation of the dollar, as increasing the downside risks to the economy. She implied that these trends could lead the Fed to hold off on further interest rate hikes.

Significantly, she also pointed in some detail to negative international trends and said the Fed was monitoring them closely in considering whether and when to again raise rates.

“As is always the case,” Yellen said in her opening remarks,

“the economic outlook is uncertain. Foreign economic developments, in particular, pose risks to US economic growth. Most notably…declines in the foreign exchange value of the renminbi have intensified uncertainty about China’s exchange rate policy and the prospects for its economy.

“This uncertainty led to increased volatility in global financial markets and, against the background of persistent weakness abroad, exacerbated concerns about the outlook for global growth. These growth concerns…contributed to the recent fall in the prices of oil and other commodities. In turn, low commodity prices could trigger financial stresses in commodity-producing firms in many countries. Should any of these downside risks materialize, foreign activity and the demand for US exports could weaken and financial market conditions could tighten further. …”

She once again stressed that any further rate increases would be small, that the Fed’s monetary policy would remain “accommodative,” and that the federal funds rate would remain below normal levels for the foreseeable future.

In a further reassurance to banks and hedge funds demanding a continuation of cheap credit, Yellen added,

“Of course, monetary policy is by no means on a preset course. We will take into account…readings on financial and international developments. … If the economy were to disappoint, a lower path of the federal funds rate would be appropriate.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fed Seeks to Reassure Markets on Rate Increases amid Mounting Signs of Slump and Financial Crisis

Torture, Murder and Donald Trump

February 11th, 2016 by Patrick Martin

Only four days after his public defense of torture and “a hell of a lot worse” in US military-intelligence interrogations, billionaire Donald Trump added assassination to his foreign policy arsenal as well. Speaking Wednesday on the “CBS This Morning” program, Trump said that his solution to the US conflict with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program would be to eliminate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

“I would get China to make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly,” Trump told interviewer Norah O’Donnell. When she followed up by asking if that meant having Kim Jong-un assassinated, Trump replied, “Well, I’ve heard of worse things, frankly. I mean, this guy’s a bad dude.”

Trump was responding to the declaration by US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday that Pyongyang had made progress in developing both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and could conceivably reach parts of the United States with a nuclear warhead.

The billionaire demagogue, fresh off a victory in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday that confirmed his status as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, said the US government could engineer Kim’s removal through China. Beijing has “absolute control” over North Korea, he said, and “I would force the Chinese to do it—economically.”

“I wouldn’t leave it up to them. I would say, ‘You gotta do it. You gotta do it,’” Trump said.

If China refuses, he said he would repeat the demand and “do it a little more forcefully.”

Trump was escalating the thuggish, gangster language that has been the hallmark of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. At last Saturday’s debate in New Hampshire, he declared his support for waterboarding, adding, “I would bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

At a campaign rally the next day, Trump used a vulgar term for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of his major rivals for the nomination, because Cruz expressed some reservations about waterboarding, suggesting that its use should be infrequent rather than widespread.

The candidate took the same tack in a series of appearances on Sunday network television interview programs. On CNN, NBC and ABC he was asked about his comments on waterboarding, and each instance he reiterated his support for torture, although he declined to spell out what methods of interrogation would be “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

On CNN, interviewer Jake Tapper pointed out that US law bans treatment of prisoners that causes “serious and nontransitory mental harm,” like waterboarding, then asked Trump, “How would you bring it back, if it is currently a war crime under US law?”

Trump responded, “I would go through a process and get it declassified, frankly.” He portrayed this form of torture as necessary retribution for the methods of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, even if it was ineffective in extracting information. “They laugh at us when they hear that we’re not going to approve waterboarding,” he said,

“and then they will have a James Foley and others where they cut off their heads. And, you know, you can say what you want. I have no doubt that it does work in terms of information and other things, and maybe not always, but nothing works always. But I have no doubt that it works. But, more importantly, when they’re chopping off the heads of people, and innocent people in most cases, beyond waterboarding is fine with me.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, interviewer Chuck Todd asked Trump what was worse than waterboarding, but Trump declined to define it.

Todd suggested, referring to ISIS, “They want to be barbaric. We’re not barbaric.” Trump disagreed, declaring, “OK. They can do it, but we can’t?” Then he added, “You can do waterboarding and you can go a step beyond waterboarding. It wouldn’t bother me even a little bit.”

On the ABC program “This Week,” interviewer George Stephanopoulos asked directly, “As president, you would authorize torture?” Trump replied, “I would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding. And believe me, it will be effective. If we need information, George, you have our enemy cutting heads off of Christians and plenty of others, by the hundreds, by the thousands.”

This exchange followed:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do we win by being more like them?

TRUMP: Yes. I’m sorry. You have to do it that way. And I’m not sure everybody agrees with me. I guess a lot of people don’t. We are living in a time that’s as evil as any time that there has ever been. You know, when I was a young man, I studied Medieval times. That’s what they did, they chopped off heads. That’s what we have …

STEPHANOPOULOS: So we’re going to chop off heads?

TRUMP: We’re going to do things beyond waterboarding perhaps, if that happens to come.

Stephanopoulos was the only interviewer to pose the torture question to another candidate, in this case Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican. Rubio declared that there shouldn’t be public discussion of specific interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, to avoid alerting suspected terrorists. But he made it clear he had no differences with Trump on resuming waterboarding and other forms of torture-interrogation.

With that, the corporate-controlled media has turned the page, more or less dropping the subject. The question was not raised during the saturation coverage of the New Hampshire primary Tuesday. Network television news broadcasts on Wednesday did not mention Trump’s call to assassinate Kim Jong-un or his campaign for torture.

Significantly, neither Democratic candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, criticized Trump for his embrace of torture and murder. Clinton, of course, has her own record of endorsing barbarism, with her notorious comment during the US-NATO war against Libya, referring laughingly to the torture and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, “We came. We saw. He died.”

Clinton was part of the Obama administration during the initial campaign of drone missile assassinations, including the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 and his teenage son two weeks afterward. She was in the cabinet when Obama made his decision to block any prosecution of CIA officials for torture, when he suppressed evidence of torture, including graphic photos, and while the CIA fought a protracted battle against the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Torture, Murder and Donald Trump

The United States and the 27 other NATO-member nations on Wednesday agreed to a new multinational force that will patrol the eastern European border setting up what many believe is “a dangerous dynamic…that has every possibility of spiraling out of control.”

During a press conference on Wednesday, alliance ministers, who are meeting this week for a two-day conference in Brussels, Belgium, cast themselves as defenders against Russian aggression—a charge that Russian officials have repeatedly denied.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg told reporters that the force will rotate in and out of eastern European member states. The new strategy includes “a network of new alliance outposts, forces on rotation, warehoused equipment and regular war games, all backed by a rapid-reaction force,” which includes “air, naval and special operations units of up to 40,000 personnel,” Reuters reports.

Stoltenberg said the deployment “will be multinational to make clear that an attack against one ally is any attack against all allies and that the alliance as a whole will respond.”

Robert Bridge, an American journalist based in Moscow, said Wednesday that the new fighting force is clearly a provocation.

“The result of this massive increase of spending will be more military hardware, more troops, more provocative exercises on Russia’s western flank and much more tension between Moscow and NATO—which once upon a time promised Russia it would not expand ‘one inch east’ following the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Bridge wrote.

“The fact is,” he continued, “from Russia’s point of view, foreign troops are there; they will have a constant presence regardless as to how they are defined. And that is how NATO—not Russia—is aggravating tensions with Russia.”

Russia officials have also maintained that the heightened tensions are the result of European leaders, and western media, over-hyping the threat.

“The leaders of NATO member states and a number of European countries, especially Britain, the Nordic countries, the Baltic counties neighboring us, Poland, Romania and some others, are whipping up ‘Russia’s threat’ myth,” Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with the Moskovsky Komsomolets daily.

“There is the impression that Russia is nearly the main stumbling block in international relations, because today the dominant media sources spread news from only the Western point of view,” he added. Lavrov and Stoltenberg are scheduled to meet later this week at the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

What’s more, according to a Kremlin spokesperson, the Russian government was given no advance warning of the new deployment.

“We don’t understand what has provoked these actions,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters after NATO’s announcement. “The goal is to keep Russia in check.”

The news follows last week’s announcement by U.S. President Barack Obama that he is ratcheting up the deployment of heavy weapons and armored vehicles to bolster defenses along Europe’s eastern flank, and $3.4 billion in new defense spending to pay for those arms, equipment, and training resources.

NATO leaders are expected to formally endorse the plans at a summit in Poland this July.

 

Lauren McCauley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on After ‘Whipping Up Myth of Russian Threat,’ NATO Approves New Fighting Force

Can the Establishment Fix Its Bernie Sanders Problem?

February 11th, 2016 by Shamus Cooke

The Democrats’ fight against Bernie is appearing futile. Like a python choking on an elephant, they’ve miscalculated. The Party elites underestimated their opponent, and with each new attack the snake swallows an extra inch, harming only itself. Establishment figureheads are taking turns ruining their reputation as they attempt to ruin Bernie’s.  

The U.S. ruling class as a whole revealed the depth of its crisis in this election: not since the Vietnam War have both wings of the establishment thoroughly discredited themselves. The Republican wing combusted quickly while the Democrats have chosen a slower, more torturous form of self-harm.

The problem with both parties is their inability to serve the super rich while successfully appealing to voters. As inequality widens, democracy suffers. Focusing on the “billionaire class” has catapulted Bernie’s campaign, but the presidency is not an institution that just anybody is allowed to capture.

How will this all play out? Nobody knows. Polls swing wildly in times of flux, making predictions risky. Here are two questions whose answers will guide the future of the election:

1) Can Bernie win the Democratic nomination?

2) If Bernie wins, what next? Will the establishment try to make a deal with him? And will Bernie take it? Or will he remain true to his rhetoric and be a candidate of the 99%?

Nobody except his cheerleaders believed Bernie could actually win, until recently. His momentum combined with Hillary’s crash has forced many to rethink.

An excellent article by Arun Gupta lays bare the machinery of the Party that could be used to decapitate Bernie’s campaign. Yes, the Democratic Party machine could destroy Bernie’s campaign, but it could come at a cost they might not be willing to pay. Most of the Party’s weapons are blunt instruments that leave too much evidence. And millions of people are watching closely.

The first major Party attack misfired badly when the Democrats tried to sabotage Bernie by restricting access to voter data. Hundreds of thousands of people expressed outrage on social media and by signing petitions.

The blowback stunned the Party, which quickly backtracked. They learned a powerful lesson: By destroying Bernie, they could destroy the Party, completely discrediting themselves in front of millions of people.

They didn’t realize how fast the political ground was shifting beneath their feet. Nobody did, and unless an anti-Bernie cryptonite is found soon, the crisis will deepen. Their own electoral game is rigged, yet out of their control.

The trump card of the Party elites is their control of “superdelegates.” But overplaying your best cards is risky too. Imagine Sanders winning the popular vote by wide margins in state after state, only to have the Party machine give the delegates to Clinton. Acting this undemocratically could trigger a deep crisis and destroy the veneer of democracy.

For now the Democrats have opted for a backup plan. It isn’t working. They launched a coordinated pro-Hillary bandwagon campaign, foolishly thinking that Bernie’s populist message could be drowned by a flood of “respected individuals” offering glowing endorsements of Clinton or making cheap attacks against Bernie.

Hillary’s bloated list of endorsers is a “who’s who” among Party elites; nearly every Democratic senator and House representative has endorsed Hillary, while an array of intellectuals have emitted a stream of drivel from their pens and mouths. But their pro-Hillary hack pieces have only invited rage and insults. Nobody likes an arrogant salesman with a shoddy product.

Gloria Steinem, Paul Krugman, Bernie Frank, Madeleine Albright, and a host of others have proven themselves cheap hit-men for the establishment. But their aim is off. The self-inflicted wounds are exposing the hollow intellectualism of the Party elites. Trying to sound smart is tough while making dumb arguments.

Esteemed liberal economist Paul Krugman proved to everyone how clueless he was about political change in his anti-Bernie article “How Change Happens.” His readers skillfully torched him in the comments section.

Famous feminist Gloria Steinem had to apologize for her sexist comment that young women like Bernie because “boys” do.

And Madeline Albright would apologize too, had she any dignity. In her pro-Hillary rant she said there was a “special place in hell” for women who would vote Bernie. But if hell does exist, Albright certainly has her own very special place reserved, for having argued that it was “worth it” that 500,0000 Iraqi children died as a consequence of the U.S. Clinton-era sanctions levied against Iraq.

These “influential” people have lost their authority, which hinged on a political equilibrium that has drastically changed. They can no longer stuff their beliefs down others’ throats. There is a resounding clash of realities which the elites are smashing their heads against, one after another. Young people care nothing about what these so-called experts say. Nor should they.

The mass discrediting of “respected” individuals represents another side of the establishment’s crisis. The question is being posed: who really has the ear of the people? It turns out that very few elites can exert much influence.

They are too alienated. Historic inequality has shrunken the establishment to 1% of the population. Meanwhile, the ranks of the “middle class” have been reduced, most of those still in the “middle class” are now struggling to get by, and the poor are getting poorer.   By breaching this alienation Bernie has exposed the whole rotten system that Hillary hopes to preserve.

The many organizations endorsing Hillary faced similar denunciations from their adherents. Groups like Planned Parenthood, national labor unions, The New York Times, and the League of Conservation Voters proved how unrepresentative they were of their followers and members.

An article by the Intercept noted that “Bernie gets endorsements when members decide; Hillary gets endorsements when leaders decide.” The leaders of these groups miscalculated; they tried to play the old political game without realizing the game had changed. They tried to help Hillary but only harmed themselves.

This dynamic can’t go on much longer. It’s too dangerous; it creates unpredictable political chaos. If Bernie survives the multi-state primary “Super Tuesday” on March 1st, the Party establishment may give up and approach him to make a deal. If they can’t beat Bernie they’ll join him; or more accurately, they’ll officially ask Bernie to join them.

What might an offer look like? Broadly speaking, they would ask Bernie to focus his campaign against the Republicans in certain ways, and if he were to become president they’d ask that he’d adhere to a small list of policy considerations.

But would Bernie take the bait as Obama did? Yes, most likely he would. As argued in a previous article, Bernie supports the unifying priority of the establishment: war and imperialism abroad, which requires less domestic spending at home.

His allegiance to the juggernaut of the U.S. military-industrial complex isn’t a blind spot of his politics; he’s trying to play ball. You’ll notice that Bernie isn’t advocating the slashing of the military budget during the debates, even though the vast majority of people would enthusiastically support such an idea, especially if it meant funding the programs Bernie is promoting.

Another indication that Bernie would be willing to join hands with the 1% is his stated willingness to support Hillary if he loses. If he is so anti-establishment why would he campaign for one of its most notorious figures? As author Diana Johnstone shows in her new book “Queen of Chaos,” Hillary is a quintessential member of the ruling class, representing everything that Bernie claims to be against. His principles are mushier than they appear on TV.

Sanders would surely justify his pro-Hillary campaigning as a “fighting against the right wing,” a common theme of Sanders’ politics over the years. He’s attacks have been limited to Republicans, which is why Obama’s establishment presidency provoked little criticism from Sanders, and never a strong denunciation.

Sanders has already made overtures to the Democratic establishment during his campaign. At a Party conference he pleaded for support, arguing that he is the candidate the Party should unite around since his popularity would increase voter turnout.

There is plenty of other evidence that Bernie could make peace with a Democratic Party agenda, based on the years that he caucused with Democrats in the Senate. It’s true the establishment doesn’t identify with Bernie. They don’t trust him. But Bernie identifies with them.

Many have compared Bernie Sanders with the UK Labor Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. But several articles have made the case, correctly, that Corbyn’s politics are far to the left of Bernie’s, who could taper his rhetoric just a bit to fit into the mold of the Democratic Party elites.  The Democrats wouldn’t be able to make a deal with a Jeremy Corbyn, who’s been a consistent anti-war politician for decades, but they could possibly do business with Bernie, were they desperate enough.

The emperor can easily change clothes, and feels comfortable in different skin colors or genders. But capitalism will shed its democratic clothing if needed. If Bernie posed a real threat to core economic interests, the establishment would go to greater undemocratic lengths to prevent him from taking office.

And if Bernie somehow manages to become president without agreeing to a deal, his physical safety would be at risk. It may already be at risk. The U.S. ruling class just doesn’t allow anybody to become president. There is too much money and power at stake. The next few months are sure to be fascinating.

 

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Can the Establishment Fix Its Bernie Sanders Problem?

The Syrian Arab Army Recently achieved a major victory in Aleppo, and is on the offensive all over Syria liberating terrorist occupied territories and preparing for an even wider offensive.

Meanwhile the empire of chaos (the US) and it’s allies the axis of chaos ( the NATO-GCC-Israel forces) are so desperate they are threatening open war. We can only hope that they are bluffing and do not plan to destroy the world in a childish temper tantrum over their inability to destroy Syria.

The Geneva peace talks collapsed to the surprise of no one as the so called “opposition” (front men for terrorists) seemed unable to adjust to the reality that they are loosing and continued to make demands. Obviously the longer diplomacy is delayed the better although Russia and Syria had no plans to interrupt their offensive even if Geneva III had not collapsed.

The only way to restore peace to Syria is to drive the terrorists out of Syria once and for all, and to cut off all their routes into the country. Thanks to the bravery of the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) this is exactly what is taking place. Aleppo which a year ago Erdogan bragged had become a new turkish province and which he looted whole factories from to enrich his gangster friends and family, Aleppo is on the verge of being liberated from the terrorists. Aleppo is not alone Latakia is almost completely liberated, the terrorist stronghold of Daraa is under assault, they are preparing an offensive in Idlib. Clearly the SAA’s offensive is only expanding in strength and momentum.

First I’ll discuss the threat of expanded Imperialist intervention in Syria. Most outrageously, the US decided to illegally occupy Syrian territory and build a base against the wishes of the Syrian people and government on Syrian soil. They also announced plan to send an ever expanding force into Syria supposedly to fight ISIS but in reality to aid them and other terrorists. Their motives are so transparent the more victories Syria and Iraq win against their terrorist proxies the more desperate they are to intervene in both countries.

Yet what are a few thousand troops going to accomplish when more then a hundred thousand proved unable to contain the Iraqi resistance. They will be used to advise and support the terrorists but they have been doing that all along. In response to the Russian intervention, the Axis of Chaos began pouring weapons troops and advisers into but aside from achieving some temporary successes early on they now face utter defeat. Lets hope this new scheme proves equally futile. Ironically they are building the base in Kurdish territory but the Syrian Kurds are moving closer and closer to Russia and Syria.

Thus Russia was able to counter by building it’s own base in Kurdish territory. Currently the YPG are on the offensive trying to seize the terrorist held area separating the two halves of their autonomous zone. This leads to the next danger Turkey is threatening to invade northern Syria. For Erdogan YPG control of his precious terrorist highway is a red line. Yet such an invasion would lead him into a confrontation with Russian and Syrian airpower. It would probably end in disaster for Turkey. In reality of course Turkey invaded long ago it’s troops pretend to be rebels and fight shoulder to shoulder with the terrorists.

The final threat is the most absurd of all the Saudis are threatening to invade “to fight terrorism” fooling only the most ignorant. The saudis are the top ideological and financial source for terrorism in the world as even the New York Times admits. Of course they carry out all this out with the full cooperation of western intelligence. Saudi Arabia is nothing more then the islamic state in a more respectable (simply because it’s older) form as everyone knows. But what makes it truly absurd is that it is a hollow threat.

Saudi Arabia is already loosing in Yemen where despite overwhelming military superiority they have completely failed to reconquer the country to reinstall their ousted puppet al-Hadi. Despite starving the populace, destroying schools, hospitals, and Yemen’s historical heritage they are loosing. Despite unleashing their terrorist proxies they are loosing. The Saudi Army reportedly doesn’t even dare fight itself hiding in bases while foreign mercenaries especially veterans of Colombian death squads do the fighting and have suffered heavy losses. The Saudis can’t even protect their own territories the Houthi’s control parts of Saudi Arabia. In other words I almost hope they do invade Syria where they have funded so much mayhem and destruction. This would allow the SAA to take a terrible revenge on the notoriously soft saudis and would hopefully hasten the end of the treacherous Saudi Monarchy those puppets of the UK, the US, and Israel.

Unfortunately the Saudis would invade with an entire alliance but they also invaded Yemen with an alliance. We will have to see how far the axis of chaos is willing to go, they risk plunging the world into nuclear war as the Russians have not so subtly threatened to protect their forces in Syria by any means necessary including nuclear. Unfortunately since the start of the war in Ukraine and the beginning of Cold War 2.0 the “new normal” apparently involves keeping the world permanently on the brink of Nuclear War. Such is the perpetual state of madness we live in under the Empire of Chaos. Syria has been surrounded by enemies and under constant threat since it gained it’s independence. Whatever threats it faces it will remain defiantly ready to fight to retain that independence. As Walid al-Moallem Syria’s Foreign minister said “Any aggressor will be sent back to their country in a wooden box.”

All these threats, diplomatic schemes, and of course a propaganda campaign absurd in it’s selective outrage are motivated by the axis of chaos’ current inability to do anything to stop the triumphant offensive of the Syrian Arab Army and it’s allies as they reclaim town after town and city after city. The province of Lattakia is almost completely liberated. The SAA recently captured the terrorist stronghold Salma which they had spent 2 and a half years and lost many brave fighters trying to capture. Aleppo is on the verge of being the next liberated territory. Theterrorists forces there began to collapse a month ago and now the SAA have won a stunning strategic victory that will bring doom to all the various terrorist militias.

By capturing Ratyan and Mayer the SAA have managed to cut off the Aleppo-Gaziantep Highway the main terrorist supply route into the province and beyond. Cut off from food and ammunition, surrounded by the SAA, and with nowhere to hide as everywhere the locals are hungry for revenge for the horrors they suffered under terrorist occupation they will be lucky if they escape alive and thousands are already fleeing. The SAA also broke the Siege of Nubbul and al-Zahran where the locals had been starved and terrorized for years they were greeted with tremendous joy it was one of the most uplifting moments since the lifting of the siege of Kuweires airbase last fall.

Far to the east in Deir Ezzor the heroic defense continues with the SAA forces and the local civilians resisting the attempts by ISIS to destroy this loyalist foothold in the midst of their territory. Luckily the defense of Deir Ezzor is being lead by the legendary General Issaam Zahraadeen who fights on the front lones with his men manning a machine gun. ISIS has been desperately trying to seize Deir Ezzor and the americans even helped them at one point bombing the base then blaming the Russians. Yet Deir Ezzor is still standing and ISIS’s many attacks have only lead to repeated defeats. Remember the heroes of Deir Ezzor their heroic resistance is symbolic of the whole Syrian war surrounded by enemies and under constant attack they have not only survived they have triumphed. Elsewhere the SAA seem to be advancing or preparing to advance on almost every front. Even in Raqqah the ISIS capital (or it was until the leaders fled due to Russian airstrikes) the Syrian forces delivered devastating strikes today.

Thanks to their Russian allies the Syrian Arab army has been rearming and retraining. Russia has clearly been subtly increasing it’s presence on the ground and the first Russian adviser recently lost his life. Unfortunately I can’t record his name here as it is classified. He may have been from Chechnya and Russia in one of it’s famous “non-denial” denials recently denied there were Chechen Special forces in Syria while basically just objecting to the term and pretty much admitting it. Of course Russia has always had advisers in Syria but clearly they are now openly waging a covert war in aid of their Syrian allies.

In addition their artillery advisers and supplies or new artillery battery have helped the SAA offensive gain momentum and even western experts are using the word “cauldron” to describe what is about to happen to the terrorists. Whoever this unknown soldier was I salute their willingness to risk their lives in defense of Syria. I also hope that Russia will increase it’s ground forces in Syria both to counter the American special forces and to guard against any reckless moves by the “Sultan of Chaos” as Pepe Escobar calls Erdogan. And I’m thankful Ramzan Kadyrovhas sent in his feared Chechens to battle ISIS.

These are only some of the fronts in Syria’s war yet on every front Syria is either making dramatic advances or laying the groundwork for future advances. They are on the offensive against the terrorist stronghold of Daara. They are preparing an attack on Idlib province. We can only hope that the coming months will bring further victories from the SAA and it’s allies Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq and the Russians. They are aided by masses of volunteers from the Syrians public who have joined the NDF militias and who have the important job of securing the recaptured territories so that the SAA can move on to further offensives. Victory to Syria!

Before I end I’d also like to remember the heroic people of Yemen who are battling the Axis of Chaos and against all the odds managing not just to survive but to inflict terrible punishment on their invaders.

And Sadly I must warn of a grave danger to Libya where western powers are planning to reinvade on the excuse of battling ISIS when they are the ones who installed ISIS to occupy the former green resistance stronghold of Sirte. We must oppose any second invasion of Libya under the phony excuse of battling the terrorists that NATO itself put in charge of the country.

And of course we must keep a close eye on Venezuela where fascism threatens to seize control of the country and destroy the Bolivarian Socialist Revolution. Last month the Fascists murdered prominent loyalist journalist Ricardo Durant another in the seemingly endless list of victims of Operation Condor/ The Phoenix Program. In Argentina Fascism is already on the rampage. Amidst such grim news the continued victories of the SAA provide a beacon of hope for the world and an example of heroic struggle. No matter the odds against them they have refused to surrender and the people of the world must follow this example if we ever hope to end this empire of chaos before it decides to end the world.

Sources

I Highly Recommend the book Asad the Struggle for the Middle East By Patrick Seale on Syria’s heroic history. And Tim Anderson’s definitive book on the topic “The Dirty War on Syria” is now available in E Format at Global Research.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dirty-war-on-syria-new-e-book-by-prof-tim-anderson/5506819

Subscribe to Eric Draitser’s You Tube Channel every Sunday he appears on Don Debar’s CPR Sunday as a guest with Mark Sleboda for an hour long discussion and Syria is usually the main topic a must listen for those following the war. It usually appears a couple days later.

A Wonderful Site with news on Syria, Palestine and Yemen is Vanessa Beeley’s The Wall Will Fall

https://thewallwillfall.wordpress.com

Eva Bartlett printed this great account from a Syrian on the Liberation of Salma

https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/selma-village-finally-after-so-many-years-and-so-many-martyred-syrian-arab-army-soldiers-and-civilians-we-have-victory/

A must read Article on the strategic significance of the victory in Aleppo

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-syria-war-will-not-be-a-quagmire-because-putin-and-assad-are-winning/

al-Moallem gives Syria’s defiant response to anyone threatening to invade

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/al-moallem-any-intervention-is-an-act-of-aggression/

A mocking assessment of Saudi Arabia’s Syrian invasion plans in the context of their failures in Yemen

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/saudis-poised-for-hazardous-intervention-in-syria/

Turkey’s Fascist Gray Wolves are playing an increasing role in Syria

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/turkeys-gray-wolves-in-syria/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Victory in Aleppo.The Syrian Arab Army is on the Offensive

This month marked the 25th anniversary to the already forgotten crimes against humanity committed against the Iraqi people during the First Gulf War. These crimes are not only forgotten, but most of those who committed them under the banner of the “Coalition Forces” are still free and probably either acting as advisers, consultants, or policy-makers for more such crimes to be committed elsewhere, or they are happily retired on some quiet, peaceful, and colonized island. The First Gulf War is known as the “reaction” of the so-called “international community” led by the Coalition Forces to Iraq’s catastrophic invasion of Kuwait. As a primary school child during those years, my head still carries so many memories, images, scents, and deaths, that I have documented in my diary over the years. Today I would like to share with you a selection of my diary pages from that period as I originally wrote them, with no changes, except for linguistic and editorial purposes related to length.

When the First Gulf war started in 1991, I was a child who had a strong passion for raising chickens. I had four chickens of different colors, and my favorite was a black and white one with sharp and beautiful orange-colored eyes. My four chickens were also loved by the other members of the family, mainly because they laid eggs. For me, however, my love for raising chickens was beyond the material benefits gained from them. I spent a big chunk of my day observing their behaviors: how they ate, how they played, and even how they laid eggs in the coop that I built for them from cement blocks. My time was divided between school, doing homework, and spending time with my chickens. They were my indispensable friends.

I did not like to mingle with school children so much because I had no mutual interests with most of them. One incident I still remember vividly is the first day my favorite chicken laid her first egg. I was near the coop watching her trying to lay her first egg. I was overjoyed that the long-awaited day had finally come. She spent a long time trying to let the egg out, but with little success. After some time, I heard a loud noise of what sounded like a heavy explosion outside. The sound startled both me and my little chicken, a thing that forced her to release her first egg onto the coop’s muddy floor and it broke—the first Gulf War had started.

Our neighbors in Kirkuk at that time were mostly nice people, with whom we built rapport since we moved to the neighborhood. The wall-to-wall neighbors were especially kind and helpful. They were a Shi’ite family from the southern Iraqi city of Najaf. During the early days of the war, my father, like many Iraqi men then, was drafted by the Iraqi state to enroll into what was then called al-Jaish al-Sha’bi [the popular army], which consisted of poorly-equipped groups of supposedly “civilian volunteers” to form defense units during wartime. As noted, the “volunteers” were forced by the state to join these groups. At any rate, my father was put with a group of other men to “protect the surroundings of Kirkuk”.

However, as soon as the bombing started, most of his mates escaped, and he found himself along with two other men out of nowhere. We had no clue where he was taken at the time. We were not even sure whether he was living or dead, and as the bombing intensified and the electricity went off in most parts of the city, we were frightened in our house, and we did not know what to do. My mother was pregnant at the time with my youngest sister. The louder the bombing became, the more we were intimidated by it. In fact, my young sisters started crying and my mother did not know how to console them.

During the early nights of the war, when we, the children, started crying out of fear, the mother of our wall-to-wall Shi’a neighbors came to talk to us over the wall and said that she knows my dad is not home and we are scared just as they were, but she suggested that we should join them for the night and, in her words, “if we die, we shall die together; if we survive, we shall survive together.” The power was off all the time, which made the bombing even more intense and frightening. There was a total blackout. Some people said that this was a tactic used by the government to keep it dark to make it hard for the American planes to find their targets. When the night fell, it felt like there will be no more mornings to come. The nights were so cold, dark, rainy, lonely, and long. There was also no water at all. The only way for us to get water to drink was by collecting rain water.

We put a big, wide pot in the middle of the garden, and waited for it to collect rain water. After rain stopped falling, we went to the garden to see that the pot was filled with black water (water mixed with the residue of bombs, smoke, gases, and God knows what else in the air). We waited for the black particles to settle down, and then used it as “drinking water”. We did this throughout our stay at home in the First Gulf War. At this point, my family’s life was reduced into: A lost father, frightened and crying children, darkness, shortage of food, water, and heat, and uncertainty surrounding every corner of our lives. I will never forget sitting in the living room of our kind neighbors on the floor with some pillows behind our backs and their father reading to us stories on the light of the lantern to distract us from the loud sounds of bombs and missiles thrown on places we did not know, but sounded like they were exploding right inside our ears. One morning we saw many people gathered around one house nearby, and when we went closer, we found that a bomb had been dropped on that house the previous night and the entire family was dead. By the time I arrived there with many other people in the neighborhood, the bodies were taken away, but the images of the house that was totally demolished were so devastating. I still remember paying attention to the details of the scene such as the crushed closet with clothes, utensils, ties, sheets, and kitchenware, crushed fridge and furniture, all mixed with cement, blood, and rubble.

Spending the nights with our wall-to-wall neighbors continued for a few days until they were too scared to stay in the city anymore, especially after many rumors started spreading about how the war was going to intensify and more blood was going to be shed in Kirkuk. People in our area were especially frightened by the thought that if the regime is toppled, and the Kurdish forces invade Kirkuk from the north, some revengeful massacres were surely going to take place. When there is nothing but darkness, I think it is easy for people to both spread rumors and subscribe to them at the same time. As the old saying goes: “They lie and believe their own lies.” Our neighbors decided to escape to the south, where they at least had their extended family. Some of the rumors that people started spreading were that the Coalition Forces had “won the battle,” and that “the Kurdish forces are on their way from the north to revenge and kill all the non-Kurds in the city,” since Saddam’s regime was no longer in place.

This was the time when people thought that the Kurds and Shi’a were going to get the full American support and blessings for their intifada. Others said that Iran will start bombing to avenge the damage Iraq had caused them during the eight years of the Iraq-Iran war, and on and on went the rumors. There is no doubt that a chaotic environment is a perfect one for spreading rumors. People in the times of war and conflict can be like flocks of sheep heading towards any destination they are told is the “safe” one, even if it is in fact a fatal one. It is precisely during such times that people lose all sense of direction.

As the war progressed, our neighborhood became almost empty, the doors of the houses were wide open, living cattle and poultry were left in the streets with no one to take care of them or feed them. Since I loved animals, I wanted to gather all the animals to take care of them, but of course it was the most impossible wish to fulfill. My mother said, “Your four chickens are enough burdens for us at this time when we can barely feed ourselves.” As the neighborhood became almost empty, my mother’s fears increased. She started to take these rumors more seriously; her main fear was that the Iraqi Army could indeed enter the city and clash with the Kurdish forces, the Peshmerga, and we could be caught up in their fires.

The idea of staying home and accepting our fate to live or die together was no longer an option, and my mother started thinking about leaving. However, for us, the destination would be northward, since that is where we belonged more (my parents being both Christians originally from villages in northern Iraq). Yet, we were not sure where exactly in the north we could go to be safe. Putting myself in mother’s shoes then,

I can only imagine how it felt to be a pregnant woman with six little, vulnerable and powerless children, a lost husband, an empty neighborhood. I still remember a moment when I saw her looking helplessly through the kitchen window trying to think how and where to escape to save the lives of her children. The decision to leave the city came rather late. There were no cars left in the streets; people were saying that all the fuel-stations in the city were closed because there were no fuel supplies from gas stations anymore. That did not only mean a shortage of car fuel, but also a shortage in any source of energy that made all the streets in the city as dead as a grave, or as we Assyrians say in Aramaic: “There were even no birds to be seen in the sky!”

A very poor family occupied one of the houses in the same row on our street, and they were one of the few families who had nowhere to go to. Their father told us that there were still a few buses in an area about an hour and half by foot from where we lived. There, he suggested, we could find buses going to the north. So, by that time, we had no direction to go to other than head further north, even if it was not any safer than Kirkuk. Despite the constant bombing, and at this stage, the absence of any means of communication and the extremely limited transportation, my mother decided to walk us to the bus station and try to take us all to the north, hoping we could find a better shelter there, but knowing well that there were no guarantees whether we stayed or left. This is exactly how the destruction caused by war feels: leaving or staying become the same.

Life and death become the same. We packed two small bags that contained some warm clothes and what was left of the bread we had in the house—bread becomes the dearest and most sacred item during wartime. We walked for about two hours until we reached the bus station where we found no buses at all. Instead, there were hundreds of people (mostly Kurds and Christians) waiting for the next bus to show up. There were very few buses showing once in a while to help these people go to their unknown destinations. Every now and then a bus arrived and all we could see was how the bus got loaded with people before coming to a full stop. People were running for their lives in the most frantic way I have ever seen in my life. For me, as a child, it was both shocking and fascinating to witness at that early age how people behave during wartime. People, I thought, can be incredibly cruel unpredictable, and destructive when it comes to their survival during wars. Even at that time, I found it quite ironic that humans have to be so cruel and destructive for the sake of survival. Since then, I often wondered what better captures our human nature: the way we act during times of conflicts or the way we behave during times of “peace”. Even more, I always wondered whether peace ever exist anywhere in our sad and lonely world.

We did not have much luck in catching a bus until it started getting dark. As we were waiting to cling to any bus, we met another Christian family, much smaller in number than us—two women and two children close to my age. One woman was the mother of the two children, and the other was her sister-in-law. Their story in many ways resembled ours. Their father, too, was forced to join the popular army and they had no idea what had happened to him. They were too scared to stay home, and so decided to escape northward seeking safety. After a small chat with the family, we liked each other and decided to stick together throughout our upcoming journey. Before the end of the day, we somehow succeeded to get on a bus that was headed to Erbil. All I remember is my mother and the other two women holding our hands tight and running as fast as they could to catch the bus despite the crowd, a feeling that was like a stampede.

The next thing I remember is being on the bus, and the heavy rain falling outside—we were heading to Erbil. The fuel crisis was serious in Erbil too. It was impossible to find a car to reach our final and safe destination, which was unknown. We were just going with the flow, along with hundreds and thousands of people. In Erbil, however, the war was more severe and there was a conflict between the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi Army. People were running away with their bags, luggage, and children. I saw people getting so tired of running that they were getting rid of their loads little by little just to save their lives. Though war is disastrous and no human being deserves to go through it, I always remember people throwing away any possessions they were carrying just to survive. In a way, this makes me think about how owning anything is never as important as saving one’s own body and soul in the end. If people understand this lesson under normal circumstances, will they still be striving to own things or consume the way they do in many places around the world? If they understood this during times of “peace”, will there ever be wars on our planet?

As the bombing of the tanks and airplanes continued, people kept running and throwing away their loads gradually. First, bags, then food, then water, then, I always feel sad when I come to this part, some women got so tired of carrying their little children that they left them on the side of the road and kept running for their lives—or perhaps towards their deaths? While running with many people, I saw one woman with two little kids on her shoulders. She kept running and looked extremely tired. At some point, she became too tired to carry her two children, so she put them both in a big hole on the side of the road and carried on. That was one of the harshest moments of forced abandonment I had ever witnessed in my life. To this day, it makes me wonder what “love” is, how much can one really love, what are the limits of love?

It was sad to see people get rid of their ration food when it was the most essential thing for their survival at that time. They were unable to keep even the most basic items for survival, because of tanks behind their backs firing left and right, and the planes over their heads throwing bombs haphazardly. My mother was struggling to keep us around her while running and holding our hands and looking in all directions at once. I still remember how I released myself from her dress and went to look at a deep hole caused by a bomb where I found four living chickens left behind by somebody. I wanted to go down inside the hole, grab them, and take them with me. Before I knew it, my mother pulled my hand, dragged me, and kept running. As we kept moving, we kept our eyes open trying to find another bus to take us to our next city, Sulaimani, but finding another bus was proving increasingly difficult with every second ticking away. In a warzone, seconds matter and can well become a matter of life or death. As the bombing became heavier, it became impossible to keep running, because now we started seeing the tanks of the Iraqi army only a few meters behind us, while the American planes were bombing from above. I still remember my mother shouting at two Iraqi soldiers at the top of the tank and asking why they were doing this to people. “Don’t you have mothers or families,” she shouted at them.

We reached a location near Erbil city center, and people said that one of the big buildings there had a safe basement where many families sheltered themselves waiting for the bombing to slow down or stop. We followed people and entered the first floor of that big building that looked painted in yellow from the outside, but the painting had started fade away, a thing that made it look like it was painted with rust. Inside the building, we found stairs leading to the shelter that was full of families. After about half an hour of waiting in that shelter, packed with the hundreds of people with hardly any space to move one’s feet, the sound of missiles and bombs became louder and scarier than ever. While waiting, my mother was chatting with a Kurdish family of a man and his wife who had two college-age daughters who looked in their twenties. The man looked like he was in his late fifties. He spoke the same Kurdish accent spoken in Kirkuk (Sorani), so I understood what he was saying. He was telling my mother that he thinks if this building gets bombed, it will be fatal for us all. He advised us to join them and leave the building immediately. My mother was reluctant to take his advice, but after negotiating it with the Christian family accompanying us, they agreed that he was right. Everyone seemed to know that it was a risky thing to do, but we decided to follow the man and his family out of that basement. It was the most serious act of gambling to take given the time, the place, and the circumstances.

As we were crossing the street, the building became on the other far side of the street. Meanwhile, something happened and changed my view of this world and humanity. We heard a loud sound of a bomb mixed with the shattering of glass and rubble. It was so loud that it felt that we would lose our hearing after it. The entire building in which we were sheltered a few minutes ago collapsed over the families who were left there before our eyes. Those left inside became in the past tense in a matter of minutes.

That memory is still frozen in my mind just like an old painting in an old museum. Although we survived because we left that building, when I think of the destiny of the people who stayed in that shelter, I refuse to attribute this to “God’s care,” because how could God love some of us more than others? I equally refuse to attribute it to “luck”. In fact, this disaster often makes me question the very notions of “luck” as we know it. I think if one has to really think of it as a matter of luck, then it must be that the people who died there were “luckier” than us, because, as Plato says, “only the dead have seen the end of war.” I have learned that surviving a war is never a matter of luck, because we never heal from its wounds, and it never dies or ceases to exist inside the heads of the “survivors”.

At the same time, I believe that the people who died inside that building would have been the most qualified witnesses to tell us how catastrophic the first Gulf War was. At this point, all I feel is that the hundreds of people who most likely died there became a wound in my heart that will never heal. They have become a stigma on the foreheads of the entire international community that let such appalling things happen to innocent people under different pretexts like: “Fighting a dictator,” “fighting terrorism,” and “liberating the oppressed,” and so on and so forth of such hypocritical rhetoric that continues to this day in other selected Middle Eastern countries.

After a few hours of waiting inside another shelter that was about a ten-minute walk from the demolished building, we decided to resume walking. After about an hour of walking under the rain, we reached the outskirts of the city and the scene changed from buildings and streets to wide, green, and muddy fields. The speed of our footsteps was in tune with the hard rainfall. In an ironic sense, our walking was like a military march in itself. This continued until we glimpsed a few houses in the outskirts of the city. We knocked on the first door and the door opened. A woman of average height, rather overweight, with green eyes, and dark skin asked: “Hello, how may I help you?” My mother briefly told her our story. She told her that we needed any kind of shelter even temporarily and anything edible, because we were starving. At that time, we had not eaten anything for about two days. The woman burst into tears as she started telling her own story which was no less tragic than ours. She told us that her husband was lost and she, too, does not know whether he was living or dead.

The kind woman let us into her mud-brick house. There was barely any furniture in it. On the floor there was a shabby red carpet. The bed and sheets were unmade on the floor. They looked filthy and smelt badly. There was an old fridge in one corner of the living room. The house was entirely dirty and looked like it had not been cleaned for weeks. There were four young children who looked like they had not had a shower in weeks also. They were playing on the floor unaware of what was going on around them.

The woman swore that she had little food left: some eggs and a few pieces of flat bread. Yet, she said that she was happy to share half of what she had with us, hoping that we would find a car as soon as possible to take us to our next destination. She also smiled and said, “I can make you some tea, but there is no sugar in the house, and you will have to drink it bitter!” My mother agreed wholeheartedly because she loves tea. The three women laughed as if to let go of a big pain they were carrying in their chests. In such situations, I have learned that laughter is a gift to people, especially in the time of war. Laughter is healing and it defeats some of the horrors of war and destruction.

The woman prepared scrambled eggs with the little bread she had for us, and made a pot of tea that was served bitter—like our days. The food was gone in a few minutes. I found it hard to eat from the pan in which she cooked the eggs because it looked like it had not been washed since its first use. Perhaps because of the shortage in water, she cooked in it several times without washing it? The kindness of that woman at the most difficult time a human being can go through—a war—is something that this entire humanity should not only recognize, but also learn how to emulate. Her kindness did not end there. She went as far as going out in the village to ask her neighbors whether they knew of anyone who could help us reach our destination to be in a safer place. Eventually, she found a man who had a pickup truck and was driving somewhere near Sulaimani. She begged him to take us with him. He did.

The next thing I remember is us with the Christian family in Sulaimani. I remember us walking in a crowded bazaar where the war felt less intense. Since we had no place to stay at in Sulaimani, we resorted to an abandoned school for a few days, then to an old church that was said to be housing lots of refugees and displaced people like us. The church’s annex was connected to the main building and contained many rooms that were full of refugees from different Iraqi cities, especially from the north and the middle parts of the country. People were not only Christians. In fact, many were Muslims or from other minorities and ethnic groups. According to what we had heard from people there, the church was also getting a small portion of ration food from a UN organization. Many other humanitarian organizations were also providing aid to the refugees on the Iraqi-Iranian borders, which were only a couple of hours from where we had been staying. The church provided the families with one meal per day, which consisted of: Two apples, two boiled eggs, and two loaves of bread for each family, regardless of the number of the family members. This small amount of food was just to keep people alive. Despite the few memories I have about the time we spent in that church and the time we spent in Sulaimani,

I still clearly remember how dark and gloomy the rooms of the church were. The rooms were square-shaped, without windows, and with depressing, dimmed lights. I think the fact that the war was in progress, and we had been away from home made everything look even darker than it was. It felt that there was no difference between days and nights. All I could see as a child was an endless dark tunnel with no light in the end. It felt like the sun was not going to ever rise again, and there was little difference between the light outside and the light inside those rooms—nothing but endless darkness. It was perhaps in such days we learn how to see so much and better in darkness.

One of the biggest surprises to us was to meet the same family we had met in the building that collapsed in Erbil (the Kurdish man who convinced us to leave that building before it was turned into debris and rubble). The father, I learned later, was a history professor. Both parents were professors and the daughters were undergraduate college students. They liked my mother and spent hours discussing literature, despite the time and the place, or perhaps because of them? I think in times of war and death, books become a means to remember and to forget the pain. At the end, they asked us and the Christian family to join them and go to the Iraqi-Iranian borders. They heard that there were many humanitarian organizations there providing better care for refugees and registering them to be resettled in Scandinavian countries. We joined them and took the trip to the Iraq-Iran border.

Once there, we found thousands of Iraqi families living in tents waiting fate. There were flags all over the place, each representing one of the humanitarian organizations involved. The humanitarian organization flags looked like multiple countries divided by tents next to each other. It was as though each organization was promoting itself by displaying its logo on each and every item they handed the refugees and displaced people. Human beings are so brainwashed with flags and logos that they do not seem to be able to function without them even under the most difficult and pathetic conditions.

During our stay there, the Kurdish family tried to convince my mother to join them and register with one of the organizations helping Iraqis to get resettled in Europe. The professor was overjoyed at hearing about this opportunity. He told us that we should go for it. My mother refused firmly and told him that she cannot possibly leave without knowing what had happened to my father. The professor argued (a thing that professors like to do even in warzones) that if my father was still alive, he can always follow us later. If he was not alive, there was no point putting our lives in such a risk with an uncertain future by going all the way back to Kirkuk. My mother insisted on her position and said that she was not going anywhere without my father.

Indeed, many people staying in that camp were resettled in Europe, but my mother decided that the only way to know my father’s fate was to return home for it is the only place for him to return looking for us, if he was still alive. This story was my first lesson about the meaning of love and how far one can go to reconnect with the ones they love. To me, apart from the sufferings and the ugliness of the war that surrounded us, my mother never lost sight of how much she loved my father, despite the difficulty of having to make such a hard decision. A pregnant woman refusing to save herself and her six children for the sake of the man she loves.

Many of the families staying at those camps left and we returned home when the bombing phase of the war was over. This was the time when Iraq and its infrastructure were fully destroyed, the Coalition Forces withdrew from Iraqi territories, and Saddam’s army was severely punishing all those suspected in having participated in the uprising against its regime. So, as the world well knows today, Iraqi people were crushed and purged twice: once by the barbaric bombings of the Coalition Forces, and then by the retaliation of Saddam’s regime, after the former withdrew from Iraq and left Iraqi people in the hands of the latter. To this day, one of the things that really hurts most Iraqi people is the number of people who have lost their lives, especially after the lie called the “liberation of Iraq”. How can criminals—Western governments—liberate people from another criminal—Saddam? Most of the world doesn’t seem to have learned this lesson to this day, it seems to me. We went all the way back to Kirkuk through the same route.

On the way back, I remember the dead bodies from a close distance when we were walking in the streets of Erbil. I was shocked, devastated, and appalled at what I saw. I stopped in the middle of the street to closely look at one of the dead bodies. It was a man in a military uniform with so much blood around the area of his chest. His face looked grey, as if covered with ashes of cigarettes. His eyes were wide open as if in protest for one last thing he needed to do, say, or see, before his life was put out forever. The body was scary and those images are still vivid in my head as if it was yesterday. My shock increased as we walked faster only to see many more dead bodies in the street. They were everywhere. The horrific scenes of dead bodies, hanged bodies, blood, broken glass, and destruction continued all the way home. We were able to find a bus on its way to Kirkuk, and my mother decided to take us back home. I was sitting next to the window in the bus. In the background I could hear my siblings making noise and talking.

My mother was also chatting with the two women from the family that remained with us throughout entire journey. I was looking through the bus window at the scenes of destruction. I was trying hard to capture each and every image because the scenes were moving fast through the bus window, but there was a strange voice in my head asking me to register what I have been seeing; to capture those ugly scenes of death and destruction into my mind to speak about them for the rest of my life. Perhaps that was the voice of justice in a child’s mind telling him that this is what adults are good at doing in this world, and that I have to refuse the role of becoming an adult like those who practice death and destruction. When we arrived in Kirkuk, we said goodbye to the family, which, like us, was hoping to go home and wait for any thread that may lead them to know about their father’s destiny. We knew that we were going to see each other soon, but the goodbye was still sad because of the context in which we met them and all that we had gone through together.

On the way home, the neighborhoods looked empty; the streets looked like they were all assassinated. When we arrived home, our house looked dry though it was spring time. My dad was there. It was the first time I had ever seen him cry. My mom said that it was the second time (the first was when my oldest sister was born). Seeing him again was too hard to believe. After our long, tiresome, and scary journey, it was hard to believe that the family was reunited again. He told us that he had gone through times that were even worse than ours. Most of the people who were with him ran away when the bombing intensified. He found himself with a couple of his mates out of nowhere.

They walked for days and nights without any food. They had to drink rainwater from dirty ditches to survive. Before they became close to Kirkuk, they passed through many villages. In one village, they talked with some strangers who provided them with shelter, water, and food. Strangers, once again, had proved to be kind and caring. One of the unforgettable things was that, as he passed through another village, one kind villager gave him a pot of yogurt for the rest of his journey, but he did not eat it. He wanted to come home as soon as possible to find out what had happened to us. In case we were still alive, he wanted us to enjoy the yogurt with him. We did. For that time, and under those circumstances, it became the yogurt of life.

This was just the beginning of what followed in our lives: a much longer and more devastating journey of thirteen years of UN sanctions that must be considered by any conscientious human being as one of the biggest crimes against humanity committed in the 20th century against the Iraqi people. The trajectory of what has been done to Iraq and its people (and now to many Middle Eastern countries, like Syria) are so horrific and genocidal that they must put each and every person around the world squarely in front one and only one question that is worth asking about the region, that is: when, why, and who decided to turn most people of the Middle East into a target for systematic extermination?

This, to me, is the only scholarly question worth asking and confronting by any honest writer and thinker studying the region. The sad story of what happened during the UN sanctions imposed on Iraqi people is to be continued when I decide to rip more pages from my diary to share with you. Today, after 25 years have passed since the First Gulf War crimes against humanity, the world is at its worst and humanity doesn’t seem to have learned any lessons from it whatsoever. Why do I bother writing all this, you may ask me? Although, deep inside, I feel that all my writing is no more than words written on the walls of indifference, I still want to bear witness to what happened. I still hope that there are people left around this world who will read this testimony and whose hearts, minds, and homes will become like shelters to protect these stories from being totally forgotten and erased from humanity’s short and awful memory. I still hope that one day the seeds of my alphabet will grow and bloom creating a more tolerable world to live in.

Louis Yako is an Iraqi-American poet, writer, and a PhD candidate of cultural anthropology researching Iraqi higher education and intellectuals at Duke University.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pages from my Diary: A Child’s Memories of Iraq’s First Gulf War

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and local militias liberated the town of Bashoura in the Northern part of Latakia province on Feb.8. The SAA also purged terrorists from the town of al-Hour town and deployed the force in the suburbs of al-Raqaqieh. The militant groups reportedly pulled their units back from the positions near the villages of Dahret al-Baiday al-Mahrouq and Ard al-Kataf.

A major convoy of Jeish al-Fatah terrorist group, loaded with weapons and ammunition was destroyed by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces on the road linking the Eastern part of Idlib and the Western part of Aleppo. A number of militants, guarding the convoy, also were killed or wounded in the air raid.

On Feb.9, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), predominantly Kurdish YPG units, has reportedly seized the Mennagh Military Airport in northern Aleppo. On account of this, the militants of Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and Jabhat Al-Shamiyah were force to withdraw in direction of ‘Azaz.

We remember, Russian warplanes conducted air raids in the area of the airport on Feb.9 while the U.S. ignored this area to avoid additional jitters in the relations with the Erdogan’s regime.

The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) announced on Feb. 9 that it purged ISIS from Ramadi’s eastern suburbs and secured the road between Baghdad and Ramadi. However, this area still remains vulnerable to attacks and will need to be cleared of IEDs.

Peshmerga and Suni tribals have conducted several military operations west of Makhmur. The U.S.-trained 1st Battalion of the 91st Brigade of the 16th Iraqi Army Division participated in them.

ISF and local militias continue to clash with ISIS between Samarra and Lake Thar Thar despite previous claims over the control of the areas west of Samarra. ISIS has launched an operation to push the ISF and its allies in Khat al-Layn and the Jazeera desert.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

<iframe width=”690″ height=”400″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQ26Rlcc40U” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Arab Army Liberates Bashoura in Northern Latakia, Terrorists’ Weapons Convoy Destroyed by Russian Air Strikes

The government is already spying on us through spying on us through our computers, phones, cars, buses, streetlights, at airports and on the street, via mobile scanners and drones, through our credit cards and smart meters (update), televisiondoll, and in many other ways.

Spying in the U.S. is worse than under Nazi Germany, the Stasi, J. Edgar Hoover … or Orwell’s 1984.

Yesterday, U.S. Intelligence Boss James Clapper said that the government will spy on Americans through the internet of things (“IoT”):

In the future, intelligence services might use the [IoT] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.

Yves Smith has the definitive comment on Clapper’s statement:

Oh, come on. The whole point of the IoT is spying. The officialdom is just trying to persuade you that it really is a big consumer benefit to be able to tell your oven to start heating up before you get home.

Personally, I’m a tech geek, and love the latest gadgets and toys.  But I don’t want my dishwasher or refrigerator sending messages to me … let alone the intelligence agencies.  Despite all of the hype about IoT, I don’t know anyone who does.

We’ve previously noted that the CIA wants to spy on you through your dishwasher and other “smart” appliances. As Slate notes:

Watch out: the CIA may soon be spying on you—through your beloved, intelligent household appliances, according to Wired.

In early March, at a meeting for the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel, CIA Director David Petraeus reportedly noted that “smart appliances” connected to the Internet could someday be used by the CIA to track individuals. If your grocery-list-generating refrigerator knows when you’re home, the CIA could, too, by using geo-location data from your wired appliancesaccording to SmartPlanet.

“The current ‘Internet of PCs’ will move, of course, toward an ‘Internet of Things’—of devices of all types—50 to 100 billion of which will be connected to the Internet by 2020,”Petraeus said in his speech. He continued:

Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters—all connected to the next-generation Internet using abundant, low cost, and high-power computing—the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.

And see these comments by John Whitehead and Michael Snyder.

The Guardian notes:

Just a few weeks ago, a security researcher found that Google’s Nest thermostats were leaking users’ zipcodes over the internet. There’s even an entire search engine for the internet of things called Shodan that allows users to easily search for unsecured webcams that are broadcasting from inside people’s houses without their knowledge.

While people voluntarily use all these devices, the chances are close to zero that they fully understand that a lot of their data is being sent back to various companies to be stored on servers that can either be accessed by governments or hackers.

***

Author and persistent Silicon Valley critic Evgeny Morozov summed up the entire problem with the internet of things and “smart” technology in a tweet last week:

Update:  The highest-level NSA whistleblower in history (William Binney) – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, and managed thousands of NSA employees – read this post, and told Washington’s Blog:

Yep, that summarizes it fairly well.  It does not deal with industry or how they will use the data; but, that will probably be an extension of what they do now.  This whole idea of monitoring electronic devices is objectionable.

If forced to buy that stuff,  I will do my best to disconnect these monitoring devices also look for equipment on the market that is not connected in any way

Postscript: As security expert Bruce Schneier points out, the entire concept of the IoT is wildly insecure and vulnerable to hacking.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Whole POINT of the “Internet of Things” (“IoT”) Is So Big Brother Can Spy on You

In 2013, India’s former Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oilseeds production programme. Similar claims had been made before. For instance, we could revisit the 1998 mustard oil tragedy. At the time, Rajasthan Oil Industries Association claimed that a “conspiracy” was being hatched to undermine the mustard oil trade and charged that the “invisible hands of the multinationals” were involved (see the article ‘Monsanto and the Mustard Seed

India was almost self-sufficient in edible oils by the mid-1990s. Its farmers met 97% of domestic need. However, its edible oil import bill has increased dramatically since then. By 2013, India was the world’s second biggest importer of edible oils. Food and trade policy analyst Devinder Sharma notes that between 2006-07 and 2011-12 alone edible oil imports rose by 380%.

Sharma asserts self-sufficiency was not palatable to international financial institutions, and that, under pressure from the World Bank, India began to reduce the import tariffs on edible oils and imports then began to increase. The impact has been felt by millions of farmers. Instead of paying Indonesian, Malaysian, American and Brazilian farmers from where India imports edible oils, he argues the effort should be to support domestic farmers.

India meets more than half its cooking oil requirements through imports, with palm oil shipped from Indonesia and Malaysia and soybean oil from the US, Brazil and Argentina. Notwithstanding the environmental damage resulting from industrial-size mono-crop plantations (see this on palm oil in Indonesia and this on soy in Brazil), soybean imports are expected to grow even more and further threaten domestic cultivation.

In an editorial piece for Kisan Ki Awaaz (National Voice of the Farmers) in November 2015, Kishan Bir Chaudhary highlights the trend to undermine indigenous production by noting the move to completely wipe out India’s soybean cultivation. The large-scale import of soybean meal is being contemplated at cheap prices from South America, China and USA, which would flood the Indian market. This is despite there being a more than adequate quantity of soybean meal available from locally produced soybean.

Currently, the import of soybean meal is freely permitted, with a low customs duty. Soybean prices in the exporting countries are between 30% to 40% lower because of huge subsidies. This could leave few outlets for indigenous production.

Although current laws do not permit the import of any GMO-based food or feed item into India, the fear is importers may ship in GMO soybean and soybean meal at cheap rates, which will get cleared at ports without testing for the presence of GMOs.

Chaudhary notes India’s soybean farmers are under pressure due to: the import of GM cheap soybean meal; a clamour for the import of soybean itself; the discouragement of soy cultivation by political leaders; and the active involvement of foreign seed and pesticide companies in promoting GM Soy cultivation.

He calls for an immediate ban on soybean imports as well as for customs officers to uphold the law of the land with regard to prohibiting the import of GMOs by carrying out proper checks in government laboratories.

With risks of GM entering India via imports clear, we are also currently witnessing the push to get GM mustard (and other crops) commercialised and grown in Indian fields. The justification being put forward for this if that GM mustard is a high-yielding crop, but, more importantly, it would diminish the reliance on edible oil imports.

These arguments are little more than smokescreens to divert attention from 1) the actual reality of increased import costs and the associated running down of indigenous agriculture, which stem from trade policies driven by the vested interests of global agribusiness, and 2) myths about the efficacy of GM. Such Trojan horse logic is being used to ease the entry of GMOs into India.

And such entry is at risk of being done by by-passing proper processes and procedures in what Aruna Rodrigues calls a case of “unremitting fraud” and by side-lining four high-level reports advising against the adoption of these crops in India (the ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal; the ‘Sopory Committee Report’ [August 2012]; the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ [PSC] Report on GM crops [August 2012]; and the ‘Technical Expert Committee [TEC] Final Report’ [June-July 2013]).

As far as the claim GM producing better yields, Devinder Sharma points out that in the US, crop yields of GM soy have been found 4% to 20% less than non-GM varieties. Whether it concerns soy, mustard or just about any other GM crop, the claims that GM produces increased yields is a myth.

If GM cannot increase yields even in the US, where high-input, irrigated, heavily subsidized commodity farming is the norm, it is irresponsible to assume that it would improve yields in the Global South, where farmers may literally bet their farms and livelihoods on a crop.

The above quote is from the report GMO Myths and Truths, which provides evidence in support of Sharma’s claims.

And farmers have indeed ‘bet’ their farms and livelihoods on a crop – and have lost (see this report from India’s The Statesman newspaper) or are being taken for a ride (see this on GM cotton, illegal royalties and financial distress).

Where, therefore, is the logic in promoting GM varieties which produce less than existing improved varieties that are not genetically modified?

Improving production should not be based on a supposed GM techno quick-fix, which the pro-GMO lobby would like us to believe in. The answer lies in adopting appropriate trade policies that favour indigenous production and local farmers and which, as Devinder Sharma notes, provides assured procurement and assured prices to farmers.

The fact that GM is not wanted or required, leads us to question why GMOs are being forced into the country (and are in fact already being consumed in terms of cotton seed oil). But it doesn’t take a genius as to why this might be.

Rajesh Krishnan, Convenor of Coalition for a GM-Free India argues that GM mustard is a backdoor entry for various other GM crops in the regulatory pipeline.

He adds:

GM mustard hybrid has been created mainly to facilitate the seed production work of seed manufacturers whereas farmers already have a choice of non-GM mustard hybrids in the market, in addition to high yielding non hybrid mustard varieties. There are non-GM agro-ecological options like System of Mustard Intensification yielding far higher production than the claimed yields of this GM mustard… This is clearly one more GMO that is unwanted and unneeded and is being thrust on citizens in violation of our right to choices, as farmers and consumers.

Little wonder then that most state governments have been unwilling to take up field trials.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trojan Horse Arguments and the GMO Issue: Indian Food and Agriculture Under Attack

The interview (transcript below)  from questions with Prof. John McMurtry was conducted for the 15th Anniversary of “Geopolitika” a journal of geopolitical and cultural analysis in Belgrade which was broadcast on Radio Belgrade by the weekly show “Silen” on February 12 from questions posed by Biljana Đorović.

The depth of the abyss into which the world is falling is ever clearer to people, but not the cause or the way out. Could you give us some kind of structure to explain what is at the heart of this empire of chaos that is reigning across the world?

In a nutshell, social evolution itself has been reversed by a US-led war on social and ecological life organisation driven by one corrupt master value – to free transnational corporations and their shareholders from social responsibility to multiply private fortunes without limit. It is a counter-revolution against the long development of democratic government and the welfare state that once crossed across the divisions of the Cold War.

The ultimate driver of the disorder can be explained in one underlying principle. The sole and absolute organising principle of the world’s reproduction and growth is turning private money into maximally more money for private money controllers. The ‘empire of chaos’ is the result.

The more this transnational financial capitalism is deregulated and subsidized , the more it multiplies itself through organic, social and ecological life hosts, the more predatorily destructive it becomes at all levels. This is ultimately a cancer system at the macro level, and it has quickly spread through the world. It was effectively with the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution against the social state with a US $500-billion tax-cut to the rich deliberately bankrupting the base of social programs, simultaneously pervasive media worship of the ‘free market’ and hatred of socialism, behind-the-scenes presidential permission of mass media monopolies proclaiming this mindless propaganda line, the systematic smashing of organised labour and sites of progressive intellectual discourses, ghoulish leashing of death squads in Latin Central America to reverse socialist forces while spending the opposing superpower USSR into bankruptcy on the arms race, and – finally but perhaps most importantly – preparation and passing of the world’s first major binding treaty absolutizing transnational corporate rights over all past or future democratic policies or legislation reducing foreign profit opportunities.

This sets the historical parameters of the current empire of chaos by reversing the post-1945 social evolution towards life security for all by the master principle of commodity and money-demand maximization across cultures and permanent war against any alternative.

How could this possibly be proclaimed, as it always has been, a victory for global freedom morality and justice?

The key is always in the US-designated Enemy whose destruction is equated to the victory of Good over Evil. There is no positive substance of the Good but destruction of the designated Enemy. There is in fact no common life interest of US civilization. There is the Enemy that must be defeated on the collective level, the sole collectivity. The money that must be made to survive is the only obligatory individual value, with self-maximization the logic of success.

The global turning point to ‘Communism’ as the Enemy came in 1991 with the fall of the USSR. This was triumphally proclaimed the victory of US freedom, the death of marxism and socialism, and the end of history itself.

In fact, the USSR fell by being hollowed out by the arms race and the Cold War, a deliberate US strategy, and from fighting the first jihadi terrorist uprising financed by the US in quasi-socialist Afghanistan. It was on Russia’s border, and the way to “bleed Russia to death” when it intervened to assist the secular social order with new equality for women. Yugoslavia at this same time was an iconically successful socialist society across ethnic divisions. But its US-led financial destruction was planned by secret presidential directive in 1981, and led to a chaos of ethnic wars and hatred ending in the 1999 bombing of Belgrade by NATO – – which was also during the US-British sanction bombing of Iraq, and more society-destroying bombings to come across the Middle East. Now the new designated Enemy was Saddam once the USSR fell.

One can see here that always a great Enemy is declared. It was long Communism which covered any alternative secular order with any socially owned economic base, the real danger being that it outperforms capitalist societies in serving the life needs of its people. But no sooner had this threat been apparently eliminated in even the Third World with death squads, international slanders and financial sabotage usually doing the trick than a new great Enemy called Saddam was declared just as the USSR was falling next door and unable to intervene.

Another new war, worse than the Cold War went into motion. As always there was constructed pretext, but this time without any USSR to limit it, the US (and Britain) bombed the long-evolved socialist infrastructure of Iraq into ruins and perpetrated an eco-genocidal invasion from 1991 to 2003 that was, as always, justified by the Enemy it attacked – although the enemy Saddam was long on the CIA payroll, just as Osama Laden, the next great Enemy to appear, was financed and armed by the US in Afghanistan to begin the new greatest enemy of all replacing Communism.

This Enemy is Islamic Terror which still morphs on into ISIS suddenly appearing in June 2014 to keep the ball rolling into Syria bombing by NATO, a reprise of the complete society destruction of Libya by US-led NATO bombing in 2011. The end of the Cold War gave rise not to peace, but wars of aggression by the US whenever it could take the people along with false cover stories. The constant throughout is a great Enemy, the cornerstone of US ideology, with constructed pretext or false flag event always justifying war against the now perpetually changing Enemy – in fact, sitting duck with no air defenses to stop imperial bombing and expansion of the transnational money-cancer system.

Do you think there is a fundamental difference between the US-led empire during the Cold War and after it? The years of the US-Soviet conflict seem almost pastoral compared to now.

1991 was supposed to bring about the great Peace Dividend with no US enemy to justify the always rising military spending to stop the “communist plot for world rule”. Now we know better who was aiming for world rule, as always projecting onto the designated Enemy the US’s own objective. The carpet bombings of helpless societies by US-led forces since 1991 are, like Vietnam, eco-genocidal in nature, only now one after another. They force-metastasize the exponential private financial growth of Wall Street and company, but transnational corporate treaty and social-state stripping is the ultimate inner logic of the US-led spreading chaos.

Before 1991, the US and allies had developed social life support systems and a welfare state to compete with state socialism. No longer. Since the fall of the USSR, whole peoples and their life conditions are destroyed and looted across continents from Yugoslavia to the Ukraine, from Iraq to Libya to Syria to who knows where next. Propelling every degenerate trend from behind has been the carcinomic financialization of real economies into multiplying private money sequences devouring life and life support systems as ‘global market freedom and prosperity’. This is the borderless transnational globalization of the private money-power system that has changed all the rules.

Dividing societies into civil war or helpless bankruptcy or both is the new and unnamed master pattern, destroying whatever collective economic and social success has been achieved everywhere, clearing s the way for foreign control of once sovereign resources, markets and peoples. Greece is a current example of these external money sequences cored in transnational banks hollowing out an evolved Western society to recoup foreign bank revenues after the Wall-Street-engineered bank collapse of 2008 – stripping ever more peoples to pay for big banks’ ponzi schemes even if the society’s unemployment goes over 30%, the public sector is dismantled and looted at fire-sale prices, and the majority’s lives and life conditions are turned towards the living hell formerly reserved for the Third World death-squad dictatorships.

This systemic money-sequenced destruction of evolved societies, their public resources and life support systems is now plundering all societies including the US and Britain. It is inconceivable that what is now normalized as “necessary market reforms” today could have been even proposed by these countries from 1950 to 1991. But things have also changed at the oppositional level. Latin America has largely evolved out of the US-led oligarchies of fascist tyranny.

Why is this underlying pattern – essentially a global multi-front war against humanity – not recognised in even academic discourses?

This is a very complex matter in all the levels of systemic degeneration and attack. The inherited methods and categories of understanding are incapable of comprehension so long as they are divided into siloes, mechanistically organised into atomic agents and aggregates, and increasingly funded for proprietary corporate research for profit.

The academy led by its own multiplying corporate managements has been largely converted into a servo-mechanism to the financial cancer system, a long war, with a new underclass of casualized worker- profs doing most of the teaching with no time for research. System diagnosis is prohibited at every step by this context. Marxist analysis itself is bound to categories unable to grasp the system’s disorder where more means and conditions of life are now destroyed than produced.

So-called ‘economics’ is most of all a set-point of the self-referential stupefaction. It is based on a life-blind liquid mechanics of the nineteenth century disguised by algebraic notations whose referents are idealized money coordinates in dyadic and exponential repetitions. The reigning models are structured a-priori not to see any of the real-life failures and depredations of the runaway disorder. Policy-setting ‘economics’ is without any framework to factor in the life needs of people, societies and environments at all. Academically trained critics name the problem as ‘neo-liberalism’, but this is a vacuously equivocal slogan. – – The classical liberals John Stuart Mill and John Dewey were both mild socialists and advocated a reasoned social progress of humanity’s permanent life interests, which this transnational private money-sequence system rules out in principle.

Could you say more about the “false ruling categories” misleading even the academic Left and most concerned citizens?

To begin with, this system is not as almost everyone assumes, a ‘free market’. Its trade and investment treaties across borders prove it to be a transnational corporate dictatorship in principle. Corporate lawyers write all the rules in secret. They override the policies of elected legislatures. Global supply and demand are controlled by dominant transnational corporations. Open market competition is ruled out by predatory and transfer pricing, corporate lobby control of state policies, and vast and growing government subsidies to favoured players.

While “the free market” is still absurdly assumed as given, “efficiency” is even more universally assumed as its regulating discipline and logic of progress. Indeed it is the justification for all the jobs continuously lost, all the deregulations, pollutions, resource-mining horrors, and inhuman exploitations from one place to the next across the globe.

Yet in fact this system is the opposite of ‘efficient’ in life means production and reproduction – the substance of any real economy. What is miscalled ‘efficiency’ merely lowers money costs for private profit agents. In reality, this system is now by far the most wasteful system ever, wasting more life value than it produces. 90% of the biomass it converts into commodities for profit end up as waste within six weeks. 40% of even final food products are thrown away without consumption. Fresh water lakes and aquifers are everywhere polluted and drawn down without efficient water use entering the equations. .

‘Absence of waste’ is the definition of efficiency. But this system wastes everything to multiply private money sequences with ever more people jobless, species in spasm extinctions, oceans poisoned and hollowed out, junks of every kind becoming more dominant across domains.

Do you think there are dark corridors of power where the game is rigged by master manipulators with their own ruling goals and forms of action? If so, what are they

Well they definitely exist as a self-flattering transnational money party bending the system to limitless rule. In the cases I know, the imaginary global free market is covertly structured to make private money rights sovereign over all that exists with no accountability to any human or ecological life need at all. This is conceived as “global market freedom”. The corrupt self-conceit is mind-stopping.

Banker David Rockefeller elliptically expressed this program back in 1991. “A supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers”, he intoned to fellow Bilderburgers, “is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”. This statement has never been denied. It implicitly entails a dark meaning. The ruling goal and form of action is to stop history’s democratic trend, to end peoples bonded by national identity, to override people’s say over their collective future, to eliminate public sectors except as serving this private money sovereign, and to accept this banker sovereignty as the proper replacement of the self-determination of nations and peoples.

Banker Rockefeller only refers to the ‘intellectual elite’ to deploy their Platonic conceit. He is more ignorant than they that Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’ live in community ownership of goods without private money gain to corrupt their reason by the lowest level of the soul, the self’s appetites. In contrast, Rockefeller’s ‘intellectual elite’ are exemplified by Rockefeller’s own money-obsequious German protégé, Leo Strauss who preaches the sovereignty of private money over society in Talmudic style that is hard to decipher. Yet as Rockefeller’s parachuted University of Chicago professor and godfather of the U.S. National Security Council, Strauss affirms the goal in his Natural Right and History: “limitless [money] capital accumulation” is “a moral duty and perhaps the highest moral duty”. Wasted expenditures at will , no productive function, genocides of the conquered, each and all are rationalized away by Strauss as moral rectitude by the ‘natural right’ of private money capital. He justifies every one.

This is only one dark corridor leading to the financial cancer system we face today. Its NSC branch rooted in Harvard’s graduate apparatus of ‘political science’ over decades is still dominated by the Russia-hating Zbigniew Brzezinski. Undergirded by the more substantial ‘free market’ worship dominating graduate schools everywhere up to US presidential appointees, all agents are propelled by big corporate and bank money power which they all worship. This ultimate money power explicitly and bilaterally seeks ‘full spectrum dominance’ of the world, as in the 2000 project for a New American Century signed by US leaders and advisers across parties. Its dark vision was then followed into 9-11 and the 9-11 Wars.

9-11 itself was corridors covered by darkness in how it happened. The first question of forensic justice, cui bon (who benefits?), remains publicly silenced. The official conspiracy theory of the World Trade Center buildings melting and collapsing into their own footprints violated the laws of physics at every step, beginning with the blamed Arabs with box-cutters and no remains. The US secret state is so covered in dark hidden corners that we can only predict in principle what will happen next – for recent example, the fully-armed ISIS killing machine springing onto the stage out of nowhere mass murdering everywhere it can, but somehow never touches Israel.

But a cautionary word. The deep global game-changers here are institutional moves at the level of sweeping trade treaties and thousands of new bureaucratic laws and regulations. They silently replace sovereign government and democratically legislated policies and laws everywhere “to compete in the global market”, with few observing that they are massive corporate-lawyer fiats multiplying protections of transnational business profits as their single unifying objective. They too are secret in negotiations, corporate lobby construction, thousands of pages of prescriptions, and closed tribunals punishing states which disobey. It is hard to see where the dark financial global coup d’etat stops.

Could you step us through a paradigm case of this financcial cancer system’ at work and how progressive voices fail to see its meaning?

The recently released Oxfam Davos Report (January 16) is a perfect example because it clearly succeeds in informing us of the escalating extremes of inequality which this system has produced – a fact on which now everyone agrees. The first essential fact it identifies reports from global business statistics that 62 individuals now own more wealth than 50% of the world’s population. More shockingly, the second essential fact reported is that this share of wealth by half the world’s people has collapsed by over 40% in the last five years.

Yet even in this report the big lie continues that “the world has made great progress in tackling world poverty” and that “extreme poverty has been halved since 1990”. The near automatic assumption that the poor are being “lifted out of poverty in greater numbers” thus persists even though the business evidence itself shows that, in fact, the poorer half of humanity has lost 42% of their wealth in just the last few years. What does this mean for “trickle-down theory”, “global competition nets more wealth for all”, and “Parteo optimal markets”? It means that they are all delusionary. The World Bank and other figures purporting to show great gains for the poor are based on income gains of less than a cup of coffee a day – typically of emigrants forced into big polluted cities who formerly had at least a family home, clean air and green surroundings.

Yet observe that throughout the revolutionary redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, the magic of the market and globalization are proclaimed as “enhanced competition”, “liberalized de-regulation”, “‘more labour flexibility”, “reduced welfare costs” and “austerity programs to correct excesses”. In fact beneath the pervasive propaganda conditioning citizens to believe in the money shell game devouring the world, the poorer half of humanity has been deprived of one trillion dollars of wealth in five years while the 62 richest people have gained almost twice as much for themselves by the operations of this system.

But the end is not yet. Other figures in the Davos Report show that a further $760 billion flowing to non-producing investors has been gained by transnational tax evasion with impunity across the world. This is another revolutionary turn of ‘globalization’ to enrich the richest while doubling down on deprivation of the poor. Yet at the same time, it strips the funding of public sectors and institutions which have evolved to serve the common life interest of societies outside the global market. Governments which could once protect the deprived at all levels of life organization are now widely bankrupted or debt enslaved along with most citizens. Who has reported any of this?

In consequence, the world slips into deeper recession from the collapse of demand at the public and majority levels as the poorest half’s share of wealth is almost halved and the share of the richest is more than doubled for accumulation. But this cause of the Great Recession is ignored by governments and international policy meetings as if it did not exist.

As these and other facts show, borderless and de-regulated corporate globalization is eating the world alive. That is why these facts are never reported by the mass media or politicians. It is why claimed actions to stop the world bleeding never face the system disorder causing them. It is why even concerned organizations continue to repeat falsehoods as if they were true. Once again like a cancer system at the macro level, this exponentially multiplying private money-sequence system has no committed life functions but to feed on life and life conditions to grow itself. But what progressive journal or even book connects all of these dots?

Can there be any resolution to the fragmentation and paralysis of unifying vision?

Our problem now is that is not even the informed and the progressive join the dots and realise the meaning of their own senses and the rising evidence. As with Oxfam, they pre-consciously deny the collapsing position of the majority of humankind by repeating the lies of the ruling doctrine like ‘progress in eliminating poverty’ and ‘halving of absolute destitution’.

Nowhere is the criterion of human needs across cultures identified. Nowhere are the truly ‘changed rules of the game’ specified and shown as cause of the systemic catastrophes for humanity and planetary life support systems. Nowhere do we see a policy-structure change spelled out that connects across crises. Yet everywhere the diagnosis and tracking of financial- ization can detect and show the CSC drivers of world society today.

Resolution requires recognition of the ultimately regulating principle of humanity’s social evolution that moves underneath technological development to what it is for and the basic institutional bases to rule out the great blind alleys of post-1900 social evolution such as state Stalinism and global financialization. The underlying pattern of progress is now lost in superstructural debates, but is control of currency and credit by public-bank authority linked to defined life standards of investment and production to protect human beings and their shared life support systems. History shows this underlying pattern of progress in varying degrees such as the Scandinavian countries and the old Yugoslavia, but a conscious life code has been lacking at the society-wide level. This missing link is a life-coherent collective value system  translated into self-evident principles of how to live as a society beyond individual choices.

I leave this ultimate issue and its challenges to our next discussion.

John McMurtry is University Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph and elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His work has been translated from Latin America to Japan, and he is the author/editor of UNESCO’s three-volume Philosophy and World Problems, as well as more recently, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism; From Crisis to Cure.

  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Decoding the US Empire of Chaos: The Global Reversal of the Social Evolution of Humanity

Apartheid in Israel

February 11th, 2016 by Anthony Bellchambers

The lack of human dignity experienced by Palestinian Arabs is the direct result of the policy of Israeli supremacy. Israeli supremacy implies Arab inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve Israeli supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks in Israel are invariably performed by Arabs. When anything has to be carried or cleaned, the Israeli will look around for an Arab to do it for him, whether the Arab is employed by him or not.

Because of this sort of attitude, Israelis tend to regard Palestinian Arabs as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people with families of their own; they do not realise that they have emotions – that they fall in love like Israelis do; that they want to be with their wives and children like Israelis want to be with theirs; that they want to earn enough money to support their families properly, to feed and clothe them and send them to school. And what Arab servant or labourer can ever hope to do this?

ID laws, which to Palestinians are the most hated bits of legislation in Israel, render any Arab liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt that there is a single Palestinian male in Israel who has not at some stage had a brush with the police over his ID papers. Hundreds and thousands of Arabs are thrown into jail each year under these laws. Even worse than this is the fact that these discriminatory laws keep husband and wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life.

Arabs want to be paid a living wage. Arabs want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the government declares them to be capable of. Arabs want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Arabs want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own.

Arabs want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. Arab men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men’s hostels. Arab women want to be with their menfolk and not be permanently widowed in IDF policed villages.

Palestinian Arabs want to be allowed to travel freely within their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the Labour Ministry tells them to. Arabs want a just share in the whole of former Palestine; they want security and a stake in society.

Above all, we want equal political rights although we know this makes the Israeli fear democracy. But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on ethnicity or religion, is entirely artificial, and when it disappears, so will the domination of one ethnic group over another. Western democracies have spent nearly a century fighting against racialism.

This struggle is a national one. It is a struggle for the right to live.

*Taken from a speech by the late Nelson Mandela, the first President of an independent South Africa.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Apartheid in Israel

Bernie Sanders is a self-declared Democratic Socialist who believes that the US middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America, deserve a decent standard of living. He believes that international trade agreements as written by corporate America, Wall Street and the political lobbyists, have been a disaster for the American worker.  He advocates comprehensive financial reforms that will focus on income and wealth inequality.

Sanders was a strong opponent of the US invasion of Iraq and the misconceived Bush ‘war on terror’. He is a strong advocate for a two-state solution in the Palestine-Israel conflict. This means that he is opposed to the right-wing extremist policies of the Netanyahu Likud government and its agenda of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. Mr Sanders is no fan of Binyamin Netanyahu and, therefore, no fan of AIPAC, the Israel lobby.

He advocates a crackdown on police brutality and bold action to reverse global warming.  Bernie Sanders describes himself as a secular Jew and is proud to be Jewish. His wife is Roman Catholic. They believe that they cannot turn their backs on the suffering of other people. That is not Judaism or Roman Catholicism and he has denounced institutional racism.

The result in New Hampshire is a defence for an American democracy that has for too long been hijacked by the powerful lobbies for Israel and other vested interests.

[email protected]

London   February 2016

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pro-Israel Lobby Shudders as Bernie Sanders Beats Clinton and Threatens Neocons in Washington and Wall Street

More on the Zika Virus-Microcephaly Freak-out

February 10th, 2016 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

“…[O]ur current results are consistent with the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of aluminum adjuvants which altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders in children. Given that autism has devastating consequences in a life of a child, and that currently in the developed world over 1% of children suffer from some form of ASD, it would seem wise to make efforts towards reducing infant exposure to aluminum from vaccines.“ — CA Shaw, PhD

“There is a serious problem with vaccine safety. Vaccine aluminum adjuvants have adverse neurological effects, at dosages that are recommended by the US CDC. Vaccine critics are supported by the science. Parents refusing to vaccinate according to the recommended CDC schedule are supported by the science. Use aluminum-containing vaccines with great caution, or not at all.” — CA Shaw, PhD http://vaccinepapers.org/category/aluminum/

The CDC’s recommendation that doctors give every pregnant woman a Tdap vaccination during every pregnancy—regardless of whether a woman has already received one dose of Tdap—is an off-label use of the vaccine.” — Carol Adl

“Yielding to the pressure from Big Pharma and with a mis-placed confidence in the Big Pharma-dominated CDC, FDA and his Big Medicine health advisors, President Obama has recommended that Congress spend $1,800,000,000 for defending America against a non-disease and for the fast track development of a Zika virus vaccine. Most of the money will go to corporations.” – GG Kohls

Last week’s Duty to Warn column on the Zika virus/microcephaly “freak-out” (published by Global Research) has been widely circulated around the planetary blogosphere, but not, apparently (and not unsurprisingly), among the gatekeepers of information in Big Government, Big Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Media and the CDC despite many of those organizations being duly informed about the “unspeakable” reality of yet another vaccine-induced, iatrogenic (medical industry-caused) disease.

For those organizations and industries, it must be preferable to blame iatrogenic illnesses on innocent mosquitos, viruses and people (for not spraying enough neurotoxic insecticides or neurotoxic repellants on themselves). For guilty medical industries, it must be preferable to blame anything other than the true culprits rather than risk losing public confidence in drugs or the over-vaccination programs that are constantly being forced on our ever-sickening children. For more understanding on the issue, check out last week’s Duty to Warn column at:

http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/04/6685_the_zika_virus_outbreak_covering_up_another-1.

Alternative websites, alternative talk shows and assorted, non-brain-washed critical thinkers around the world (that have not been co-opted by Big Business) have expressed profound interest in the information contained in the handful of exposes from various whistle-blowers

(check out www.nomorefakenews.org;

http://yournewswire.com/video-the-zika-false-flag-fraud-fizzles/;

and  www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6O0Cnv9UJ4),

that have correctly asserted that the most likely causative factor in the epidemic of microcephaly is NOT Zika virus. Rather, it is Brazil’s desperate act of mandating that every pregnant women in Brazil – starting in early 2015 – be inoculated with GlaxoSmithKline’s Tdap vaccine (a neurotoxic aluminum-containing vaccine that is supposed to prevent whooping cough).

Pregnant women, trusting the wisdom of the public health agencies and also their physicians, took the shot (some right along with their mercury-containing flu shot!) and before the year was out, those deceived women began delivering an increased number of microcephalic babies with shrunken, underdeveloped brains and therefore shrunken skulls.

Aluminum Toxicity in Sao Paulo and Lead Toxicity in Flint

What could possibly go wrong when neurotoxic heavy metals like aluminum or mercury (thimerosal) or lead get into the developing brains of fetuses, whose blood-brain barriers are at their most immature?

Brazilian public health authorities didn’t check into aluminum neurotoxicity before they issued the mandate last year. The victims had no choice.

Speaking of no choice, it is instructive to ponder some of the similarities between what happened to the aluminum-poisoned pregnant women and fetuses in Sao Paulo and what is likely to happen to some of the lead-poisoned pregnant women in Flint, Michigan. Don’t expect the public health officials to do the right thing in either city.

Of course, it remains to be seen what other neurological, hormonal, endocrine, mental, behavioral, sexual, physical or spiritual abnormalities will develop over the next decades in the Brazilian babies that were lucky enough to not be born with gross anomalies like microcephaly. Vaccine-induced (or other) toxic microcephalies are, after all, spectrum disorders, with stillborn anencephalics at one end of the spectrum and grossly normal-appearing babies, that have only invisible synaptic- and/or cellular-level brain defects at the other end.

Guilty or embarrassed public health officials, threatened with humiliating exposes, lawsuits and/or criminal indictments (financially supported by Big Pharma’s powerful corporate forces) can be expected to fail to do a thorough, unbiased, scientific investigation into the emerging catastrophe – after trying to stonewall it initially.

What every mainstream media outlet in America failed to report when the public health authorities released the Brazilian data (after finally getting their stories straight) was the fact that there were no unusual numbers of Brazilian microcephalics born in the summer and fall of 2015, whereas there were reportedly1200 in November, another 1200 in December and by the end of January 2016 there was a total of 4000. Nobody seems to know the exact details. Crimes and their ever-present cover-ups work that way.

It is important to recognize that none of the other risk factors for brain toxicity, brain cell death and therefore brain atrophy in Brazil changed since 2015 – except for the dramatic injections of the toxic aluminum adjuvant into developing fetuses.

Let’s list some of those factors.

A Short List of Risk Factors for Fetal Brain Atrophy

Brazil is a world leader in poverty in the developed world, but it is not alone in desperately trying to maximize its position as a world leader in agriculture. Because of that desperation, Brazil has succumbed to the temptation from Big Agribusiness to raise heavily drugged (with antibiotics), very sickened livestock (that eat GMO grains that haven’t been tested adequately for long-term safety).

Brazil has also succumbed to Big Agrichemical’s siren song to use more and more toxic chemicals on its crops. Thus it is genetically-altering its livestock feeding program, which requires a lot of Round-up in order to force its increasingly micronutrient-depleted soil to grow more malnourishing grains and food. The poor in Brazil and, of course, their fetuses may be among the most seriously malnourished in the developed world. Poor maternal and prenatal nutrition can’t grow healthy fetal brains and bodies.

Before 2015, Brazil was (and still is) a world leader in the heavy use of Monsanto’s mitochondrial and cellular toxin, Round-up (which contains glyphosate, a carcinogenic herbicide [according to WHO]).

What could possibly go wrong when fetal brains are exposed to mitochondrial toxins that are sprayed (both before and after harvesting) on any number of Round-up Ready GMO foodstuffs that seem to be in every non-organic grocery store and restaurant?

Before 2015, Brazil was (and still is) a world leader in the heavy use of Syngenta’s hormone-disrupting Atrazine (the synthetic herbicide that was behind Minnesota’s infamous rural Atrazine-toxified farmland epidemic of hermaphroditic frogs that also exhibited a slew of physical defects, including extra or absent limbs [not to mention the near-extinction of the species]). Hermaphrodites, it should be noted, contain both sex organs, thanks to Syngenta, and cannot reproduce. Atrazine contaminates the drinking water of half of southern Minnesota.

What could possibly go wrong with the fetal development in pregnant Brazilian women when they are exposed to estrogen-mimicking chemicals like Atrazine?

Brazil has been, and is still a world leader in the use of insecticides that are designed to poison the nervous systems of insects.

DEET isn’t as Safe as Public Health Agencies Want us to Believe

What could possibly go wrong when insecticides or repellants are inhaled or are applied to the highly absorbent skin of pregnant women? 

Back in the 1980s there were a number of cases reported in the medical literature of childhood “toxic encephalopathy” that were caused by the popular insect repellant DEET (which is widely – and falsely – “generally regarded as safe” [gras]). The encephalopathy in those cases was characterized by agitation, weakness, disorientation, ataxia, seizures, coma and even death. One of fatal cases that was autopsied showed necrotic lesions in the cerebellum and spinal cord plus an enlarged liver. According to other published toxicology reports, DEET is rapidly absorbed through the skin and is distributed to all organs including the brain and the fetus of pregnant women. The chemical is secreted in the breast milk of lactating women but is primarily excreted from the body through the urine. No long-term safety studies for DEET have been done on pregnant women or their exposed fetuses, but the public health authorities in Brazil are silent on the issue.

And even America’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention is silent on the known adverse fetal effects of DEET, neurotoxic insecticides, neurotoxic mercury in flu shots and the neurotoxic metal aluminum. The CDC gives the impression that some neurotoxins might be safe for pregnant women and fetuses at some level, while it simultaneously preaches total abstinence of even small amounts of alcohol in pregnancy, proclaiming that ”there is no safe amount of alcohol for a woman during any stage of pregnancy” implying that there must be a safe amount for vaccine ingredients.

The CDC is the public health agency (unfortunately heavily influenced by Big Pharma) that the American public and most physicians look to for honest, unbiased, well-researched information about xenobiotics like drugs and vaccines and about events like pandemics and epidemics, and here it is blatantly failing to truthfully inform the public about all aspects of the Zika virus/microcephaly event.

How can we ever trust the CDC again (or WHO or the media) when they refuse to tell us the truth of the matter: that there “is no safe amount of aluminum, mercury or lead” for fetuses or infants?

That is the most important lesson to be learned in this whole sad Zika hoax. My hope is that readers of this column will demand truthfulness from the journalists and editors who are the gate-keepers of “all the news that’s fit to print”.

Yielding to the pressure from Big Pharma and with a mis-placed confidence in the Big Pharma-dominated CDC, FDA and his Big Medicine health advisors, President Obama has recommended that Congress spend $1,800,000,000 for defending America against a non-disease and for the fast track development of a Zika virus vaccine. Most of the money will go to corporations.

I end this piece with some revealing information that I have excerpted from the internet that also needs wide attention:

Excerpts From the CDC’s “Toxicological Profile for Aluminum”

(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c3.pdf)

“…neurofibrillary pathological changes have been associated with several neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting that the cause of aluminum-related abnormal neuronal function may involve changes in cytoskeletal protein functions in affected cells.“ ( p 118)

 ”Fetal exposure (to aluminum) may result in a higher distribution of aluminum to the brain, as compared to adults. In the fetuses of rats receiving a single subcutaneous injection of aluminum on gestation day 5, the amount of the radio-labelled aluminum in the brain was 30% higher than in the liver; in the dams, brain aluminum levels were only 1% of the levels found in the liver (Yumoto et al. 2000). Aluminum is distributed transplacentally, and elevated levels of aluminum have been measured in the fetus and placenta following oral, dermal, or parenteral exposure to aluminum (Anane et al. 1997; Cranmer et al. 1986; Yumoto et al. 2000).” (p 122)

“Preterm infants may also be particularly sensitive to the toxicity of aluminum due to reduced renal capacity” (Tsou et al. 1991.” (p 127)

Vaccine Company Package Inserts That List Encephalopathy as an Adverse Reaction

Merck M-M-R® II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live)

ADVERSE REACTIONS: Encephalitis; encephalopathy

Merck RECOMBIVAX HB® Hepatitis B Vaccine
ADVERSE REACTIONS:
Encephalitis

Merck GARDASIL (Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent)

ADVERSE REACTIONS (Postmarketing):Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

Merck VARIVAX Varicella (Chickenpox ) Live Virus Vaccine
ADVERSE REACTIONS, (Post-marketing):
Encephalitis

Glaxo INFANRIX (DTaP) Pertussis Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience:
Encephalopathy

Sanofi Pasteur PENTACEL DTaP IPV and HIB Combo Vaccine  
Data from Clinical Studies, Serious Adverse Events:
Encephalopathy

MedImmune FLUMIST Vaccine  (Influenza Vaccine Live, Intranasal Spray)
Postmarketing Experience:
Vaccine-associated encephalitis

Merck AFLURIA Flu Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience:
Encephalopathy

Novartis Vaccines AGRIFLU Flu Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience:
Encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis

GlaxoSmithKline FLUARIX Flu Vaccine
Postmarketing Experience:
Encephalomyelitis

Note that the cases of vaccine-induced encephalomyelitis warned about above occurred in infants, children and adolescents. Think how much more common or serious such cases might be in immature fetuses!

*      *      *

The following extended excerpt was from Carol Adl’s article

“Is Zika Virus Or The Tdap Vaccine Causing Birth Defects In Brazil?”

It has been published at: http://yournewswire.com/is-zika-virus-or-the-dtap-vaccine-causing-birth-defects-in-brazil/

“FACT—Drug companies did not test the safety and effectiveness of giving Tdap vaccine to pregnant women before the vaccines were licensed in the U.S. and there is almost no data on inflammatory or other biological responses to this vaccine that could affect pregnancy and birth outcomes.

“FACT—According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adequate testing has not been done in humans to demonstrate safety for pregnant women and it is not known whether the vaccines can cause fetal harm or affect reproduction capacity. The manufacturers of the Tdap vaccine state that human toxicity and fertility studies are inadequate and warn that Tdap should “be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”

“FACT—There are ingredients in pertussis containing Tdap vaccine that have not been fully evaluated for potential genotoxic or other adverse effects on the human fetus developing in the womb that may negatively affect health after birth, including aluminum adjuvants, mercury containing (Thimerosal) preservatives and many more bioactive and potentially toxic ingredients.

“FACT—There are no published biological mechanism studies that assess pre-vaccination health status and measure changes in brain and immune function and chromosomal integrity after vaccination of pregnant women or their babies developing in the womb.

“FACT—Since licensure of Tdap vaccine in the U.S., there have been no well-designed prospective case-controlled studies comparing the health outcomes of large groups of women who get pertussis containing Tdap vaccine during pregnancy either separately or simultaneously compared to those who do not get the vaccines, and no similar health outcome comparisons of their newborns at birth or in the first year of life have been conducted. Safety and effectiveness evaluations that have been conducted are either small, retrospective, compare vaccinated women to vaccinated women or have been performed by drug company or government health officials using unpublished data.

“FACT—The FDA has licensed Tdap vaccines to be given once as a single dose pertussis booster shot to individuals over 10 or 11 years old. The CDC’s recommendation that doctors give every pregnant woman a Tdap vaccination during every pregnancy—regardless of whether a woman has already received one dose of Tdap—is an off-label use of the vaccine.

“FACT—Injuries and deaths from pertussis-containing vaccines are the most compensated claims in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and influenza vaccine injuries and deaths are the second most compensated claim.

“FACT—A 2013 published study evaluating reports of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination in the U. S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and in a European vaccine reaction reporting system found that pertussis containing DTaP was among the vaccines most frequently associated with brain inflammation in children between birth and age five.

“Tdap is manufactured by two pharmaceutical companies: Sanofi Pasteur of France and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) of the United Kingdom.

“Unsurprisingly, the Brazilian government announced on January 15, 2016 it will direct funds to a biomedical research center (Sao Paulo-based Butantan Institute) to help develop a vaccine against Zika. Development of the vaccine is expected to take 3-5 years. Again, no consideration to the irony that you may be developing a vaccine to address a problem that may have been CAUSED by a vaccine, and that that new vaccine may COMPOUND the problem No consideration to the possibility that the answer to the problem may not be to do MORE, but rather to do LESS (simply STOP giving Tdap to pregnant women).

“The number of cases of microcephaly in Brazil has grown to 3,530 babies, as of mid-January 2016. Fewer than 150 such cases were seen in all of 2014.”

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Reader, Duluth’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, psychiatric drugging, over-vaccination regimens, Big Pharma and other movements that threaten the environment or America’s health, democracy, civility and longevity. Many of his columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More on the Zika Virus-Microcephaly Freak-out

The situation with Turkey is rapidly getting out of control: not only have the Turks conducted artillery strikes across the Syrian border, Turkey has refused to comply with its obligations under the Open Skies Treaty and refused to let a Russian surveillance aircraft overfly Turkey. The Russian military has now declared that it had detected signs of Turkish preparations for an invasion. The Turkish refusal to abide by the Open Skies Treaty is an extremely worrisome development, especially when combined with the Russian warnings about the preparation for an invasion of Syria, and the Russians are not mincing their words:

There are plenty more indicators and warnings showing that an escalation is possible: the Geneva negotiations have been abruptly terminated, the Saudis are threatening to invade Syria and there are signs that the Syrian army is slowly but surely preparing an operation to liberate Aleppo from the Takfiris, creating a panic in Ankara and Riyadh (so much for the stupid notions that the Russians are not winning or that the Syrian military does not exist).

In the meantime, there are plenty of signs that Erdogan’s entire “grand plan” for Syria has completely collapsed that that he has no more options left (please read the excellent analysis by Ghassan Kadi on this topic posted today as well as Pepe Escobar’s take on the same issue).

I am not a psychic or a prophet. I cannot tell what Erdogan is really thinking, or whether the Turks will try to invade Syria. But what I can do is to try to make some educated guesses about possible Russian responses to such an event.

First, two basic principles:

1) If Russian forces are attacked they will hit back. Putin already gave them that authority and this will happen almost automatically with only local commanders making the final call. In other words, such an exchange of fire would not automatically be tantamount to a full-scale war between Turkey and Russia.

2) If Turkey invades Syria, Russia will act in strict compliance with international law. That means that she will demand an emergency meeting of the UNSC and that much will depend upon what the Council’s reaction will be. If the usual gangs of puppets “covers” for Turkey (which is by no means certain, in my opinion, at least not for very long, maybe a week or so max) then the Russians will then refer to their obligations to assist Syria under the 1980 “Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation” between the two countries (Russia being today the successor state to the USSR the treaty is still in force) and the 2015 “Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic on thedeployment of aviation group of the Armed Forces on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic“.

In other words, Russia will retain a degree of flexibility to interpret the situation in one way or another. That, in turn, means that much will depend on what the Turks really try achieve.

If we are talking about the typical Turkish violation of a national border to attack the Kurds, like what they did many times in the past already, and if that intervention is limited in depth, Russia will probably chose non-military means to put pressure on Turkey. Again, while the crazies in Turkey badly want a war with Russia to internationalize the conflict and force NATO to intervene, the Russians have no interest at all in such an escalation. Just as in the Donbass, the West is trying to bait Russia into a war and Russia is refusing to take that bait. The problem is that unlike the Ukronazis, the Turks have a much more powerful military machine which the Russian cannot ignore like they have ignored the Ukronazi military and various death squads. So if Erdogan’s goal is just to look macho and flex some muscle, say like what Reagan did in Grenada, then he can probably get away with it, at least for a short operation. But if Erdogan is dead set in having a conflict with Russia, the Russian won’t be able to just hunker down and wait for him to calm down.

In the latter case, Russia will have a number of escalatory options.

The first obvious options is to help the Syrians and Kurds with intelligence. This is already taking place now and will only intensify in the case of a Turkish invasion.

The second is to shoot Turkish fixed or rotary-wing aircraft out of the skies. This is an easy option as the Syrians already have some pretty good air defense systems (including some Pantsir-S1, Buk-M1/2E, Tunguskas 2K22 and a fairly robust early-warning system) and a few more or less capable aircraft (possibly including upgraded MiG-29s). The Kremlin can thus enjoy a degree of what the CIA called “plausible deniability”.

The third option for Russia is to help the Syrians with the artillery system she reportedly deployed in the country including 52-millimeter MTSA-B guns, BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch rocket launchers.

All these options would still fall short of a “full-scale” war between Russia and Turkey. But if Erdogan is determined to escalate further then a war will be inevitable. If Turkey tries to attack Khmeimim directly, then Russia will strike back, no doubt about it.

What could it look like?

The first thing I would say is that neither country will try to invade the other one. The notion of Turkey invading Russia is self-evidently ludicrous, but while Turkey does fall within the 1000km depth the Russian military is trained to fight in, I don’t believe that Russia would ever attempt this. For one thing, and just as was the case with Georgia, nobody in Russia really believes that the Turks, as a nation, want war. If anything, Erdogan is much more of a “Saakashvili v2″ then a Hitler and he will be dealt with similarly. Furthermore, while during the 08.08.08 war Russia had to protect the Ossetians from the quasi-genocidal Georgians, Russia has no such obligations in Kurdistan.

A much more likely scenario is a repeat what we have already seen, but on a much larger scale: if Erdogan really forces Russia into a war, what will happen will be cruise and ballistic missile attacks on the infrastructure supporting the Turkish invasion, the sinking of any Turkish Navy ship involved in this effort, and bomb and missile attacks on Turkish force concentrations, ammo and fuel (POL) dumps and, especially, airfields. The goal of the Russian response will not be to “defeat” Turkey militarily, but to push back the Turks long enough to force some kind of a ceasefire upon Erdogan. Even if the Russian military is capable of completely defeating Turkey in a war, the Kremlin also realizes that any war between Turkey and Russia ought to be stopped as soon as possible and that rather than “defeating Turkey” the real Russian objective ought be to defeat Erdogan.

For this reason, the Russians, far from being trigger happy, will undertake every imaginable effort to show that they did not initiate the war, even if that means letting Turkey enter into Syria, at least as long as the Turks stay close to their border and do not attempt to change the course of the war. If all the Turks want is a thin “security zone” inside Syria, I don’t see the Russians using military force to deny this to them. They will protest, vehemently, on a diplomatic level, and they will help the Syrians and Kurds, but they will not directly attack the Turkish forces.

What about the Saudis? Well, what about them? They can’t even deal with the Houthis in Yemen, why would anyone think that they could make a difference in Syria? The Saudi military is a joke, a degenerate repression force barely capable of engaging in anti-Shia repression operations. They can make all the threats they want, but if they try to move into Syria the Syrians, Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah will all try to race each other to be the first one to finally get a hold of these SOBs in teach them a lesson they shall not forget in a long time.

Frankly, I simply don’t want to believe that Erdogan and his advisors are crazy enough to try to trigger a war with Russia or even to invade Syria. While Erdogan himself is clearly a maniac, I cannot believe that his entire staff is also composed of lunatics. Furthermore, I cannot imagine that the US/NATO/EU would actually support a Turkish invasion of Syria or, even less so, an attack on Russia. Russophobia is great only as long as it does not expose you to a continental war, at which point your self-interest and survival prevails over any ideological notions. At least I hope so.

And maybe I am naive, but I want to believe that the Turkish people are not going to just sit back and do nothing while their leader is dragging their country towards a war with Russia.

The Elder Saint Paisios the Athonite. Credit: The Saker

In conclusion, I want to mention one disturbing thing. A Greek elder, a monastic named Paisios, whom the Greek Orthodox Church has glorified as a saint, was known for his prophetic visions. One of the most famous one was his prediction that Turkey and Russia would have a major war which would result in a complete break-up of Turkey and the liberation of Constantinople from the Ottoman yoke (if you are interested by the details, click here and here). Now I quite realize that in our times most people will immediately dismiss such things as meaningless nonsense, obscurantism, superstition, wishful thinking on the part of a “resentful Greek”, religious gobbledygook etc. But please keep in mind that between the 15th and the 20th century, Russia and Turkey have already fought 12 wars (!). That over 2 wars (2.4 exactly) per century and that the last one happened a century ago.

The Elder Saint Paisios the Athonite. Credit: The Saker

So whether you look at prophecies, past experience or statistics, things look very, very scary, at least to me. And, as Ghassan Kadi and Pepe Escobar have explained, Erdogan is now cornered. That also makes him very dangerous.

The AngloZionists are experts at unleashing crazed ideologues (Wahabis in the Middle-East and Nazis in the Ukraine) but that they always seem to eventually somehow lose control over them. I just hope that the American ‘cover’ of the Turkish regime did not result in the unleashing of yet another rabid ideology – Ottoman Imperialism – or, if it has, that it is not too late for the US to rein in this lunatic before it is too late.

Erdogan and his regime are a threat to regional and even world piece. I don’t really care who removes him, the Turkish people or the White House, but I sure hope that his days in power are numbered because as long as he is in power a catastrophe of major proportions can happen.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Week 17 of the Russian Intervention in Syria: Does Erdogan Want War with Russia?

Selected Articles: More Political Corruption is Exposed Everyday

February 10th, 2016 by Global Research News

kadenalanding-USAirbase-JapanJapan: New Docs Link Polluted Drinking Water Supply to Massive US Military Base

By Andrea Germanos, February 10 2016

Internal documents obtained by the Japan Times offer evidence that the contamination of local drinking water sources near a massive U.S. airbase in Japan is the result of years of repeated mishaps and “lax safety standards” by U.S. military forces.

soldier-hand-machine gunCanada Sells Weapons to State Sponsor of Terrorism: Class Action Law Suit against Ottawa over $15 Billion Saudi Arms Deal

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 10 2016

Canada is selling weapons to a country which is supporting and sponsoring terrorist organizations. Moreover Saudi Arabia is currently involved in a war of aggression against Yemen in blatant derogation of international law.

FRANCE-ATTACKS-CHARLIE-HEBDO-SECURITY - MOSQUEHuman Rights Watch Report Exposes Abusive French State of Emergency

By Stéphane Hugues, February 09 2016

In a report published February 3, international NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), has denounced the abuses of the Police and the French State under the State of urgency.

Israeli MK Hanin ZoabiIsrael Demolishes Homes and Tells Palestinian Owners to Pay the Costs

By Middle East Monitor, February 09 2016

The Israeli occupation authorities have told the Palestinian owners of homes destroyed by security forces to pay the demolition costs, Safa news agency reported on Sunday.

torture-16_0Pentagon Releases 200 Photos of Bush-Era Prisoner Abuse, Thousands Kept Secret

By Lauren McCauley, February 08 2016

The Pentagon on Friday was forced to release nearly 200 photographs of bruises, lacerations, and other injuries inflicted on prisoners presumably by U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: More Political Corruption is Exposed Everyday

Image: A P-3 Orion lands on the airstrip at Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan. (Photo: US Navy via flickr/cc)

Internal documents obtained by the Japan Times offer evidence that the contamination of local drinking water sources near a massive U.S. airbase in Japan is the result of years of repeated mishaps and “lax safety standards” by U.S. military forces.

The reports, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, “expose a spate of accidents at the [Kadena Air Base in Okinawa] during the past 15 years that have involved at least 21,000 liters of fire extinguishing agents—some of them toxic.”

The reporting cites several such instances, including a three-day period in 2001 when 17,000 liters of fire extinguishing agents were released and “attributed by base officials to mechanical and electronic malfunctions.”

It also cites an incident in 2015 when “a drunk U.S. Marine activated a firefighting system. It filled a hangar with more than 1,500 liters of JET-X 2.75 percent—a foam classified by the U.S. government as hazardous. It contains chemicals known to cause cancer, and neurological and reproductive disorders.” That foam made its way to local waterways, but the base did not notify Japanese authorities.

The U.S. Pacific Air Forces issued a statement in January that—despite the detection of toxic substance in the drinking water sources— the water was safe because it is adequately treated before consumer use.

“The base continues to comply with current Japanese Environmental Governing Standards [JEGS], which are equivalent to the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act that is enforced by the [Environmental Protection Agency]. Be assured that your drinking water is safe,”

Stars and Stripes reports the statement as saying.

The newly obtained documents, the Japan Times reports, highlight the flaws in the JEGS:

While JEGS requires the U.S. military to notify the Japanese government immediately when “a significant spill . . . threatens the local Japanese drinking water resource,” the decision on whether to categorize a spill as ‘significant’ is often left to the discretion of the U.S. military.”

Controversy surrounding the city-sized “Little America” of a base is not new, nor limited to water pollution, as Jon Letman wrote for Al Jazeera America:

the Kadena Air Base occupies over 80 percent of Kadena town and includes a 6,000-acre ammunition storage area.

The enormous base, built on land seized after World War II, contains the Air Force’s largest combat air wing, with two squadrons of F-15 fighters and an array of military aircraft that includes fighter jets, transport planes, refueling aircraft, helicopters, Ospreys, reconnaissance aircraft and anti-submarine patrol planes. According to the U.S. military, it is the “hub of airpower in the Pacific,” home to more than 9,000 U.S. service members and their families and contributes an estimated $700 million annually to the local economy.

The military lauds Kadena for promoting “regional peace and stability,” but many Okinawans see the base as a source of constant noise, pollution and tension.

The Washington Post reports this week on the ongoing protests that locals are staging to stop the planned expansion of a U.S. Marine Corps base on Okinawa, and notes that “the roar of jets” from the Kadena base “is constant and deafening.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Japan: New Docs Link Polluted Drinking Water Supply to Massive US Military Base

After a day of “rock solid” Lehman-isms, emergency bond buyback plans, and a stock price still unable to close green, Deutsche Bank is on the ropes (despite CNBC proclaiming that “it doesn’t feel like a Lehman moment.”) However, as dawn breaks across the motherland, something more insidious is breaking for Germany’s largest bank. Deutsche faces an uphill task rescuing its stock from record lows, especially, as Reuters reports, a top 10 shareholder exclaims “investors have completely lost faith in the bank,” and a fast recovery from this crisis was unlikely.

 Given the way the credit market is trading, perhaps ‘the major shareholder’ has a point…

As Reuters details, Germany’s flagship lender has trailed its rivals in bouncing back from the 2008 financial crisis, hamstrung by having to pay out billions of dollars in fines to end a string of legal disputes and ageing technical infrastructure.

It is the last of the major European banks to embark on a painful restructuring of its bloated investment bank, in the face of tougher regulation that reduced profitability, and the cost of that overhaul contributed to it posting its biggest annual loss on record last month.

Shareholders are worried about the ability of management to execute a two-year turnaround plan, announced last October, against the backdrop of a deteriorating global economic outlook and negative interest rates.

“Investors have completely lost their faith in the bank,” a top 10 shareholder told Reuters, adding that a fast recovery in the share price was unlikely given the magnitude of the problems weighing on the company.

Several investors told Reuters they feared Deutsche would need to tap markets for more capital – despite raising a total of nearly 20 billion euros (16 billion pounds) from investors in 2010 and 2014 – to deal with regulatory and legal issues.

“We believe that Deutsche Bank has a capital shortfall of up to 7 billion euros, depending on the outcome of a range of litigation issues, which could necessitate a highly dilutive capital increase,” Citi analysts wrote in a note last week.

Sseveral investors said they felt time was running out for the bank to show successes – such as returning to profit or stabilizing its share price – after other large lenders had moved on and closed the chapter of financial crisis.

“There’s no benefit of the doubt,” another top 10 investor said, adding currently investors were voting with their feet. “Two years (as planned by Cryan for the revamp) is a long time. There’s no margin for error.”

Questions are also being raised about the quality of the bank’s supervisory board.

“We miss competence in financials on the supervisory board,” said the first top 10 shareholder, adding that support for Chairman Paul Achleitner was also waning and a new face was needed for a fresh start for the bank.

“However, at this stage, there’s no obvious candidate to succeed him, so he will likely be kept in charge until the end of his mandate in May 2017,” the shareholder said.

Of course there is always the “government put” but in this case – with Europe’s new bail-in “reforms” DB co-CEO Cryan’s hopes that “the government would intervene,” could well leave everyone from equity to depositors taking and haircut (to zero in the former case).

*  *  *

So finally, as emergency bond buyback plans are thrown out in desperation.. because that will not be enough to solve this problem, as a Deutsche banker readily admits

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Simple?

  1. Recognize the problem. It is not oil, it is not in the banks..it is a run on central bank liquidity, especially dollar based and there needs to be much more ($) liquidity. Keynes said to deal with overinvestment boom you cut you don’t raise rates. QE is impractical but getting the dollar down would greatly lift dollar based liquidity. So for a starter Fed shd stop raising rates and clearly signal an extended time out.
  2. Draghi shd follow up with a one 2 punch, not to get rates down but open the refi spigot to banks and ease liquidity concerns.
  3. China needs to come clean. Devalue, stabilize reserves and then allocate 1 tn+ to short up strategically important institutions. Stop intervening in equity markets.
  4. And Basel 3 (?4) should be delayed specifically regarding leverage ratios and threat of higher. As a token move there shd be deemphasis of the SSM/bail in rules until there is clarity from the ECB on liquidity sources for stressed banks.
  5. how about some fiscal stimulus
  6. on negative rates — instead of making them punitive on the banks allow the banks to earn the spread, make them punitive to savers.. Cash shd be charged interest put the micro chip in large denom notes/tax cash withdrawals.. encourage spending not saving .. mortgage rates can be negative and banks can still earn a spread. The spread is the problem not the rate.

The existential fear in Deutsche Bank’s analyst is tangible, as is the implied threat: “don’t do these things, and if Deutsche Bank and its $60 trillion in derivatives blow up, it will be on you.”

And so, we leave you with the question we asked just last year – Is Deutsche Bank The Next Lehman?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Investors Have Completely Lost Faith In Deutsche Bank” A Top 10 Shareholder Admits

Israel’s International Conspiracy

February 10th, 2016 by Philip Giraldi

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom recently suggested an inquiry into a surge in Israel’s reported extra-judicial killing of Palestinian demonstrators after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a harsh response and told his police and soldiers that those opposed to the continued occupation of the West Bank were “terrorists.”

Almost immediately, the Israeli government denounced Wallstrom as engaging in “political stupidity,” banning her from travel to Israel, while one newspaper close to the government suggested that she might be assassinated, as fellow Swede Count Folke Bernadotte was by Jewish militants in 1948, because anti-Semitism appears to be in the Swedish DNA.

All of that outrage and personal ridicule is pro forma for an Israeli government that reflexively smears and denigrates any and all critics, but the more interesting epilogue was the unanticipated discovery by the Swedish and international media that Wallstrom has not been paying the full rent on the subsidized government apartment that she occupies. The revelation follows a familiar pattern, where critics of Israel suddenly find themselves being discredited for something completely unrelated to the Middle East. President George H. W. Bush (the good Bush) suffered a similar come to Jesus moment in 1991 when he went on national television to denounce the pressure tactics of the Israel lobby.

The Israeli government was demanding U.S. Treasury backed loans to construct illegal settlements. President Bush, who was running for reelection and far ahead in the opinion polls, suddenly was confronted by a well-funded and organized opposition raising doubts about him and his record. And President Bush was not reelected, presumably learning along the way that one does not trifle with the Israel Lobby, to be replaced by the enthusiastically Zionist Bill Clinton.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is also wondering about Israel’s alleged commitment to peace. On Tuesday he said “it was human nature to react to occupation,” following up with a comment on Wednesday regarding Israel’s “stifling” occupation of Palestine. Netanyahu reacted with his usual over the top rhetoric, stating that Ban “was encouraging terror.” One might also anticipate, as in the case of Wallstrom, a well-orchestrated media blitz questioning Ban’s motives or explaining how he has always been a closet anti-Semite. It is par for the course and fully expected when one criticizes Israel.

Indeed, it is a global phenomenon. Wherever one goes – Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States – there is a well-organized and funded lobby ready, willing and able to go to war to protect Israel. Most of the organizations involved take at least some direction from officials in Tel Aviv. Many of them even cooperate fully with the Israeli government, its parastatal organizations and faux-NGOs like the lawfare center Shurat HaDin. Their goal is to spread propaganda and influence the public in their respective countries of residence to either hew to the line coming out of Tel Aviv or to confuse the narrative and stifle debate when potential Israeli crimes are being discussed.

Israel’s diaspora allies are backed up by a formidable government organized machine that spews out disinformation and muddies the waters whenever critics surface. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has a corps of paid “volunteers” who monitor websites worldwide and take remedial action and there is a similar group working out of the Prime Minister’s office. That is why any negative story appearing in the U.S. about Israel is immediately inundated with pro-Israel comments, many of which make exactly the same coordinated points while exhibiting the same somewhat less than perfect English. On sites like Yahoo they are actually able to suppress unwelcome comments by flooding the site with “Dislike” responses. If a comment receives a large number of dislikes, it is automatically blocked or removed.

The sayanim, local Jews in their countries of residence, are essential to this process, having been alerted by emails from the Israeli Foreign Ministry about what to do and say. The reality is that Israel has lost the war of public opinion based on its own actions, which are becoming more and more repressive and even inhumane and so are difficult to explain. That means that the narrative has to be shifted by Israel’s friends through subterfuge and the corruption of the information process in each country. In some places the key media and political players who are engaged in the process can simply be bought. In other places they can be intimidated or pressured into taking positions that are neither in their own countries’ interests nor morally acceptable. In large countries like the United States, Britain and France a combination of friendly suasion and coercive elements often come together.

In all cases, the objective is the same: to repress or misrepresent any criticism of Israel and to block any initiatives that might be taken that would do damage either to the Israeli economy or to the country’s perceived standing in the world. In some countries Israel’s advocates work right out in the open and are highly successful in implementing policies that often remain largely hidden but that can be discerned as long as one knows what to look for.

Recent Israel Lobby activity in the United States has included legislation at state levels to make illegal divestment from Israel or to promote boycott of Israeli products. A trade pact with Europe will reportedly include language requiring the United States to take retaliatory action if any European country tries to boycott Israel, to include the West Bank settlements, which the empowering legislation regards as part of Israel proper.

Israel is also working to create a mechanism for global censorship of the internet to ban “incitement,” which clearly is a euphemism for material that is critical of its policies. Recently Facebook has begun to delete from its site any “hate speech” and “terrorism” related material but what has not been widely noted is that the apparent restrictions also have involved sites critical of Israel including Christians United for Peace.

Many prominent critics of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) are unaware that AIPAC exists in various forms in a number of other countries. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is located in London. The French equivalent is the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF). In Canada there is a Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) , in Australia a Zionist Federation of Australia and in New Zealand a Zionist Federation of New Zealand.

While AIPAC is specifically focused on the U.S.-Israel relationship, its counterparts in Europe often deal with a whole range of issues that they define as Jewish, but protecting Israel is always part of their agenda, particularly for those groups that label themselves as Zionist. The political power and financial muscle of the groups gives them access to government far beyond the actual numbers of their supporters. In France this has led to the legislation of hate crimes that de facto exist to protect Jews that have been also been interpreted as limitations on one’s ability to criticize Israel. In its most recent test, a French court declared that a peaceful protest promoting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) directed against Israel was illegal.

Many believe that France now has less free speech than any other European country. Recently, the alleged humor magazine Charlie Hebdo, ran a revolting cartoon showing the little Syrian boy Alan Kurdi who drowned in Turkey last summer as all grown up and sexually assaulting a woman in Germany. There was considerable outrage throughout the world but no sign that the French government will do anything to prosecute the magazines since it was Muslims who were being ridiculed. Charlie Hebdo frequently insults Muslims (and also Christians) but rarely lampoons Jews.

In Britain, Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police type vehicles and there have been reports of their threatening Muslims who enter the areas. Prime Minister David Cameron’s government, which is responsive to a Conservative Friends of Israel lobbying group, has also done its part to create official barriers to any spread of the BDS movement. It is proposing legislation that will enable it to overrule decisions by local government councils that seek to cut business or investment ties with Israel and, more particularly, Israeli settlements, under the pretext that such action interferes with the conduct of foreign affairs. The British government is also considering its own brand of hate speech legislation, banning from social media any commentary that is considered to be anti-Semitic, which will almost certainly extend to criticism of Israel.

Canada’s government has also threatened to use hate speech laws to block criticism of Israel and forbid BDS related activity. Australia meanwhile, has ceased referring to east Jerusalem as “occupied” and is apparently leaning towards similar “non-pejorative” language relating to the militarized occupation of the West Bank, preferring the neocon favored dodge “disputed.” New Zealand has proposed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that specifically demands that participants “refrain from referring a situation…to the International Criminal Court,” which would effectively decriminalize war crimes committed by both sides during the two recent invasions of Gaza. As a United Nations investigation determined that Israel was disproportionately responsible for what did occur, the proposal eliminates accountability and is effectively a get out of jail free card for some Israeli government officials.

And so it goes. Criticize Israel and there will be a comeuppance by virtue of a highly developed international system that relies on government direction as well as volunteer supporters who are able to shape both the media message and the political response. Accepting that as a given, I suppose one should be proud of being called an anti-Semite every time the label is misapplied to stifle dissent, but it all sadly reflects a lowering of the discussion to a dirt level. This might just be because there is no justification for Israeli behavior. The fact is that in terms of systematic human rights violations Israel is something beyond an apartheid state, frequently engaging in open racism and, in the opinion of many observers, crimes against humanity. It is furthermore a persistent source of instability in the Middle East and even beyond.

Israel is a liability to the United States and to the European nations that it has successfully manipulated into acquiescence regarding its bad behavior. When AIPAC and its overseas clones act for Israel the host nations in which these organizations exist should recognize exactly what is taking place. If Israel is truly first in their hearts and minds that is perfectly acceptable but its advocates should perhaps consider moving there and letting the rest of us be. Would that be too much to ask?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s International Conspiracy

During the video production, Southfront: Analysis & Intelligence also received information that at least one Saudi motorized brigade equipped with about 90 armoured vehicles were moved to the Iraqi border.  This force could become a core of a joint force which could be used by the Saudi-led coalition to support Turkish military intervention to Syria.

The military balance in Northern Syria is shifting rapidly. The Syrian Army and local militias supported by the Russian Air Force have cut terrorists from major supply lines from Turkey and almost encircled the militant forces in the Aleppo city. This has become possible due to the actions of the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces which have been destroying the terrorists’ sources of funding since 2015. Thus, we could observe a breakdown on the battlefield which leads to a full collapse of the terrorists forces in Syria step by step. This also dished schemes of the foreign players interested in overthrowing of the Assad government.

In the contemporary situation the Erdogan’s regime acts as a main sponsor and creator of a terrorist threat in the Middle East. Turkey is a crucial part of terrorist logistics network which allows terrorist groups in Syria to receive arms supplies and reinforcements. The Turkish elites have a strong business ties predominantly oil smuggling with ISIS and other terrorists in Syria. The Erdogan’s imperial ambitions in the Middle East also plays an important role in the conflict. Erdogan believes that a breakdown of Syria will allow him to set a protectorate or even occupy the northern part of the Arab country.

The successes of anti-terrorist forces in Syria have destroyed a hope to realize these plans easily. Considering this, the Erdogan’s regime launched preparations for a direct intervention to the country without any legal mandate. A high-level of concentration of the Turkish military are already observed in the Syrian-Turkish border by civil and military sources. Furthermore, there are irresistible videos proofs that Turkey has been conducting a series of cross-border artillery shelling violating the Syrian sovereignty.

Experts suggest Turkey is ready to deploy some 18,000 troops with substantial artillery and air support to occupy a 30-kilometer deep territory across the border running from the city of Jarabulus westward to the city of Azaz. The operation would cover an area under ISIS control, and it would provide a direct military assistance to terrorists and facilitate establishing of a buffer zone for the vestiges of their forces in Northern Syria. It would drastically escalate the tensions with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). However, the Turkish military is fully capable of completing the first move aimed to push the SAA and the SDF from the aforementioned area and occupy a significant part of Northern Syria.

This step will likely face a hard answer of the Russian military grouping located in the country. The Russian land and navy air-defense systems and fighter jets are fully capable to neutralize the Turkish air force which will allow the Syrian government to counter-attack the Turkish intervention forces. Thus, the anti-terrorist forces will get a chance to exercise a counter-attack which will be likely supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces.

This situation leads to 2 main scenarios:

  1. If the SAA with support by militia forces, Iran, and Russia isn’t able to push the Turkish military from Syria, the Erdogan’s regime will strengthen presence at the occupied territories and use gained time to receive at least air and intelligence support by NATO. In this case, the conflict could easily lead to a global war.
  2. If the SAA supported by local militias, Iran, and Russia knock out the Turkish intervention forces from Syria, NATO will face the fact that Syria is de-facto liberated and the terrorists are cut from their main supplier. It could prevent a global escalation. However, the NATO countries would strengthen their presence in Iraq and use it as a foothold to launch further destructive actions against Syria. The situation will also become especially acute in Ukraine and in the Central Asia because a destabilization in these regions could be easily used against the Syria’s main allies: Russia and Iran.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Saudi-led Coalition in Support of Turkey’s Military Intervention in Syria? Turkey Supports ISIS Terrorists

The New Hampshire Distortion: The US Primaries Begin

February 10th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

That grand electoral ritual known as the US primaries has commenced. New Hampshire features, and on this occasion, customary uglies (Hillary Clinton) battle such new aspirants as Bernie Sanders, who has been deemed by Real Clear Politics to have a 53.3 percent lead to Clinton’s 40.5 percent.  Donald Trump also does battle with his counterparts, hoping to pull ahead of the GOP field.

Politics is not a science, contrary to the entire legions of individuals who have made tenured careers out of that misguided assumption.   Pollsters and many pundits, like the politicians they predict to win, ought to disappear with them in loss.  But New Hampshire has been deemed an important feature of the US presidential system, if for no other reason it is the first in line.

That it has such a disproportionate measure of importance can be gathered from its population, a mere 1.3 million people, and demographic make-up.  A combination of accident and invention have served to push up this small state’s importance. Weather proved to be that greatest of factors, held before the thaw had turned ice into mud.

Initially, the New Hampshire primary remained a fairly insignificant affair, hardly one to work a discomforting sweat over.  New Hampshire delegates were part of a dull, seemingly inevitable procedure, sending their respective GOP and Democratic delegates to the national conventions. They did not vote directly for the presidential candidates by name, a process which changed in 1952 when Republican governor Sherman Adams instituted a presidential primary for a direct vote for the favoured candidate.

The Adams move was largely prompted by an obvious biast towards then candidate General Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Eisenhower’s victory was something of a defeat for the broader primary election process.  But it brought Adams directly into the White House, becoming Eisenhower’s chief assistant in directing the daily operations of his administration.

His role was so formidable, it prompted a popular, if somewhat uncharitable standing joke: “What if Adams should die and Eisenhower becomes President of the United States?”[1]  Only the Vicuna Coat Affair, in which Adams accepted one such coat from a longtime friend Bernard Goldfine, tarnished the lustre of administrative supremacy.

The Democrats were caught off guard by this act of political creativeness.  Harry S. Truman decided to treat it with contempt. The US Senator from Tennessee, Estes Kefauver, did no such thing and won against the incumbent president with some fanfare, making maximum photo mileage out of his victory.  Truman’s refusal to campaign for what he regarded as a formality with little consequence saw him lose eight out of ten counties.

For all of that, Kefauver, provided something of an object lesson on enthusiasm in primaries, using it as a staging ground to win favourable delegates and obtain the maximum coverage for his positions.  He chalked up more victories than not, losing only in Florida to Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and Averell Harriman in the District of Colombia. The Democratic Party machinery was stunned, and in the finest traditions of the Republic, did not let that popularity get in the way of their man, Adlai Stevenson.

For such curious reasons of electoral jockeying, New Hampshire’s electors have been described in various circles as the aristocrats of the electoral process.[2]  White picket candy and the media hunt for attractive backdrops assist.  This is neat, settled America, reassured, comfortable and 94 percent white.  And averse to raising taxes.

Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic, suggests that, “The stereotypical Granite State dweller is a flinty, independent-minded Yankee.”[3]  Michael Barone, in a piece for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, detects the historical hand of Benning Wentworth, the governor of Hampshire from 1741 to 1766.  The Wentworths would subsequently ensure the insulation of New Hampshire “from Massachusetts’s Puritan busybodies – and from its customs and tax collectors.”[4]

This betrays, if nothing else, an innate conservatism in the US political system, one that is designed in rooting out those with direct ties to that great phantasm of speculative governance known as “the people”.  The very language of sifting, sorting and ultimately restricting, is inherent in the electoral process, be it the convention delegates themselves, or the ultimate constitution of the Electoral College.  The popular demagogues are supposedly zapped by that point.

This is sold otherwise, with primaries treated by some political commentators as the people’s democratic toffee.  Individuals such as Robert Longley write about the value primaries in the manner of a folksy meeting.  “During the primaries… voters get to hear from several Republican and Democratic candidates, plus the candidates of third parties.”  Then, the next jaw-dropping suggestion that the process “provides a nationwide stage for the free and open exchange of all ideas and opinions – the foundation of the American form of participatory democracy.”[5]

The froth and distillation of the US primary process ensures that such ideas and suggestions are far from free and certainly questionable on their openness. (Habituated, noisy lunacy and reactionary stances should not be confused with the same.)  Fittingly, this process of scrutiny and entrenched distortion begins in New Hampshire, a place resident satirist P.J. O’Rourke would admit was “frankly, short on people who are black, gay, Jewish and Hispanic.”

Whether this process yields the surprises some members of the electorate crave, the more likely result is that tradition – one created and consistently re-enforced – will hold.  New Hampshire politicians have certainly been determined to maintain that primacy – whatever other states will do regarding the process, that state will always have first digs at deciding who eventually gets to the conventions.  In an unequal process, they are the first ones to exaggerate that principle.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New Hampshire Distortion: The US Primaries Begin

Putin’s Aleppo Gamble Pays Off

February 10th, 2016 by Mike Whitney

Last week’s game-changing triumph in northern Syria has moved the Russian-led coalition to within striking distance of a decisive victory in Aleppo.  After breaking a 40 month-long siege on the cities of  Nubl and Zahra, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has encircled the country’s industrial hub and is gradually tightening the noose. Crucial supply-lines to the north have been cut leaving the Sunni extremists and anti-government militias stranded inside a vast, urban cauldron. It’s only a matter of time before these disparate renegades are either killed or forced to surrender. A victory in Aleppo will change the course of the war by restoring government control over the densely-populated western corridor. This is why the Obama administration is frantically searching for ways to either delay or derail the Russian-led juggernaut and avoid the impending collapse of US policy in Syria.

Recent peace talks in Geneva were convened with one goal in mind, to prevent Syrian President Bashar al Assad and loyalist forces from retaking Aleppo. The negotiations failed, however, when Washington’s mercurial allies, the so called “moderate” rebels, refused to participate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Syrian opposition withdrew “under pressure from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of the main backers of the rebels.”  The WSJ’s admission was later confirmed by Secretary of State John Kerry who according to a report in the Middle East Eye “blamed the Syrian opposition for leaving the talks and paving the way for a joint offensive by the Syrian government and Russia on Aleppo.”

“Don’t blame me,” Kerry said, “Blame the opposition. It was the opposition that didn’t want to negotiate and didn’t want a ceasefire, and they walked away.”

None of this will surprise readers who followed the talks closely. The meetings were surrounded by confusion from the very onset. The US delegation headed by Kerry was focused entirely on reaching an agreement that would involve a ceasefire and stop the government-led onslaught. The Saudis, Turks and opposition leaders, however, were on a different page altogether. They seemed oblivious to the dire situation on the ground where their jihadist foot soldiers were taking heavier losses by the day.  Kerry, the realist, was looking for a way to stand-down and save US-backed militants from certain annihilation. But the Saudis and Turks felt they had a strong-enough hand to make demands. The clash in viewpoints was bound to produce disappointing results, which it did. The meetings were cancelled before they even began. Nothing was settled. Here’s more from the WSJ:

“About a half-dozen cities and towns targeted in the new regime offensives have one thing in common: All were held by a mix of Islamist and moderate rebel groups funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Complicating the picture is that some, but not all, of these groups collaborate with the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. That gives the regime and its allies fodder for their claim that they are fighting terrorism.”

(“Saudi Arabia, Turkey Pushed Syrian Opposition to Leave Talks“, Wall Street Journal)

This should dispel any illusion that that the fighters that are trying to topple the government are merely disgruntled nationalists determined to remove an “evil dictator”. That is not the case at all. While there are a fair amount of indigenous insurgents, the bulk of fighters are Sunni extremists bent on removing Assad and creating an Islamic Caliphate. This is why Moscow refused to implement a ceasefire during the talks in Geneva. Russia adamantly opposes any remedy that allows internationally-recognized terrorists from escaping their eternal reward.

Kerry has deliberately misled the public on this matter. Just last week, he said, “Russia has indicated to me very directly they are prepared to do a ceasefire… The Iranians confirmed in London just a day and a half ago they will support a ceasefire now.”

This is false and Kerry knows it. Moscow has tried to be flexible about other so called “moderate” opposition forces, but when it comes to ISIS,  Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda group), Jaysh Al-Mujahiddeen, Harakat Nouriddeen Al-Zinki, and Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham, Russian leaders have repeatedly said that that they will not relent until the jihadists are either killed or captured.   This is why Russia’s airstrikes continued during Geneva, because most of the fighters in Aleppo are dyed-in-the-wool terrorists.

It’s worth noting that the Russian-led military offensive clearly hews to UN resolution 2254 which states:

… for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terroristgroups, […] and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement.” (Thanks to Moon of Alabama)

In other words, Moscow is not going to comply with any ceasefire that spares homicidal jihadists or undermines UN resolution 2254. Russian military operations are going to continue until ISIS, al Nusra and the other terrorist militias are defeated.

Even so, Kerry has not abandoned the diplomatic track. In fact, Kerry plans to meet Russian Foreign Minsiter Sergei Lavrov in Munich on February 11 for a meeting of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) to discuss “all the aspects of the Syrian settlement in line with the UN Security Council resolution 2254.”

The emergency meeting underscores the Obama’s administration’s utter desperation in the face of the inexorable Russian-led military offensive. It’s clear now that Obama and his lieutenants see the handwriting on the wall and realize that their sinister plan to use proxy armies to remove Assad and splinter the country into three powerless regions is doomed to fail.  Here’s how the ISW summed it up on the Sic Semper Tyrannis website:

“Battlefield realities rather than great power politics will determine the ultimate terms of a settlement to end the Syrian Civil War. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies in Russia and Iran have internalized this basic principle even as Washington and other Western capitals pinned their hopes upon UN-sponsored Geneva Talks, which faltered only two days after they began on February 1, 2016. Russian airpower and Iranian manpower have brought President Assad within five miles of completing the encirclement of Aleppo City, the largest urban center in Syria and an opposition stronghold since 2012. …The full encirclement of Aleppo City would fuel a humanitarian catastrophe, shatter opposition morale, fundamentally challenge Turkish strategic ambitions, and deny the opposition its most valuable bargaining chip before the international community.”  (“ISW recognizes reality in western Syria“, Institute for the Study of War (ISW)

Last week’s fighting in northern Aleppo has transformed the battlespace and shifted the momentum in favor of the government, but it has not yet dampened support for the jihadists in places like Ankara or Riyadh. In fact, the Saudis have offered to deploy ground troops to Syria provided they are put under US command. As for Turkey, according to The Hill: “Moscow’s Defense Ministry (has) accused Turkey of planning a military invasion of Syria.” Here’s more from the same article:

“The Russian Defence Ministry registers a growing number of signs of hidden preparation of the Turkish Armed Forces for active actions on the territory of Syria,” ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement….Russia claimed (to) have “reasonable grounds to suspect intensive preparation of Turkey for a military invasion” of Syria.” (The Hill)

Turkish officials have denied that they are preparing for an invasion, but at the same time, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has admitted that Turkey will not stay on the sidelines if it is asked to participate in a future campaign. This is from Bloomberg News:

“President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country should not repeat in Syria the same mistake it made in Iraq when it turned down a U.S. request to be part of the coalition that toppled Saddam Hussein.

“We don’t want to fall into the same mistake in Syria as in Iraq,” the president said, recounting how Turkey’s parliament denied a U.S. request to use its territories for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. “It’s important to see the horizon. What’s going on in Syria can only go on for so long. At some point it has to change,” he told journalists on the return flight from a tour of Latin America, according to Hurriyet newspaper.” (“Erdogan Signals Turkey Won’t Stay Out of Syria If Asked to Join“, Bloomberg)

While it’s impossible to know whether Turkey, Saudi Arabia or the US will actually invade Syria, it’s clear by the panicky reaction to the encirclement of Aleppo, that all three countries feel their regional ambitions are more closely aligned with those of the jihadists than with the elected government in Damascus.  This tacit alliance between the militants and their sponsors speaks volumes about the credibility of Washington’s fake war on terror.

Finally, in less than five months, loyalist forces aided by heavy Russian air cover, have shifted the balance of power in Syria, forced thousands of terrorist insurgents to flee their strongholds in the west, cleared the way for the return of millions of refugees and displaced civilians, and sabotaged the malign plan to reshape the country so it better serves Washington’s geopolitical interests.

The war is far from over, but it’s beginning to look like Putin’s gamble is going to pay off after all.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin’s Aleppo Gamble Pays Off

Featured image: Benjamin Netanyahu visited the security fence which is being constructed on Israel’s border with Jordan. (Photo: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL)

“For he said unto Judah: ‘Let us build these cities, and make about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars; the land is yet before us, because we have sought the LORD our God; we have sought Him, and He hath given us rest on every side.’ So they built and prospered.” (2 Chronicles 14:6)

Israel must surround itself with a security fence on all of its borders in order to keep out the “beasts” in the neighborhood, said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday. He announced the plans for constructing this barrier while touring a new security fence near Eilat which is being built along Israel’s border with Jordan.

“We are preparing a multi-year project to encircle Israel with a security fence, to defend ourselves in the Middle East as it is now, and as it is expected to be,” he said. “At the end, in the State of Israel, as I see it, there will be a fence that spans it all.”

“They will say to me, ‘This is what you want, to protect the mansion?’ And the answer is yes. ‘What, we will encircle the whole country with fences and barriers?’ The answer is yes,” Netanyahu asserted.

“In the neighborhood in which we live, we need to protect ourselves against beasts.”

Plans are also being drawn up to fill in gaps in the security fence in Judea and Samaria, Netanyahu added, though the details have yet to be worked out. While a large fence is planned for the highly-populated settlement blocs of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, and Gush Etzion, as of now, only a small section has been built.

Netanyahu tours the fence under construction every few months to monitor its progress. In recent years, Israel has built a barrier stretching for 242 kilometers (88 miles) along the Egyptian border. The barrier includes the fence, whose height is five meters, or about 16 feet, and a thin, sensitive strip used by IDF trackers to identify footprints. Another length of fence, stretching for 103 kilometers (64 miles), has gone up in the northern Golan Heights, and 500 kilometers (310 miles), of fence have been erected in Judea and Samaria.

The prime minister also made reference on his tour to another border security concern: terror tunnels. In recent weeks, Hamas’s tunnel-building efforts have escalated to the point where residents near the Gazan border say they can feel the vibrations of tunnels being dug beneath their homes. The frenzied digging has also led to five tunnel collapses in Gaza.

Netanyahu pointed out that one of the advantages of building a fence on Israel’s southern borders with Egypt and Jordan is that the areas are open, without buildings nearby which could camouflage the construction of terror tunnels.

“That is not the situation in Gaza, or potentially in Judea and Samaria,” he said. “If you weigh whether to build a fence there you have to take into consideration that they could dig tunnels underneath.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu Announces Plans for Construction of Huge Security Fence to “Protect Ourselves Against Beasts”

On February 4, tens of thousands of people protested throughout New Zealand against the formal signing of the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement by representatives from 12 countries. The signing follows years of secret negotiations between the US, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Approximately 20,000 people marched through Queen Street and thousands rallied outside the SkyCity Casino in Auckland where the deal was signed. Protesters held placards and chanted slogans denouncing the TPP as a power-grab by US-based multinational corporations.

The rallies reflected widespread opposition to the TPP in the working class. The agreement will strengthen multinational corporations throughout the Asia-Pacific region, giving them greater power to outsource jobs and attack workers’ conditions. A study published last month by Tufts University researchers estimates that intensified competition under the TPP could cost 450,000 US jobs, 75,000 Japanese jobs, 58,000 Canadian jobs and 5,000 New Zealand jobs by 2025.

Image: A section of the Wellington protest

Under the TPP, companies will be able to sue governments in special investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals, if legislation cuts into their profits. Protesters in New Zealand denounced the ISDS clauses as an attack on democracy and a means for corporations to dictate the elimination of environmental and health regulations.

Many told reporters that they were concerned the cost of medicines will increase due to stronger patent protections for pharmaceutical companies under the TPP. The agreement will also strengthen intellectual property and copyright laws, potentially restricting access to information and entertainment.

Anti-TPP protests in Chile, Peru and Malaysia in recent weeks have also attracted thousands of people. In Lima and Santiago, protesters have highlighted that the TPP will increase the power of US-based agricultural giant Monsanto to impose patents on seeds and drive up food prices and costs for local farmers.

The TPP is not a “free trade” agreement. It will create a trade and investment bloc dominated by the US and its main regional ally Japan—the world’s first and third largest economies—covering 40 percent of the global economy.

The deal is the economic front of Washington’s strategic “pivot to Asia,” aimed at rolling back China’s economic influence in the Asia-Pacific region. As Barack Obama put it, the TPP will allow “America—and not countries like China—to write the rules of the road in the 21st century.” The agreement goes hand-in-hand with the US military encirclement and preparations for war against China, which has involved strengthening military alliances with countries including Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand.

The TPP will only come into force when enabling legislation is passed by each member country. It is unclear when the deal will be passed by the US Congress. If it is not voted on by July, then its ratification will likely be delayed until after the new president takes office next year. The decision to push ahead with the signing reflects Washington’s determination to ram through the deal regardless of opposition within the US.

The selection of New Zealand to host the signing of the TPP underscores the country’s integration into Washington’s war plans, despite close economic ties with China. The government is pushing to host a permanent TPP secretariat to help implement the agreement.

Prime Minister John Key declared at the signing that the TPP “will enhance the prosperity of our people.” In reality, the agreement will only benefit sections of big business and finance capital at the expense of working people whose jobs and living standards will be sacrificed to the never-ending drive for “international competiveness.”

The New Zealand political parties and trade union bureaucracy which organised the anti-TPP protests under the nationalist slogan “It’s Our Future” have consciously sought to prevent opposition to the agreement from becoming part of a broader movement against austerity and war. While there are divisions in the ruling elite over the TPP, the entire political establishment supports NZ’s alliance with US imperialism.

The protest organisers have denounced the TPP as an attack on New Zealand’s national “sovereignty” that favoured overseas businesses at the expense of local ones. They do not speak for the working class but express the interests of less competitive sections of business that fear losing out to global rivals.

Labour Party MP Grant Robertson told a rally in Wellington that the agreement gave up “the right to make laws and policies in our interest, and that is wrong and we cannot accept that.” Green Party foreign affairs spokesman Kennedy Graham declared: “It is not in New Zealand’s interests—it’s there for global corporates, it’s not there for national citizens.”

Such statements promote the lie that New Zealand capitalists and the government are kinder than their foreign counterparts, and that their interests are the same as those of the working class. In reality, thousands of jobs have been shed from the public service and private companies, with the assistance of the trade union bureaucracy, in response to the global economic crisis. These include mass redundancies at the state-owned companies Solid Energy, NZ Post and KiwiRail.

The right-wing perspective of the organisers is underscored by the fact that the Maori Party, which represents the indigenous business elite and is a partner in the National Party-led government, has been welcomed at anti-TPP rallies alongside the Labour, Green and Mana Parties. The Maori Party has supported all the National government’s austerity measures and attacks on the working class over the past eight years. It fears that the TPP will cut across the close relationship between the government and Maori tribal-based businesses.

The anti-immigrant New Zealand First Party also had a significant presence at the protests. Along with Labour and the Mana Party, NZ First has repeatedly scapegoated Chinese immigrants and investors for New Zealand’s social crisis, including soaring housing costs. The xenophobic campaigns have served to align the country more closely with the US build-up to war. One of Labour’s main objections to the TPP is that it will prevent future governments from banning house sales to foreigners.

The Labour Party is divided over the TPP, with three former leaders—David Shearer, Phil Goff and former Prime Minister Helen Clark—supporting the deal. Current leader Andrew Little admitted to Radio Live on February 5 that Labour would seek to renegotiate aspects of the TPP but would not pull out of the agreement if it wins next year’s election.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trans-Pacific Partnership Signed in New Zealand amid Mass Protests

The announcement that the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence have been assigned the leading role in the pseudo-left Syriza government’s handling of the refugee crisis is part of a deliberate and systematic expansion of the domestic role of the military in Greece.

Greece must set up “hotspots” on the islands bordering Turkey and relocation centres on the mainland by February 15, three days ahead of the European Union (EU) leaders’ summit in Brussels. Hotspots are essentially concentration camps on the EU’s external borders, where stranded refugees fleeing the war zones of the Middle East and North Africa are detained and have their fingerprints taken.

Those deemed to have a “genuine” asylum claim will be transferred to the relocation centres on the mainland, while the rest will be sent to detention centres and ultimately deported.

The demand to set up the camps is part of the three-month ultimatum issued by the European Commission to expel Greece from the Schengen Agreement for passport-free travel in Europe unless the government demonstrates that it can stop the influx of refugees fleeing the war zones of the Middle East and North Africa.

The announcement follows the recent clampdown by Greek authorities against NGOs and volunteers that are helping refugees stranded on Greek islands on the sea border with Turkey.

Details of the plans were outlined in a February 2 press conference by Defence Minister Panos Kammenos alongside his deputy, Syriza’s Dimitris Vitsas, and the chief of staff of the Greek armed forces, Admiral Evangelos Apostolakis.

Kammenos is the leader of the right-wing xenophobic Independent Greeks (ANEL), Syriza’s junior coalition partner. Control of the Ministry of Defence was one of the preconditions set by Kammenos last year before entering into coalition with the pseudo-left party.

Kammenos explained that army and air force engineers will assist contractors in setting up hotspots on the islands of Chios, Kos, Samos and Leros. On Lesbos where there is a hotspot already in place since October, the army will assist in expanding existing infrastructure.

Relocation centres will also be set up in two army camps on the mainland of Greece in Schisto (near Athens) and Sindos (near Thessaloniki). Once established, both centres will be administered and guarded by the army.

In 2015, over 850,000 people made the boat crossing from Turkey to Greece, with 60 percent of them going to Lesbos. More than 250 people have so far died this year attempting to make the same crossing. This includes more than 39 people who drowned on the morning of January 30 after their boat capsized between Greece and Turkey.

More than 52,000 people made the crossing in January, 35 times more than the same month last year.

The plan to allow the military to intervene in the handling of the refugee crisis is testament to how far right Syriza has travelled since it was swept to power in January 2015 on an anti-austerity mandate. Just seven months later, it betrayed this mandate, signing the most severe austerity memorandum yet with the EU in July.

Whether enforcing the EU’s reactionary agenda on the refugee crisis, or implementing austerity, Tsipras’ government is now reliant on the police and armed forces to force through its measures.

Kammenos announced that the operation—the biggest ever undertaken by the Greek Armed Forces in peacetime—will be managed by the newly established “Coordinating Organ for Managing Immigration”. This will be headed by Major General Konstantinos Floros. Floros is a Special Forces Officer who has served both as a Paratrooper and Navy Seal (OYK).

Kammenos justified Floros’ appointment stating, “The choice for a Special Forces Officer as a coordinator implies that special circumstances require special people who can make decisions quickly.”

The OYK was one of the bastions of the military junta that ruled Greece between 1967-1974. In more recent years it has developed strong links with the fascist Golden Dawn. Last year an OYK detachment shouted fascistic slogans during the annual March 25 Greek Independence Day parade in Athens.

Floros currently heads the National Operations Centre, which is located in the Ministry of Defence and is where operations are coordinated in times of war. Normally, it can only be accessed by officers with special clearance, and it is where the Coordinating Organ will be centred. According to Kammenos, civilians participating in the operation will only have access to a special designated area.

The involvement of the armed forces has been justified as the only viable way of meeting the tight deadline for setting up the hotspots and relocation centres. However, the plan announced by Kammenos goes far beyond merely assisting with construction projects, with a remit that extends in areas of civilian policy. For example, the Coordinating Organ will include:

* A transportation department, “which will monitor existing arrangements to transport refugees and migrants from the islands and hotspots to the reception centres”

* A health department headed by army and police doctors

* A catering department made of 10 different catering corps units

* An NGO department, which will coordinate all registered volunteers

While Kammenos was at pains to stress that the Armed Forces’ intervention is only temporary, the plans he announced are essentially a framework for establishing martial law on the pretext of the refugee crisis. This in a country that was ruled by a brutal military dictatorship between 1967 and 1974.

Since the crisis began in Greece six years ago, leading members of the Armed Forces have been increasingly active in public affairs, something that was taboo until recently.

In the run-up to the July referendum on EU austerity called by the Syriza-ANEL government last year, retired General Fragkoulis Fragkos, a former defence minister and one-time head of the Greek army general staff, called for a “loud yes vote”. In 2011, Fragkos was cashiered by then-Prime Minister George Papandreou amid rumours of a coup.

A “yes” vote was also endorsed by a group of 65 retired high-ranking officers, who issued a statement warning that “by choosing isolation, we place the Fatherland and its future in danger.”

The use of the refugee crisis to justify the far-reaching intervention of the armed forces must serve as a warning to the Greek working class and youth.

As opposition mounts to the government’s austerity policies, as seen by the farmers’ blockades and ongoing strike wave, culminating in last Thursday’s general strike, any crisis can and will be used by the ruling elite to impose its agenda by any means necessary, including a military coup.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greek Military to Play Main Role in Setting Up Refugee Concentration Camps

Bandeira dos EUA na Europa

February 10th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

Participando (como se tornou obrigatório) no encontro dos ministros da Defesa da União Europeia (UE) no dia cinco de fevereiro em Amsterdã, o secretário geral da Otan Jens Stoltenberg elogiou o “plano dos Estados Unidos de aumentar substancialmente sua presença militar na Europa, quadruplicando os financiamentos para esse efeito”.

Os EUA podem assim “conservar mais tropas na parte oriental da Aliança, posicionar previamente ali armamentos pesados e efetuar mais exercícios, além de construir mais obras de infraestrutura”. Deste modo, segundo Stoltenberg, “fortalece-se a cooperação entre a UE e a Otan”.

É bem outro o objetivo. Imediatamente após o fim da guerra fria, em 1992 Washington sublinhava a “importância fundamental de preservar a Otan como canal de influência e participação estadunidenses nos assuntos europeus, impedindo a criação de dispositivos unicamente europeus que minariam a estrutura de comando da Aliança”, a saber, o comando dos Estados Unidos.

Missão cumprida: 22 dos 28 países da UE, com mais de 90% da população da União, fazem hoje parte da Otan, sempre sob comando dos EUA, o que é reconhecido pela UE como “fundamento da defesa coletiva”. Fazendo pressão sobre os governos do Leste, mais ligados aos EUA que à UE, Washington reabriu a frente oriental com uma nova guerra fria, quebrando os crescentes laços econômicos entre a Rússia e a UE, perigosos para os interesses estadunidenses.

Em toda a Europa Oriental está içada no mais alto mastro a bandeira estrelada ao lado da bandeira da Otan. Na Polônia, a nova primeira-ministra Beata Szydlo nas suas coletivas de imprensa tem arriado a bandeira da UE, frequentemente queimada nas praças pelos “patriotas” que apoiam o governo na sua recusa a acolher os refugiados (fruto das guerras dos EUA e da Otan, qualificados de “invasores não brancos”. À espera da Cúpula da Otan, que terá lugar no mês de julho em Varsóvia, a Polônia criou uma brigada conjunta de 4 mil homens com a Lituânia e a Ucrânia (de fato já na Otan), treinada pelos EUA. Na Estônia o governo anuncia “uma área militar Schengen”, que permite às forças dos EUA/Otan entrar livremente no país. Na frente meridional, unida à oriental, os Estados Unidos estão a ponto de lançar desde a Europa uma nova guerra na Líbia para ocupar, sob o pretexto de libertar do chamado Estado Islâmico, as zonas costeiras econômica e estrategicamente mais importantes.

Um golpe para reconquistar terreno, depois que na Síria a intervenção russa em apoio às forças governamentais bloqueou o plano da dupla EUA/Otan de destruir este Estado, utilizando como na Líbia em 2011, grupos islamitas armados e treinados pela CIA, financiados pela Arábia Saudita, apoiados pela Turquia e outros.

A operação na Líbia “sob condução italiana” –que, como adverte o Pentágono, requer “boots on the ground”, ou seja forças terrestres – foi feita num acordo dos Estados Unidos não com a União Europeia, inexistente neste plano enquanto sujeito unitário, mas individualmente com as potências europeias dominantes, sobretudo a França, a Grã Bretanha e a Alemanha. Potências que, em concorrência entre elas e com os Estados Unidos, se unem quando entram em jogo interesses fundamentais.

É emblemático aquilo que veio à tona dos e-mails de Hilary Clinton, secretária de Estado em 2011: os EUA e a França atacaram a Líbia antes de tudo para bloquear “o plano de Kadafi de utilizar as enormes reservas líbias de ouro e de prata para criar uma moeda africana alternativa ao franco CFA”, divisa imposta pela França a suas 14 ex-colônias.

O plano líbio (nós o demonstramos no jornal Il Manifesto em abril de 2011) visava mais além, libertar a África da dominação do FMI e do Banco Mundial. Por esta razão é que foi destruída a Líbia, onde as mesmas potências se preparam agora para desembarcar para “a paz”.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo em italiano :

ue-Otan

Bandiera Usa sull’Europa

Traduzido por José Reinaldo Carvalho para o Blog da Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo. Fonte: Il Manifesto.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Bandeira dos EUA na Europa

Bandiera Usa sull’Europa

February 10th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

Partecipando (come ormai d’obbligo) all’incontro dei ministri della difesa Ue il 5 febbraio ad Amsterdam, il segretario della Nato Jens Stoltenberg ha lodato «il piano degli Stati uniti di accrescere sostanzialmente la loro presenza militare in Europa, quadruplicando i finanziamenti a tale scopo».

Gli Usa possono così «mantenere più truppe nella parte orientale dell’Alleanza, preposizionarvi armamenti pesanti, effettuarvi più esercitazioni e costruirvi più infrastrutture». In tal modo, secondo Stoltenberg, «si rafforza la cooperazione Ue-Nato». Ben altro lo scopo. Subito dopo la fine della guerra fredda, nel 1992, Washington sottolineava la «fondamentale importanza di preservare la Nato quale canale della influenza e partecipazione statunitensi negli affari europei, impedendo la creazione di dispositivi unicamente europei che minerebbero la struttura di comando dell’Alleanza», ossia il comando Usa. Missione compiuta: 22 dei 28 paesi della Ue, con oltre il 90% della popolazione dell’Unione, fanno oggi parte della Nato sempre sotto comando Usa, riconosciuta dalla Ue quale «fondamento della difesa collettiva». Facendo leva sui governi dell’Est, legati più agli Usa che alla Ue, Washington ha riaperto il fronte orientale con una nuova guerra fredda, spezzando i crescenti legami economici Russia-Ue pericolosi per gli interessi statunitensi. In tutta l’Europa orientale sventola, sul pennone più alto, la bandiera a stelle e strisce assieme a quella della Nato. In Polonia, la nuova premier Beata Szydlo ha ammainato dalla sue conferenze stampa la bandiera della Ue, spesso bruciata nelle piazze da «patrioti» che sostengono il governo nel rifiuto di ospitare i rifugiati (frutto delle guerre Usa/Nato), definiti «invasori non-bianchi».

In attesa del Summit Nato, che si terrà a Varsavia in luglio, la Polonia crea una brigata congiunta di 4mila uomini con Lituania e Ucraina (di fatto già nella Nato), addestrata dagli Usa. In Estonia il governo annuncia «un’area Schengen militare», che permette alle forze Usa/Nato di entrare liberamente nel paese.

Sul fronte meridionale, collegato a quello orientale, gli Stati uniti stanno per lanciare dall’Europa una nuova guerra in Libia per occupare, con la motivazione di liberarle dall’Isis, le zone costiere economicamente e strategicamente più importanti. Una mossa per riguadagnare terreno, dopo che in Siria l’intervento russo a sostegno delle forze governative ha bloccato il piano Usa/Nato di demolire questo Stato usando, come in Libia nel 2011, gruppi islamici armati e addestrati dalla Cia, finanziati dall’Arabia Saudita, sostenuti dalla Turchia e altri.

L’operazione in Libia «a guida italiana» – che, avverte il Pentagono, richiede «boots on the ground», ossia forze terrestri – è stata concordata dagli Stati uniti non con l’Unione europea, inesistente su questo piano come soggetto unitario, ma singolarmente con le potenze europee dominanti, soprattutto Francia, Gran Bretagna e Germania. Potenze che, in concorrenza tra loro e con gli Usa, si uniscono quando entrano in gioco gli interessi fondamentali.

Emblematico quanto emerso dalle mail di Hillary Clinton, nel 2011 segretaria di Stato: Usa e Francia attaccarono la Libia anzitutto per bloccare «il piano di Gheddafi di usare le enormi riserve libiche di oro e argento per creare una moneta africana in alternativa al franco Cfa», valuta imposta dalla Francia a sue 14 ex colonie. Il piano libico (dimostravamo sul manifesto nell’aprile 2011) mirava oltre, a liberare l’Africa dal dominio del Fmi e della Banca mondiale. Perciò fu demolita la Libia, dove le stesse potenze si preparano ora a sbarcare per riportare «la pace».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Bandiera Usa sull’Europa

Come l’America Latina dovrebbe affrontare la tempesta finanziaria?

February 10th, 2016 by Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

America Latina e Caraibi affrontano uno dei suoi momenti più critici della crisi globale scoppiata nel settembre 2008. Le economie della regione non solo sono rallentate, ma i Paesi del Sud America hanno subito gravi contrazioni, soprattutto Brasile e Venezuela. Nell’ultimo vertice della CELAC a Quito, Ecuador, s’è rivelata la necessità di serrare le fila sull’unità dell’America Latina e, allo stesso tempo, sul funzionamento dei vari strumenti di cooperazione finanziaria regionali: Banca del Sud, Fondo del Sud e uso delle valute locali nel commercio.

Inevitabilmente, al quarto vertice della Comunità degli Stati dell’America Latina e dei Caraibi (CELAC) del 27 a Quito, in Ecuador, economia, sviluppo e integrazione regionale erano tra gli argomenti più discussi. Non è un segreto che le economie latino-americane sono gravemente colpite del drastico calo dei prezzi delle materie prime (‘commodities’).

Nel 2015 il PIL dell’America Latina si è ridotto dello 0,4%, registrando la peggiore performance dalla recessione del 2009. E secondo la Commissione economica delle Nazioni Unite per l’America Latina e i Caraibi (CEPAL) il tasso di crescita di quest’anno sarà solo dello 0,2%. La situazione economica è ancora più triste nei Paesi esportatori di materie prime: il PIL del Sud America è sceso dell’1,6% lo scorso anno e sarà negativo nel 2016.

Senza dubbio, il boom legato all’esportazione di materie prime (commodities) è esaurito. Nel 2015 il commercio extra-regionale dell’America Latina è sceso del 14%, ed il commercio intra-regionale è crollato del 21%. La deflazione (caduta dei prezzi) ha colpito anche i flussi degli investimenti diretti esteri sullo sfruttamento delle risorse naturali (agricoltura, metalli, minerali, petrolio, ecc), scesi di oltre il 20% nei primi sei mesi dell’anno scorso[1]. I prezzi delle materie prime continueranno ad essere bassi, quindi si deve puntare sulla diversificazione.

Non c’è tempo da attendere, i leader dell’America Latina devono passare dalle parole ai fatti, altrimenti la crisi economica sarà ancor più profonda. Se il Federal Reserve System (FED) degli Stati Uniti alza il tasso d’interesse dei fondi federali, i Paesi latino-americani rischiano una crisi di liquidità di enormi proporzioni. Se tale scenario s’impone ci sarà una grave battuta d’arresto sociale: centinaia di migliaia di persone ridiventeranno povere.

Quindi ci si chiede cosa fare. Per far fronte al terremoto finanziario le azioni congiunte sono più efficaci di quelle singole. In questo senso, gli ultimi vertici della CELAC hanno nuovamente messo sul tavolo la necessità di applicare a pieno le potenzialità dell’architettura finanziaria regionale. Ad esempio, per smorzare la massiccia fuga di capitali va attuato il Fondo del Sud. E’ inconcepibile che i risparmi dei Paesi dell’America Latina siano utilizzati per finanziare il Gruppo dei 7 (G-7, composto da Germania, Canada, Stati Uniti, Francia, Italia, Giappone e Regno Unito). Invece, le riserve internazionali delle banche centrali dell’America Latina dovrebbe essere usate congiuntamente per stabilizzare la bilancia dei pagamenti ed evitare di cadere nella trappola delle svalutazioni competitive.

D’altra parte va notato che da un paio di settimane sostengo che, cedendo alle pressioni delle aziende, il Ministero degli Esteri brasiliano è il principale responsabile della marmellata burocratica della Banca del Sud, la nuova banca di sviluppo regionale per finanziare progetti produttivi e infrastrutture[2]. I Paesi latino-americani devono investire ogni anno 320 miliardi di dollari per rispondere alla domanda di infrastrutture entro il 2020, secondo le stime del CEPAL[3].

Le decisioni più importanti sull’integrazione regionale in America del Sud devono essere approvate dai Paesi più grandi: Brasile, Argentina e Venezuela. Purtroppo la mia ipotesi s’è avverata: firmata otto anni fa, solo cinque dei sette Paesi hanno ratificato la Carta di fondazione. Brasile e Paraguay non l’hanno ancora fatto, secondo Andrés Arauz, rappresentante dell’Ecuador al consiglio della Banca del Sud[4].

Quindi, anche se su regolamenti, dettagli tecnici e contributi i Paesi sono già d’accordo, l’istituto è inesistente. Secondo Veronica Artola, Vicedirettrice per la Programmazione e il controllo della Banca centrale dell’Ecuador, per attivare la Banca Sud il prerequisito è nominare almeno quattro dei sette membri del consiglio esecutivo[5]. Bolivia, Ecuador e Venezuela hanno già i loro rappresentanti. Mentre nel caso dell’Uruguay manca la ratifica del nuovo governo di Tabaré Vázquez. Argentina, Brasile e Paraguay non hanno ancora avanzato le loro proposte.

In conclusione, il calo dei prezzi delle materie prime aggrava la situazione delle economie della regione. Oggi è chiaro più che mai che il costo dell’inerzia di alcuni governi è troppo alto. Devono rapidamente sbloccare il Fondo e il Banco del Sud, gli strumenti dell’America Latina per affrontare le turbolenze finanziarie…

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

 

 

Fonte: Russia Today.

Traduzione: Alessandro Lattanzio (Sito Aurora).

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez : Laurea in Economia e Commercio presso l’Università Nazionale Autonoma del Messico

 



[1]Panorama Económico y Social de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños, 2015”, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, Enero, 2016.

[2]Perché è urgente liberare la Banca del Sud?”, di Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, Traduzione Alessandro Lattanzio, Russia Today (Russia), Rete Voltaire, 20 gennaio 2016.

[3]La inversión en infraestructura en América Latina y el Caribe”, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, 14 de octubre de 2014.

[5]CELAC: Acciones financieras regionales frente a la crisis”, Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, 26 de enero de 2016.

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Come l’America Latina dovrebbe affrontare la tempesta finanziaria?

¿Qué debe hacer América Latina frente a la tormenta financiera?

February 10th, 2016 by Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

La región de América Latina y el Caribe enfrenta uno de sus momentos más críticos desde que estalló la crisis global en septiembre de 2008. Las economías de la región no solamente se han desacelerado, sino que los países sudamericanos han sufrido graves contracciones, principalmente Brasil y Venezuela. Durante la cumbre más reciente de la CELAC celebrada en Quito, Ecuador, se puso de manifiesto la necesidad de cerrar filas en torno a la unidad latinoamericana, y al mismo tiempo, poner en funcionamiento los distintos instrumentos de cooperación financiera de la región: el Banco del Sur, el Fondo del Sur y el uso de monedas locales en los intercambios comerciales.

De modo inevitable, en la IV cumbre de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC) llevada a cabo el pasado 27 de enero en la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador, la economía, el desarrollo y la integración regional fueron los temas más discutidos entre los asistentes. Para nadie es un secreto que las economías latinoamericanas se han visto severamente afectadas a raíz de la drástica caída de los precios de las materias primas (‘commodities’).

En 2015 el Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) de la región latinoamericana se contrajo 0.4%, con lo cual, registró su peor desempeño desde la recesión de 2009. Y según las estimaciones de la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) este año la tasa de expansión será de apenas 0.2%. La situación económica ha sido todavía más deprimente en los países exportadores de productos primarios: el PIB de América del Sur se desplomó 1.6% el año pasado y volverá a ser negativo en 2016.

Es indudable, la etapa de auge vinculada a la exportación de materias primas (‘commodities’) está agotada. En 2015 el comercio extrarregional de América Latina cayó 14%, mientas que los intercambios intrarregionales se desplomaron 21%. La deflación (caída de precios) ha golpeado también a los flujos de inversión extranjera directa orientados a la explotación de recursos naturales (agricultura, metales, minerales, petróleo, etc.), que se contrajeron más de 20% en los primeros seis meses del año pasado[1]. Los precios de las materias primas (‘commodities’) van a seguir siendo bajos, por eso debe apostarse por la diversificación productiva.

No hay tiempo para contemplaciones, los mandatarios de América Latina necesitan pasar del discurso a la acción, o de lo contrario la recesión económica será más profunda. Si el Sistema de la Reserva Federal (FED) de Estados Unidos vuelve a subir la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate), los países latinoamericanos corren el riesgo de padecer una crisis de liquidez de enormes proporciones. Si este escenario llega a consumarse habría un gran retroceso en términos sociales: cientos de miles de personas regresarían a engrosar las filas de la pobreza.

Surge entonces la pregunta sobre qué hacer. Para sobrellevar un temblor financiero las acciones conjuntas son más efectivas que las individuales. En ese sentido, en la cumbre de la CELAC más reciente se volvió a poner sobre la mesa la necesidad de sacar el máximo potencial de la arquitectura financiera regional. Por ejemplo, para amortiguar la fuga masiva de capitales de cartera se debe poner en marcha el Fondo del Sur. Es inconcebible que los ahorros de América Latina sirvan para financiar a los países del Grupo de los 7 (G-7, integrado por Alemania, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia, Japón y Reino Unido). En lugar de ello, las reservas internacionales de los bancos centrales de América Latina deben administrarse de manera conjunta a fin de estabilizar las balanzas de pagos y evitar caer en la trampa de las devaluaciones competitivas.

Por otro lado cabe destacar que hace un par de semanas sostuve que por ceder ante las presiones de los empresarios, la cancillería brasileña era la principal responsable del atasco burocrático del Banco del Sur, un nuevo banco regional de desarrollo que apoyaría el financiamiento de proyectos productivos y de infraestructura[2]. Es que los países latinoamericanos necesitan realizar inversiones anuales por 320 000 millones de dólares para satisfacer sus demandas de infraestructura hasta 2020, de acuerdo con los cálculos de la CEPAL[3].

Las grandes decisiones sobre la integración regional de América del Sur necesitan la aprobación de los países más grandes: Brasil, Argentina y Venezuela. Lamentablemente mi hipótesis terminó por verificarse: a más de ocho años de haberse firmado, solamente cinco de siete países han ratificado el acta fundacional. Brasil y Paraguay todavía no lo han hecho, según Andrés Arauz, representante de Ecuador ante el directorio del Banco del Sur[4].

Por eso aunque los reglamentos, los detalles técnicos y las aportaciones por país ya están pactados, en los hechos la institución es inexistente. De acuerdo con Verónica Artola, subgerente de Programación y Regulación del banco central de Ecuador, para poner en funcionamiento el Banco del Sur es requisito indispensable que se nombren por lo menos cuatro de los siete miembros del directorio ejecutivo[5]. Bolivia Ecuador y Venezuela ya cuentan con sus representantes. Mientras que en el caso de Uruguay falta la ratificación de parte del nuevo Gobierno encabezado por Tabaré Vázquez. Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay aún no mandan sus propuestas.

En conclusión, la caída de los precios de las materias primas (‘commodities’) ha puesto en un serio predicamento a las economías de la región. Hoy está más claro que nunca que el costo de la inercia de algunos Gobiernos ha sido demasiado alto. Se necesitan destrabar a la brevedad el Fondo y el Banco del Sur, las herramientas de América Latina para salir avante de la tormenta financiera…

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

 

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez : Economista egresado de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

 


[1] «Panorama Económico y Social de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños, 2015», Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, Enero, 2016.

[2] «¿Por qué es urgente romper la parálisis del Banco del Sur?», por Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, Russia Today (Rusia), Red Voltaire, 20 de enero de 2016.

[3] «La inversión en infraestructura en América Latina y el Caribe», Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, 14 de octubre de 2014.

[5] «CELAC: Acciones financieras regionales frente a la crisis», Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, 26 de enero de 2016.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on ¿Qué debe hacer América Latina frente a la tormenta financiera?

Hillary Clinton “won” the Iowa caucuses, in part because of 6 coin tosses all of which she won! Six precincts, at least, ended up with a dead tie between the two candidates. The tie was broken and a winner declared based on a coin toss in each case.

What are the odds of one of two candidates winning all six coin tosses if the outcomes are random, that is, if the tosses are fair, unbiased and with honest coins?

The calculation is so simple that a schoolboy or schoolgirl can do it. The formula is simply 1/2 raised to the power of 6 – that is, 1/2 taken six times and multiplied.

The probability of winning all six tosses by chance alone is 1/64. That is 0.016 or 1.6 in 100 or 1.6%. Not even 2%! In many areas of science including many areas of biology, one must demonstrate that the result of one’s experiments is unlikely to happen by chance alone. If the probability of getting the results by chance alone is less than less than 5%, the result reported is considered to be “significant,’ that is, not likely to be a chance finding. Such a result is publishable in highly respected journals.

Since the probability of the outcome in Iowa was 1.6%, it is quite unlikely, highly improbable that the coin tosses resulted from chance and were honest. And if the results did not occur by chance alone, then the coin tosses were manipulated, fixed! Why has no one in the mainstream media looked into this?

It is not unusual for results of an election to be questioned based on what the facts of the matter really are. For example some may claim that voting machines are rigged but others will say no. However, everyone agrees on the fact of the six coin tosses, and the simple calculation above is based on the fundamental laws of probability, i.e., counting. That gives the conclusion that the results were rigged very strong standing. At the very least, the probabilities demand a thorough investigation.

A good scientist would, however, not rest with simply one set of results that satisfied the probability criteria outlined above. He or she would look for other observations that would shore up the conclusion and make it more convincing. Similarly we may ask whether there were other indications of cheating in the Iowa Dem primary. And indeed there were. As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com pointed out in his essay, “The Establishment’s Last Stand,” Democratic results went missing from nearly 100 precincts, which accounted for 5% of the vote according to the Sanders campaign. That 5% was more than enough to hand the race to Sanders. This led the Sanders to lament that the real results may never be known. And we should note that ballots have gone missing before in Iowa, notably in the 2012 Republican caucuses where Mitt Romney was falsely declared the winner.

Is it not strange that Hillary was so very lucky? It was very clear going into the polling that Sanders and Clinton were in a dead heat. Might we conclude that she and her supporters anticipating a tie in some precincts were prepared for a coin toss or to disappear some ballots, the latter having happened before in Iowa. Is Hillary’s reputation for honesty so sterling that we cannot possibly suspect that? You can answer that for yourself, dear reader.

But I will give you odds that Bernie won.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses

The Obama Administration is expanding its military power and threats against Russia and China as well as increasing its war efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria while preparing to restart Washington’s old war in Libya.

Most of this has been revealed in the first six weeks of the 2016 election year and President Barack Obama’s last full year in office without any significant new provocations against the United States. At least part of the White House motive must be to undercut right wing Republican campaign rhetoric alleging Obama and the Democrats are “soft on defense,” and creating a more robust martial entry into the president’s legacy.

On Feb. 9 the White House revealed that it is sending up to 800 more soldiers to Afghanistan to join some 10,000 U.S. troops already in the country, according to an account in the Guardian, which reported: “In keeping with Barack Obama’s formal declaration that the U.S. is not engaged in combat — despite elite forces recently participating in an hours-long battle in Helmand province — defense officials said the additional troops would not take part in combat. But they will help the existing Helmand force defend itself against Taliban attacks, officials said.”

Nearly five years after the U.S., Britain and France launched a bombing campaign against the Libyan government to bring about regime change, President Obama is now preparing a second military intervention in that country. Washington’s initial intrusion resulted in the murder of the country’s leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, and unexpectedly sparked a civil war between two factions that seek to rule the country. The chaos induced the Islamic State to enter Libya, becoming a powerful force in recent years. The use of U.S. special forces troops and airpower are soon expected.

On Feb. 2 Defense Secretary Ashton Carter addressed the Economic Club of Washington about the new military budget and its uses, noting: “We don’t have the luxury of just one opponent, or the choice between current fights and future fights. We have to do both.” This evidently means fighting in the Middle East now and preparing for a much bigger war in the future against a more formidable force. Who might that be?

The Washington Post’s Missy Ryan wrote the next day: “Carter previewed the Pentagon budget proposal for fiscal 2017, making a case for why China’s rapid military buildup and Russia’s intervention beyond its borders pose a bigger danger to U.S. security, and merit larger investments, than does the immediate threat from the Islamic State…. The proposal reflects Carter’s attempt to broaden the military’s focus to include not just the insurgent conflicts of the post-2001 era but also ‘higher-end’ threats from Russia and China, whose military innovation U.S. officials acknowledge has at times out-paced the United States.

Almost half of the new investments… are related to what officials see as a growing threat from Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated his willingness to employ Russian military might from Ukraine to Syria…. A senior defense official said the advances made by Russia and China do ‘force a competition that has to be confronted in the next decade.

The proposed Pentagon budget for 2017 is $583 billion and if passed will go into operation Oct. 1. The separate national security budget, which also includes war-related expenses, will be about the same size, bringing such expenditures to about a $1 trillion annually.

Money for “securing Europe” will grow to at least $3.4 billion. There are presently about 75,000 U.S. military personnel in Europe. On Feb. 2 The New York Times revealed that Obama “plans to substantially increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and other equipment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe, a move that administration officials said was aimed at deterring Russia from further aggression in the region.” The war budget for the fight against the Islamic State is expected to reach $7 billion, an increase of 35%.

Speaking on the John Batchelor Show Feb. 2, Nation contributing editor and long time Russian analyst Steven F. Cohen argued that the Obama Administration’s actions will further militarize the “new Cold War” between the countries, making it more confrontational and likely to lead to actual war with Russia. According to the program notes paraphrasing Cohen’s remarks: “The move is unprecedented in modern times…. Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including new missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a large number of its tactical nuclear weapons.”

Cohen pointed out that a new and more dangerous U.S.-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama Administration’s decision can only intensify. The decision will also have other woeful consequences, undermining ongoing negotiations by Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov for cooperation on the Ukrainian and Syrian crises and further dividing Europe itself, which is far from united on Washington’s increasingly hawkish approach to Moscow.

On Jan. 29 it was reported that President Obama is in the process of intensifying U.S. military engagement in Iraq. There are further reports Obama has revised the “terms of engagement” in Afghanistan to enable remaining U.S. forces to once again undertake combat missions. At the same time, in the name of “freedom of the seas,” Washington sent a Navy destroyer to intrude on a small China Sea parcel of territory claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The United States spends far more annually on military matters than the combined war budgets of the eight other highest spenders, including China and Russia, and this doesn’t include non-Pentagon war and national security spending. While there may be a need for increasing spending for the Obama Administration’s several ongoing wars, where there have been setbacks and surprises, nothing remotely justifies the warlike rhetoric and war spending aimed at China and Russia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are inestimably more powerful in combination than these two countries — not that Beijing and Moscow have provided any evidence of an intention to eventually attack Washington.

This is an election year, and the Democratic Party must display martial prowess in its confrontation with the same reckless chest-beating Republican opposition that heedlessly launched the new wave of wars since 2001 that President Obama has been continuing these last seven years. It is also an escalation of the U.S. threats to China and Russia, warning of the potential military consequences of disrespecting the leadership of the global superpower.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama’s Wars: Expanded US Military Power, Threats against Russia and China

Following the recent gains in North Aleppo, the Syrian government has got a chance to use again its forward position at the Kuweires Airbase as a foot-hold to conduct offensive operations against ISIS.

West of Kuweires Airbase the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are conducting a military operation aimed at encircling an ISIS pocket that threatens the key logistical hub of Al-Safira and the supply route to the city of Aleppo. Another offensive direction is the ISIS-controlled town of Al-Bab. After desruction of the Rayyan pocket, the loyalists’ forces will have an optimal position to liberated this major urban center.

The Kurdish YPG is advancing on the Mennagh Military Airport located near the town of ‘Azaz. On Feb.8, the YPG captured the Kafr Antoun and Muraniz villages and the Al-Ajjar Camp near the airport after clashes with the militants of Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Clashes are also ongoing at the towns of Meranaz and Der Jamal where the YPG is advancing on the positions of al Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham.

ISIS claimed responsibility for a car bomb attack that hit the main gate of the security center for the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in al-Hawl town in the province of Hasakah on Feb.8. The terror attack killed 9 SDF fighters and injured 4.

According to reports, four military airplanes of the Syrian Army carrying weapons and munitions for Kurdish fighters arrived in Qamishli Airport in Hasaka province on Feb.7. The weapons have been delivered in order to support a Kurdish advance amied to liberated the town of al-Shadadi from ISIS.

In the Homs province, the SAA and the NDF captured the strategic hilltop of Taloul Al-Sid located in the Al-Hazzm Mountains. It overlooks the city of Quraytayn. This development is a part of the SAA’s offensive against ISIS in the area of Maheen and Quraytayn. If this area is liberated, the SAA will get a chance to take control of the Tanf border-crossing into the Iraqi province of Al-‘Anbar.

Military operations are continuing in the Daraa province. According to reports, on Feb.8 the SAA killed at least 20 terrorists, injured 28 and destroyed 7 vehicles. The main clashes were observed in al-Karak and al-Abasyia neighborhood and n the area surrounding Khrbit Ghazala town. Mohamed Ali Abu Nuqta, militant commander of Katibat Hamza Assad Allah was killed In Tafas.

In Latakia, the Syrian forces liberated 4 villages: Al-Hawr, Al-Ruweisat, Al-Sweida, and Wad Al-‘Zaraq. By these actions, the pro-government forces are aiming to liberate the strategic town of Kinsibba located near the Turkish border.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Encircling the Islamic State: Military Operation Led by Syrian Arab Army

Whether it’s Al Shabaab, Burundi, or Zanzibar, a handful of regional issues are lining up to undermine East Africa’s stability and offset the most ambitious series of integrational projects in the continent’s history.

The five-nation East African Community (EAC) of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania plans to transition into a formal federation sometime in the near future, catapulting its significance from a regional to a global actor.

The integrational bloc is betting that its East African Railway Master Plan, partially financed and constructed by China, will not only do wonders for its own economic cohesiveness, but will stimulate broader sub-Saharan cooperation. The vision is that this strategic blueprint will link the prospective East African Federation (EAF) together with Ethiopia, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with the ultimate goal being to bridge Africa’s transoceanic divide by connecting to the Atlantic Ocean via the Congo River and the modernization and expansion of existing railway infrastructure in Zambia and Angola.

This enterprising and unprecedented endeavor is not without its fair share of risks, however, since the problems of Al Shabaab, Burundi, and Zanzibar might endanger the federalized integration of the EAC. Without the emergence of a coordinated geopolitical core to manage the region’s strategic infrastructural potential, China’s investments in East Africa might disappointingly fail in their forecasted multipolar function and never become anything more significant than a few scraps of steel.

The African Pivot

The EAC plans to follow in the footsteps of other regional integrational organizations such as the EU, Eurasian Union, and ASEAN by tightening the relations between its members and formally becoming a factor in world politics. If it succeeds in forming a federation, then the newly consolidated unit would have enormous economic and geopolitical promise simply by means of its expanding population and favorable location alone.

These two critical factors are maximized when one recognizes that the countries which would constitute the EAF are located at the center of the Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA), a proposed pan-continental economic space combining the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the EAC, and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Air Cargo World, one of the logistics industry’s most highly esteemed publications, had this to say about its sheer scope of what was agreed to:

…the new zone was formally established in June 2015, comprising 26 nations, with a combined population of 632 million people, or 57 percent of Africa’s population. Altogether, the TFTA bloc has a combined GDP of US$ 1.3 trillion, representing 58 percent of Africa’s total GDP. The vast size of the area represented – about 17 million square kilometers – is roughly equal to that of Russia, making it one of the largest free-trade zones in the world, forming an unbroken corridor from Cairo to Cape Town.

In all obviousness, the EAF’s centrally positioned location within this framework would make it the pivot state for the entire TFTA and allow it to control trade in either direction.

Silk Roads From Sea To Sea

The EAF wouldn’t just be the gatekeeper of North-South trade within Africa, but of East-West trade between its Indian and Atlantic Ocean coasts as well, thus turning it into the continent’s most strategic geopolitical actor. Whereas the TFTA is essentially the 21st-century institutional iteration of the British Empire’s unfulfilled Cape to Cairo Railway, China’s transoceanic Silk Road vision for Africa is entirely unprecedented. The foundational concept exists in the East African Railway Master Plan, after which it is expanded via riparian and rail innovations in order to reach the Atlantic.

The East African Railway Master Plan:

LAPSSET Project map

LAPSSET Project map

Kenya and Tanzania serve as the terminal starting points for this strategy, with the former’s infrastructure largely having to be built while the latter’s simply needs to be revitalized and slightly expanded. Kenya’s Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor aims to connect the three countries and give the two landlocked ones reliable access to the sea, complementing and possibly even sone day connecting with the other Chinese-financed and –constructed one running from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. Moreover, LAPSSET isn’t only about rail, since both South Sudan and Uganda are exploring options for connecting oil pipelines to the route.

The second Kenyan Silk Road connection is the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) that’s anticipated to run from Mombasa to the Ugandan capital of Kampala before breaking into two other lines that go to Kisangani in the DRC and to the Rwandan and Burundian capitals of Kigali and Bujumbura, respectively. The SGR is the most directly pertinent of the two projects to the EAC/EAF’s integrational goals, and it already naturally connects to Tanzania via existing railways between the two countries.

centralcorridortanzaniaTanzania’s application of the Railway Master Plan visualizes a Central Corridorthat would expand off of already-constructed rail routes inside the country and link the capital of Dar es Salaam withBurundi and Rwanda, the second of which would serve as a junction in connecting the Tanzanian and Kenyan projects into a full loop. There was earlier talk that Uganda might reprioritize its rail plans and try to link up with its comparatively larger export market in South Sudan instead of focusing on Rwanda, so if that turns out to be the case, then Tanzania would be the sole provider of Rwanda and Burundi’s railway maritime access route. Consequently, Tanzania would come to trump Kenya’s influence over these states in any forthcoming federation, thus tacitly leading to the development of intra-organizational spheres of influence between the two states.

Atlantic Improvisations:

Both the Kenyan- and Tanzanian-originated projects have the potential to connect to the Atlantic and spearhead Africa’s first-ever transoceanic mainland corridors. The SGR could utilize Kisangani’s port access on the Congo River to connect the city downstream to the DRC capital of Kinshasa, where afterwards it would only need to make a short rail trip to Matadi in reaching the Atlantic (the Congo’s rapids are unpassable between these two points). The intermodal transportation necessary to connect the two ocean coasts (rail-boat-rail) isn’t logistically efficient and is only attractive because it provides access to the DRC’s huge labor and resource pools, but the prospective transoceanic route between Tanzania and Angola is much more alluring because of its relatively simpler feasibility.

Tanzania’s Dar es Salaam capital port is already connected to the copper-rich transit country of Zambia via the Chinese constructed TAZARA railroad from the 1970s, and from there it also has access to the DRC’s mineral-rich southeastern province of Katanga. On the Atlantic side of things, China just recently completed its $1.9 billion investment in rebuilding Angola’s Benguela railroad and reconnecting the port of Lobito to the DRC-bordering town of Luau. This rail route was rendered inoperable ever since the Angolan Civil War of the 1970s, but now that it’s back in action, all that it needs to happen for transoceanic rail access to become a reality is for the Dilolo-Kolwezi-Lubumbashi line in the DRC to be modernized and/or for Zambia to complete its North West Railroad project (financed in part by a $500 million loan from BRICS-member South Africa).

Crashing The Party

The TFTA’s North-South connective feasibility and China’s plans to link Africa’s Indian and Atlantic Ocean coasts are farsighted but realistically attainable, although current and forthcoming events might foreseeably derail these ambitions. Here are the threats that might destabilize the EAC and throw its transoceanic hopes into jeopardy:

Al Shabaab:

This terrorist group operates in close proximity to Kenya’s Lamu port and could attack LAPSSET’s workers and infrastructure in the Somali-populated areas.

Burundi:

Rwanda is accused of providing insurgent training to refugees so that they can overthrow the Burundian President, and it also wants the African Union to invade the country. Tanzania has backed off from its former pro-invasion rhetoric and is in favor of a domestic political solution. The Burundian Crisis has damaged the EAC/EAF’s erstwhile strategic unity and exposed large divisions between its members.

Zanzibar:

7e04df095d564c139d2f3cadefa1d936_18The October 2015 elections in Tanzania’s semi-autonomous archipelago wererendered invalid after purported irregularities and will held once more on 20 March. The opposition is campaigning for full autonomy so that they can receive all the potential profits from Tanzania’srecently discovered and copious offshore oil and gas reserves adjacent to its territory, so if they win and carry through on their threat, then it would unquestionably lead to a constitutional crisis that might eventually evolve into a full-blown secessionist one.

Swahili Coast:

Although numerically small, the native people that inhabit this contiguous swath of Kenyan and Tanzanian coastland have a unique cultural identity and history from their hinterland counterparts. If this feeling of separateness continues to prevail and become irreparable (punctuated by some already existing religious differences), then organizations such as the secessionist Mombasa Republican Council and the terrorist Uamsho Group might acquire new followers and feel more emboldened in their actions.

Election Unrest:

The Burundian Crisis was precipitated by an electoral one, and with controversial leadership votes being scheduled for Uganda and the DRC later this year and in Rwanda the next, it’s possible that any of these could descend into an “African Spring” Burundi-like Hybrid War.

Barotseland:

Activists in Zambia’s traditional western and Angola-bordering region of Barotseland has been more assertive in their autonomy and secessionist claims these past few years, and this could potentially lead to a conflict that would one day delay or suspend the North West Railroad project.

Concluding Thoughts

There’s no doubt that China is placing a heightened strategic focus on Africa, as can be evidenced by President Xi’s $60 billion commitment to the continent that he announced in December 2015. China’ssecond policy paper on Africa, released at the same time, confirms the seriousness with which Beijing is taking its relations in this sphere, intending to develop its established bilateral and multilateral ties to a full-spectrum strategic partnership. China’s interests in Africa aren’t solely altruistic, however, since the East Asian giant urgently needs to build up and access new markets in order to sustain its domestic growth. Seen in this light, the transoceanic African Silk Roads that it’s constructing are crucial pieces in this larger geo-economic game, albeit ones that are susceptible to various geopolitical dangers that can be triggered by the US and its intelligence, information, and NGO networks.

angolan-chinese-engineers[1]The recent rumors about a forthcoming regime change operation in Malawi are a perfect case in point, as they indicate how the US is actively working to undermine African governments in order to gain a relative geopolitical gain against China. It might even be that Washington wants to turn Malawi into the ‘next Burundi’ in order to complicate the socio-humanitarian situation on both sides of the Tanzanian-Zambian border and attack the existing TAZARA and prospective Tanzania-Zambia-Angola railroads via asymmetrical means, perhaps via a destabilizing overflow of refugees and/or the potential infiltration of armed militants into this transnational transit corridor.

This is but one example of the many scenarios that the US is planning as a means to subvert China’s transoceanic projects, and all developments in the bicoastal and Central African space must be seen through the prism of the US’ anti-Silk Road Hybrid War strategy. Be it Al Shabaab terrorism in northeastern Kenya or a Color Revolution in the Congo, every ongoing and forecasted event of major importance in the outlined area is absolutely linked to the New Cold War that the US is waging against China, with Africa’s future as a unipolar neo-imperial colony or a multipolar center of influence hanging in the balance.

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The African Pivot and East Africa’s “Transoceanic Silk Road”

More than one-fifth of the world’s total GDP is in countries which have imposed negative interest rates, including Japan, the EU, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden.

Negative interest rates are spreading worldwide.

And yet negative interest rates – supposed to help economies recover – haven’t prevented Japan and Europe’s economies from absolutely tanking.

Nor have they even stimulated spending. As ValueWalk points out:

Japan has had ultra-low rates for years and its economy has been terrible. Trillions of debt in Europe now trades at negative interest rates and its economy isn’t exactly booming.  Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland all have negative interest rates, but consumer spending isn’t going up there. In fact, savings rates have been going up in lockstep with the decrease in interest rates, exactly the opposite of what the geniuses at the various central banks expected.

Why is this happening? Simply, savers are scared. Lower interest rates have wrecked their retirement plans. Say you were doing some financial planning 10 years ago and plugged in 3% from your savings account.  Now its 0%.  You still have to plan for your retirement. Plug in 0%. What happens to your planning now?  0% compounded for X years is 0%.  The math is simple. So in order to have your target savings at retirement, you need to save more, not spend more. But for some reason, the economists that run central banks around the world can’t see this. They are all stuck in their offices talking to one another and self-reinforcing this myth that they can drive spending up by reducing the rate of return on investments.  Want to see consumer spending go up?  Don’t wreck their savings plans so that they are too scared to spend.  But that’s too simple. Instead, central banks use a chain of causation that doesn’t exist to try to create change 3 or 4 steps down the line. It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. It isn’t in an individual’s self-interest to go out and spend their money on more “stuff” in order to spur economic growth.

So what’s really going on? Why are central banks worldwide pushing negative interest rates?

Economics professor Richard Werner – the creator of quantitative easing – notes:

The experience of Switzerland [shows that] negative rates raise banks’ costs of doing business. The banks respond by passing on this cost to their customers. Due to the already zero deposit rates, this means banks will raise their lending rates. As they did in Switzerland. In other words, reducing interest rates into negative territory will raise borrowing costs!

If this is the result, why do central banks not simply raise interest rates? This would achieve the same result, one might think. However, there is a crucial difference: raised rates will allow banks to widen their interest margin and make their business more profitable. With negative rates, banks’ margins will stay low and the financial situation of the banks will stay precarious and indeed become ever more precarious.

As readers know, we have been arguing that the ECB has been waging war on the ‘good’ banks in the eurozone, the several thousand small community banks, mainly in Germany, which are operated not for profit, but for co-operative members or the public good (such as the Sparkassen public savings banks or the Volksbank people’s banks). The ECB and the EU have significantly increased regulatory reporting burdens, thus personnel costs, so that many community banks are forced to merge, while having to close down many branches. This has been coupled with the ECB’s policy of flattening the yield curve (lowering short rates and also pushing down long rates via so-called ‘quantitative easing’). As a result banks that mainly engage in traditional banking, i.e. lending to firms for investment, have come under major pressure, while this type of ‘QE’ has produced profits for those large financial institutions engaged mainly in financial speculation and its funding.

The policy of negative interest rates is thus consistent with the agenda to drive small banks out of business and consolidate banking sectors in industrialised countries, increasing concentration and control in the banking sector.

It also serves to provide a (false) further justification for abolishing cash. And this fits into the Bank of England’s surprising recent discovery that the money supply is created by banks through their action of granting loans: by supporting monetary reformers, the Bank of England may further increase its own power and accelerate the drive to concentrate the banking system if bank credit creation was abolished and there was only one true bank left – the Bank of England. This would not only get us back to the old monopoly situation imposed in 1694 when the Bank of England was founded as a for-profit enterprise by private profiteers. It would also further the project to increase control over and monitoring of the population: with both cash and bank credit alternatives abolished, all transactions, money creation and allocation would be implemented by the Bank of England.

If this sounds like a “conspiracy theory”, the Financial Times argued in 2014 that central banks would be the real winners from a cashless society:

Central bankers, after all, have had an explicit interest in introducing e-money from the moment the global financial crisis began…

***

The introduction of a cashless society empowers central banks greatly. A cashless society, after all, not only makes things like negative interest rates possible, it transfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank, mostly by turning it into a universal banker that competes directly with private banks for public deposits. All digital deposits become base money.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Negative Interest Rates Aimed at Driving Small Banks Out of Business and Eliminating Cash: Economics Professor

The Canadian government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the object of a class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court pertaining to the $15 billion sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. An action in Federal Court is also contemplated.

According to Toronto’s Globe and Mail: 

Opponents of Canada’s $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia are taking Ottawa to court in an attempt to block shipments of the combat vehicles, a move that could force the governing Liberals to explain how they justify the sale to a human-rights pariah under weapon-export restrictions.

The action is led by law Professor Daniel Turp together with students of the University of Montreal:

He will announce the legal challenge on Saturday and intends to file it with the Federal Court within three weeks.

Mr. Turp and his group are calling on critics of the deal across the country to rally behind their challenge, which they are calling operation Armoured Rights, pointing to how poorly Saudi Arabia treats its own citizens and the civilian carnage of the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen. (Globe and Mail)

Amply documented, Saudi Arabia is the state sponsor of Al Qaeda affiliated “opposition groups” in Syria including the Islamic State (ISIS). Riyadh –acting in liaison and on behalf of Washington– plays a central role in the financing of the Islamic State (ISIS) as well as the recruitment, training and religious indoctrination of terrorist mercenary forces deployed in Syria and Iraq.

What this signifies is that Canada is selling weapons to a country which is supporting and sponsoring terrorist organizations.  Moreover Saudi Arabia is currently involved in a war of aggression against Yemen in blatant derogation of international law.

The links of Saudi Arabia to the terrorists are amply documented and will no doubt be raised in the class action court hearings.

According to London’s Daily Express “They [the Islamic State terrorists] had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

US Saudi connection

“The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” (According to Dr. Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at University of Mainz, Germany,  Deutsche Welle)

According to Robert Fisk, the IS caliphate project “has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia”:

…[M]eet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.

From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles. (Robert Fisk, The Independent,  June 12, 2014)

Moreover, in 2013, as part of its recruitment of terrorists, Saudi Arabia took the initiative of releasing prisoners on death row in Saudi jails. A secret memo revealed that the prisoners were being “recruited” to join jihadist militia (including Al Nusrah and ISIS) to fight against government forces in Syria.

The prisoners had reportedly been offered a deal — stay and be executed or fight against Assad in Syria. As part of the deal the prisoners were offered a “pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, who were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom”.

Saudi officials apparently gave them a choice: decapitation or jihad? In total, inmates from Yemen, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Kuwait chose to go and fight in Syria.(See Global Research,  September 11, 2013)

Weapons “Made in Canada” 

Ottawa’s deal with Saudi Arabia is coordinated with Washington. It essentially serves the Pentagon’s military agenda in the Middle East, it channels billions of dollars to the US military industrial complex..

The weapons are “Made in Canada” produced by General Dynamics Land Systems, London, Ontario., a subsidiary of US defense contractor General Dynamics.

General Dynamics has subsidiaries in 43 countries including Canada.

Ottawa’s official stance is that these weapons which include “combat vehicles with machine guns and anti-tank cannons” are to be used by Saudi Arabia solely for purposes of national defense. They are not be used against civilians.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada Sells Weapons to State Sponsor of Terrorism: Class Action Law Suit against Ottawa over $15 Billion Saudi Arms Deal

There are pictures of mothers cradling babies with shallow skulls in Brazil. The Brazilian health authorities have reported more than 3,500 microcephaly cases between October 2015 and January 2016. These babies are badly disabled because their brains are grossly underdeveloped as scans have shown. The Zika virus is considered to be the agent for this catastrophic condition. The focus is on the mosquito as the vector.

I inquired about a garden insecticide two years ago. The powder called Py was made by Vitax. It contained pyrethrins extracted from the pyrethrum flower. With effort, I found it contained a potent synergist, piperonyl butoxide, (PBO) which acts by inhibiting detoxification in the insect’s nervous system. I was very disturbed to read a punctilious study in New York City by Horton et al (1) which showed reduced mental capability measured at 3 years in the children of mothers who had been exposed to this chemical in pregnancy. The mothers were black or Dominican. They living in a low income part of NYC. This chemical was shown to be present in the expired air of these mothers during pregnancy and in their plasma at delivery.

I brought my concerns to the manufacturer but they were brushed aside by the ‘Customer Services Manager’. I had asked that a warning be printed on the pack for women who were pregnant. All that happened was that the Wikipedia entry for PBO was edited to exclude reference to the Horton paper!

Several studies followed. Notable was that by Wang and co workers (2). This exquisite research shows the infinite horizons of today’s science. Their main conclusion was this –

Overall, our study demonstrates that PBO is a Smo antagonist that inhibits the Hedgehog signaling pathway, a critical regulator of stem cell proliferation, organ development and homeostasis, cancer, and central nervous system development. Considering (1) the widespread presence of PBO in the environment, (2) the recent epidemiologic association of PBO exposure with delayed mental development in children, and (3) our findings that PBO inhibits the Hedgehog signaling pathway, the safety profile of PBO needs to be investigated further.

In the last few days, Global Research has posted two relevant papers. Is it Zika ‘Virus’ or Pesticides and Birth Defects? asks Cal Crilly. (3)

Pesticides in Brazil and Pernambuco state are more likely to be the cause of microcephaly and birth defects than Zika virus and the links below speak for themselves.

“The farmers of Brazil have become the world’s top exporters of sugar, orange juice, coffee, beef, poultry and soybeans. They’ve also earned a more dubious distinction: In 2012, Brazil passed the United States as the largest buyer of pesticides.

and

The most obvious cause of birth defects in this area is direct contact and absorption of pesticides.

The Zika Virus, the Brazilian Microcephaly Outbreak. Covering-up Another Iatrogenic Disorder – Dr Gary G Kohls. (4)

He questions whether the aluminium adjuvant in vaccines is not the cause. He concludes

“Rather than (irrationally) calling for a fast-tracked Zika virus vaccine against a benign mosquito virus that is the least likely to be the causative agent, these authorities have kept quiet about the really sensible thing to do until more is known: immediately stop vaccinating pregnant women with neurotoxic substances!”

The causes of microcephaly are many (5). Inherited by gene defect, infection including rubella and toxoplasmosis, lead poisoning, maternal hypothyroidism etc. 7 out of 11 poor women at 11-17 weeks of pregnancy who were irradiated massively by the Nagasaki bomb had little ones with microcephaly. The massive neutron flux from the latter was the cause.

An association between the virus and the failure of the brain to develop, would surely have become obvious over the years given the dramatic appearance and gross mental retardation. It seems unlikely that a virus that was first isolated in Uganda in 1947 is now the cause for this epidemic of deformity and deficiency.

Furthermore, the expression, from all accounts, does not vary. This is the important point. Take into account that the Zika virus disease lasts only a few days. The viraemic phase would hardly be longer. Is the supposed effect of this viraemia on multiplying neural tissue at a varying date in pregnancy, likely to cause this ‘fixed’ expression? One would expect variation in degree if the virus was the cause.

Is it not more likely that a chemical is the cause? It is of great concern that PBO (among other chemicals no doubt) could be recovered from the cord blood of the mothers in the study of Horton et al or in the expired air. If there is poison in the women in Brazil, it will be constantly present in their systems but with some variation of those levels. If an agent, like PBO, is at the bottom of this, that continued presence is highly likely to give rise to a more constant expression of this catastrophe because the ‘inhibitor’ is constantly present around the stem cells.

It is hoped that great skill and energy is put to the study of the chemicals in both the internal and external milieu of these women, as well as studying the Zeka virus and the vector.

Footnote. One example of the chemical contaminants/’residues’ in cereals as detected in the EU. (6)

Dr. David Halpin FRCS is a retired orthopaedic and trauma surgeon. Of course, he had a medical and scientific training but the sophistication of the work by Wang and co-workers is mostly over his head.

Notes

  1. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/e699
  2. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/2/517.full
  3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-it-zika-virus-or-pesticides-and-birth-defects/5504928
  4. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-zika-virus-the-brazilian-microcephaly-outbreak-covering-up-another-latrogenic-disorder/5506097
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly
  6. http://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/docs/public/tmplt_article.asp?LabID=400&CntID=807&Theme_ID=1&Pdf=False&Lang=EN 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Microcephaly in Brazil. What are the Causes? “The Focus is on the Mosquito as the Vector”?

Although Shot by Sirhan, Paul Schrade Calls for His Release

On Wednesday morning in San Diego, Sirhan Sirhan, the convicted assassin of Bobby Kennedy, will once again be considered for parole. Sirhan was originally scheduled for release in 1984 but after intense political pressure, his parole date was rescinded and he has since been denied 13 times.

At the hearing, Sirhan will come face-to-face with Paul Schrade for the first time — a close friend of the Kennedy family who, on June 5, 1968, was walking behind the senator when the shooting started.

For over 40 years, Schrade, now 91, has been campaigning to reopen the case, based on eyewitness evidence that Sirhan could not have fired the fatal shot described in Kennedy’s autopsy and an analysis of the only known audio recording of the shooting which indicates that 13 shots — and two guns — were fired.

Schrade plans to tell the parole board that new evidence shows Sirhan shot him and several others — but did not shoot Kennedy. In a short statement released in advance of the hearing, he says:

The LAPD and LA DA knew two hours after the fatal shooting of Robert Kennedy that he was shot by a second gunman and they had conclusive evidence that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan could not and did not do it. The official record shows that [the prosecution at Sirhan’s trial] never had one witness – and had no physical nor ballistic evidence – to prove Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy. Evidence locked up for 20 years shows that the LAPD destroyed physical evidence and hid ballistic evidence exonerating Sirhan, and covered up conclusive evidence that a second gunman fatally wounded Robert Kennedy.

Schrade argues that a closer look at the bullet that hit him proves a second gun was fired and Sirhan could not have killed Robert Kennedy.

As labor chairman of Kennedy’s presidential campaign, he stood beside the senator during his victory speech at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, on the night of the crucial California Democratic primary that kept hopes of an RFK Presidency alive.

Paul Schrade on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel pantry after the shooting Photo credit: California State Archives

Paul Schrade on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel pantry after the shooting Photo credit: California State Archives

After the speech, Schrade was walking six to eight feet behind Kennedy through a kitchen pantry, en route to a late-night press conference, when the shooting started. The senator stopped to shake hands with some busboys and had just turned to walk forward again when Schrade saw flashes, heard “a crackling sound like electricity” and thought he was being electrocuted by wet television cables. He was hit in the center of the forehead, fell to the floor and blacked out.

Later, he said “I was lucky. If the bullet that hit me in the forehead had been a fraction of an inch lower, I would have been killed instantly.”

The autopsy concluded one bullet passed through the right shoulder pad of Kennedy’s jacket without entering his body, two bullets hit him under his right armpit at a sharp upward angle, and the fatal shot entered one inch behind the ear and penetrated the brain.

Kennedy was hit four times and five others were injured, so the LAPD had to account for how nine shots were seemingly fired from Sirhan’s eight-shot revolver.

LAPD criminalist Dewayne Wolfer’s solution was to claim Sirhan’s second bullet “passed through the right shoulder pad of Kennedy’s suit coat…and traveled upward [at an 80-degree angle] striking victim Schrade in the center of his forehead.”

As Schrade later told author Dan Moldea, the only way a bullet could do this would be “if I was nine feet tall or had my head on Kennedy’s shoulder.” As Wolfer had already accounted for all eight bullets in Sirhan’s gun, this meant a ninth shot was fired, and two more bullets were found in the center divider of the pantry door frame by FBI agent William Bailey within hours of the shooting.

Fired From Only An Inch Away

LAPD criminalist Dewayne Wolfer (left) and L.A. County Coroner Dr. Thomas Noguchi (center) trace the trajectories of the bullets fired at Robert F. Kennedy Photo credit: California State Archives

LAPD criminalist Dewayne Wolfer (left) and L.A. County Coroner Dr. Thomas Noguchi (center) trace the trajectories of the bullets fired at Robert F. Kennedy Photo credit: California State Archives

Four shots were fired at Kennedy from behind, and to his right, with the fatal bullet fired from only an inch away.

Eyewitnesses placed the barrel of Sirhan’s gun two to five feet in front of Kennedy, to his left.

Hotel maître d’ Karl Uecker, who was leading Kennedy through the pantry while holding his right arm, insisted he grabbed Sirhan after two shots — and diverted his gun hand away from the senator.  Sirhan, his gun hand pinned to a steam table, nonetheless continued to fire wildly. But Uecker insisted that Sirhan could not have fired the four shots that hit Kennedy.

Uecker’s colleague Eddie Minasian confirmed Uecker grabbed Sirhan after the second shot and saw Paul Schrade fall before the senator, suggesting Schrade was actually hit with the first shot.

“It wasn’t that gun”

Frank Burns, an attorney who was standing beside him in the pantry, also had a clear view of Sirhan, and told Dan Rather: ‘It wasn’t that gun.’

As Kennedy lay on the floor and Paul Grieco tried to staunch the flow of blood behind his right ear, the senator looked up and asked, “Is Paul all right?” A photograph taken at the scene shows Schrade’s right shoe by the pool of blood around the senator’s head.

Robert F. Kennedy on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel pantry after the shooting. Paul Schrade’s shoe can be seen in the foreground. Photo credit: California State Archives

Robert F. Kennedy on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel pantry after the shooting. Paul Schrade’s shoe can be seen in the foreground. Photo credit: California State Archives

In 1993, Dan Moldea interviewed coroner Thomas Noguchi about the sequence of Kennedy’s wounds. Noguchi said the fatal bullet, striking an inch behind Kennedy’s right ear “would have taken him off his feet,” so he concluded Kennedy raised his arm to protect himself after seeing a gun or hearing the first shot, and that the fifth shot was what killed him.

If Uecker grabbed Sirhan’s hand after the second shot, how could the fatal shot have been fired by Sirhan?

Phil van Praag’s analysis of the Pruszynski recording – the only known recording of the shooting – supports two firing positions, in front of and behind Kennedy.

There’s a second-and-a-half pause after the first two shots, giving Uecker reaction time to lunge at Sirhan and grab his gun hand.

Between shots three and four, and shots seven and eight, Van Praag found “double shot intervals” – shot sounds so close together, they could not have been fired from the same gun.

Five shots – numbered 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 – display a “frequency anomaly” which indicates a different gun firing in the opposite direction from Sirhan’s weapon.

Background

Paul Schrade first called for a reinvestigation of Robert Kennedy’s murder in December 1974. Two years later, after he brought a civil suit with CBS News, the firearms evidence was retested but the results were inconclusive.

He led the campaign to declassify the police investigation files on the case, and their eventual release in 1988 exposed Wolfer’s failings and the LAPD’s systematic destruction of evidence.

He recently worked with the Kennedy family to turn the derelict Ambassador Hotel into the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools complex, but still believes justice has not been served in this case. He will address Sirhan directly at the end of the hearing and is expected to call for his release and a new investigation into Robert Kennedy’s murder.

*****

In March, Sirhan will turn 72 years old, having spent two-thirds of his life in prison for a crime he has consistently said he cannot remember committing.

On the first day of testimony at his trial, Sirhan’s attorney led him through the charges and asked: “Did you shoot Paul Schrade?”
“That is what the indictment reads. I must have,” replied Sirhan. “Were you aware of the fact that you shot Mr. Schrade?” “I was not aware of anything.”

For three years prior to his last parole hearing in 2011, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard Medical School spent over sixty hours with Sirhan trying to recover his memory of the shooting. Dr. Brown concluded Sirhan’s amnesia for events before and during the shooting was real, but his findings were ignored by the parole board, who noted “some degree of…distrust, quite frankly [in] you remembering parts of this and not remembering others.” They claimed the gaps in Sirhan’s memory show he still lacks remorse and has not accepted full responsibility for his crime.

The parole board is obliged to accept Sirhan’s first-degree murder conviction and only the courts have the power to retry the case. Sirhan’s parole denials repeatedly cite the “RFK must die” automatic writing in his notebooks as evidence of the cold, callous, premeditated nature of the crime, even though Sirhan claims no memory of writing in the notebooks or the shooting itself, and the defense and prison psychiatrists who have worked most closely with him over the years believe both were done in a dissociated state.

Following Sirhan’s parole denial in 2011, his attorneys William Pepper and Laurie Dusek vigorously pursued a habeas corpus petition started by the late Larry Teeter in 1997 and their court filings in their battle with the state of California are now available online.

At the heart of the petition are detailed declarations concerning two major new pieces of evidence developed over the last ten years that crystallise the second gun and Manchurian candidate theories that first emerged in the early seventies.

•  Forensic audio expert Phil Van Praag documents his findings that at least 13 shot sounds can be heard on the only known recording of the shooting; and

•  declaration by Dr. Daniel Brown that authenticates both Sirhan’s amnesia and the hypnotic programming that generated the “RFK must die” repetitions in his notebooks and triggered the assassination. In January 2015, the Central District Court of California denied the petition, refusing to grant Sirhan even an evidentiary hearing to assess the merits of this new evidence.

The parole criteria present a number of Catch 22 scenarios for Sirhan. How can you show remorse and insight into the crime when you can’t remember what happened?  How can you accept full responsibility for the crime when you’re still contesting the case, and the state’s version of events has been superseded by new exculpatory evidence the court refuses to hear?

*****

Sirhan Sirhan in his jail cell, August 1968 Photo credit: California State Archives

Sirhan Sirhan in his jail cell, August 1968 Photo credit: California State Archives

In 1975, the California state legislature moved to introduce fixed sentences and give those on indeterminate life sentences “a date certain” for their release. After deductions for his time in jail during the trial, Sirhan was given a parole date of March 1, 1985.

Other prisoners convicted of first-degree murder had been freed, on average, after 11 years. Given Sirhan’s record of good behavior, they couldn’t justify giving him more time because of who he killed.

The chairman of the panel told the press he was “proud as hell that [they] didn’t search for some bogus reason to deny him…This should prove we don’t have any political prisoners.”

An Exemplary Inmate

With the support of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, I recently published all available transcripts of Sirhan’s parole hearings dating back to 1978. They chart Sirhan’s life in prison over the last 48 years and show he has been an exemplary inmate, with no prison violations since 1972 and an excellent work record.

The earliest progress review hearings from 1978 to 1980 show that while working towards his release date, Sirhan was a straight A student at Hartnell College, going on to obtain an A.A. degree from the less than ideal learning environment of a protective housing unit. He received laudatory commendations from the prison staff and the prison psychologists and the parole panel deducted a further six months for good behavior.

Then came the 10-day parole rescission hearings in 1982 that changed all that and in his closing statement, Sirhan sensed the inevitable:

I sincerely believe that if Robert Kennedy were alive today, he would not countenance singling me out for this kind of treatment. I think he would be amongst the first to say that however horrible a deed I committed 14 years ago, it should not be the cause for denying me equal treatment under the laws of this country.

His parole date was rescinded and Deputy District Attorney Larry Trapp later told the press, “Political assassination in America must never be rewarded by freedom.”

Trapp was the guiding hand behind the rescission hearings and ever-present at Sirhan’s parole hearings in the eighties and nineties. But as William Klaber notes in his book, Shadow Play (St. Martin’s Press, 1997), Trapp made serious factual errors, repeatedly claiming Sirhan began to plot Kennedy’s death on January 31, 1968. He based this false claim on automatic writing Sirhan produced under hypnosis eight months after the shooting in preparation for trial.

In a television interview after the infamous 1985 hearing – when the assembled press accidentally listened in to a jokey three-minute deliberation and heard a member of the parole board discuss transferring Sirhan to another prison and say, “we’ll send his ass down there for as long as possible” – Sirhan made his frustration clear:

This country is governed by the rule of law, it is not governed by terrorist tactics. Now, if you want to deprive me of my rights under your own established rules and your own laws, at least come out and tell me that outright rather than to tell me that you didn’t go to Alcoholics Anonymous programs and on that basis, we’re going to deprive you of your liberty. Tell me that you’re a terrorist and we don’t want you out of our prison, I can live with that. But all these deceptions and devious ways of denying me parole, I don’t think it’s fair.

From 1989 to 1992, Sirhan was chairman of the Alcoholics Anonymous group in his unit, even though before the four Tom Collins cocktails he consumed on the night of the shooting, he had only touched alcohol a couple of times in his life. When the AA meetings clashed with his prison work roster, he had to drop them. And since his relations with the parole board soured in the nineties, he openly questioned why he should jump through hoops for them when they showed no sign of ever granting him parole.

In 1992, the prison guards told Sirhan he had to wear chains and manacles in the hearing room, so both he and his attorney refused to attend. Two years later, Larry Teeter took over as Sirhan’s attorney. His habeas corpus petition was filed two days after the 1997 hearing, in which Sirhan proclaimed his innocence for the first time, based on new exculpatory evidence in Teeter’s petition.

The commissioner almost threw Teeter out of the hearing when he skillfully tried to apply some of this new evidence to Sirhan’s parole criteria. Sirhan was left fuming that his attorney had been repeatedly told to shut up, and subsequently refused to cooperate with the parole board or attend his next three hearings.

The First “Arab Terrorist?”

New York City on September 11, 2001 Photo credit: Comer Zhao / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

New York City on September 11, 2001 Photo credit: Comer Zhao / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Then, a month after 9-11, the Washington Post published the following scurrilous leak from the California prison system in its ‘Reliable Source’ column:

The Post’s Petula Dvorak reports that prison authorities in California wonder why Robert F. Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan shaved his head and requested a television on Sunday, Sept. 9, two days before the terrorist attacks. “These are unusual requests for him; he is usually pretty much isolated and reclusive,” prison spokesman Lt. Johnny Castro told Dvorak. The 57-year-old Palestinian immigrant . . . frequently mails letters to outsiders, and the FBI is probing whether Sirhan’s letters were not monitored because they were written in Arabic. But Sirhan lawyer Lawrence Teeter said his client “was outraged at the terrorist attacks and remarked spontaneously in a letter to his brother he hopes that the people who did this are burning in hell.”

According to Sirhan’s brother Munir,  a departing prisoner had given Sirhan his television two days before 9-11. And when the prison guards saw Sirhan watching 9-11 coverage with a towel on his head after a shower, they branded him an Arab terrorist who had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Solitary Confinement for a Year

Prison spokesperson Sabrina Johnson later confirmed they had “documentation” to show that Sirhan was a threat, and he was disciplined accordingly. Sirhan’s brother said this meant “he was thrown into solitary confinement for the next year until we were finally able to prove he was innocent of their claims and get him out. He was allowed out of his cell, I think it was seven minutes twice a week to shower, and he was shackled, hands and legs.”

Later parole hearing transcripts show this episode had a profound effect on Sirhan’s welfare in prison. He stopped cooperating with the parole board and according to psychological reports, became increasingly withdrawn.

Since 9-11, he has been demonised as the first Arab/Islamic terrorist, even though he was raised and still is a practicing Christian. He has never had any ties to terrorist organisations.

In 2011, Sirhan appeared in public for the first time in 14 years, with renewed hope after his sessions with Dr. Brown and the new court filings by Pepper and Dusek but once more, he was denied. Self-help programming options have always been limited in his protective housing unit, so the parole board again touted the AA 12-step program as the best tool to give him insight into his crime and seemed to ignore the insight gained through his three years of sessions with Dr. Brown.

If released, Sirhan would be deported to Jordan, where he claims he would be a danger to nobody. But as The Marshall Project recently discovered in a year-long examination of America’s parole boards, parole decisions are often driven not by public safety but by politics. Since 1982, California has treated Sirhan like a political prisoner who will never be released, not a human being who has served his time and has the right to a fair hearing and the rule of law.

Since Sirhan’s interview with David Frost for Inside Edition in 1989, recorded interviews with inmates have been banned in California, so parole hearings are his only chance to publicly state his case for release. While Court TV covered the 1994 proceeding live, generally Sirhan’s hearings get only the briefest mention on the news but the parole board in California recently banned audio and video recording of the hearings, censoring Sirhan’s voice from the continuing debate about his case. At this rate, the public may never see or hear from him again.

Dr. 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Alleged Assassin of Bobby Kennedy: RFK Friend Raises Doubts about Sirhan Guilt at Parole Hearing

Will Splitting Jerusalem Perpetuate Occupation?

February 9th, 2016 by Akiva Eldar

Featured image: A Palestinian man walks past a newly erected temporary concrete wall that measures around 10 meters in length, in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Jabel Mukaber October 19, 2015. REUTERS/Ammar Awad   – RTS52AL

Translated by Ruti Sinai

In the coming days, a small group of men and women will gather in the office of Israeli President Reuven Rivlin. The guests, founders of a new movement called Saving Jewish Jerusalem, will present Rivlin with a manifesto detailing their vision for the city. The president, who usually begins radio interviews with the greeting, “Good morning [or evening] from Jerusalem,” will hear their plan for the unilateral separation of part of East Jerusalem.

The principles for such a plan were laid out in an interview that Mazal Mualem conducted with Zionist Camp Chairman Isaac Herzog, published Jan. 22 in Al-Monitor. The interesting new element in Saving Jewish Jerusalem’s plan lies in the list of the nascent movement’s activists. The driving force and most intriguing name on the list is that of former Cabinet minister Haim Ramon.

Ramon had quit politics and lay low after being convicted of sexual misconduct involving a female soldier in 2007. The rest of his friends in Kadima, of which he was a co-founder in 2005 and which has since folded, went their separate ways. Several of his friends in the new group are wondering whether the movement to save Jewish Jerusalem is also intended to save the political career of a man once considered a rising star in the Jerusalem sky.

Saving Jewish Jerusalem’s platform, which will also be presented to the public, calls for handing control of 28 Palestinian villages in East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The villages in question had been an integral part of the West Bank until Israel annexed them in 1967. Some 200,000 people live in these villages. With the annexation, the Palestinians there were given permanent residency and gained the rights of Israeli citizens, including social security benefits, freedom of movement west of the green line, entitlement to study in Israeli institutions of higher learning and access to Al-Aqsa Mosque, among other things.

Members of the movement contend that the Palestinian villages are massively detrimental to the prosperity of the Israeli capital in terms of security, demographic balance, standard of living and economic well-being. They view the violent incidents in Jerusalem that intensified in September 2015 as underscoring the need to immediately reverse the (erroneous) annexation of the villages to Jerusalem.

The manifesto’s authors explain that by removing some 200,000 Palestinians from the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, the city’s Jews will constitute more than 80% of its residents, and the percentage of Palestinians will drop to less than 20%, from the nearly 40% today. Not only that, they stress, revoking the Palestinians’ Israeli residency permits will ease the economic burden these villages impose on the Israeli taxpayer — some 2-3 billion Israeli shekels ($500-$750 million) in revenue and municipal taxes annually. The remaining residents of East Jerusalem, Arabs and Jews, would maintain their current residence and citizenship status.

Saving Jewish Jerusalem also proposes the immediate establishment of a “consecutive security fence” between the “extraneous villages” and Jerusalem. The fence would be linked to the separation barrier dividing Israel and the settlement blocs from other parts of the West Bank. After the villages’ separation from Jerusalem, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and other security agencies would operate in them the way they currently do in the rest of the West Bank. To implement the plan to ensure Jerusalem’s security and its Jewish character, the Knesset, according to the manifesto, will amend the Basic Law Jerusalem, Capital of Israel. The entire plan would be implemented unilaterally, without consulting the Palestinians or obtaining their consent.

One of the founders of the movement, who requested anonymity, told Al-Monitor that a public opinion poll his group had commissioned indicated that 85% of the Jewish public, as well as a significant number of Arabs in Israel, support the separation from the peripheral Palestinian villages. The Zionist Camp’s Herzog, who studied the poll results, was quick to adopt the plan’s principles. “Peace is unobtainable right now, so let’s achieve security so that we can talk about peace,” Herzog said in the Al-Monitor interview. “I met with [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas last August and there, too, I am sorry to report, I didn’t find the courage or leadership skills needed to agree to painful concessions.”

When Herzog emerged from his meeting with Abbas on Aug. 18, he had had quite a different message, however. The opposition leader reportedly said with confidence at the time, “If there’s good will, we can reach an agreement protecting Israel’s security; there is a rare regional opportunity that has arisen in recent months.” He even provided an accelerated timeline of “within two years.” According to Herzog, the opportunity shouldn’t be missed: “It enables support from neighboring countries for a direct diplomatic move between us and the Palestinians,” he said. Herzog also reported that he had promised Abbas that he would keep trying to convince the Israeli public, which was gradually losing faith in peace, of the necessity of such a process and the need to speedily move it forward.

Now, not even six months later, the leader of the opposition has lost his faith in a dialogue with the Palestinians (under the auspices of the Arab League) in favor of unilateral measures. Do experienced political figures such as Herzog really believe that such a dramatic move should be promoted in the powder keg that is Jerusalem without coordination and agreement with the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic sides? Do they not understand that removing the 28 Arab villages from East Jerusalem will be interpreted by the world as perpetuating Israel’s annexation of the other parts of East Jerusalem, including the Holy Basin?

What of the thousands of Palestinians who will find themselves on the other side of the fence, with reduced incomes from the loss of their residency rights, to which they have been entitled for nearly 50 years. Might they seek relief in the recruitment centers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Might they import tunnel digging techniques from the Gaza Strip into the East Jerusalem Shuafat refugee camp en route to the adjacent Jewish neighborhoods?

Another of the plan’s originators, also requesting anonymity, told Al-Monitor, “We know there’s no way that [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu will even consider adopting the blueprint. Our main goal is to show the public that there are people on our side who initiate plans rather than sticking to the status quo.” He also said the group is fully aware that the left might tear the proposal and its authors to bits. “That’s our second goal,” he said, half smiling, “to get a kick from the left that will propel us toward the right.”

It is doubtful whether the political movement and its plans will slightly slow the voter drain of the Israeli constituency from the Zionist Camp. It is more likely that they will accelerate the rate of the drain of the Palestinian constituency from Abbas’ shrinking camp.

An article published in the September 2011 edition of the prestigious publication Foreign Affairs suggests that there are Israeli leaders who believe (or at least believed at the time) that there is another, better way to end the conflict with the Palestinians. According to the plan presented in the article, Israel would vote in favor of Palestine becoming a full member of the United Nations. Immediately thereafter, negotiations on a permanent settlement would be renewed with the backing of the international community. The agreement would be based on the parameters laid out by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and expanded by President Barack Obama in May 2011: the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with an exchange of territories and security arrangements. It doesn’t get any better.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Splitting Jerusalem Perpetuate Occupation?

To my Fellow Israelis: We Can Stop This

February 9th, 2016 by Jonathan Ofir

An open letter to my fellow Israelis:

This is probably a culmination of nearly a decade’s reviewed study of our history. At some point, beyond the singular stories, cases and arguments, I feel something unequivocal and very generally encompassing needs to be said about our Israeli “miracle”, the manifestation of the Zionist “dream”.

I will not write this in Hebrew, although that would probably have been the most direct idiomatic tool to reach your minds. I will not do so, because I have had enough of dirty laundry recycled amongst us “self-understanding” Israelis. Whilst I write to you, my hopes of change coming from within us Israelis have regrettably declined in the years – and thus, I am also, if not more so, placing my bets upon the involvement of the international community – whose help we need so badly – not for more cash, weapons, or apologetic “understanding”, but rather for its intervention in what we are apparently unable, and mostly unwilling, to fix. The attitude which I thus exhibit here is an extremely unpopular one in Israeli and Jewish culture. It is the vein of the “moser” – the one who “snitches” against the “Jewish nation” towards the goyim.

Well, get over it. There are far more serious issues at hand.

I have to tell you first that our evaluation of Israeli history omits so much atrocity from our side. Indeed, much of it is still classified – even back to 1948.

Yes, you may have heard about the Deir Yassin massacre, it is often taught in school books, yet portrayed as an aberration, perpetrated by “extremist”, “rogue” factions before the Declaration of Independence (although the leaders of those extremist factions became our Prime Ministers). But what of the dozens of other massacres perpetrated by – us – in 1948, indeed by the very IDF? Have you read about Al Dawayima, which was apparently worse than Deir Yassin? Yair Auron just wrote about it in Haaretz, I translated and put it out here and on my Facebook page. Go and read. It’s a letter which is out for the first time in full, but it’s no secret as such – excerpts of it have been out for decades – as have many other testimonies and documents, for those who care to seek and look.

When you sum up the systematic mass executions, the many gang-rape cases (which have been slow to be uncovered, because they involve shame on both fronts), the crushing of children’s skulls with sticks, the ripping out of fetuses from their mothers’ wombs – all, and many more, perpetrated by “us”, the “good guys”, the “cultured elite” – often in situations which presented no danger, just out of pure gratuitous sadism and hate for the “Arabs” – then you may begin to realise, that Israel is not in a war of survival, a war of an elite and advanced culture in a “bad neighborhood” of backwards Arab sub-culture.

Let me put it out there, clearly and directly:

We have been acting like animals, with barbarism of a degree which indeed could be, and should be, and has been, compared to those whom we love to hate – the Nazis – whose cruelty is supposed to exonerate ours. As Golda Meir told MK Shulamit Aloni: “After the Holocaust, Jews are allowed to do anything.” NO. Damn well not. We’ve used this excuse, with those words or others, together with a systematic cover-up of our own cruelties, since the start. And because we have largely succumbed to our own propaganda in this, we have failed to perceive the historical trace, which, if followed honestly, will show us that we are essentially AT THE SAME PLACE as before – still subjugating, still massacring, still torturing.

This is not a chain of events forced upon us as an inevitable consequence of trying to “survive”. This is nonetheless a predictable outcome of our inherent state-religion – which is not Judaism, as many mistakenly think – but rather Zionism.

We were brainwashed to think that Zionism is our savior. That as Jesus died on the cross for the Christians, our soldiers have died for our country. No – they died primarily for Zionism. “Our country”, as is mostly perceived by us, is not really “our country”. It is the country of so many others, whom we have not only expelled with unfathomable brutality, but whom we also now keep locked up in cages of various forms, shapes and styles, as well as under horrendous Apartheid regime in various degrees – in order to maintain our sacred “demographic balance” – whilst we continue, rather unabated, in our expansion over the “promised land”.

Our occupation did not begin in 1967, neither did our cruelty and crimes. We have established a state on the mass graves of others. This was not forced upon us. Just as Begin said in 1982, concerning the 1967 war “we must be honest with ourselves…we decided to attack.” So must we be honest with ourselves about all of our other portrayals of “self-defense”. Indeed, the whole Zionist venture is essentially portrayed as a “struggle for survival”, a “struggle for self-defense”.

Had we not hidden our crimes so well, so deep, and with so much propaganda “deterrence” rhetoric, it would perhaps be easier to believe our sincerity. On the other hand, when those crimes are exposed for what they are, it also becomes impossible to justify our moral righteousness. Indeed, as the world media became much more instantly transparent, the reality of our crimes became impossible to hide – so we put an extra focus on propaganda – to twist it all into “self defense”. We indiscriminately shelled houses and leveled neighborhoods in Gaza, for “self-defense”. We torture children, for “self-defense”.

Let’s just say it outright: We torture and terrorize the hell out of Palestinians in order to deter them and make their lives so miserable so they will want to leave – or to revenge, which will justify our next blow.

We have created a monster. Who on earth would want to “survive” if this is how “survival” looks? How vile is this “survival” which maintains itself upon the death and destruction of “others”? Indeed, who are those “others”? Are we not really the “others”, who came with our “better knowing” culture to “make the desert bloom”? And as this desert “blooms” with yet another settlement, another fictitious “military zone”, another “expansion” – the people who are there, the “others”, are gradually removed, encircled, or killed.

We Jews have thus created a violent legacy to last for centuries, even if it were to stop now. If all stories were now revealed, all archives declassified (1948, 1967 and all others), it is certain that this Zionist venture would constitute another shocking and substantial chapter of barbarism and cruelty in the annals of world history.

But it is not over – for worse, but also for better. We have the ability to stop it now. No, this does not mean our annihilation, as the propagandist Zionist hysterics would reflexively profess. It is an option, standing before us – to relinquish the reign of exclusivity, to separate the Jewish from the State, and to live in peace, with all the challenges that may face every human and every state.

But WE are not a state. A state is not “people”. A state is a regime, a paradigm of governance. A state may belong to its citizens – but then neither “we” nor Israel constitute a real state. For the State of Israel is the state of those who hold Jewish Nationality – which supersedes their citizenship. And I refuse to be a part of this “we” if that means some ethnic-religious-national mishmash superiority. Does that necessarily mean divorcing Judaism? No, of course not. It simply means divorcing the ostensibly inextricable tie that Zionism has made between itself and Judaism, in monopolising Judaism, using a mafia-style coercion of all those who speak against it, with the (too often) applied ultimate rhetoric WMD– of “anti-Semitism”.

This is a scare tactic that needs to be fought. If we do not rise above the intellectual atavism that this ideology submits us to, we will continue to be committing grave crimes and exonerating them as we go, in the name of this “religion”.

There is a future. Zionism, nonetheless, is a dead-end. I realise that saying these things today, is far, far from consensus, and is in no uncertain ways a recipe for societal exclusion. I’ll take that. I’m already resolved to it. But this is not some prophetic martyrdom that I submit myself to. It is actually the only right path that I see. If you want to hope for a good future with Zionism, at least do the minimum to really see what it has meant for Palestinians. That is, surprisingly, perhaps the easier part. The harder part is to look the horrors in the eye, and then look yourself in the mirror, and see what Zionism has done to you.

Jonathan Ofir is an Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on To my Fellow Israelis: We Can Stop This

African Americans continue to fight for human dignity and self-determination

After the passage of the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865, which supposedly eliminated involuntary servitude, a series of Civil Rights Acts were passed by the Congress beginning in 1866.

Prior to the 13th Amendment, President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation which had ostensibly eliminated chattel slavery in the antebellum South beginning on January 1, 1863. However, the Civil War over the secession of the slave-holding states from the Union was far from resolution. It would take another two years for the collapse of the Confederacy to take place.

In the concluding months of the Civil War the question of how the nearly four million enslaved Africans and some five hundred thousand others designated as “free” were to be treated when the states rejoined the country under the leadership of Washington. This was a major cause of concern to ruling interests. Even Lincoln himself was not convinced that Africans should be given full citizenship rights and could perhaps be deported to Africa or Haiti.

As a result of the heroic role Africans played in the breakup of the plantation system and the defeat of the Confederate military, the demand for land and reparations emerged from the advanced ranks of the African resistance forces who were by no means willing to accept a form of neo-slavery after the surrender of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee. Therefore, prior to the issuance of General William T. Sherman’s Field Order No. 15 of January 1865 and other subsequent military, administrative and legislative actions, Africans were seeking to liberate themselves from human bondage and national oppression.

W.E.B. Du Bois in his seminal work entitled “Black Reconstruction in America: An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880, published during the Great Depression in 1935, reflects on the liberation process initiated by the African people in a chapter entitled “The General Strike” saying: “This was not merely the desire to stop work. It was a strike on a wide basis against the conditions of work. It was a general strike that involved directly in the end perhaps a half million people. They wanted to stop the economy of the plantation system, and to do that [Africans] left the plantations.  At first, the commanders were disposed to drive them away, or to give them quasi-freedom and let them do as they pleased with the nothing that they possessed. This did not work. Then the commanders organized relief and afterward, work.” (p. 67)

The chapter continues noting, “The Negroes were willing to work and did work, but they wanted land to work, and they wanted to see and own the results of their toil.  It was here and in the West and the South that a new vista opened. Here was a chance to establish an agrarian democracy in the South with peasant holders of small properties, eager to work and raise crops, amenable to suggestion and general direction. All they needed was honesty in treatment, and education. Wherever these conditions were fulfilled, the result was little less than phenomenal. This was testified to by Pierce in the Carolinas, by Butler’s agents in North Carolina, by the experiment of the Sea Islands, by Grant’s department of Negro affairs under Eaton, and by Banks’ direction of Negro labor in Louisiana. It is astonishing how this army of striking labor furnished in time 200,000 Federal soldiers whose evident ability to fight decided the war.”

Sherman met with several African leaders many of whom were minister of churches in Savannah, Georgia to facilitate the transfer of 400,000 acres of land to the formerly enslaved. These developments took place after what was called the “March to the Sea” from Atlanta to Savannah which eventually created the conditions that cleared out the Confederate troops across the coastline of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina including the South Sea Islands.

Radical Republicans in the Congress had already been discussing land redistribution plans aimed at disempowering the planters and creating a political base for their party in the aftermath of the War. Nonetheless, after the assassination of Lincoln and the ascendancy of Vice-President Andrew Johnson to the head-of-state, the Order was nullified and the confiscated land was returned to the former slave owners.

From Reconstruction to Peonage

During the years of 1866-1875, the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed along with other Civil Rights legislation. Nonetheless these laws were not enforced with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other white terrorist organizations which re-instituted conditions that were quite similar to slavery, known as peonage.

Starting with the Federal Hayes-Tillman Compromise of 1876 and continuing through the close of the 19th century, reactionary legislation within the southern state governmental structures largely excluded African Americans from voting and holding public office keeping all political power within the control of the white ruling class. The lynching of African Americans became a routine mechanism of social control aimed at the super-exploitation of Black labor.

Despite the widespread institutionalized repression of the African American masses, resistance movements sprang up through the latter decades of the 19th century through the early 1950s. The Women’s Club Movement; a vibrant independent press; the Niagara Movement, the NAACP co-founded by Du Bois, the UNIA formed by Marcus Garvey, along with the thousands of African Americans who joined the Communist Party and other left organizations between World War I and World War II, represented a continuation of the rebellions initiated during slavery and the Civil War.

Although these efforts mobilized and organized millions of African Americans and their allies there was limited progress over the course of the period after the failure of Reconstruction until the ending of the second world war. After 1945 with the rise of national liberation struggles and socialist revolutions internationally, the movement against racism in the U.S. gained impetus sparking the unprecedented decades of gains after a century of strife.

The Modern Civil Rights Era and the Struggle for Socialism

Starting in 1957 another cluster of Civil Rights legislation was approved by Congress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. The failure of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 focusing on fair housing suffered defeat amid the rise of the Black Power Movement and urban rebellions.

The Fair Housing Act was not passed until 1968 in the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since the late 1970s through the present period, a series of federal court decisions and failure to enforce existing anti-racist laws, have led to tremendous setbacks for African Americans.

This election year of 2016 is marked by a total absence of discussions and debates by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates over the status of African Americans and oppressed peoples inside the U.S. Should there be a new push for renewed legislation as opposed to a greater emphasis on mass civil disobedience, boycotts, urban rebellions and general strikes or combination of all of these tactics aimed at total equality and full national liberation?  What is obvious is that the present system of declining capitalism and imperialist militarism offers no future for the African American people and the working class in general.

Only the realization of socialism where the people control the means of production will there be any possibility of eliminating racism, national oppression and economic exploitation. There can only be freedom for the oppressed with the expropriation of the ruling class and the radical redistribution of wealth to the working people.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 150 Years of US Civil Rights Legislation and the Struggle for Black Power

The Dirty War on Syria: New E-Book by Prof. Tim Anderson

February 9th, 2016 by Global Research

Global Research Publishers has launched Professor Tim Anderson’s timely and important book on Syria

The E-book is available for purchase from Global Research 

Reviews:

Tim Anderson  has written the best systematic critique of western fabrications justifying the war against the Assad government. 

No other text brings together all the major accusations and their effective refutation.

This text is essential reading for all peace and justice activists.  -James Petras, Author and Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Tim Anderson’s important new book, titled “The Dirty War on Syria” discusses US naked aggression – “rely(ing) on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory,” he explains.

ISIS is the pretext for endless war without mercy, Assad the target, regime change the objective, wanting pro-Western puppet governance replacing Syrian sovereign independence.

There’s nothing civil about war in Syria, raped by US imperialism, partnered with rogue allies. Anderson’s book is essential reading to understand what’s going on. Stephen Lendman, Distinguished Author and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Host of the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Professor Anderson demonstrates unequivocally through carefully documented research that America’s “Moderate Opposition” are bona fide Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists created and protected by the US and its allies, recruited  and trained by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, in liaison with Washington and Brussels.

Through careful analysis, professor Anderson reveals the “unspoken truth”: the “war on terrorism” is fake, the United States is a “State sponsor of terrorism” involved in a criminal undertaking. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Professor of Economics (Emeritus), University of Ottawa.

Click here to purchase Tim Anderson’s Book (pdf) 

Synopsis:

The Dirty War on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. In seeking ‘regime change’ the big powers sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies of ‘Islamists’, demonising the Syrian Government and constantly accusing it of atrocities. In this way Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a mild-mannered eye doctor, became the new evil in the world.

The popular myths of this dirty war – that it is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or a sectarian conflict – hide a murderous spree of ‘regime change’ across the region. The attack on Syria was a necessary consequence of Washington’s ambition, stated openly in 2006, to create a ‘New Middle East’. After the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, Syria was next in line.

Click image to purchase Tim Anderson’s Book (pdf) 

Five years into this war the evidence is quite clear and must be set out in detail. The terrible massacres were mostly committed by the western backed jihadists, then blamed on the Syrian Army. The western media and many western NGOs parroted the official line. Their sources were almost invariably those allied to the ‘jihadists’. Contrary to the myth that the big powers now have their own ‘war on terror’, those same powers have backed every single anti-government armed group in Syria, ‘terrorists’ in any other context, adding thousands of ‘jihadis’ from dozens of countries.

Yet in Syria this dirty war has confronted a disciplined national army which did not disintegrate along sectarian lines. Despite terrible destruction and loss of life, Syria has survived, deepening its alliance with Russia, Iran, the Lebanese Resistance, the secular Palestinians and, more recently, with Iraq. The tide has turned against Washington, and that will have implications beyond Syria.

As western peoples we have been particularly deceived by this dirty war, reverting to our worst traditions of intervention, racial prejudice and poor reflection on our own histories. This book tries to tell its story while rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, ethical principle and the search for independent evidence.

 Click here to purchase Tim Anderson’s Book PDF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dirty War on Syria: New E-Book by Prof. Tim Anderson

baltic_SoldiersCoincidence? Baltic Invasion Story Reappears as Pentagon Seeks to Quadruple Europe Military Spending

By Danielle Ryan, February 09 2016

It seems that Putin is about to invade the Baltics. Again.

nato_warNATO’s Largest Air Force Exercise Since World War II Threatens Russia

By Pravda.ru, February 09 2016

The British Army aims to work through an armoured troops shift to the Eastern Europe in case of a conflict between Russia and the NATO.

Russian warplanes | © Ministry of defence of the Russian FederationSyria’s Joint Offensive against Terrorists in Northern Aleppo, Supported by Russia

By South Front, February 09 2016

Last weekend, the Syrian government forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces, predominantly Kurds supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces launched a joint offensive in Northern Aleppo.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (L) and US Secretary of State John Kerry shake hands after a news conference after a UN Security Council meeting on Syria at the United Nations in New York on 18 December, 2015 (AFP). - See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-position-syria-tilts-favour-russian-intervention-1555341698#sthash.4vUnEjRW.dpufUS Position on Syria Tilts in Favour of Russian Intervention

By Gareth Porter, February 09 2016

The major developments on the Syrian battlefield in recent months have brought a corresponding shift in the Obama administration’s Syrian policy.

John_F._KerryWhy John Kerry Blames “The Opposition” (aka Terrorists) For The Continued Bombing In Syria

By Moon of Alabama, February 09 2016

According to [a] report from Middle East Eye U.S. Secretary of State blamed the opposition for the continuing bombing in Syria:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: US-NATO War Agenda in Full Swing. But is it a “Threat” to Russia?

In a report published February 3, international NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), has denounced the abuses of the Police and the French State under the State of urgency. HRW’s report points to the systematic, arbitrary denials of basic democratic rights by the French police, unchecked by the judiciary under the terms of the state of emergency, and targeting of people of Muslim descent.

HRW declares,

“France has carried out abusive and discriminatory raids and house arrests against Muslims under its sweeping new state of emergency law. The measures have created economic hardship, stigmatized those targeted, and have traumatized children.”

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW) data, supported by many reports in the French media, attacks on democratic rights are taking place on a vast scale. In over 3,289 warrantless searches of homes and buildings, police SWAT teams and gendarmes have broken in, attacked occupants, hand-cuffed them and assaulted them. They routinely and wantonly damage doors, furniture and people’s possessions, leaving them to repair the damage without any hope of state compensation.

HRW referred to the case of Mr. Alami, a 64-year-old of Moroccan descent who lives with his wife and three of their children. Six policemen broke the door in at 2 a.m. on November 26, 2015:

“They didn’t give us a chance to speak. They pushed me, put my hands behind my back, and put me on the floor, face down. One of them put his knee on my back. I felt like I was being broken in half. I said, ‘You’re hurting me!’ He pulled me by the hair and pushed my head down to the floor, breaking four of my teeth. They searched the apartment until 5:45 a.m., then they asked my wife and me for our identity documents. Their chief said, ‘We’ve made a mistake.’ […] They didn’t apologize.”

Alami said that the warrant was for his daughter, who lives elsewhere with her husband, and whose home was raided at the same time. His front door is still broken, and policemen told him: “It’s the state of emergency. We have the right to break things. We can do whatever we want.”

The state of emergency declared after the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris is about to be renewed for a further three months, bringing its total to six and a half months. Prime Minister Manuel Valls has already warned that it will be maintained permanently until the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militia is destroyed—that is, for all practical purposes, indefinitely.

Reports by human rights groups make clear what is at stake with moves to create a permanent state of emergency. It would amount to the creation of a authoritarian regime, in which basic democratic rights are flouted, and the people has no redress if they are attacked or assaulted by police.

The day after the HRW report, Amnesty International (AI) published its own report, “Upturned Lives, The Disproportionate Impact of France’s State of Emergency.” It states,

“This report reviews a number of cases highlighting the flaws in the implementation of emergency measures, in particular house searches and assigned residence orders, and concludes that these measures have been applied in an overly-broad manner and, in some instances, arbitrarily. In particular, French authorities have restricted human rights, and more specifically the rights to liberty, private life, freedom of movement and freedom of assembly, beyond what was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.

“Moreover, in some instances, the measures were applied in a discriminatory manner. Some Muslims were targeted mainly on the basis of their religious practice, with no evidence pointing to their involvement in any criminal offence.”

AI, like HRW, details many cases of violence, discrimination mainly against the Muslim population by state forces. In one example,

“A member of the association running a mosque in Aubervilliers (Paris region), which was searched on 16 November, said: ‘The search was very violent, for us it was a desecration, it hurt our feelings and it scared us […] The head of the mosque was also put in pre-charge detention afterwards…but no charges were pressed against any of us, there were no concrete elements. That’s the worst… If there were serious suspicions, they would have launched an investigation….but at the moment it’s like we’re being punished for nothing’.”

Another incident was reported by Rue89 in Strasbourg: on Saturday, November 21 at 4 p.m., a Police SWAT team blew open the door to an apartment in Strasbourg. Living there were an 80-year-old man with his 46-year-old mentally disabled daughter. The man jumped up with the sound of the blast and immediately fainted.

He had just returned from being hospitalized for renal failure and a pulmonary infection. The police lifted him up and handcuffed him face down on the floor with his daughter. The two were then put in a room whilst they searched the house. The apartment was devastated; holes were even punched in the ceiling of the home, which had just been refurbished. The man had to return to hospital for 5 days.

The search had been triggered by the interrogation of two of the man’s sons on the way to visit one of the brothers’ wife and daughter in Basel, Switzerland. Though the two were released without charge, Swiss customs reported the interrogation to Strasbourg prosecutor’s office with the man’s address.

The thousands of warrantless searches and hundreds of house arrests imposed since November are having a devastating impact. More than 407 house arrests have been imposed, and HRW reports that as of February 2, 303 were still in force. Such house arrests, which impose reporting to a police station 3 or 4 times a day, make it impossible for people to work. Many have lost businesses or jobs.

Remarkably, while 488 supplementary investigations have been opened pursuant to the searches, none of these are related to terrorism. Only five terrorist-related investigations have been initiated, and 21 investigations for “apology for terrorism” (excusing terrorism), which does not however imply any terrorist activity.

The failure of the mass anti-terror dragnet, operating without judicial restrictions and with the full gamut of mass electronic spying technology at its disposal, to find more than a handful of terror suspects raises serious questions about the police build-up now taking place in France.

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, intelligence forces and mass spying programs were strengthened with thousands of new recruits. The fact that their activity has turned up only five terror suspects raises the question: what are the real targets of their spying activity?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Human Rights Watch Report Exposes Abusive French State of Emergency

The six-to-one verdict handed down by Australia’s High Court last week,upholding the Australian government’s indefinite detention of asylum seekers on remote Pacific islands, has far-reaching legal and political implications, not just for refugees but for the working class as a whole.

The majority dismissively rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of Australia’s “offshore” detention regime on Nauru. The case was brought by a Bangladeshi woman—identified only as M68—who was transferred from Nauru to Australia to give birth to a child in 2014.

All six majority judges based their judgments on legislation pushed through parliament last June by the current Liberal-National government, with Labor’s support, to retrospectively legalise the detention regimes on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

Before the amendment to the Migration Act, no legislation authorised the detention. Instead, when the previous Labor government reopened the Nauru and Manus camps in 2012 it simply asserted that it had “executive power” under the Australian Constitution to make such arrangements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea or any other designated “regional processing country.”

None of the judges raised any objection to the retrospective amendment, backdated to 2012, even though it was clearly aimed at shutting down M68’s legal challenge, which was already underway.

Moreover, the sweeping amendment aimed to strip all offshore detainees of any right to challenge their imprisonment. The new section 198AHA of the Act gave the government open-ended powers “to take, or cause to be taken, any action in relation to … regional processing.”

As an immediate result of the ruling, 267 men, women and children, in similar situations to the young Bangladeshi mother—suffering serious trauma and health problems or having recently given birth to babies—face being transported back to Nauru.

Throughout their judgments, the judges referred to the refugees only as UMAs (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals)—the official terminology designed to dehumanise them and deny their fundamental right, recognised by international law, to flee persecution and seek asylum.

The ruling sets a new global benchmark for the incarceration of innocent and desperate people in what amounts to Guantanamo Bay-style legal black holes—“offshore” facilities outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

In terms of domestic law, the majority judgments sidestepped previous, limited, constitutional restrictions on arbitrary executive detention. They effectively extended the powers of the state to detain refugees, and potentially other prisoners, without trial, in camps that are directly under Australia’s control, but run by other governments on Canberra’s behalf.

Despite a damning dissent by one judge, the other six members of the court relied on two legal fictions. First, that Nauru, a tiny impoverished former Australian colony of about 10,000 inhabitants, is the sovereign power detaining the refugees, not the Australian government, which orchestrates, finances and polices the detention.

Australian participation in the detention was “indisputable,” according to the joint opinion of Chief Justice Robert French and justices Susan Kiefel and Geoffrey Nettle. Justice Stephen Gageler conceded that Australia “procured” the detention of asylum seekers on Nauru through its contractors, which exercised physical control over them. Justice Virginia Bell held that Australia “exercised effective control.”

Despite these undeniable facts, the majority judges concluded, employing legal sophistry, that as soon as the Bangladeshi woman was forcibly transported by the Australian government to Nauru, she was “thereafter detained in custody under the laws of Nauru, administered by the Executive government of Nauru.”

Justice Michelle Gordon’s sole dissenting judgment demolished this claim in detail. She listed 12 facts demonstrating that, in reality, the Australian government “detained the plaintiff on Nauru.” She cited the presence in the camp of uniformed Border Force officers, Canberra’s supply of “security infrastructure,” such as perimeter fencing and guard posts, and the provision of “garrison services” by an Australian government contractor, Transfield. Under its agreement with Nauru, the Australian government also retained the right to terminate the arrangement and “step in” and take over the Nauru Regional Processing Centre (RPC).

Gordon concluded:

“The acts and conduct of the Commonwealth [Australia] just set out demonstrate that her detention in the Nauru RPC was ‘facilitated, organised, caused, imposed [or] procured’ by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth asserted the right by its servants (or Transfield as its agent) to apply force to persons detained in the Nauru RPC for the purpose of confining those persons within the bounds of the place identified as the place of detention, the Nauru RPC. To that end, the Commonwealth asserted the right by its servants or agents to assault detainees and physically restrain them.”

The second legal fiction was that detention on Nauru is simply for the purposes of refugee visa processing, and therefore not “punitive.” That fiction was critical because “punishment” can be imposed constitutionally only by a judicial trial.

In reality, the previous Labor government of Julia Gillard reopened the Nauru and Manus camps in 2012, for the explicit purpose of punishing asylum seekers in order to deter others from trying to reach Australia. The Labor government refused to put any time limit on detention. It insisted on a “no advantage test”—namely, that refugees would be detained for the same length of time that other asylum seekers were forced to wait to be processed in refugee camps in Africa or the Middle East. That could mean detention for up to 20 years.

This intent was embodied in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Nauru’s government. It specified the need for “a disincentive against Irregular Migration” and to ensure that “no benefit is gained through circumventing regular migration arrangements.”

Yet, in the words of Justice Patrick Keane, another member of the majority, this deterrence was just an “intended consequence,” not the “immediate purpose” of the transportation of refugees to Nauru, and therefore not “punitive.”

By means of the two legal fictions, the judges evaded even the minimal limits on refugee detention set out in the court’s 1992 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration decision, which rubberstamped the mandatory imprisonment of all asylum seekers introduced by the Keating Labor government. In the Limcase, the court permitted the indefinite detention without trial of “aliens” (the Australian Constitution’s term for non-citizens), on the reactionary basis that it was “reasonably necessary” for visa processing or deportation.

Australia’s constitution has no bill of rights, but it contains a separation of powers between the executive, parliament and the judiciary. Because of that, the Lim ruling said “punitive” detention—beyond that necessary for processing or removal—would be illegal, unless ordered by a court.

Last week, however, the majority judges said these constraints did not apply to detention on Nauru because the Australian government no longer detained the refugees once they had been transported there. According to French, Kiefel and Nettle: “ Lim has nothing to say about the validity of actions of the Commonwealth and its officers in participating in the detention of an alien by another State.”

Only Justice Gordon objected, pointing out that the contract with Nauru meant extending the “aliens” power of the federal government to permit “offshore” detention that would be unlawful within Australia. This, she said, presented “a fundamental question about the power of the Parliament to provide for detention by the Commonwealth outside Australia.”

None of the judges, including Gordon, called into question the underlying framework of repelling or incarcerating refugees. All accepted as “undoubted” the Australian government’s legal power to forcibly remove the refugees to Nauru.

Four members of the court went further. They indicated that offshore detention could be constitutionally valid under the vague “executive power” of the government, even without the specific retrospective legislation adopted last June. But because of that amendment, the current government’s continued assertion that it possessed such executive power, over and above statutory provisions, was now “hypothetical” or not “necessary” to be decided, they stated.

Only Gageler, a member of the majority, joined Gordon in rejecting the government’s claim of non-statutory executive power. After a lengthy discourse on the importance of habeas corpus (no detention without judicial process), however, Gageler effectively backed the use of the retrospective amendment to overturn the principle. Despite the indefinite character of the detention, he asserted—without explanation—that its duration was “capable of objective determination by a court at any time and from time to time.”

By means of such pseudo-legal justifications, the judges further evisceratedhabeas corpus, which dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and became a critical principle in the 17th and 18th century struggles against arbitrary imprisonment by the absolute monarchies.

Confronted by widespread public revulsion to the ruling, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government might ultimately decide, for purely electoral reasons, to allow some of the 267 refugees to remain in Australia. But more than 2,000 detainees will remain on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, and Australia’s entire anti-refugee regime will stay in place, sanctioned by the High Court.

Successive Australian governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, have made asylum seekers and immigrants scapegoats for the worsening social conditions being imposed on the working class. Some of the world’s most vulnerable people, many fleeing wars unleashed by the US and its allies, are being subjected to ever-more cruel and lawless imprisonment, setting precedents for wider use, not only in Australia but around the world, against growing opposition to war, austerity and repression.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia’s High Court Backs Indefinite Offshore Detention

Featured image: Israeli MK Hanin Zoabi, who attempted to prevent the 66th destruction of the village in 2014

The Israeli occupation authorities have told the Palestinian owners of homes destroyed by security forces to pay the demolition costs, Safa news agency reported on Sunday. Israeli magistrates sat in a special session in Be’er Sheva on Sunday to consider the case filed by the Israeli authorities versus the Palestinians living in the village of Al-Araqeeb.

Al-Araqeeb is an old Palestinian village in the lands occupied by Israel in 1948. Since then, successive Israeli governments have refused to recognise the village, which means that it is not connected to local public services. It has been knocked down by the Israelis 92 times and the authorities are demanding that the residents pay the costs of the demolitions. An amount of 2 million New Israeli Shekels (around $515,000) is being demanded.

This was the cost of just one demolition, on 27 August 2010. Residents face the prospect of having to pay much more in respect of the other occasions when the Israelis have destroyed their homes.

In addition to Al-Araqeeb, there are 40 other Palestinian villages facing the same fate.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Demolishes Homes and Tells Palestinian Owners to Pay the Costs

Featured image: The Clean Up The Mines! team gathers at Riley Pass, South Dakota. Activist Charmaine White Face is in the foreground. (Photo: Ellen Davidson)

It’s hard to miss the water contamination that residents in Flint, Michigan, are experiencing. Television footage shows family members holding bottles of yellow, orange or brown water. They could see and taste the change in their water quality shortly after Gov. Rick Snyder ordered the switch to supply water from the polluted Flint River, rather than Lake Huron, without adding anti-corrosives to prevent leaching from lead pipes in early 2014. Thanks to a few dedicated researchers from Virginia Tech, the elevated lead in Flint’s water has been exposed.

Since national attention has turned to Flint, information from other cities is coming to light showing similar problems. Sebring, Ohio, is one city where residents have been warned not to drink the water because of elevated lead levels. And it was recently revealed that there are high levels of lead in water in Jackson, Mississippi, even though the results of the tests were available six months ago.

In Flint, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not inform the public about the high lead levels in the water when they learned about it, even though the state provided bottled water to public employees. The governor also reconnected General Motors to Lake Huron when they complained, just a few months after the transition in early 2014. The state knew, but continued to allow toxic water – which qualified as “hazardous waste” by EPA standards – for Flint residents without telling them.

Not talked about, perhaps because it is harder to see, is a national water contamination crisis that has been going on for decades. It is invisible and tasteless and the mainstream media won’t cover it. This contamination is caused by the United States’ secret Fukushima, radioactive and other heavy metals leaking from the more than 15,000 abandoned uranium mines, as well as other sources related to energy extraction throughout the United States.

Measuring radiation levels at an elementary school in Ludlow, SD. April, 2014. (Photo: Klee Benally)

Measuring radiation levels at an elementary school in Ludlow, South Dakota, April 2014. (Photo: Klee Benally)

We need a national public health mobilization to assess all drinking water sources in a transparent way and a plan to protect the health of residents and the future of our water supply. Water should be tested for radioactivity, as well as for heavy metals such as lead. In addition, the toxic byproducts of our dirty energy system are another of many compelling reasons why we need to transition rapidly to a cleaner, sustainable green energy economy.

The Biggest Nuclear Accident You’ve Never Heard About

Most people in the United States know about the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in March 1979. Although the official reports stated that an “insignificant” amount of radiation was released (this understatement has since been refuted), it is called “America’s worst nuclear accident.” Very few people know about the actual worst nuclear accident in the United States, which happened three months later in Church Rock, New Mexico. Perhaps this is because it mostly impacted people of the Navajo (Diné) Nation.

On July 16, 1979, the wall of a tailings pond for a uranium mill broke open and released 93 million gallons of radioactive waste into the Arroyo Pipeline, a tributary to the Puerco River. The waste traveled 80 miles down the Puerco River into Arizona. Not only is it amazing that this spill was not reported in the media, but it is also remarkable that the governor of New Mexico refused to issue a state of emergency. It took days for people who live along the Puerco River to be told about the accident, and though they were warned not to use the water for themselves or their livestock, they were not given access to sufficient clean water.

To this day, people who live downstream from the mill drink water that is polluted by uranium and other radioactive and heavy metals. Tommy Rock, cofounder of Diné No Nukes and a doctoral student at Northern Arizona University, has been testing the water that people around Church Rock, New Mexico, drink. He is finding high levels of uranium in some of the wells – even wells that are regulated and supposed to be tested routinely.

Tommy Rock, of Diné No Nukes, meets with staff of the USDA, January, 2016. (Photo: Klee Benally)

Tommy Rock, of Diné No Nukes, meets with US Department of Agriculture staff in January 2016. (Photo: Klee Benally)

One of the wells that showed levels of uranium at twice the maximum limit serves the Sanders Unified School District in northern Arizona, which has a thousand students. The community did not know about the high uranium content until Rock informed them.

“State and federal regulators knew about the contamination for years, and our community is concerned about the long-term chronic exposure to uranium because we have been consuming this contaminated water without being notified,” said Sanders resident Tonya Baloo, a member of the Diné people.Now Rock is working with the Sanders community to find clean water.

There are roughly 1,000 abandoned uranium mines in and around the Navajo Nation, and very few of them have been cleaned up. None of them have been taken care of adequately. Klee Benally, who lives in Arizona and coordinates the Clean Up The Mines! campaign, calls it “toxic landscaping.” Benally adds that the Gold King Mine spill, which polluted the 215-mile segment of the San Juan River that flows through the Navajo Nation last August, further compels the urgent need to clean up abandoned mines before they destroy more rivers with toxic waste.

Uranium is the radioactive metal that is used to power nuclear plants and to make nuclear weapons. When it is mined, 85 percent of the radioactivity is left behind in the waste rock. That waste and exposed ore continue to emit radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. As the uranium breaks down to become lead in its final form, it also releases radon gas, which causes lung cancer. Exposure to uranium and other radioactive metals by drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated dust or eating food produced in contaminated areas causes cancer, birth defects, kidney disease and autoimmune diseases. Children and the elderly are most affected. These mines are located in the breadbasket of the United States, which provides food to the country and many parts of the world.

When the Clean Up The Mines! campaign was launched nearly two years ago, we toured abandoned uranium mines in South Dakota with Klee Benally and Charmaine White Face of Defenders of the Black Hills. Many of the abandoned mines are open pits. One that we visited was very close to an elementary school in Ludlow, South Dakota. We measured high levels of radiation – over 150 counts per minute in the playground area.

White Face has been working for years to raise awareness of the radioactive contamination in the Great Sioux Nation, which includes North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and parts of Nebraska. She has asked for studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but has been denied because she was told there aren’t enough people in the area. However, she is certain that people are being impacted. Communities close to the mines suffer high cancer and miscarriage rates.

Like Tommy Rock, White Face has also been testing drinking water and is finding high levels of uranium as well as thorium, a radioactive metal not regulated by the EPA. The composition of the uranium shows that it is coming from the abandoned mines rather than being naturally occurring. Despite the contamination, communities continue to drink the water because they have no choice. This has been going on for decades.

Klee Benally chants in front of the EPA, January, 2016. (Photo: DC Indymedia)

Klee Benally chants in front of the Environmental Protection Agency in January 2016. (Photo: DC Indymedia)

Recently, White Face, Rock and Benally traveled to Washington, DC, with other Indigenous people from the Southwest and Northern Great Plains to sound the alarm about radioactive pollution. They call themselves the “miner’s canary” because they are trying to alert the public about the impacts of this national problem. In addition to the 15,000 abandoned uranium mines, there are other sources of radioactive pollution that are not being monitored.

The largest coal mine in the United States, the Black Thunder Mine in Wyoming, provides 40 percent of the nation’s coal. Its uranium-laced coal is shipped both to the East and the West, where it is burned in power plants and turned into radioactive coal ash. Fracking is another concern, because the wastewater from fracking wells in the Bakken oil and other shales bring radioactive metals up from deep underground. This wastewater is held in open ponds, is sometimes discharged into waterways and is sprayed on roads during ice and snowstorms.

A National Problem That Needs a National Solution

Charmaine White Face at Red Shirt Village press conference. (Photo: Jill Stein)

Charmaine White Face at Red Shirt Village press conference. (Photo: Jill Stein)

The solution to the water contamination crisis requires an urgent public health response. Water must be tested regularly for contaminants, including radioactivity; the public must be notified immediately when there are concerns; and clean drinking water must be provided when public water is not potable, no matter the size of the affected population. Sources of contamination must be cleaned up.

This may sound like a lot to require, but consider the flip side. Governor Snyder in Michigan changed the water source for Flint in order to save money. However, the result of that decision will be much more expensive than doing the right thing from the start. The state has already authorized $28 million to address the problem. Flint’s mayor says it will cost up to $1.5 billion to replace the city’s aging pipes. Expensive medical care will be required for the 6,000 to 12,000 children who have been exposed to lead poisoning. Altogether, it is estimated that this crisis will cost $10 billion.

One of the problems exposed by the Flint water crisis is the inadequacy of water testing and notification systems. Some municipalities meet their clean water requirements by conducting tests that violate EPA guidelines. They only test areas that are known to be clean or flush out the pipes prior to testing. According to the Guardian, “A report published [in 2015], commissioned by the American Water Works Association, found that if the water was tested directly from lead pipes, up to 96 million Americans could be found to be drinking water with unsafe levels of lead.”

Another problem is that utilities conduct their own testing without adequate oversight by local EPA regulators. It is a scenario that is seen all too often in the United States: close relationships between regulators and the entities they are supposed to regulate that lead to lax oversight.

An EPA task force issued recommendations in 2015 on lead and copper monitoring in water. Those recommendations have not yet been adopted. That needs to be expedited. And there needs to be a task force that will test water for radioactivity and issue rules to protect the public from radioactive pollution in water.

Tommy Rock reports that the standard for radioactive pollution in water is higher than what was originally recommended because utilities didn’t want to have more stringent requirements, and they are pushing to raise the maximum allowable levels for radioactive pollutants to be higher. This must be prevented; as Physicians for Social Responsibility reports, “There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period.”

Steps must also be taken to stop the leaking of uranium and other radioactive metals into water, and that means cleaning up the thousands of abandoned uranium mines. Legislation is being drafted that would require a single high standard of clean up for the mines. You can learn more about that bill and how to support it at CleanUpTheMines.org.

Access to Water Is a Public Good

Warning at Riley Pass mine. (Photo: Jill Stein)

Warning at Riley Pass mine. (Photo: Jill Stein)

Clean water is a necessity. People cannot survive without access to water. There are many threats to our water system beyond contamination, such as the climate crisis, overuse and privatization. Water is quickly becoming our most precious resource, one that needs to be managed in a holistic way so that there is enough water to meet everyone’s basic needs.

As physicians, we are concerned about the future of our water supply. The Flint water crisis should provoke a public debate at the national level about the best ways to protect clean water, including what type of water infrastructure is required and how water is owned and managed.

With the reality of the climate crisis upon us, corporations view water as a commodity that will increase in value. In 2013, almost 70 percent of water systems in the United States were privately owned. A report by Food & Water Watch shows that private water companies charge higher prices and cut corners, such as using poor construction materials and not hiring sufficient staff. Privatization of water must be prevented and reversed because corporations do not treat water as a public good, but as a profit center for their investors.

The invisible crisis of radioactive metals in our water raises the question of the impacts of fossil fuel and nuclear energy extraction on our water quality and availability. The extractive energy industry is one that consumes tremendous amounts of water and pollutes it with chemicals and radioactive metals. This means that protecting our fragile water future also means transitioning rapidly to a clean and green carbon-free and nuclear-free energy economy.

We need a national plan to manage this precious necessity, clean water. That includes an integrated approach to preserve and protect clean water in a way that involves coordinated but decentralized decision-making, transparency and participation by local communities. We will need to conserve wetlands, manage agricultural use, reduce water demand and reuse water. We can no longer take clean water for granted. These crises are a wake-up call to create a 21st century water policy that treats water as a public good, not a commodity for corporate profit.

 This article was first published by Truthout

Margaret Flowers, M.D., is a Maryland pediatrician seeking the Green Party nomination for the US Senate. She is co-director of PopularResistance.org and a board adviser to Physicians for a National Health Program and is on the Leadership Council of the Maryland Health Care Is a Human Right campaign.

Jill Stein, M.D., is a Massachusetts internist seeking the Green Party nomination for the presidency. She was the 2012 presidential nominee of the Green Party. She is an internationally known public health advocate and a former co-chair of her state’s Green Party.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Contaminated Water in the U.S. Requires a National Public Health Mobilization

The Post-Iran Nuclear Deal Scenario

February 9th, 2016 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

Now that the Iran nuclear deal is being implemented, it is perhaps time to ask, what does it mean for Iran, for other nations in West Asia and North Africa (WANA), for Israel, for the United States of America, for Europe?   What does it mean for the world as a whole?

Iran

With the lifting in mid-January 2016 of years of crippling economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, Iran is now able to trade openly with the rest of the world including exporting its oil. Both the Iranian government and private companies are purchasing goods and equipment from abroad. Iran is also now re-connected to the international financial system. All this hopefully will strengthen the Iranian economy and improve the standard of living of the people.

As Iran embraces the international financial system, it should be cautious about embarking upon massive privatization, deregulation, and liberalization, accompanied by the elimination of essential subsidies, as demanded by certain global financial institutions and actors — in short pursuing a “neo-liberal” agenda — which invariably works to the detriment of the majority of the populace. The Rouhani government should ensure that some of the pillars of post-1979 Iran such as people’s cooperatives and Waqf (bequeathal) enterprises remain at the forefront of the planned economic transformation, albeit with fundamental changes aimed at enhancing professionalism and curbing corruption.

How will these economic changes impact upon Iranian politics? If the lower and middle classes benefit significantly from the post-nuclear deal economic scenario, it is conceivable that the reform oriented Rouhani government will become politically stronger but as it is the conservative forces linked to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are still quite formidable. This is why one of their organs, the 12 member Guardian Council has been able to exclude thousands of candidates from contesting the Majlis (parliamentary) election and the election to the 88 member Assembly of Experts expected at the end of February 2016.

One of those aspiring for a seat in the powerful Assembly of Experts which not only monitors the Supreme Leader but also picks his successor who has become a victim of the power play of the conservatives is Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Imam Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hassan is known to be close to former President, Muhammad Khatami, the charismatic icon of the reform movement.

In fact, Khatami himself continues to be subjected to various restrictions engineered by the conservatives, including a ban on the use of his picture in the state media and orders prohibiting him from speaking at public universities. Two reformers who stood for the controversial 2009 Presidential Election, former Prime Minister Hossein Mousavi, and former Parliamentary Speaker, Mehdi Karroubi, are still under house arrest. Though conservative, authoritarian structures and personalities hold sway at this juncture, the post nuclear deal environment may yet help the seeds of change to bear fruit faster than many think.

WANA

Turning from Iran to WANA, the immediate reaction of Iran’s adversary, Saudi Arabia, to the nuclear deal has been to assert its power. The intensification of its bombing in Yemen and its execution of the respected Saudi Shia cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, on 2nd Jannuary 2016 — in spite of advice from its own allies to refrain from such action against a peaceful dissenter — show a determination to flex its muscles whatever the consequences. Qatar, like most of the other Gulf monarchies, is also lukewarm towards the nuclear deal. Turkey however has formally welcomed the deal.

The attitude of most of Iran’s neighbors may have a lot to do with what a number of them perceive as Iran’s growing influence and power in WANA. After the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Shia majority Iraq in 2003, a Shia leadership has emerged in Baghdad which in spite of Washington’s patronage, does not conceal its deep religious and even political attachment to Tehran.  At the same time, the concerted often clandestine attempt by the US and Israel, later aided by Britain and France and abetted by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to oust Bashar Al-Assad through arms in the wake of a small uprising in Daraa in 2011, actually strengthened Iran’s hand in Syria as the latter became more dependent upon the former for military and economic assistance. The Syrian conflict also reinforced Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, the dominant political actor in Lebanon which is also fighting on behalf of Assad. By the same token, the armed Saudi suppression of the popular majority Shia revolt against the Bahraini ruling elite in 2011, drew the Bahraini Shias closer to their fellow religionists in Iran. Even in Yemen, it is Saudi intervention to protect the ruler against a complex network of dissenting groups with different agendas that has persuaded some of them to gravitate towards Iran.

Expanding Iranian influence in WANA, it is apparent, is the consequence of circumstance and situation often ignited by the political maneuvers of others which in some instances had ironically undermined their own interests. Of course, some Iranian leaders have also taken advantage of these situations. The upshot of it all is a changing political landscape in which Iran is a significant actor especially in those states with an important Shia element. Faced with this reality, some Sunni governments in the region led by Saudi Arabia fear that the nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions will enable Iran to exercise even more clout and threaten its neighbors.

While there is no justification at all for such fears, Iran would do well to assuage this negative sentiment towards it. ‘Iranophobia’ assiduously cultivated by the Saudi elite in particular which at its root is about Saudi power is intertwined with the Sunni-Shia dichotomy, and an Arab-Persian divide. These two schisms especially the former stirs deep emotions in much of the Muslim world. This is why the Iranian leadership should tread carefully, holding on to its principles in confronting this irrational fear and yet displaying flexibility manifested through skillful diplomacy — as it has illustrated in the negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal.

In approaching the Sunni-Shia challenge, the present Iranian government should perhaps take a leaf from Imam Khomeini’s book. He tried to bridge the chasm between the majority Sunnis and minority Shias globally through certain historical and contemporary events that could bring them together. The commemoration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday was one such instance. Al-Quds Day which he inaugurated — the last Friday of Ramadan is now dedicated to the liberation of Jerusalem from Israeli Occupation — was another such occasion.

Israel

Within WANA, there is another actor that is also fiercely hostile to the nuclear deal. This is WANA’s only nuclear-armed entity. The Israeli elite’s antagonism to the deal has been much more organized than Saudi’s. Since Iran from the days of Khomeini has been a committed champion of the Palestinian cause, steadfast in its opposition to Israeli occupation and Zionism, Israel has always viewed Iran as a foe. Even when there was no evidence to indicate that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, Israeli intelligence manufactured so-called ‘data’ to prove to the world that Iran posed a nuclear threat to Israel and the rest of the region. This is why it went all out to try to stop the US and other Western powers from coming to an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program.

Though it failed, Israel has not ceased to try to wreck the deal. Immediately after sanctions were lifted, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “Iran has not relinquished its ambition to obtain nuclear weapons and continues to —spread terror throughout the world”. Netanyahu is hoping that a new US President at the end of the year will reverse the nuclear deal. It is worth noting in this regard that the Republican frontrunners in the Presidential race are totally against the deal and are vehemently opposed to any rapprochement with Iran.

The United States                          

The organized, sustained opposition of a segment of the Washington political elite is something that Iran will have to take into account in the implementation of the deal. The longstanding relationship between policy-makers and lobbyists in Washington, on the one hand, and Zionist interests and Israel, on the other, is part of the explanation. In recent years Christian Zionists in the US have played a major role in reinforcing and perpetuating this relationship. Their role today is perhaps more significant than that of the conventional Jewish interest groups which in any case were split on the nuclear deal with some of them endorsing it as an effective mechanism for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. For that reason the deal, they argued, will keep Israel safe. This was also one of President Barack Obama’s main arguments for pushing for Congressional endorsement of the deal. He also argued that the US’s Arab allies notably Saudi Arabia would feel secure if Iran is stripped of its ability to acquire nuclear weapons.

Some of the other reasons for the deal have not been so publicly ventilated. The US leadership cannot ignore the fact that Iran today is a significant player in a region where US interests are entrenched. As we have shown, from Syria, to Iraq, to Lebanon, to Bahrain, to Yemen, Iran is a force to reckon with. It is also quite conceivable that Washington realizes that its special relationship with Israel, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia, on the other, has its minuses. Backing a bellicose Netanyahu blindly does not always serve the US agenda in WANA. Similarly, a Saudi elite that is deeply embroiled in sectarianism and terrorism can sometimes be an embarrassment.

Europe          

The changing power balance in WANA is one of the reasons why the European Union and most European states warmly welcomed the nuclear deal. A more compelling factor would be the economic benefits that they hope to reap from an Iran that is open to trade and investments. Iranian President Rouhani has already visited Italy and France and forged a whole range of business deals with both countries. One can expect the Iranian government to do the same with other European states in the near future. There will be obstacles. Influential Zionist lobbies exist in both Britain and France but they do not wield the sort of power that the Christian Zionists command in the US.

There are other countries too from China and Russia to India and Brazil that will also feel the impact of an Iran that is free to trade and interact with the world.  But Iran’s ties with them were never problematic which is why they are not on our radar screen.

Conclusions.

We are now in a position to draw some important conclusions from our reflections on the post- Iran nuclear deal scenario.

One, the impact of the deal upon Iranian politics and to a lesser extent the Iranian economy is still unclear though it has the potential to wrought significant changes.

Two, while the deal has intensified conflicts in WANA, the changing political landscape also offers hope:  a more influential Iran may be in a position to address issues such as the Sunni-Shia divide and thereby reduce friction in the region.

Three, since the deal circumscribes Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons — an aspiration which the leadership has always maintained was never its goal given the Islamic prohibition against such weaponry — Iran should now be in the forefront of a vigorous campaign to ensure that WANA becomes a nuclear weapons free zone in every sense of the term in the shortest possible time.

Four, since Iran together with the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany managed to resolve one of the most contentious contemporary issues in international politics through diplomacy, and in the process, succeeded to avert war, Iran should now take the lead in tabling a resolution at the UN General Assembly banning war forever as a means of settling bilateral, regional and international disputes.  War would then be regarded as a crime against humanity.

Five, when war is viewed as a crime against humanity, military arsenals everywhere should also be dismantled. A massive global disarmament movement should be initiated with citizen groups from every nook and cranny participating.  It should not be forgotten that disarmament was the revered goal of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the sixties and seventies.  Iran is the current Chair of NAM. Shouldn’t disarmament become one of the principal aims of NAM once again?

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Post-Iran Nuclear Deal Scenario

The echoes of both Bear and Lehman are growing louder with every passing day.

Just hours after Deutsche Bank stock crashed by 10% to levels not seen since the financial crisis, the German behemoth with over $50 trillion in gross notional derivative found itself in the very deja vuish, not to mention unpleasant, situation of having to defend its liquidity and specifically assuring investors that it has enough cash (about €1 billion in 2016 payment capacity), to pay the €350 million in maturing Tier 1 coupons due in April, which among many other reasons have seen billions in value wiped out from both DB’s stock price and its contingent convertible bonds which are looking increasingly more like equity with every passing day.

DB did not stop there, but also laid out that for 2017 it was about €4.3BN in payment capacity, however before the impact of 2016 results, which if recent record loss history is any indication, will severely reduce the full cash capacity of the German bank.

From the just issued press release:

Ad-hoc: Deutsche Bank publishes updated information about AT1 payment capacity

Frankfurt am Main, 8 February 2016 – Today Deutsche Bank published updated information related to its 2016 and 2017 payment capacity for Additional Tier 1 (AT1) coupons based on preliminary and unaudited figures.

The 2016 payment capacity is estimated to be approximately EUR 1 billion, sufficient to pay AT1 coupons of approximately EUR 0.35 billion on 30 April 2016.

The estimated pro-forma 2017 payment capacity is approximately EUR 4.3 billion before impact from 2016 operating results. This is driven in part by an expected positive impact of approximately EUR 1.6 billion from the completion of the sale of 19.99% stake in Hua Xia Bank and further HGB 340e/g reserves of approximately EUR 1.9 billion available to offset future losses.

The final AT1 payment capacity will depend on 2016 operating results under German GAAP (HGB) and movements in other reserves.

The updated information in question:

As a reminder, the last time serious “developed market” banks had to publicly defend their liquidity, the result was a multi-trillion taxpayer bailout.

However, there is probably some time before that happens: first German regulator Bafin will likely ban short selling in Deutsche Bank shares. That always is the first step in the endgame.

For now, however, the market is no longer asking questions but merely selling: Deutsche CDS has entered the dreaded “viagra” formation at 245 bps and going vertical.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on After Crashing, Deutsche Bank Is Forced To Issue Statement Defending Its Liquidity

Hundreds of oil workers from a state-owned petroleum corporation in the West African state of Ivory Coast walked off the job in a three day strike on February 2. They were protesting against the lay-offs of nearly 10 percent of the firm’s employees.

Some accounts of the situation say that as many as 200 workers could lose their jobs out of work force of approximately 600 employees. Company officials are offering a severance package which has been rejected by the union representing the workers.

Reuters press agency reported that “Petroci offered to pay 10 dismissed managers six months of their salaries while the 40 other laid-off employees were to receive eight months. However, a member of the company’s management said the union was demanding 20 months.” (Feb. 5)

“That’s not possible. We don’t have all that money,” a company official told Reuters without revealing their name.

Workers at Petroci announced after three days of striking on February 5, that they would extend the industrial action for another 72 hours hoping that their demands would be met. The company is a relatively small oil and natural gas producer but controls 36 percent of petroleum distribution along with 30 filling stations.

Petroci has joint operations with companies engaged in production and exploration operations as well as manages a base for logistical support for offshore production blocks. The union, SYNTEPCI, represents employees from 16 companies in addition to Petroci.

Efforts are underway by the union leadership to win the cooperation of other workers who could be called upon to strike out of solidarity. These other entities include the state-owned Societe Ivoirienne de Raffinage (SIR), which manages a refinery with the production capacity of 65,000 barrels per day. Other logistical firms and fuel retailers are also involved in Ivory Coast such as the French-based Total.

Geremie N’Guessan Wondje, secretary general of the SYNTEPCI union said on February 5, “Next week we will intensify the strike and see if other employees from other companies in the sector join the Petroci employees in this strike.” (Reuters)

Ivory Coast is suffering from the overproduction of oil globally which is impacting other developing states in Africa as well. After substantial foreign direct investment in the oil and natural gas exploration industries, prices have drastically declined driving down currency values and bond prices in so-called emerging economies not only on the continent but in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America as well.

A website focusing on oil and gas production said of the country that is the world’s largest producer of cocoa and a significant coffee grower that “Cote d’Ivoire lies on the West Africa Transform Margin, which has yielded oil discoveries in the multi-hundred-million-barrel range in its neighbor Ghana to the east. Cote d’Ivoire has set a goal of producing 200,000 booed by 2020, more than three times the current 60,000 boe/d.” (info.drillinginfo.com, Nov. 6, 2014)

In the aftermath of the war of regime-change led by France resulting in the overthrow former President Dr. Laurent Gbagbo and the installation of the current leader Alassane Ouattara, multi-national oil and gas firms began to increase their investments in production. President Ouattara was a former functionaries of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) based in Washington, D.C.

This same above-mentioned website declared “New mining contract terms were recently implemented and earlier this year the UN lifted its ban on Cote d’Ivoire diamonds. The prime minister also said he expects the boundary issue with Ghana to be ‘peacefully resolved’ in short order. On the oil and gas front the petroleum code was amended in 2012, while improvements were made to both the Production Sharing Contract model and the governance of the hydrocarbon sector. Investment credits are now offered for explorers in deep and ultra-deep waters, and 20 PSCs have been awarded since 2011.”

Imperialism and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

This oil workers’ strike is taking place while former left-leaning President Laurent Gbagbo and youth leader Charles Ble Goude are standing trial in the Netherlands in front of the controversial and pro-imperialist International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.

Gbagbo and Goude have pleaded not guilty to a host of charges which their defense lawyers say have no merit. The leader of the Popular Front of Ivory Coast (FPI) is the highest-ranking government official ever tried by the ICC.

The court has been heavily criticized by the regional 54-member African Union where a proposal for withdrawal from the so-called Rome Statute, since its application has proven to be biased against Africa where all of the cases have been centered with the exception of Georgia, remains before the continental body. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta presented the proposal related to the ICC after a case against him collapsed due to lack of evidence.

Illustrating the incompetency of the ICC, the names of witnesses which may be called in the trial against Gbagbo were inadvertently released to the press complicating further the political atmosphere surround the legal proceedings. The Court claims that the protection of the identities of witnesses is essential to the process of their prosecutorial conduct.

An article published by Agence France Press (AFP), notes on February 5 “a closed session of Gbagbo’s crimes against humanity trial was mistakenly broadcast on the court’s public channel,” and that this incident “will be investigated”, according to the ICC’s director of public information Sonia Robla.

The AFP reveals that a “clip of the hearing (was) widely circulated on social media including on YouTube, showing ICC Judge Cuno Tarfusser calling for the trial to go into a closed session at the request of lead prosecutor Eric MacDonald. But the microphones are left open and MacDonald can be heard saying that he wanted to raise the issue of witness protection.”

This incident on February 5 was not the first of its kind in the trial. On February 3, the prosecution’s initial witness, labelled “P547,” accidentally blurted out his name later indicating that he would be testifying on behalf of the prosecution.

Soon enough ICC Judge Tarfusser suspended proceedings and ordered reporters not to utilize the witness’s name. Journalists were then required to give their names to ICC security agents.

Reeling from pressure generated by criticisms from inside the AU and other organizations, the western-installed current President Ouatarra has told his French counterpart Francois Hollande that there was no need for any other Ivorians to be tried by the ICC. Ouattara said that the country was capable today of handling its own legal issues.

During the course of a brief visit to Paris, Ouattara told Hollande, “The ICC has played the role it should. Coming out of the electoral crisis, we did not have justice, the country was completely in tatters … Now we have a justice system that is operational and has begun to judge everyone without exception.” (Africanews.com, Feb. 5)

Nonetheless, the wife of Laurent Gbagbo, Simone, was sentenced to 20 years in prison under conditions that were biased and legally questionable. Simone Gbagbo, the former first lady of Ivory Coast, is a political figure in her own right having served as the President of the Parliamentary Group for the FPI.

First lady Gbagbo was arrested alongside the former president in April 2011 by gendarmes in the capital of Abidjan led by French paratroopers occupying the country to maintain its colonial interests. She was tried and convicted of “undermining state security” for defending the country against the western-backed seizure of power.

Although Ivory Coast has been lauded for its foreign direct investment from the capitalist states, economic problems persists prompting industrial unrest. The trial of Gbagbo could serve to destabilize the state since the former president maintains broad support inside the country.

Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor of Pan-African News Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ivorian Oil Workers Strike as ICC Trial of Former Leaders Continues

This article was first published by WhoWhatWhy

Americans may have a reason not to trust New Hampshire as the barometer it has become for the viability of presidential candidates. The reason? Doubts about the security of the state’s voting system.

Historically, the New Hampshire primary has been extraordinarily significant in the selection of presidential candidates. A good performance here can catapult contenders to the front of the field while a bad one has brought the campaigns of one-time frontrunners to a screeching halt.

The people of New Hampshire are aware of the important role they play. Taking into account the Granite State’s size and population, no other group of Americans gets to know the presidential candidates better. In this election cycle, Republican candidates visited New Hampshire more than 300 times and spent nearly 600 days there.

But in spite of the state’s significance, it seems that New Hampshire’s government is not doing all it can to ensure the integrity of their “first-in-the-nation” primary.

The state principally uses AccuVote optical scanners, which means that voters fill out a paper ballot that is then scanned and counted by a computer. However, a few jurisdictions – mostly smaller ones – still count ballots by hand. In 2008, there were discrepancies in both parties’ primaries. Tallies for Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side and Mitt Romney on the Republican side were consistently higher when machines did the counting, and lower when humans did. In 2012, Romney again got a bump in machine-counted districts.

These discrepancies may have perfectly legitimate explanations. In 2008, a partial recount on the Democratic side uncovered nothing suspicious. On the Republican side, Romney and the big business policies he promoted might be expected to do better in cities than in rural districts.

Without Checks, Foul Play Cannot Be Ruled Out

Yet without further investigation foul play cannot be ruled out. After all, New Hampshire often holds the keys to the kingdom for nominees, and voting machines have notoriously bad security. With billions of dollars now being spent on presidential elections — and with the ultimate power in the land at stake — would it be surprising if a campaign or a Super PAC or other interested party tried to gain an advantage through tampering with voting machines?

And that’s why concerned citizens of the Granite State are petitioning their government to make some simple fixes that could ensure this important primary is won by the candidate who actually receives the most votes. However, the state government does not appear to be responsive to the concerns of its citizens. Why?

“We have a duty to our state, the country and even the world to get the count right in New Hampshire,” Deborah Sumner, who has been an activist on this issue for nearly a decade, told WhoWhatWhy. “Our system lacks the checks and balances that the people of New Hampshire deserve as well as the candidates.”

A Simple Solution

The solution, Sumner and others claim, is simple. If all jurisdictions with voting machines would do a parallel hand count, then there would be no doubt about the outcome.

Wally Fries, a former election moderator for the city of Danville, pioneered this type of verification method. He explained to WhoWhatWhy that the parallel hand count simply consists of cross-checking the results in a few select races. If the hand count for this sample matches the machine result, then election officials can be virtually certain that no foul play is involved.

“All machines are subject to error,” said Fries, who managed engineers for a living and therefore has a lot of expertise in the area. That is why, during his 25 years as election moderator, he set out to create a verification protocol that is virtually foolproof.

“I wanted to create a mechanism so that voters could have complete confidence,” he said.

In fact, all election moderators in New Hampshire have the right to order this type of verification. Or at least they used to, according to a 2010 directive that gave moderators broad discretion to initiate procedures they deemed necessary to ensure a fair count.

Recently, Sumner and others charge, state officials have discouraged some jurisdictions from using the parallel hand count.

Last year, residents of the city of Keene even sent a letter to Stephen LaBonte, the assistant attorney general in charge of election law, asking if the 2010 directive was still valid. LaBonte never responded. He also did not reply to an inquiry from WhoWhatWhy.

This unresponsiveness is one of the many reasons Sumner lacks faith in the state’s voting system. She feels too many officials value the convenience that voting machines provide over the accuracy of a hand count verification. She does have faith in the moderators, however.

A Firewall against Tampering

Elected by their local jurisdiction, New Hampshire moderators play a crucial role in the primary process, which represents an important stream of revenue for the state. Moderators put in long hours during election season and get paid next to nothing, Peter Webb, a moderator and attorney, told WhoWhatWhy.

Prior to the election, they test the voting machines and count the ballots received from the state. “Election Day is at a minimum a 6:30 AM to 9:30 PM shift, without break, for the volunteer election workers,” Webb said. Among their responsibilities are ensuring that all laws are adhered to, that the seals of the voting machines haven’t been broken, that only registered voters with the right type of ID cast ballots, that write-in votes are counted and, at the end of the day, that the numbers add up and that the ballots are boxed, sealed and safeguarded.

“We have conducted random arbitrary hand counts in the past and in each case determined that our machine count was accurate,” said Webb. “I don’t believe that [after their long day] the election officials have either the physical energy or remaining cognitive capacity to then hand count all the ballots to verify the results. An army of fresh volunteers might… do so, but practical realities such as the availability of volunteers, time constraints, human error, purity of the process, the need for finality can make that impractical.”

Fries, however, noted that even in his large jurisdiction, the parallel hand count never took more than an hour and it allowed all involved to go home knowing that the election had been properly conducted.

Everyone WhoWhatWhy spoke to for this article praised the many Granite State election volunteers. Sumner pointed out that they all swear an oath of office on Election Day. “The computer has not taken an oath and the people programming it have not,” she added.

Without the cross-checking process of the parallel hand count, Sumner believes the New Hampshire vote can be manipulated.

“It’s easy to exploit a New Hampshire election,” she told WhoWhatWhy. For example, memory cards in the machines could be switched out or software could be written in a way that allows an AccuVote machine to function perfectly during the pre-election test but then to skew the results of the actual voting.

Sumner likened this to the Volkswagen software that allowed cars to perform one way during emissions tests and another when on the road.

She would also want ballots to be made available to the public before the actual voting but Fries does not agree. In the smaller jurisdictions in New Hampshire, pre-balloting would make it too easy for a large employer to instruct employees to vote a certain way and mark their ballots so that their boss would know they had done as told.

Barring a parallel hand count, Sumner says she cannot be certain that the vote will be clean. To do her part, she has alerted the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Rand Paul of potential problems. Only Clinton’s people got back to her. Still, Sumner hopes that the others are putting pressure on New Hampshire officials through back channels.

When asked what would be a red flag for her that the voting had been rigged, she said: “If Bush pulls an upset.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Primaries, Sanders vs. Clinton: Can We Trust the New Hampshire Vote Count?

Featured image: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (L) and US Secretary of State John Kerry shake hands after a news conference after a UN Security Council meeting on Syria at the United Nations in New York on 18 December, 2015 (AFP)

The major developments on the Syrian battlefield in recent months have brought a corresponding shift in the Obama administration’s Syrian policy.

Since the Russian military intervention in Syria upended the military balance created by the victories of the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front and its allies last year, the Obama administration has quietly retreated from its former position that “Assad must go”. 

These political and military changes have obvious implications for the UN-sponsored Geneva peace negotiations. The Assad regime and its supporters are now well positioned to exploit the talks politically, while the armed opposition is likely to boycott them for the foreseeable future.

Supporters of the armed opposition are already expressing anger over what they regard as an Obama administration “betrayal” of the fight against Assad. But the Obama policy shift on Syria must be understood, like most of the administration’s Middle East policy decisions, as a response to external events that is mediated by domestic political considerations.

The initial Obama administration’s public stance on the Russian air campaign in Syria last October and early November suggested that the United States was merely waiting for Russia’s intervention to fail.

For weeks the political response to the Russian intervention revolved around the theme that the Russians were seeking to bolster their client regime in Syria and not to defeat ISIS, but that it would fail. The administration appeared bent on insisting that Russia give into the demand of the US and its allies for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad from power.

But the ISIS terror attacks in Paris focused the political attention of Europeans and Americans alike on the threat from ISIS terrorism and the need for cooperation with Russia to combat it. That strengthened the position of those within the Obama administration – especially the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA – who had never been enamored of the US policy of regime change in the first place. In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, they pressed for a rethinking of the US insistence on Assad’s departure, as suggested publicly at the time by former acting CIA director Michael Morell.

The political impact of the Paris attacks has now been reinforced by the significant gains already made by the Syrian army and its allies with Russian air support in Latakia, Idlib and Hama provinces.

The bombing and ground offensives were focused on cutting the main lines of supply between the areas held by ISIS and the Nusra-led coalition and the Turkish border, which if successful would be a very serious blow to the armed opposition groups.

Dramatic successes came in late January, when Syrian government troops recaptured the town of Salma in Latakia province, held by al-Nusra Front since 2012, and the strategic al-Shaykh Maskin, lost to anti-Assad rebels in late 2014, thus regaining control of Daraa-Damascus highway. Even more significant, the Syrian army has cut off the lines of supply from Turkey to Aleppo, which is occupied by al-Nusra and allied forces.

By the time Secretary of State John Kerry met with the head of the Syrian opposition delegation, Riyad Hijab, on 23 January, it was clear to the Obama administration that the military position of the Assad regime was now much stronger, and that of the armed opposition was significantly weaker. In fact, the possibility of a decisive defeat exists for the first time in light of the Russian-Syrian strategy of cutting off the supply lines of the al-Nusra front.

What Kerry told Hijab, as conveyed to the website Middle East Briefing, reflected a new tack by the administration in light of that political-military reality. He made it clear that there would be no preconditions for the talks, and no formal commitment that they would achieve the departure of Assad at any point in the future. He was unclear whether the desired outcome of the talks was to be a “transitional government” or a “unity government” – the latter term implying that Assad was still in control.

The armed opposition and its supporters have been shocked by the shift in Obama’s policy. But they shouldn’t be. The administration’s previous Syria policy had been based in large part on what appeared to be a favourable political opportunity in Syria. As described by Washington Post correspondent Liz Sly’s official US source, the policy was to put “sufficient pressure on Assad’s forces to persuade him to compromise but not so much that his government would precipitously collapse….”

The Obama administration had seen such an opportunity because a covert operation launched in 2013 to equip “moderate” armed groups with anti-tank missiles from Saudi stocks had strengthened the Nusra Front and its military allies. American Syria specialist Joshua Landis estimated last October that 60 to 80 percent of the missiles had ended up in the hands of the Nusra Front in Syria.

Those weapons were the decisive factor in the Nusra-led Army of Conquest takeover of Idlib province in April 2015 and the seizure of territory on the al-Ghab plain in Hama province, which is the main natural barrier between the Sunni-populated area inland and the Alawite stronghold of Latakia province on the sea. That breakthrough by al-Nusra and its allies, which threatened the stability of the Assad regime, was serious enough to provoke the Russian intervention in September.

But given the new military balance, the Obama administration now recognises that its former strategy is now irrelevant. It has been supplanted with a new strategy that is equally opportunistic. The idea now is to take advantage of shared US-Russian strategic interests regarding ISIS – and downgrade the objective of forcing a change in the Syrian regime.

A signal fact of the war against ISIS in Syria that has been ignored in big media coverage is that the United States and Russia have been supporting the same military forces in Syria against ISIS. The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) the leading party in Syrian Kurdistan, controls a large swath of land across northern Syria bordering Turkey. Its military force, the Peoples Defence Units (YPG), has been the most significant ground force fighting against ISIS.

But the YPG has also fought against al-Nusra Front and its allies, and has made no secret of its support for Russian air strikes against those forces. Moreover, the PYD has actively cooperated with the Syrian army and Hezbollah in northern Aleppo province. It is both the primary Syrian ally of the United States against ISIS but also a strategic key to the Russian-Syrian strategy for weakening al-Nusra and its allies.

US NATO ally Turkey has adamantly opposed the US assistance to the PYD, insisting it is a terrorist organisation. The United States has never agreed with that, however, and is determined to exploit the strategic position of PYD in the fight against ISIS. But that also implies a degree of US-Russian cooperation against the main armed opposition to the Assad regime as well.

The Obama administration is no longer counting on a military balance favourable to the armed opposition to Assad to provide a reason for concessions by the regime. Whether military success against the armed opposition will be decisive enough to translate into a resolution of the conflict remains to be seen. In the meantime, the Syria peace negotiations are likely to be at a standstill.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Position on Syria Tilts in Favour of Russian Intervention

Riled by a meeting between a US official and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which controls the Syrian town of Kobane, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has told Washington to choose between Turkey and, as he put it, the “terrorists.”

A delegation featuring Brett McGurk, the United States’ envoy to the coalition it leads against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), met the YPG over the last weekend in January. The YPG took full control of Kobane late last June, in what was a powerful symbol of Kurdish resistance.

“He [Brett McGurk] visits Kobane at the time of the Geneva talks and is awarded a plaque by a so-called YPG general?” Erdogan told reporters on his plane while returning from a trip to Latin America and Senegal, the Beser Haber newspaper reported.

“How can we trust [you]?” Erdogan said.

“Is it me who is your partner, or the terrorists in Kobane?” the Turkish president said, adding that both the PYD and the YPG are “terrorist organizations.” Ankara considers them to be part of the PKK, banned in Turkey as a terrorist group.

According to US officials, the trip appeared to be the first of its kind to northern Syria since 2013. It took place after the YPG’s political wing, Syria’s Democratic Union Party (PYD), was excluded from new peace talks in Geneva. Ankara had threatened to boycott the talks if the PYD were invited.

The conflict between the Turkish government and Kurdish insurgent groups demanding greater autonomy for the large ethnic group has been continuing for decades. With several failed ceasefires between the sides, Ankara has been blamed by a number of human rights groups for putting civilian lives at risk in Turkey’s mainly Kurdish southeast.

In August, Ankara launched a ground operation to crack down on Kurdish fighters linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The violence ended a two-year truce with Kurdish militants fighting a guerrilla war for independence.

“Turks have a phobia of Kurds because they are scared of their Turkish Kurds, some 20 million of them living in Turkey,” Abd Salam Ali, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party’s representative to Russia, told RIA Novosti, adding that “Kurds have interfered with Erdogan’s plans in Turkey.”

“Islamic State has military bases in Turkey, and is using it as a corridor. Turkey currently plays a role similar to the one Pakistan played in the 1980s. When the Soviet forces were stationed in Afghanistan, jihadists arrived there through Pakistan, along with the money and arms,” Abd Salam Ali noted.

“Now Turkey is exactly the same corridor [for militants in Syria], and it plays its own game. But Kurds appeared to stand in [Ankara’s] way. They have forced IS away from Rojava [also known as Syrian Kurdistan]. There’s only one piece left, a 90km-long territory between the Kurdish towns. If we force IS out of there and reconnect the Kurdish cantons, Turkey won’t be able to influence [the situation in Syria].”

Late last month, President Erdogan once again refused to search for a peaceful solution to the conflict, which began back in 1984 and has taken at least 40,000 lives, mainly Kurds. He pledged that “those with guns in their hands and those who support them will pay the price of treason,” referring to the Kurdish militants, deemed terrorists by the government.

According to Turkey’s General Staff, the number of PKK members killed during military operations in the southeastern districts of Cizre and Sur reached 733 on Sunday. But according to Amnesty International estimates, at least 150 civilians, among them children, have been killed during the Turkish operation, with more than 200,000 lives put at risk.

Turkey’s security operations in the mainly Kurdish southeast resemble a “collective punishment,” the human rights watchdog said last month. Amnesty slammed the international community for choosing to turn a blind eye to what Ankara has been doing to the Kurds.

“While the Turkish authorities appear determined to silence internal criticism, they have faced very little from the international community. Strategic considerations relating to the conflict in Syria and determined efforts to enlist Turkey’s help in stemming the flow of refugees to Europe must not overshadow allegations of gross human rights violations. The international community must not look the other way,” John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia Program Director, pointed out.

Up to 21 academics were detained by Turkish authorities in mid-January for signing a petition demanding that Ankara abandon its military crackdown on Kurdish rebels in the southeast of the country. The petition denouncing Turkey’s military operation against Kurds was signed by as many as 1,200 academics. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said they all sided with the Kurdish militants, who are considered terrorists by the government. “Unfortunately these so-called academics claim that the state is carrying out a massacre. You, the so-called intellectuals! You are dark people. You are not intellectuals,” he stated.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erdogan to US: ‘Me or Terrorists?’ Must Choose Between Turkey and Syrian Kurds

Towards A 2016 Banking Crisis in Europe: Hard Landing in a New Reality

February 9th, 2016 by Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB)

The beginning of 2016 is marked by the announcements of a “cataclysm”, expected to happen this year on the stock markets. What is different now compared to 2008 is that, this time, it is not some contrarian analysts who say so (the way LEAP did in its early publication of GEAB in February 2006) and who launch these alerts. It is the high ranking institutions which shout out loud: BIS, Fed (through Richard Fisher’s voice of the Dallas Federal Bank), the IMF, and some very important banks: Société Générale, RBS and UBS. These actors have thus joined the other analysts, like us, who denounce the creation of this financial bubble even more inflated than the previous one, and a Western economic recovery which is not even real.

Yet, as soon as the heart of the system broadcasts this anticipation, it is infinitely more likely not to happen than when marginal players say it. Remember, the paradox of a successful anticipation relies in the fact that it should not happen, since a collectively anticipated problem is a solved problem. Still, are the alerts launched by the heart of the system real anticipations, or more like simple descriptions of factual situations? In the same way, repeating after us, Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Bank of Dallas says: “We are out of ammunition.”

According to our team, the panic which seems to worry the major operators of the “western system” is too late to support a smooth transition, but their avowed awareness still allows anticipation of radical changes within the crisis management strategies made by an “establishment” which will tighten its ranks.

Unfortunately, the lack of imagination of this “establishment” particularly allows the introduction of protectionist measures. The tendency of hardening is to combine with another trend, which we have often spoken about in the first half of 2015: unlike 2008, the creation of a new system is an operation advanced enough to allow us to anticipate that instead of an outright collapse into nothingness, the 2016 crisis will primarily correspond to a “hard-landing” in a new reality to which big players of the old reality will try willy nilly to adapt. This adaptation attempt will nevertheless require them to take some tactical retreat.

Timeline of a Financial Crisis

January 13th, the indicators show a widening deflationary storm, like a barometer: the GSCI Commodity Index : 284.7 (the lowest value since 2004); the Baltic Dry Index : 402 (the lowest value since 1985, creation date of the index!);

the Chinese central bank has been emptying its dollar foreign exchange reserves since June 2014 to a continuous rhythm of 37 billion dollars a month, which is quicker than it initially filled it; the Saudi central bank is in the same situation; the central banks of Brazil, Japan and Russia, the BoE or the ECB see their reserves decrease, even if the rhythm is slower. The most important states holding dollar debts are selling dollars simultaneously.

fig1

Monthly evolution of foreign exchange reserves in China, 1980-2015; source: tradingeconomics

Is the financial crisis coming from China?

This is the analysis encountered in all mainstream media. First of all, let’s compare the index of the Chinese stock market and the evolution of the Dow-Jones, over a period of two years…

Read the rest of this article here

Notes:

Source : The Telegraph, 11/01/2016

 Source : The Telegraph, 25/06/2015

 Source : Business Insider, 06/01/2016

 Source : Global Research, 31/12/2015

 Source : The Guardian, 12/01/2016

 Source : The Telegraph, 11/01/2016

 Source : Conscience Sociale, 19/11/2012

 Source : Bloomberg, 14/01/2016

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Towards A 2016 Banking Crisis in Europe: Hard Landing in a New Reality

Featured image: Albright, a fanatical advocate for genocidal sanctions and bombing campaigns, is in no place to lecture young women on “feminism.”

I am writing as a working woman, feminist, socialist, and candidate for President of the United States, and I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the outlandish attacks by Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright on any woman working in support of the political campaign of Bernie Sanders. This attack, particularly on young women who are supporting Sanders in such large numbers, is a shameful and opportunist attempt to use the historic struggle for women’s rights for the narrowest political gains.

In a desperate attempt to reverse the growing support among young women and men for her opponent in the Democratic Party primaries, Hillary Clinton has enlisted the support of notorious war monger and advocate of mass murder, Madeleine Albright.

As Clinton looked on laughing and clapping, Albright told the media on February 6: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

If indeed there were such a “special place,” Madeleine Albright would most assuredly be going. And going along with her would be candidate Clinton.

As UN Ambassador and the Secretary of State in the Bill Clinton regime, Albright was a fanatical advocate of the genocidal sanctions blockade that killed more than a million women, children and men in Iraq, and of the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing war against Yugoslavia.

On May 12, 1996, nearly six years into the U.S./UN sanctions, Albright was interviewed on CBS “60 Minutes” by Lesley Stahl, who had just returned from Iraq, about the impact on the Iraqi population:

Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Albright’s astoundingly flippant answer was nothing less than a confession to one of the most horrific war crimes in history, indicting not just herself but all the leaders of the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations who were fully aware of the lethal impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq.

In 1999, Albright played a key role in the war on Yugoslavia, engineering the failure of the negotiations that preceded the war. Albright presented the Yugoslav government with an “agreement” that would have allowed NATO to forces to occupy the entire country, with the unheard of provision that Yugoslavia would pay for the expenses of the occupation!

After the talks broke off, a “top official” (Albright) told reporters in an off-the-record session: “We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get.” When the Yugoslav government predictably rejected the ultimatum disguised as a “proposal,” the bombing began and continued for three months.

Thousands of civilians were killed, wounded and made homeless. As was true in Iraq, the entire population was traumatized, with women and children most severely impacted.

Like the assault on Iraq, the attack on Yugoslavia was a war crime, a “crime against peace,” the most serious of all violations of international law, a war of aggression against another state that poses no threat to the country launching the war.

According to her own words, Hillary Clinton joined in the war chorus: “I urged him [President Clinton] to bomb.”

In 2003, Senator Clinton supported invasion and occupation of Iraq. In 2011, as Secretary of State, she was chief advocate in the Obama administration in calling for the bombing war that killed, wounded and displaced unknown numbers of Libyans and devastated the country.

After the torture and murder of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi, Clinton laughingly told a CBS interviewer: “We came, we saw, he died.

Albright and Clinton thus share much in common both with each other and their far more numerous murderous male counterparts in the top levels of the U.S. imperialist state machine. That they who have worked to destroy the lives of so many millions of women would now presume to lecture young women on “feminism” and attempt to shame them into supporting Clinton is a despicable travesty.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “A Special Place in Hell”… For Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright?

For decades the US has sought to stitch together a united front stretching from Central Asia, across Southeast Asia, and even into East Asia itself to encircle and contain China.

From the 70 year occupation of Japan, to the Korean and Vietnam wars, to the 15 year occupation of Afghanistan, to political meddling and attempted regime change in Southeast Asia up to and including today, the United States has invested untold of sums in its bid to maintain what US policymakers openly call American “primacy” in Asia.

The most recent manifestation of this policy of encirclement and containment has focused prominently on Southeast Asia, both through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, and the US’ sponsorship of an ongoing South China Sea dispute.

America’s Anti-China US-ASEAN Summit  

AFP’s article, “US says Asean summit Obama plans to host this month is ‘not anti-China’, ” would claim of the upcoming US-ASEAN summit that:

A summit with Southeast Asian leaders that US President Barack Obama is hosting later this month is “not anti-China”, a State Department official said.

The meeting will bring leaders from the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) at the Californian resort of Sunnylands on February 15-16.

It is the same venue where Obama and President Xi Jinping held an unusually informal summit in 2013. This time, however, China is not invited.

However, several lines down, AFP admits:

The US administration has focused on bolstering Asean as a counterpoint to Chinese regional power.

AFP then mentions the ongoing conflict in the South China Sea:

Several Asean states are embroiled in an increasingly bitter spat with China over disputed territory in the South China Sea.

AFP admits that US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Daniel Russel has this “bitter spat” in mind as the summit nears:

“This is a direct challenge to the question of whether the countries in the region and the claimants in the South China Sea, and particularly China… would be guided by the universal principles and the rule of law.”

And of course, it is the United States who has declared itself arbiter in all maters regarding “universal principles and the rule of law.” In fact, the chief justification the United States cites regarding its continued presence in Asia Pacific is the perceived need of its military and political might to preserve international “rule of law,” even as it tramples such principles both in Asia, and worldwide.

The upcoming summit is most certainly anti-China – at least from Washington’s point of view – but the “cruising altitude” Assistant Secretary Russel claims is being achieved in the region by American foreign policy may be more wishful thinking than actual, tangible gains.

Sino-ASEAN Tensions Prodded Along by Washington

For the US to claim its intentions in Southeast Asia have nothing to do with China, but then to showcase its only apparent success, the continued dispute in the South China Sea with China, is the first indication of just how deeply in trouble US foreign policy is in the region.

It claims that “several ASEAN states” are embroiled in the dispute, but upon closer examination it is revealed that the United States itself is spurring these confrontations on, even going as far as assembling US-led legal teams to represent nations like the Philippines in international cases brought up against Beijing. Such moves are then followed by incensed op-eds in Western newspapers complaining about how half-hearted nations like the Philippines appear to be regarding the dispute, despite America’s stalwart backing.

In other instances, the US has attempted to coerce nations into joining the dispute – most notably Thailand – who, after ousting US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 and his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra in 2014, has repeatedly refused to become involved, and instead, has bolstered ties with Beijing in a series of economic and even military deals that have invited both covert terrorism aimed at Bangkok, as well as open condemnation and political meddling by Washington.

In 2015, the NATO-terrorist organization, the “Grey Wolves,” were implicated in a bombing in downtown Bangkok that killed 20, mostly Chinese tourists, after Bangkok extradited several suspected terrorists back to China who were en route to Turkey and eventually onward to the battlefield in Syria. Along with Western-backed terrorism, Bangkok has suffered from ongoing campaigns aimed at undermining both its tourist and export industries.

Indonesia has also been targeted by an array of political and terroristic attacks from Western-sponsored NGOs and militant groups as Jakarata increasingly drifts away from Western influence, and toward at least a more balanced relationship with Beijing.

Likewise, MalaysiaMyanmar, and Laos have all become pivotal battlegrounds where economic pressure, political meddling, and terrorism have been employed by the West to coerce politicians to abandon strengthening ties with Beijing, and in hopes of hamstringing a growing number of pan-Asian infrastructure projects initiated by China ranging from roads and rail, to dams, ports, and pipelines.

In exchange, the US has only entangling military commitments, domineering “free trade agreements,” and constraining political requirements to offer its potential “allies” in the region.

Talk is Cheap, But Necessary to Buy Time  

The terrorist-economic-political front opened up against states across Southeast Asia for their unwillingness to “rebalance” the region hand-in-hand with Washington is probably why most ASEAN states are attending the otherwise provocative US-ASEAN summit in the first place.

It is unlikely they will bring with them anything more than the most minimal amount of lip-service required to prevent more bombings, political sedition, and further economic warfare from being aimed at them both individually and collectively.

In the meantime, the summit can be a reminder to Southeast Asia of just how important it is to find alternatives to America’s “primacy” in Asia – requiring both stronger ties with China, and stronger ties with other nations beyond Washington’s influence to balance both China’s growing power and Washington’s dangerous desperation as its power wanes.

The summit also serves as impetus for each respective nation in ASEAN to look within themselves to find new sources of economic and political strength.

Washington’s many policymakers have increasingly admitted all they can do is buy time in Asia and that the rise of China is inevitable. Their “buying time” at the expense of Southeast Asia’s prosperity and stability will leave a dominant China with weakened neighbors exhausted from years of attempting to fulfill Washington’s doomed containment strategy.

Instead, Southeast Asia must rise with China to ensure a more balanced geopolitical equation exists when all of Asia reaches the top, together. This cannot be done within the confines of Washington’s containment strategy. An alternative must be found, and it will not be found amid any US-ASEAN summit.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Claims its Anti-China US-ASEAN Summit is “Not Anti-China”

For decades the US has sought to stitch together a united front stretching from Central Asia, across Southeast Asia, and even into East Asia itself to encircle and contain China.

From the 70 year occupation of Japan, to the Korean and Vietnam wars, to the 15 year occupation of Afghanistan, to political meddling and attempted regime change in Southeast Asia up to and including today, the United States has invested untold of sums in its bid to maintain what US policymakers openly call American “primacy” in Asia.

The most recent manifestation of this policy of encirclement and containment has focused prominently on Southeast Asia, both through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, and the US’ sponsorship of an ongoing South China Sea dispute.

America’s Anti-China US-ASEAN Summit  

AFP’s article, “US says Asean summit Obama plans to host this month is ‘not anti-China’, ” would claim of the upcoming US-ASEAN summit that:

A summit with Southeast Asian leaders that US President Barack Obama is hosting later this month is “not anti-China”, a State Department official said.

The meeting will bring leaders from the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) at the Californian resort of Sunnylands on February 15-16.

It is the same venue where Obama and President Xi Jinping held an unusually informal summit in 2013. This time, however, China is not invited.

However, several lines down, AFP admits:

The US administration has focused on bolstering Asean as a counterpoint to Chinese regional power.

AFP then mentions the ongoing conflict in the South China Sea:

Several Asean states are embroiled in an increasingly bitter spat with China over disputed territory in the South China Sea.

AFP admits that US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Daniel Russel has this “bitter spat” in mind as the summit nears:

“This is a direct challenge to the question of whether the countries in the region and the claimants in the South China Sea, and particularly China… would be guided by the universal principles and the rule of law.”

And of course, it is the United States who has declared itself arbiter in all maters regarding “universal principles and the rule of law.” In fact, the chief justification the United States cites regarding its continued presence in Asia Pacific is the perceived need of its military and political might to preserve international “rule of law,” even as it tramples such principles both in Asia, and worldwide.

The upcoming summit is most certainly anti-China – at least from Washington’s point of view – but the “cruising altitude” Assistant Secretary Russel claims is being achieved in the region by American foreign policy may be more wishful thinking than actual, tangible gains.

Sino-ASEAN Tensions Prodded Along by Washington

For the US to claim its intentions in Southeast Asia have nothing to do with China, but then to showcase its only apparent success, the continued dispute in the South China Sea with China, is the first indication of just how deeply in trouble US foreign policy is in the region.

It claims that “several ASEAN states” are embroiled in the dispute, but upon closer examination it is revealed that the United States itself is spurring these confrontations on, even going as far as assembling US-led legal teams to represent nations like the Philippines in international cases brought up against Beijing. Such moves are then followed by incensed op-eds in Western newspapers complaining about how half-hearted nations like the Philippines appear to be regarding the dispute, despite America’s stalwart backing.

In other instances, the US has attempted to coerce nations into joining the dispute – most notably Thailand – who, after ousting US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 and his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra in 2014, has repeatedly refused to become involved, and instead, has bolstered ties with Beijing in a series of economic and even military deals that have invited both covert terrorism aimed at Bangkok, as well as open condemnation and political meddling by Washington.

In 2015, the NATO-terrorist organization, the “Grey Wolves,” were implicated in a bombing in downtown Bangkok that killed 20, mostly Chinese tourists, after Bangkok extradited several suspected terrorists back to China who were en route to Turkey and eventually onward to the battlefield in Syria. Along with Western-backed terrorism, Bangkok has suffered from ongoing campaigns aimed at undermining both its tourist and export industries.

Indonesia has also been targeted by an array of political and terroristic attacks from Western-sponsored NGOs and militant groups as Jakarata increasingly drifts away from Western influence, and toward at least a more balanced relationship with Beijing.

Likewise, MalaysiaMyanmar, and Laos have all become pivotal battlegrounds where economic pressure, political meddling, and terrorism have been employed by the West to coerce politicians to abandon strengthening ties with Beijing, and in hopes of hamstringing a growing number of pan-Asian infrastructure projects initiated by China ranging from roads and rail, to dams, ports, and pipelines.

In exchange, the US has only entangling military commitments, domineering “free trade agreements,” and constraining political requirements to offer its potential “allies” in the region.

Talk is Cheap, But Necessary to Buy Time  

The terrorist-economic-political front opened up against states across Southeast Asia for their unwillingness to “rebalance” the region hand-in-hand with Washington is probably why most ASEAN states are attending the otherwise provocative US-ASEAN summit in the first place.

It is unlikely they will bring with them anything more than the most minimal amount of lip-service required to prevent more bombings, political sedition, and further economic warfare from being aimed at them both individually and collectively.

In the meantime, the summit can be a reminder to Southeast Asia of just how important it is to find alternatives to America’s “primacy” in Asia – requiring both stronger ties with China, and stronger ties with other nations beyond Washington’s influence to balance both China’s growing power and Washington’s dangerous desperation as its power wanes.

The summit also serves as impetus for each respective nation in ASEAN to look within themselves to find new sources of economic and political strength.

Washington’s many policymakers have increasingly admitted all they can do is buy time in Asia and that the rise of China is inevitable. Their “buying time” at the expense of Southeast Asia’s prosperity and stability will leave a dominant China with weakened neighbors exhausted from years of attempting to fulfill Washington’s doomed containment strategy.

Instead, Southeast Asia must rise with China to ensure a more balanced geopolitical equation exists when all of Asia reaches the top, together. This cannot be done within the confines of Washington’s containment strategy. An alternative must be found, and it will not be found amid any US-ASEAN summit.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Claims its Anti-China US-ASEAN Summit is “Not Anti-China”

We’ve previously noted that polls show that Americans are in a “pre-revolutionary” mood, that less than 1 in 5 Americans think that the government has the “consent of the governed”, that government corruption tops the list of Americans’ fears (gee, we wonder why), and that 3 times as many Americans supported King George during the Revolutionary War than support our OWN Congress today.

You might assume that such statements are over-the-top … or that the results come from partisan pollsters.

But a  group of Republican and Democratic pollsters and political strategists reviewed polling data last week, and revealed some stunning results:

  • 84% of all Americans believe political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right
  • 81% percent believe the power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day as politicians of both parties fight to protect their own power and privilege
  • 80% believe the federal government is its own special interest primarily looking out for itself
  • 79% of all voters believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office, at all levels of government, who are ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians and lawyers
  • 78% believe that the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing anything, because both political parties are too beholden to special interests to create any meaningful change
  • 76% of Americans agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism in our government
  • 75% believe that the US government is NOT working for the people’s best interest
  • 75% believe that powerful interests have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves
  • 74% see the biased and slanted coverage of the media as part of the problem
  • 72% of Americans believe the U.S. has a two-track economy, where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find, and where huge corporations get all the rewards
  • 72% believe that the reason families in our middle class have not seen their economic condition improve for decades and economic growth is stalled is because of corruption and crony capitalism in Washington
  • 71% believe our government is not only dysfunctional, it is collapsing right before our eyes
  • 70% believe the government in Washington does not govern with the consent of the people
  • The majority – 56% – say they wish there were a third party with a chance of success to fight for their interests
  • Only 15% say the “values and principals of my political party are so important that I strongly prefer to vote for the candidates of my party…”

They concluded:

The country [is] in a prerevolutionary moment.

***

This election could mark the beginning of the end of two-party duopoly in the United States.

***

The people believe the real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between mainstream America and the ruling political elites of incumbent politicians, lobbyists, big business, big unions, big banks, big special interests and the big media. [The people are correct.]

***

The power elite asks, “When will this be over?” Although this is seen as a chaotic and temporary situation by most of the political and media establishment, our research shows a strong, evolving tidal wave of discontent and growing pressure for real and dramatic change.

***

Real change is what that the establishment fears most and fights hardest against. It is ultimately a losing battle.

***

This, in fact, is a revolution.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Overwhelming Majority of Americans Believe that Both Parties Are Too Corrupt to Change Anything … “This, In Fact, Is A Revolution”

According to this report from Middle East Eye U.S. Secretary of State blamed the opposition for the continuing bombing in Syria:

US Secretary of State John Kerry told Syrian aid workers, hours after the Geneva peace talks fell apart, that the country should expect another three months of bombing that would “decimate” the opposition.During a conversation on the sidelines of this week’s Syria donor conference in London, sources say, Kerry blamed the Syrian opposition for leaving the talks and paving the way for a joint offensive by the Syrian government and Russia on Aleppo.

“‘He said, ‘Don’t blame me – go and blame your opposition,’” one of the aid workers, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her organisation, told Middle East Eye.

“He said that basically, it was the opposition that didn’t want to negotiate and didn’t want a ceasefire, and they walked away,” the second of the aid workers told MEE in a separate conversation and also on the basis of anonymity.

“‘What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?’” the aid worker said Kerry told her.

The hapless State Department spokesperson claimed that the story was wrong:

John Kirby Verified account @statedeptspox
@Charles_Lister Story wrong. @JohnKerry didn’t blame oppo for collapse of talks, doesn’t have comms w/regime & hasn’t wavered on Asad.

But this lets me believe that the report of Kerry chastising the opposition is right on point:

U.S. Embassy Syria @USEmbassySyria
#SecKerry on bombardment of civilians in #Syria: This has to stop. But it’s not going to stop by walking away from the table or not engaging

So while the State Department spokesperson denies that the U.S. blames the opposition, another part of the State Department does exactly that: “it’s not going to stop by walking away from the table or not engaging”. Kerry is clearly embarrassed that the Saudi opposition group ran away from the UN talks in Vienna. He should blame his “allies”.

The Wall Street Journal says the opposition group ended the talks before they began on Turkish and Saudi orders:

The Syrian opposition abruptly withdrew from peace talks in Geneva this week under pressure from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of the main backers of the rebels, according to diplomats and at least a half-dozen opposition figures.

After sabotaging the talks the Saudis came out with an offer to send ground troops to invade Syria if the U.S. would take the command of such an operation. No one is taking that offer seriously. The Saudi troops who try to invade Yemen get beaten to pulp. The Saudis themselves say they had to closed 500 school and evacuate 12 villages with 7,000 people in Saudi Arabia because the Yemenis are now invading them. Their army has lots of expensive toys but is clearly not able to put them to use. The offer to send troops is simply to goad the U.S. into starting a war with Russia.

That is not going to work. The U.S. is now trying to find some end to the conflict in Syria. Someone finally told Kerry that Russia is not in a “quagmire” in Syria but is winning.  The U.S. is in a hurry now as it knows that it will have zero influence left on the issue should the Syrian government and Russia have the time to kill off the opposition. It needs a ceasefire to stay relevant. As Kerry says himself that “whining” about the situation and skipping negotiations will not help the opposition. It will kill it.

Secretary Kerry also called on the Russians to stop their bombing campaign in Aleppo province. But that contradicts the UN resolution 2254 under which the talks in Geneva are held. That resolution clearly calls for a continuation of the Russian and Syrian campaign: THE UNSC

[r]eiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, […] and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;

The insurgents in Aleppo province as well as in Idleb province are officially allied with the Nusra Front which is Al-Qaeda in Syria. They are clearly a target of the above resolution and thereby a legitimate target of Russian bombs.

Indeed those who criticize Kerry for blaming the opposition because it ran away from Geneva ignore the resolution. It is the plan the U.S. and Russia have agreed to follow. That plan ends the war in Syria in a ceasefire but only when the opposition agrees to one AND cuts all ties with al-Qaeda and ISIS. As the opposition, and its sponsors, are unwilling to do so the Syrian-Russian campaign against them will continue, as agreed upon by the UNSC, until their end.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why John Kerry Blames “The Opposition” (aka Terrorists) For The Continued Bombing In Syria

Last weekend, the Syrian government forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces, predominantly Kurds supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces launched a joint offensive in Northern Aleppo. On Feb.7, the Kurdish troops secured several kilometers of the Gaziantep-Aleppo road and captured the town of Deir Jamal. The SAA also reached this crucial supply line from Turkey after an intense battle with the terrorists near the contested villages of Bayanoun, Kafr Naya, and Hayyan. Meanwhile, the Kiffin village has been liberated by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). According to reports, the SDF and the SAA have set up a joint checkpoint near Kiffin which is a clear evidence of the cooperation.

We remember, the Kurdish YPG has announced it’s going to launch a military operation in order to connect Afrin with Kobane and Hasakah. This gain will be hardly possible without a support of Russian warplanes and the pro-government forces pulverizing the terrorists’ manpower which could be used to prevent the Kurdish offensive.

Meanhwile, the pro-government forces secured the Ezaz-Aleppo road and liberated the town of Mayer. This road was formerly used by the terrorists to transfer their forces and hardware.

In a separate development, the SAA took control of the town of Ta’ana in the Eastern part of Aleppo province. It is close to the industrial region of Sheikh Najjar.

ISIS and Jabha al-Shamiya terrorist group, defined by the US as a moderate rebel group, has reportedly signed an alliance in Northern Aleppo in order to prevent the advance of the SAA and its allies. It’s reported that the groups concluded a cessation of hostility, opening “borders”, supply oil to rebels, exchange prisoners. It isn’t clear how these groups will coordinate military actions in the area.

Separately, militants in the Aleppo province set a coalition called ‘Jaish al-Halab’. It includes such groups as Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Jabhat Al-Shamiyah, Jaysh Al-Islam, and Jaysh Al-Mujahiddeen and also aims to oppose the Syrian forces.

More than 500 new recruits gathered in central Latakia, having passed a basic training course to joint the Syrian forces. They are now awaiting deployment. According to the province governor, Ibrahim Khodr Salem, this is the fifth set of volunteers.

On Feb.7, 133 militants laid down arms and turned themselves in to the Syrian army in the towns of Talbiseh and al-Rastan in the Homs province. In the very same time, the SAA advanced against the ISIL militants in the Eastern part of Homs province and deployed forces around the town of Quaryatayn. The final storm of the town is expected in the nearest future.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria’s Joint Offensive against Terrorists in Northern Aleppo, Supported by Russia