Global Research

One baby out of eight is being born in a war zone this Christmas.  Almost all of these wars were spawned by the ‘west’, lead by the Land of the Free.  Many mites come in mothers’ arms by inflatable boat to Greece.  Pity dear babies, specks in the  ‘migrant crisis’ unless Angela is your guardian angel.

As the war for the residues of glorious empire was drawing to a close amid the mud, blood, brains and limbs, the scheming slid nicely along.  Cordite Weizmann and fractional-reserve banker Rothschild were invited to produce some words.  These totalled 126 on a half A4 piece, the Balfour declaration of the 2nd of November 1917.  The only Jew in the cabinet, Edwin Montague opposed it.  His elegant, prescient and humane letter says it all. (1) 

The fuse was set and intent recorded.  Balfour stated in private and perfidious correspondence that

‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land’. 

The ‘Middle East’ was to be set alight.

And after another war to end wars, and the killing of over 700 British soldiers enforcing the mandate rules, came the Palestinian nakba, the ethnic cleansing by armed force and terror of 800, 000 Palestinians, four fifths of their population.

How many little mites died in that cold spring?  The slow, slow, quick, quick slow of genocide continues to this second.  (‘Genocide’ was coined by Lemkin, a Polish Jew, before WW2.)  Over fifteen babies have been born to Palestinian mothers, in the open at checkpoints. Read of Mohammad Khalil.  (2)

The dominance of Zion excluded peace.  With escalating state ‘terrorism’ came the ‘terrorism’ of the trodden, ‘the boot on the face forever’ of George Orwell.  In 1982,  Oded Yinon prepared a paper for Mossad one can presume.  The subject was the decimation of all Arab states and entities into small ones.  The language was ruthless.  Of course, it took no account of how many babies would be decimated too. (3)  Then came Project of the New American Century signed by over four dozen Zionist Jews, with the ‘Clean Break’ to follow and the black Perle in the vanguard.  Iraq was first for the final solution.

The skeletons of over 500,000 children lie in Iraqi soil due to the draconian sanctions imposed by the US, UK and France following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait which had been slant drilling Iraqi oil reserves.  They are at peace now but their suffering in life from thirst, dysentery, cholera and hunger can only be imagined by those with hearts.  Madeleine Albricht thought it was a ‘price worth paying.’  Maybe she sleeps poorly.

Afghan families fled in killing cold in October 2001 to the mountains to escape bombs raining down from B52s at 30,000 ft.  How many tiny sticks were put with the parents’ tears into snowy graves?  The plans were laid in July 2001.  You knew that?  (4)  The pretext was the false flag of the 11th of September 2001, Cheney’s Pearl Harbour.  That phantom, Bin Laden, was supposed to have planned it all from a cave at Tora Bora,  such are the wonders of IT and satellite communication.  The war, still bleeding, opium sap still flowing, US surrogates still ‘governing’ a tribal society, has lasted three times longer than WW2.

 Bush and Blair, the psychopathic pair, with many thousands sharing the same very dangerous personality trait, then focused on that cradle of civilization, a fine irony.  It was in April 2002 when the blood brothers sealed the fate of Iraq in Crawford, Texas. (5)  As always there was a pretext, ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.  Vilification of Saddam Hussein ran parallel.  And so on the 18th March 2003, a large force of Australian SAS troops invaded Iraq.  On the 22nd, the formal destruction of Iraq for ever, with massive bombardment and rapid invasion was started.  Mr Blair of the FaithFoundation might tell how many children lost their lives, their limbs, their sight and their minds when they were ‘shocked and awed’?

Symbolic of the Satanic cruelty of these schemers who never see action, is the case of Ali Abbas.  This is the sixth time I have written about him but I have had only ONE comment in response.  His village, Zafaraniya, lay between the Al Rashid military base and Baghdad airport.  Around the tenth day of ‘shock and awe’ there was a tremendous battle for the airport, a bridgehead.  His arms were incinerated and so was his Mum and Dad, and ten other relatives in the house. (Images in 5)  I believe these terrible injuries and the deaths of his relatives were caused by an ‘Enhanced Radiation Weapon’, in this case a neutron shell.  In other words, a WMD was used, the pretended casus belli for the destruction of Iraq and its government.  It is likely that Dr David Kelly was aware of this dynamite.  The ‘sofa cabinet’ would have sat with less comfort and less wine. (6)

Libya was next and the pretext was an ‘opposition’ in Benghazi which was threatened with extinction by Ghaddafi’s planes and bombs.  There was the customary vilification by the free western press of a leader who had gained power from a puppet in a bloodless coup.  There was a ‘news’ blackout as NATO forces ‘pounded’ who knows what and where. (7) Up to 50,000 humans were killed, and especially in Sirte.  The leader was killed against international law, and in the most evil manner.

And so to Syria and the vilification of Dr President Bashar Assad.  Syria was number 2 on Yinon’s plan.  As with Iraq and Libya, it is a secular country but showed respect to the confessions, including its 20% of Christians.  The ‘free’ press, and especially the BBC, has pumped out a vast, black stream of propaganda.  The BBC showed a picture of many dozens of dead children under shrouds in a communal grave.  It was implied they were victims of ‘Assad’.  It turned out it was taken by an Italian photographer in Iraq in May 2004! (8) How many children have been killed since guns were first fired by ‘rebels’ four years ago?  Given there are 5 million ‘displaced’ humans, at least 2 million children have fled their homes.

Two years ago, Cameron sought the support of MPs in the House of Commons for a bombing campaign of Syrian government installations.  ‘Butcher Assad had to be deposed’.  Happily he failed, and the Conservative Mr John Baron was central in the opposition.   Mr Alistair Burt MP, a fervent Christian, insisted the British government “knew exactly what would happen if there was not a strike against Assad over chemical weapons. He goes on. And the only thing that would deflect this man and this regime is if they fear they are going to end up in a storm drain with a bayonet up their backside. If they don’t fear that, they will go on killing as many people as they need to stay in power.”   Such is the psychopath.  The incestuous nature of this seat of power defeated my efforts in unseating this cruel and ignorant man. (9&10)  Now Cameron has won support for bombing IS, a loose and equally evil structure that is supported by a large cabal of nations, mostly within NATO.  The sense of MPs like Leigh, Lewis and Baron was swept away with a ‘rousing’ speech from Mr Hilary Benn.  But he has dual loyalty; he visited ‘Israel’ two weeks ago for three days.  Why?

Cameron’s intention, and many with him including ‘Israel’, remains the violent and unlawful overthrow of President Assad and the destruction, the Yinonization, of yet another Arab country.

*     *     *

Extracts from Christmas messages:

Cameron  – “As a Christian country, we must remember what his birth represents: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope.”

Archbishop Welby – Caught between the Devil and the Sea, the desperate and hungry, make their way through unimaginable peril. Palestine was very much like that. It was not a place of safety, but of danger, and like those millions today, Jesus himself was carried by anxious parents to the safety of another land. (11)

Catholic Archbishop Nichols – We pray especially for our Christian brothers and sisters who suffer grievously for their faith in Jesus as their Lord, losing life and belongings, suffering torture and unspeakable cruelty for his sake… No to all violence against the innocent!  (12)

The politician and the two men of God persist in picturing the whitey and the Christian as the victim, when instead the Muslim has been crucified from the time of 9/11.  One piece of holy and anti-Muslim propaganda was ‘Christian celebration’ banned in Brunei.  Not so! (13)

O, little town of Bethlehem – A subdued Christmas will only compound an already difficult year for Palestinian Christians, who have suffered the full brunt of Israel’s policies, most notably land seizures and, for those in Jerusalem, the revocation of residency rights. (14)

The Queen’s address – universal and moving in her 90th year.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mzor6Hf1tY  A contrast to the previous.  And listen, at the end, to fine singing by boys from round our wonderful world.

Britain will take 25,000 careful selected refugees over 5 years.  I salute the German nation who has embraced over 800,000.  Bombs R Us but Refugees R Not Us.

David Halpin is a retired orthopaedic and trauma surgeon who knows the suffering of the Palestinian people.  He and Sue have 3 girl grandchildren.  He is not a pacifist but believes strongly in international law which is constantly pushed aside.  All life is sacred, but especially the child’s.  He says ‘No mother and child should be in the least harmed anywhere in our still beautiful world’.

Web sites  http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/    http://www.doveanddolphin.com/  

Notes:

1.  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Montagumemo.html

2.  http://www.doveanddolphin.com/news_detail.asp?ID=166

3.  www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for…/5324815

4.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

5.  http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/41-articles/blair/104-blairs-journey-questions-before-charge

6.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JBYAy1eyZI

7. http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/24-articles/libya/112-the-buzzard-the-vulture-and-the-cuckoo-perfidious-albion-in-libya 

8. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/05/bbc-caught-using-iraq-mass-grave-photo-as-syria-propaganda-2198570.html

9. http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/2-articles/correspondence-with-politicians/158-letter-to-standards-and-privileges-committee-of-the-house-of-commons

10. http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/2-articles/correspondence-with-politicians/159-a-complaint-about-a-barbarous-statement-made-by-mr-alistair-burt-mp

11. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5654/archbishop-justins-ecumenical-christmas-greeting

12.  http://rcdow.org.uk/cardinal/homilies/christmas-midnight-mass-2015/

13.  http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/my-account-of-christmas-in-brunei

14.  http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=769191

Image: Cecil Rhodes

“The university and its students should prefer improving today’s orthodoxies to imposing them on our forebears.” – Tony Abbott, former PM of Australia The Independent, Dec 23, 2015

The following text is an English transcript (translation) of an RT Berlin Interview in German regarding an apparent secret agreement between the European Central Bank (ECB) and individual Euro countries’ central banks issuing large amounts of government bonds. The discovery flared up just before the FED raised its base interest rate by a quarter percent on 16 December 2015, signalling the end of zero-interest in 9 years.

Response Peter Koenig:

What some Euro central banks are doing, i.e. buying government bonds, is nowadays in the times of fiat money nothing extraordinary (Fiat money is government issued legal tender for which there is no backing). The US Fed (Federal Reserve Bank) is doing this since years. It’s called QE – for Quantitative Easing, it’s a euphemism for electronically producing new money whenever needed, for example to finance new wars and massive mind-bending propaganda programs. Of course the real reasons are never revealed.

Today ECB does exactly the same, by allowing euro country central banks to buy government bonds within the limits given by the ECB. This, however, risks increasing the euro debt exponentially, if not controlled, as is the case in the US.

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the FED, once answered the question of a journalist how the US thinks paying back its astronomical debt: “We will never suffer from the pressure of debt. We can always produce new money.”

Since 2012, this form of more or less ECB watched-over and organized money production has officially produced some 800 billion euros. But in addition and in parallel, but especially in the last year, another 500 billion euros were produced semi-clandestinely, apparently mostly by Italy and France; and this clearly to balance the state budget.

Every sovereign non-euro country produces money as it sees fit, without the intervention of an outside ‘watch-dog’ like the ECB.

Some background: The ECB was founded on 1 June 1998 in the context of the ‘Treaty of Maastricht’ as the successor of the European Monetary Institute (EMI). The ECB reports to a ‘Governing Council’ – which in turn is composed of representatives of the 19 euro-countries. The ECB became effective in 1999 with the introduction of the euro.

The ECB is not subjected to an independent audit, following exactly the same pattern of ‘privilege’ as does the FED – which is a 100% private banking institute.

The ‘secret agreement’ is the so-called ANFA (Agreement on Net Financial Assets), an agreement between the 19 Euro-countries. It allows countries to purchase government bonds within a certain framework. How the rules of the framework are set is not quite clear. But it appears that not all countries have the same rights. Central Banks of individual member countries may buy the debt of other countries, or their own debt, thereby helping balancing their over-extended budgets. The debt is sold to private banks, thereby increasing the monetary mass – and the banks’ exposure (risk).

Interestingly, on 10 December a journalist asks ECB President Draghi a direct question, ‘how come that central banks of individual EU members are buying government bonds (producing money), independently and outside the ECB rules’. Draghi reacts unruly, suggesting the journalist should ask the countries concerned directly. The same day, the ECB published on internet a vague explanation on what ANFA represents; a complex construct of who, how and under what circumstances has which rights.

As far as I know, all Euro countries have kept their sovereignty, when they signed the Maastricht Treaty. There are certain ECB rules, but none of them are above the sovereignty of a country. Therefore, every Euro nation has the right to buy its own government bonds, i.e. producing their own money which is the euro, to reduce their debt and increase liquidity. And so would Greece, no matter whether or not this pleases the ECB or other Euro-countries. As we are just experiencing, money printing by individual central banks is already done, ‘half-clandestinely’ – by those with more privileges than were given to Greece

Years ago, me and other economists have advised the Greek government to do what now France and Italy – and probably others are doing; i.e. to refinance her debt through Greece’s own central bank – and to on-lend these funds at low interest rates to newly nationalized Greek public banks with the purpose of revamping the Greek economy.

Would this have happened, Greece today would not stand at the edge of a bottomless abyss; to the contrary, she would be on the way to recovery.

But Syriza and Tsipras didn’t want to hear any of it. – Why – is a mystery to me. Possibly the Greek government was criminally blackmailed and coerced into accepting the troika rules. Given the many governments which have fallen when they didn’t accept the Master’s rule, such a scenario is entirely plausible.

Perhaps Mr. Draghi became nervous over the journalist’s question, because the autonomous production of money by certain central banks could incite others to do the same, including Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal – countries which so far are beholden to the fangs o the troika.

RT:  According to Michael Fuchs, German CDU Deputy, “Euro countries’ central banks are forbidden to refinance their government debt” – in which case the ECB has committed an infraction – which may be the reason for Draghi’s lack for words when faced by the journalist. How is it possible that in the case of some countries, Draghi looks the other way, tacitly giving some countries the privilege to do what is against the rules. What legal consequences could this have?

PK: As explained before, there is no real ban on sovereign nations money production – the Maastricht Treaty is not binding – as it stands not above the sovereignty of member countries. The nine non-euro countries are EU members, but have decided not to join the Euro. – They decide their own monetary policy without any interference of the ECB.

What Mr. Fuchs fears is that countries which owe Germany and German banks a lot of money will produce their own money, thereby increase the euro monetary mass and devalue the debt. Inflation is always a risk. – Today, Euro inflation is widely hidden behind false statistics.

Another risk are European banks which are already indebted to their neck and which are getting deeper into debt with an increasing money mass. Some of them may go broke.

What this would mean for the European average citizen who keeps his money in a bank account is bad news: In July this year, the EU / EC have issued an edict, totally illegal and without consultation of the people of Europe, or even the parliaments of European countries, that in the future banks shall no longer be ‘rescued’ by ‘bail-outs’, i.e.by tax payers’ money, but instead by ‘bail-ins’, meaning the banks would refinance themselves with money stolen from depositors and shareholders. Who doesn’t believe this, may recall Cyprus, where in March 2013 the ‘bail-in’ was tried out. Some 10 billion euros were taken from depositors to salvage the broken Cypriot banks.

By now we know: Banks never lose.

But this is not all. With excess liquidity, the ECB and some individual euro-country central banks will further enhance their negative interest rate policies. To prevent the natural reaction of the people – a run on the banks – governments lobbied and pressured by their banks will gradually introduce a no-cash consumer society. This is currently being tested by shops and department stores in Sweden, where purchases may only be paid electronically, by credit or debit cards.

Like in the case of ‘bail-ins’, is the no-cash consumption being tested. Depending on the reaction of the ever-so-docile and to the edges manipulated people, the new cash-free system could be introduced rather quickly. And we, the 99.99% are again sitting in a trap, a trap invented form the greed masters, our western fraud-driven banking system which is selling the new system by buying politicians and duping the populace with media propaganda and indoctrination.

I’m sorry to say this – we are so deeply mired in this corrupt western, especially European monetary system that I believe there is no way back, no possible way of reform. As I see it, there is only one solution – exit the euro and start afresh with our own currencies, the Deutsch Mark, French Franc, the Italian Lire, the Greek Drachma – and so on. After all, the euro has been in circulation only for 15 years. Why is it so difficult to imagine a world without the euro, especially recognizing how corrupt the system has become?

The signpost for the decay of the euro was set when the euro was first introduced for a so-called union of countries, a union which is actually a non-union with no solidarity and which was never conceived as a political union, like is the case with the federal states of the US, or the federal cantons of Switzerland. Without a political union, a common currency is not sustainable, cannot survive.

Nowhere in the Maastricht Treaty or the subsequent Lisbon Treaty is there a reference to a future political union. The masters behind the so-called EU, the Masters of Maastricht, knew exactly what they wanted – a Europe as a trading partner, but not an equal partner, not a strong Europe. Should Europe become too strong, it needed to be weakened – divide to conquer.

Thus, were added to the EU core group of 15 in 2004 and 2007 another 13 countries which have in fact little or nothing in common with the 15 core countries. To the contrary, most of them came from the realm of the former Soviet Union and are fiercely anti-socialist and pro-American. The only liking of the EU they have is the massive subsidies they met get to quickly adapt to the new EU standards.

In addition, the euro-economy strengthens and may threaten the dollar as a reserve currency in the reserve coffers of the world, as has happened in 2007, when the FED-Wall Street gang had to fabricate an economic crisis which punishes the European economy with austerity. By now the tools they are using, the ECB, the EC and the IMF (the troika) are well known. The current so-called crisis exists since 2007/2008, with ups and downs, but there is no end in sight.

This fits exactly the picture of the currently secretly ongoing negotiations, behind closed doors in Brussels, over the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) – which, in case it will succeed – would turn Europe into an American production and trade fiefdom, with a low-wage policy. Though I don’t want to mix-up the ‘crisis’ with the TTIP, it is undeniable that the two are intimately linked.

The elite groups behind this ball game to enslave Europe are primarily non-Europeans, but FED, Wall Street, IMF, BIS (Bank for International Settlement). The dollar hegemony must be maintained, come hell or high water.

It is not a coincidence that Mario Draghi, the ECB President is a former Goldman Sachs Executive. To be exact, Goldman Sachs dictates the European economic and financial policies.

How many European politicians are aware of this?

RT: Is the ECB subjected to any supervisory body? – And if so, what purpose wold these measures serve?

PK: The ECB is not subjected to a supervisory body per se, other than then “Governing Board’ – which is a gang of insiders, as mentioned before. The ECB is not subordinated to an independent audit. The ECB is not even a real central bank that lends money to favourable terms to member countries in need. The ECB lends money to large private and investment banks at low or zero interest; the banks ‘on-lend’ the funds to countries at risk, like Greece, with high risk-interests of 5% to 7%, the difference being cashed in by the banks as profit.

This is why Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are highly indebted countries. In fact, new loans are directly used to cover the debt service. Not one euro flows into the economy, say, of Greece, to refinance the badly needed social program, health, education, welfare. – And that’s why – oddly and absurdly the Greek debt has more than doubled since the onset of the crisis, and since the “rescue package’s” first loan was contracted by Athens in 2011.

Which international law is ruling over the ECB? – Hard to say. Is there any legal authority in today’s world of ‘dog-eats-dog’ that is independent enough to dare resisting the pressures from the mighty?

The good news is that man, still free-thinking man, is relentlessly creative. Several countries are already working on alternatives to the current western and fraudulent monetary system, as they are keen to delink from the dollar, including Iceland, Ecuador, Russia, China. The BRICS / SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) countries, have already adopted international payments systems that function completely delinked from the dollar-based SWFT.

So – there is hope!

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, CounterPunch, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

According to Russian Television on December 25th, Russian intelligence has counted “up to 12,000” tanker trucks filled with oil “on the Turkish-Iraqi border,” and “the final destination remains to be Turkey.” In addition, some of those trucks are still heading into Turkey from Syria, but their number is “decreased” because Russia’s Syrian bombing campaign, which started on September 30th, has, ever since they began bombing the oil trucks on November 18th, destroyed “up to 2,000” of those trucks, that were in Syria heading into Turkey.

According to the news report, Russia is requesting help from the U.S. coalition to bomb the “up to 12,000” trucks that are in Iraq carrying ISIS oil into Turkey. ISIS drives them there so that ISIS can become self-sustaining by the oil-sales. ISIS, which had long been supported by America’s allies the Arab oil potentates — all of whom are fundamentalist Sunnis — aims to be self-sustaining now on the sales of this stolen oil through Turkey, which is operating the black market in ISIS’s stolen oil. That’s why Russia wants to stamp out this market. “However, so far, Washington says that it is not ready for such a move,” the report says.

Whereas Russia had begun on November 18th to bomb those trucks en-route into Turkey, and eliminated around 500 of them at that time, the U.S. coalition hadn’t bombed any such trucks until later that day, November 18th, in order to pretend to be competitive with what Russia had been doing since it started on 30 September 2015, to bomb in Syria. Before the U.S. bombed the 116 trucks it destroyed, it warned the drivers 45 minutes in advance.

Here was the shocking admission that was made by the U.S. Defense Department’s press-spokesman at his 18 November 2015 presentation, in which he voluntarily acknowledged that, throughout all of the 14 months during which the U.S. had been bombing in Syria and in Iraq, the U.S. hadn’t previously destroyed any  of the tens of thousands of oil tank-trucks that had been transporting ISIS’s stolen oil out from Iraq and from Syria — the stolen-oil sales that bring $2B per year into ISIS coffers — and that the U.S. had warned 45-minutes in advance:

This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by — we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude.

So, I do have copy of the leaflet, and I have got some videos, so why don’t you pull the leaflet up. Let me take a look at it so I can talk about it.

As you can see, it’s a fairly simple leaflet, it says, “Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them.” A very simple message.

And then, also, “Warning: airstrikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life.”

And so, these are the leaflets that we dropped — about 45 minutes before the airstrikes actually began. Again, we combine these leaflet drops with very low altitude passes of some of our attack aviation, which sends a very powerful message.

So: not only had the U.S. previously avoided destroying ISIS’s main current source of income (besides the multimillion-dollar donations made by members of the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait — all of whom are protected by the U.S.) (and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had urged all of them on 30 December 2009 please to stop funding their terrorists), but, when the U.S. now started to bomb those tank-trucks filled with stolen oil, the U.S. warned in advance the drivers, who were also assets to the jihadist cause the U.S. pretended to oppose, and thus were enemies of the public (and were participants in the evils of ISIS). The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) wanted to protect them — not  to kill them. That was done “to minimize risks to civilians.” Wow!!

After the U.S. history of slaughtering millions of civilians in wars, and torturing many, including complete innocents in Iraq and elsewhere, we’re now protecting ISIS’s drivers? Can any hypocrisy exceed this? If the United States were a democracy, its press would have been focusing on this issue for a week. The U.S. protecting ISIS’s financial base, and assets, has mind-boggling implications. On what side are ‘we’ — and who are “we,” and who are “them”? We are not the aristocracy. The aristocracy are them. It includes the top stockholders in firms such as Lockheed Martin. Warren Buffett said in 2006 “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” That’s shocking honesty.

Did any of the major U.S. news media, all of which have reporters attending those press conferences, report the U.S. Government’s open admission  there, that the U.S. Government had protected ISIS all along, not bombed any  of ISIS’s oil tank-trucks (until Russia did)? Those trucks providing $2B per year to ISIS terrorists? None  of them reported it. None of them conveyed to their audience this astounding information — essentially, that the U.S. was protecting the money-flow to the jihadists in Syria, and was even protecting their truckers, and its ‘press’ were protecting them.

Another major revelation at this same press conference was that “we right now have no plans to conduct coordinated operations with the Russians” in Syria. And this was reconfirmed on December 25th from the Russian side, as being still the U.S. policy. In other words: the U.S. President is so hostile toward Russia, that, even months after Russia’s request to Washington on September 30th to cooperate in killing all jihadists in Syria, Obama still refuses to work together with Russia, or even just to “coordinate operations with the Russians,” to kill the jihadists. (And, in the Democratic debate on 19 December 2015, Hillary Clinton insisted that eliminating the jihadists in Syria mustn’t have higher priority than, nor occur before, Bashar al-Assad is permanently removed from Syria’s leadership. Her position is at least as anti-Russian as Obama’s.)

The jihadists had flocked into Syria to oust the non-sectarian leader of that country, Assad, and to replace him with an Islamist leader, a Sharia-law Sunni, whom the U.S. Government, and the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait, approve of as being better than the non-sectarian Assad (who is personally a Shiite, but runs a decidedly unsectarian, secular, government). The jihadists work for the American alliance.

Russia’s position on the matter is that no foreign power possesses the right to determine whom the President of Syria will or won’t be; only the Syrian people do, in an election. Russia insists that it be determined in internationally monitored and overseen elections. However, polls taken by Western polling firms indicate that Assad would overwhelmingly win any such election; so, U.S. President Barack Obama has rejected democracy for Syria. And yet, the U.S. accuses Putin of being dictatorial, and claims itself to be ‘democratic.’ And the U.S. President demands that Syria’s legal President be removed from power and excluded from any possibility of ever again becoming that nation’s President. This is America’s version of ‘democracy’ in Syria.

The DOD spokesperson, Steve Warren, spoke contemptuously of Russia. He said that in Russia’s war against jihadists in Syria, “the Russians are using dumb bombs. Their history has been both reckless and irresponsible.” This statement was being made by a military spokesman for the same Government that in the most “reckless and irresponsible” manner had invaded and destroyed Iraq in 2003. However, his statement here was also, itself, simply false. Russia’s bombings have been with both precision-guided weapons and unguided munitions that are under no control after being fired.

Warren there was reaffirming a reporter’s question which had asserted: “Getting back to Raqqa, as we all know, the Russians are not using precision munitions. Any sense of any increased civilian casualties in Raqqa as a result of that?” So, Warren was here reaffirming a reporter’s (or actually, a press-appointed government stenographer’s) falsehood — reaffirming an assertion that was either unprofessionally ignorant, or else a knowing lie. On September 30th, when Russia had started its air strikes, the U.S. had said that they were “doomed to failure.” That, too, seems increasingly likely to have been false (that it was “doomed to failure”). (And any such pretended foresight is also a lie when it comes from an official source such as a government. It was mere propaganda.)

Instead of the mainstream U.S. press reporting that the U.S. Government lied there (and this Government does it routinely, because the ‘press’ never report that a lie by the President is  a lie), only a small number of only non-mainstream sites, all online-only, picked up anything from this stunning press conference, regarding any of the important and much-discussed issues that it addressed; and the first such site to do so was a fundamentalist Christian one, which is obsessively pro-Israel, and generally hard-rightwing Republican. Bridget Johnson at PJ Media headlined, on the same day as the press conference (the only site to report at all upon it that day, November 18th), “ISIS Oil Tankers Hit for First Time – With 45-Minute Warning.” This was an admirable reporting coup (though it wasn’t really “for First Time,” since Russian bombers  had already done it), because it covered all of the main points, including the shocking admissions by Mr. Warren. Her news coup had over 1,400 reader-comments.

Paul Joseph Watson, at the generally conservative Republican site InfoWars, bannered on November 23rd, “WHITE HOUSE GAVE ISIS 45 MINUTE WARNING BEFORE BOMBING OIL TANKERS,” and he placed these matters honestly into their geostrategic context, of the Obama Administration’s placing a higher priority upon defeating Russia than defeating jihadism. As is so often the case with the terrific journalist Watson, he penetrated deeply into these matters, and was not at all shy to acknowledge, for example, the following stark contrast, which U.S. ‘news’ media hide:

Compare the Obama White House’s approach to fighting ISIS to that of Russia.

While it took the U.S. fifteen months to even begin targeting ISIS’ oil refineries and tankers, air strikes by Moscow destroyed more than 1,000 tankers in a period of just five days.

In comparison, Col. Steve Warren said that the U.S. had taken out only 116 tanker trucks, the “first strike” to target ISIS’ lucrative black market oil business, which funds over 50 per cent of the terror group’s activities.

So: this, too, like Bridget Johnson’s report, was honest and first-rate news-reporting, from another non-mainstream Republican site. (Note, however, that the mainstream  Republican news-sites, such as Fox News, Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh, were no more forthcoming on this matter than all of the Democratic Party sites were.)

The aristocracy’s control over all the mainstream ‘news’ is ironclad — and this includes the political magazines, such as National Review, and The Nation;  as well as ‘intellectual’ magazines, such as Harpers  and The Atlantic.  American ‘news’ media stifle democracy in America; they’re not part of  democracy, in America. They’re like poison that’s presented as being ‘medicine’ instead. Suckers don’t just swallow it; they come back for more of that propaganda.

The next day, November 23rd, “Tyler Durden,” the pseudonymous genius behind his own Zero Hedge blog, headlined “‘Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away’: US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes,” and he reported using some of the same sources as the others, but supplementing it with additional good sources. He had around 400 reader-comments.

In addition, there were some trashy news-reports at far-right Republican sites, such as one, on November 19th, crediting Bridget Johnson’s news report the day before as its source, “The Obamization of the military, pt. 243.” This was by J.R. Dunn, at the fundamentalist Republican, American Thinker, blog. He pretended that Obama was being bad here because Obama was too concerned to avoid bloodshed: “You see, the important thing isn’t hurting ISIS. No – the important thing is not hurting civilians.” Picking up from the standard Republican meme that torture should be used against ‘bad people’ in order for ‘good people’ to be kept safe, and that civilians in ‘enemy’ nations are okay to be victims of American military attacks, Dunn took Bridget Johnson’s news-report merely as confirmation of his own bigotries and hatreds. He had about 150 reader-comments. Typical was this one: “The Left in America has known that in order to succeed with their agenda the US military had to be infiltrated, compromised, and weakened.” For such suckers, the ‘source’ of America’s problems wasn’t America’s aristocracy; it was America’s Democrats.

On November 24th, Michael Morell, Obama’s CIA Director during 2011-2013, said on the trashy PBS Charlie Rose show (hosted by Mr. Rose, who is such an incompetent interviewer that he’s beloved by aristocrats for his reliably softball interviews), “We didn’t go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn’t want to do environmental damage, and we didn’t want to destroy that infrastructure.” Of course, Mr. Rose avoided drilling down there to find out why the U.S. Government treats jihadists as being such a minor matter — especially after all of the environmental damage the U.S. routinely does in its invasions, such as the depleted uranium that contaminates today’s Iraq, from the U.S. attacks. And, of course, almost all of the news-media that picked up on that stunning admission from Obama’s former CIA Director, were Republican sites, such as Daily Caller, Washington Times, Breitbart, Real Clear Politics, and American Thinker. In addition, there were a few high quality journalistic sites reporting it, such as Zero Hedge, The Hill, The Economic Collapse, and Moon of Alabama. In other words: only very few Americans came to know about this jaw-dropping stunning admission from an Obama official — and most who did were people who hate Obama for his being such things as ‘against torture’ (in other words: Republican stooges of the aristocracy).

Basically, in America, only marginal, and mainly right-wing, audiences were being informed even badly, regarding the sensational things that were revealed — and in some instances proudly  revealed — at the November 18th DOD press conference, and also in the November 24th TV interview of Morell. What is traditionally viewed as being America’s “news media” were entirely absent from their job of reporting even one of these two important statements by U.S. Government officials. And none of the news-reports on that astounding DOD press conference, and of that Morell interview, reached Democratic Party voters at all. Republicans hate Obama because he’s a communist Islamic Kenyan, while Democrats love Obama because the wacko Republican Party lies about him constantly and because Obama is to the left of those blithering wackos.

A press like this makes it impossible for there to be intelligent, informed, rather than misinformed and/or stupid, voting in national political elections in the United States.

Perhaps the biggest scandal in America is its rigid aristocratically controlled ‘press,’ which is really nothing more than a whored propaganda-operation that’s run by and for the nation’s aristocracy. The owners of America’s ‘news’ media know that the way for the press to make money in this type of dictatorship is to sell to the aristocrats’ corporations access to the public, and to ‘report’ only ‘news’ that the corporate sponsors don’t mind the public’s knowing about.

So: this is how the public get suckered, in America.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the American Government didn’t hypocritically claim to be a ‘democracy.’ That’s just piling it on, with a shovel.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The threat of war against Iran is not just about its natural resources, strategic control and supposedly to protect Israel, it is also about the US dollar being used for its oil trades. Iran is moving forward to replace US dollars for its foreign trade with Russia in rials and Russian rubles. This past January, Iran made a significant move by “stopping mutual settlements in dollars with foreign countries.”

According to RT news

“the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) has said. “In trade exchanges with foreign countries, Iran uses other currencies, including Chinese yuan, euro, Turkish lira, Russian ruble and South Korean won,” Gholamali Kamyab, CBI deputy head, told the Tasnim state news agency. Iranian and Russian delegates have met to discuss new trade agreements. The Iran Daily just published a report that Iran and Russia are in the process of “establishing a joint bank account with Russia to facilitate trade between the two countries in their own currencies.”The Central Bank of Iran (CBI) governor Valiollah Seif stressed the importance of connecting their banking sectors to bolster trade between Iran and Russia. Seif says that a special committee is needed to overcome any obstacles (U.S. sanctions) and to provide lines of credit.

The Iran Daily reported what Iran’s ambassador had said in January regarding Iran and Russia’s trade in their own currencies:

Iran’s Ambassador to Russian Mehdi Sanaei said in late January that Tehran and Moscow are working on a plan to switch their bilateral trade to national currencies for which he said the two countries will create a joint bank or a mutual account. “Both sides plan to create a joint bank, or joint account, so that payments may be made in Rubles and Rials and there is an agreement to create a working group [for this],” said Sanaei

This past March, Iran and Russia signed an agreement to jointly create a regulation committee to “oversee interbank financial transactions between the two countries.” The positive outcome of the agreements is to avoid any future sanctions Washington and its crony allies use as a financial weapon against its adversaries. The Iran daily concluded what the outcome would achieve in the long term:

The agreement – that was signed between the Iranian and Russian central banks – took both countries one step closer toward the establishment of the promised joint bank – which is believed to have been specifically designed to help dodge the effects of US-led sanctions on the two countries

That is why Washington is desperate to overthrow the Assad government and that is to weaken Iran’s influence in the region. If Assad is successfully removed, Israel would then concentrate on Hezbollah with an all-out attack. If Syria and Hezbollah is defeated militarily, then Iran would be threatened with a joint Israel-US led war possibly with nuclear weapons especially if Hillary Clinton or most of the Republican front-runners were to become president. Iran is sure making Washington very nervous.

The Currency War on Oil producing countries: Iraq, Venezuela and Libya

Iraq, Venezuela and Libya tried to drop US dollars for oil trades but were met with resistance from Washington. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein (a former U.S. ally) decided he wanted to use Euros instead of US dollars for oil transactions. That was one of the main reasons that the Bush regime wanted to remove Saddam Hussein in the first place, not because of the fabricated “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)” story published by the New York Times author Judith Miller which was the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq (codename ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’). The U.S. government and its big oil companies control world oil-markets with its dollar as the “fiat” international trading currency, but Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein defied the U.S. and it dollar supremacy by replacing it with the Euro. In 2006, Former Texas congressman Ron Paul explained Washington’s real motives behind their WMD lies against Iraq and the coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez by the Bush regime concerning the US dollar before the U.S. House of Representatives:

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein– though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein

One of the main reasons of the invasion of Iraq was about Saddam Hussein’s goal to eliminate the US dollar and replacing it with the Euro for Iraq’s oil sales, but that did not stop there. Ron Paul also mentioned Venezuela under the leadership of President Hugo Chavez at the time:

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA. After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance

Iran is a long term goal for regime change. However, with Russia and China in the picture, it seems very “less likely” to happen. Russia and China are major obstacles for the pentagon war planners. The US has hopes that the Islamic state can create more chaos in the region allowing ISIS to target Iran within its borders but that is a long shot. Iran is leading the charge in the Middle East to replace the US dollar with other currencies and Washington is panicking. Syria, Hezbollah and Russia stand in the way as the US dollar loses its dominance. Washington’s call for war will get louder as more countries around the world seek to replace the US dollar. Washington wants to make Iran an example to let the world knows what happens if you abandon their currency, just like they did to Iraq, Venezuela and even Libya. Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi’s planned a “single African currency” linked to gold that would have dethroned US dollars and the Euro for African oil trades and possibly other transactions which was the reason why Washington ordered US-NATO forces to remove Gaddafi from power.

Will Washington force Iran to use its dollars for its oil transactions with the threat of war? With major powers backing the Islamic republic, it will be an impossible task to accomplish. As more countries demand less US dollars, a decline in the “exchange value” will result in a weaker dollar. Usually when countries demand a certain currency on the foreign exchange markets, the value of that particular currency increases. So will the US war machine attempt to force countries such as Iran to use its dollars for its oil trades to keep the dollar afloat? There is a “currency war” currently being waged by Iran and Russia. Who can blame them? Washington started this war with its economic sanctions on Iran and Russia because they do not comply with its demands as Imperial power that makes all the rules for the world to follow. Now Iran and Russia will finish it by dropping the US dollars for their business transactions, a solution long overdue.

The one hundredth anniversary of the Great War is prompting a renewed effort at both the popular and academic levels to ensure that the different units and countries involved are not forgotten. While not supplying combat troops, China entered the First World War on the side of the Allies, furnishing much-needed labourers, 140,000 by conservative estimates and possibly more, who played an essential role on the Western Front and other theatres, taking responsibility for a wide range of tasks. Among others, unloading military supplies and handling ammunitions, building barracks and other military facilities, digging trenches, and even agriculture and forest management.

While their essential contribution was recognized in British documents, both Paris and London saw them as a temporary expedient, to be ended as soon as the war was over. Furthermore, their deployment gave rise to all sorts of culture and language clashes, in addition to the dangers of travelling to Europe and surviving in close proximity to the battle field. However, beyond these travails, the Chinese Labour Corps left a significant legacy, with members seeing the world, experiencing other nations, and often becoming literate. More widely, despite being on the winning side, China’s failure to secure any gains at Versailles prompted the May 4^th Movement and can be seen as a key juncture in the long and winding road from empire to nation-state. It is an important reminder of the global nature of the Great War, whose impact extended far from the battle field to all corners of the world.

The one hundredth anniversary of the Great War has prompted renewed interest in the conflict and a major drive by myriad institutions and individuals to inform the public and assure that the sacrifices made one century ago are never forgotten. While the main theatres of the war were in Europe, there are reasons why it is called the First World War, since its nature and scope were truly global. This includes Asia, which may have seen limited combat operations (other than in South-Western Asia, part of the Middle East) but where a number of countries made key contributions to the Allied cause. They include Japan, whose navy helped secure the Pacific, while her troops took over German territories, and took part in the conquest of Tsingtao; China, which contributed much-needed workers; and India, whose soldiers helped stabilize the Western Front in late 1914 and later played a key role in a wide range of theaters, including Gallipoli, East Africa, and Mesopotamia.

While such contributions were recognized by contemporary media and are well documented, with the passage of time there is little public awareness of them. The first centenary of the war is, however, prompting many public and private organizations in countries like Japan,¹ India, and China², and among communities from those nations, to make renewed efforts to make sure that their contribution is duly recognized, both at home and abroad, and in particular among their war-time Allies. This is an aspect of the renewed geopolitical competition in the Asia-Pacific region, which also features countries vying to stress their past roles in world conflicts.

China at the outset of the War: Nation Building, Limited Sovereignty, and Collective Security

The outbreak of the Great War caught China in the midst of a giant yet incomplete transformation from Empire to Republic, an exercise in nation building that would take decades to complete and see myriad wars and turmoil amid fragmentation and widespread human suffering.³ The Revolutionary Party（中华革命党), renamed Guomindang (国民党) in 1919, had been forced in 1916 to cede the presidency to Yuan Shikai, and warlords ruled much of the country, with significant foreign influence. In 1916 Duan Qirui, a graduate of the Beiyang Military Academy who had furthered his studies in Germany, became prime minister following Yuan’s death. One of the dossiers on his table was whether to join the Great War. One of the factors at play was the possibility of recovering the German concessions in Shandong Province, and more generally of improving China’s international standing, something which, among others, leading intellectual Liang Qichao hoped for.⁴ Pressure also came from the United States, at that time moving towards joining the war, and from the Japanese, who had decided on a policy of loans to China and other financial incentives in exchange for recognition of their position in northern regions which Tokyo considered a sphere of influence necessary to protect its Korean colony and shield it from Russian ambitions, following its failed bid to impose the “twenty one demands” on China in 1915.⁵ These wide-ranging demands were tantamount to turning China into a Japanese protectorate. Among others, Tokyo demanded freedom of movement and the right to purchase land and carry out business for Japanese nationals in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia, a promise “not to cede or lease to any other Power any harbour or bay on or any island along the coast of China”, and the appointment of Japanese advisors.⁶ In March 1917 Duan convinced Parliament to break diplomatic relations with Germany, and, after a struggle over who had the constitutional power to issue it, a declaration of war by the cabinet followed in August.⁷

Thus, although her own nation-building process was far from complete, Chinese leaders decided to join a conflict which, while global in nature, had its origin and main focus thousands of miles away. Ideally, being on the winning side would help China consolidate and increase her national stature, but as we shall see later, things would turn out quite differently. What was clear in 1916 was that whereas China had little, if any, expeditionary military capability to offer to the Allies, it had something they desperately needed: manpower. The concept was simple: import Chinese labour, thus freeing British and French young men for combat duties. Although the Chinese and Japanese governments concluded a military agreement whereby Tokyo would provide “aid, advisers and instructors to develop the Chinese War Participation Army to support the Allied cause,” no troops were deployed to Europe, and Japanese aid simply served the purpose of reinforcing Duan’s troops concentrated in North China.⁸ Germany, on the other hand, provided financial support to Sun Yat-sen’s alternative government in Guangzhou, in the hope of pushing China back into neutrality.⁹ As was the rule in those years, factional interests frequently took precedence over the exercise of national power.

The Chinese Labour Corps: China’s major contribution to the war effort

Logistics is often forgotten, or at least rarely granted a degree of attention commensurate with its true importance, in many military histories. In the case of the Western Front in the Great War the distances involved were not huge, in particular if compared to some theatres in the Second World War, but the industrial nature of the fighting, the dual demands of artillery and fortification, and the sheer number of troops involved, meant a strong and growing demand for labour behind the trenches. Although some machinery and vehicles were available, building and repairing railways and roads, moving supplies, mail, troops, and the injured, laying down and maintaining telephone lines, plus constructing all sorts of military facilities, were tasks mainly undertaken with a mixture of human and animal labour. Many labour units were created. The Royal Engineers, for example, set up eleven labour battalions, and in January 1917 the British Labour Corps was born. By the time of the armistice, it had grown to almost 400,000. Staffed by officers not medically fit for front-line duties (often returned wounded), it regularly operated within range of enemy fire, and some of its units were employed as emergency infantry during the spring 1918 German offensives.

The Allies quickly realized that their manpower pool was simply not large enough to feed this ever-growing need for construction and logistics labour. At first arrangements were often ad hoc, but the scale of the fighting, the inadequacy of some earlier approaches, and the realization that this would be no short conflict, soon gave way to a more systematic approach. France was the first to tap into China’s huge labour force. Great Britain followed, with both countries already in negotiations with China in the summer of 1916.¹⁰ According to the Official History: ‘…although some labour units were raised and eventually labourers from various parts of the Empire and China were brought to France, the numbers were never at any period sufficient for the demands of a great army operating in a friendly country’. Despite this, it is clear that Chinese workers played a crucial role in sustaining the Allied armies in the field. Precise numbers are not available, with some sources mentioning that in August 1918, 96,000 were enrolled in the British Labour Corps, with a further thirty thousand working for France,¹¹ but Chinese sources stress that the specific number is disputable and that 140,000 in total for both France and Britain is a conservative estimate.¹² Guoqi Xu notes the “sizable discrepancy among the figures provided by different sources” and provides a range from several authors.¹³ Among others, he mentions the Dictionary of the First World War by Stephen Pope and Elizabeth-Anne Wheale, eds. (320,000)¹⁴, Arthur Philip Jones (150,000 Chinese workers in France, Mesopotamia, and Russia)¹⁵, Chen Sanjing (between 175,000 and 200,000 adding those recruited by France and Great Britain)¹⁶, and CLC interpreter Gu Xinqqing (175,000 again as a joint figure)¹⁷. He also quotes a US War Department telegram (97,000 recruited by London, 40,000 plus 1,500 specialists by Paris)¹⁸. We could add that, although Paris was first to tap China’s vast labour pool, there were precedents in Great Britain for the employment of Chinese at times of war to free military and naval personnel from other duties. This includes the Napoleonic Wars, during which ‘Chinese men who worked in merchant ships were then used by the Royal Navy in support roles to provide cover for the British men who were away fighting, such as ships’ porters’.¹⁹ London also used colonial workers in the Indian, Egyptian, and South African Native Labour Corps.

The Individual Experience of Chinese Workers: Tasks, Dangers, and Opportunities

Even before China had formally declared war, a processing plan was set up in Shandong Province, with the purpose of screening and hiring labourers. Located near the Royal Navy’s base at Weihaiwei, it was followed by a second facility in the port of Qingdao. Recruitment was not difficult, given the region’s poverty and instability and the high wages offered. These consisted of twenty Chinese dollars as a starting bonus, food and clothing, and ten dollars per month partly payable to their families. The medical examination was focused on tuberculosis, trachoma (a viral disease of the eye, then prevalent in Shandong), and venereal diseases.²⁰ Some 100,000 were selected, issued a serial number in a dog tag around their wrists,²¹ and sprayed prior to embarkation. Many still donned a queue and were urged to cut it.

Travel to Europe was not without its dangers. Already in 1916 a ship carrying Chinese workers to France²² had been sunk by a German submarine in the Mediterranean, with the loss of 543,²³ prompting the use of an alternative trans-Pacific route across Canada by train.²⁴ Once in the Old Continent, although their contracts said they would not be deployed in or near the front, they often found themselves under enemy fire or dealing with other dangers, such as unexploded ammunitions.²⁵ Illness was an additional hazard (including the Spanish Flu from 1918), together with the harsh climate and unfamiliar food, despite which in December 2018 “Colonel Wetherall said that the Chinese suffered very little from ill-health; out of a total strength of some 93,000 Chinese in France, there were only about 1,500 in hospital.” ²⁶ In addition to those lost at sea, more than 2,000 died. Their tombs can be found in France, Flanders, and England, some in special cemeteries.

Members of the Chinese Labour Corps were distributed in 500-strong companies, under British officers and Chinese foremen. The language barrier was a significant problem, for example when an American soldier said “let’s go,” which sounds like “GOU” in Chinese (meaning “dog”) it nearly caused a rebellion among Chinese labourers.²⁷ Many translators were hired, while efforts were conducted to recruit Chinese-speaking British officers. The latter’s number was small, not only because there were not that many Britons resident in China who had mastered the language but because most of those able and willing to serve sought to join a combat unit. British officers never saw their Chinese Labour Corps counterparts as true equals.²⁸

A typical schedule was ten working hours per day, seven days per week.²⁹ Although under military discipline and severe restrictions on their movement, to a certain extent resulting in segregation, authorities made efforts to accommodate some of their customs. An example was the free days they got during Chinese festivals.³⁰ An effort was made to facilitate postal communication with their families, despite censorship and the fact that many were illiterate. The resulting letters (up to fifty thousand per month) are a very useful source to learn about their roles, thoughts, and living conditions. The YMCA played a key role in their welfare, organizing recreational activities and literacy classes. Hong Kong- and US-educated James Yen created a 1,000-character vocabulary and the Chinese Workers’ Weekly, also writing many letters for illiterate labourers.³¹ As a result of various literacy drives, it is estimated that some two thirds of the members of the Chinese Labour Corps returned being able to read and write, albeit to a limited extent, whereas originally more than eighty percent were illiterate.³² Classes were so popular that they ran out of materials.³³

Their work was varied and ranged from unloading military supplies and handling ammunition to building barracks, digging trenches, and constructing fortifications. It even extended to agriculture and forest management.³⁴ The minutes of a meeting on “Chinese Labour in France,” held on January 18, 1918 at 10 Downing Street with the prime minister in the chair (and following a War Cabinet meeting on the same subject the day before), reveal that at first labour tended to be allocated to the different services from a central pool, but this gave way to the view that it was better to second at least a minimum to each department, so that, among others, the members of the Corps could specialize and achieve greater proficiency at a given kind of work, and their supervisors become more familiar with them. That was the position defended by Sir Eric Geddes, who explained that it was the system employed with the first seven thousand Chinese workers brought to France by the British Department of Transportation. General Travers Clarke supported the “desirability of keeping the same men at the same job,” adding that “it was done now at a considerable extent.” He spoke in favour of retaining a central pool, which, while compatible with the described specialization, allowed a measure of flexibility. Eric Geddes said that labour was “nobody’s child” and defended the permanent allocation of “a minimum number of men” to departments, so that “they could put in their interpreters and N.C.O.s and control would increase rather than diminish.” Sir Joseph MacLay and Sir Guy Granet concurred in these views of Eric Geddes.³⁵

Handling ammunition by the CLC	Building roads by CLC, to sustain industrial warfare on Western Front

While labouring long hours in uncomfortable and often hazardous jobs, their stay in Europe was for many their first opportunity to experience life not only outside China but beyond their village or province. As often happens, contact with a different reality prompted more than a few to question their country’s place in the world and to wonder how it could be changed. Contact with fellow citizens and with nationals from other Allied nations may have helped the members of the Chinese Labour Corps to develop a sense of national identity and of their country’s place in the world.³⁶ It should also be emphasized that, while originally intended to carry out unskilled tasks, members of the Chinese Labour Corps often ended up being responsible for much more complex tasks, even tank maintenance, overcoming the extensive prejudice that saw them as hard working but incapable of performing technologically-demanding jobs.³⁷

The British Government View: A Commodity? Yet a Valuable One

A look at British official documents reveals a dual view of the Chinese Labour Corps. On the one hand, its members often appear as little more than objects. They are referred to in terse terms, as if one was talking about a piece of equipment. On the other, the vital nature of their contribution to the war effort often appears openly, without any attempt to disguise it. This is clear even in the immediate post-war period, once the hostilities were over but the need for labour remained high. For example, the minutes of the December 4, 1918 meeting of the War Cabinet included an item devoted to the “Repatriation of Chinese coolies.” Faced with a proposal from the Ministry of Shipping to repatriate a number of workers, taking advantage of available space in two passenger ships, “the Adjutant-General said that he had taken this matter up with G.H.Q. in France, who were averse from the idea of repatriating Chinese coolies at the present time. There was a great deal of work to be done, e.g., handling cargo at the ports, upkeep of roads, filling up the shell-holes, and rolling up the barbed wire, for which civilian labour would have to be engaged if the Chinese were withdrawn.”³⁸ At the meeting, the British prime minister pointed out that while there was a shortage of labour in France, “the amount of work requiring this class of labour must have greatly diminished since the cessation of hostilities,” and it was decided to arrange the repatriation of five thousand Chinese workers, with a further five thousand to follow.³⁹ Thus, while essential, and openly recognized as such in official documents, the decision was made that Chinese workers, viewed as a temporary asset, were to be returned to their native country as soon as possible.

Direct Hiring and the End of the Comprador System: a Precedent for General Stilwell’s Training Drive?

At the same January 18, 1918 meeting referred to earlier, Colonel MacLaren Brown said that during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, with which he was familiar, “the recruiting and control of the Chinese was kept in the hands of the Compradors. The Railway Company dealt only with and through the Compradors.” While conceding that in that case “the Chinese understood the system and it worked well”, Colonel Brown explained that “in the case of the Chinese in Northern France they have been recruited on a different basis and under special conditions,” a reference to the system of individual contracts outlined earlier.⁴⁰

We can thus see how the Great War led to a change in the way Chinese labour was employed, dispensing with middlemen. During the Second World War, a similar change would take place to some extent in the military sphere. When training Chinese soldiers at Ramgarh (British India) from 1942, in an attempt to develop a number of modern, capable divisions, US General Joseph Stilwell accepted the recruits sent by the government of the Republic of China but insisted that they be paid individually, in a bid to prevent corruption by officers pocketing their men’s pay.⁴¹

Considering, and Rejecting, the Use of Chinese Troops

France did not just initiate the recruitment of Chinese workers. It also endeavoured to secure the deployment in the Western Front of Chinese troops,⁴² although the move was ultimately rejected by London and never took place. Even before the Chinese declaration of war, General Ferdinand Foch had argued for the need to get China to raise “pioneer battalions,” between 1,200 and 1,500 strong. In an August 11, 1917 secret report, he pointed out that, “given the population of China, the number of battalions which can be raised is theoretically limitless.” Foch asked Paris to press China to dispatch between seventy and eighty battalions. Such units, mostly officered by the Chinese themselves, would have undertaken construction and logistical work near and at the front, making it unnecessary to individually hire further Chinese workers.⁴³ France did not manage to persuade the United Kingdom, with the War Cabinet noting at its February 4, 1918 that “the Supreme War Council do not accept Joint Note No. 11 of the Permanent Military Representatives on the subject of Chinese battalions.”⁴⁴ Logistics did not seem to be the reason behind British opposition despite the shortage of Allied shipping and the unsuitability of Chinese vessels for oceanic voyages described in the same missive.⁴⁵

While not the focus of the paper, it should also be mentioned that a small number of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin volunteered and managed to be accepted for service, despite the refusal to enrol them in, for example, British Columbia. While sources estimate them at, at most, three hundred, ‘Those of Chinese origin who are known to have volunteered included Frederick Lee and Wee Hong Louie (enlisted in Kamloops), William Thomas Louie (Calgary), Tung On Hong (Sudbury), and Victor Fong (Quebec).’⁴⁶

The Ultimate Impact of China’s Contribution to the War Effort: Logistics, Frustration and Revolution

CLC recruits in Weihaiwei doing physical training before leaving for Europe (image)

As explained, life was not easy for the members of the Chinese Labour Corps, and a number made the ultimate sacrifice. On the positive side, however, they could acquire some savings, widen their horizons, and some gained a measure of literacy. Many went back home with the desire and ability to play a more meaningful role in the future of their country. The presence of Chinese in France did not end with the Great War, and included some key figures in Chinese communism who took part in the Work-Study Program, including Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai. Deng lived in France from 1920 to 1925, where he became active in politics for the first time and joined the Chinese Communist Party.⁴⁷ Zhou was in the country from 1920 to 1924, playing a leading role among Chinese work-study students.⁴⁸

At the international level, the outcome of the First World War was frustrating for China. Despite being on the winning side and a participant in the Versailles Peace negotiations, China was unable to secure any significant gains. Japan, a more powerful and cohesive state which had entered the war earlier, pre-empted Chinese moves and succeeded Germany in securing rights in China and a number of Pacific Ocean islands. The 62-strong Chinese delegation was attacked following revelations of Japan’s confidential agreements with France, Great Britain and Italy, on the one hand, and Duan Qirui on the other. US President Wilson, originally sympathetic to China, agreed on April 30, 1919 with French PM Georges Clemenceau and British PM David Lloyd George to the transfer of all German rights in Shandong Province to Japan. This “flagrant denial of the new Wilsonian principles of open diplomacy and self-determination,” inflamed Chinese public opinion and prompted many protests.⁴⁹ Enraged, Chinese students in Paris surrounded the hotel where the Chinese delegation was staying in order to prevent it from signing the Peace Treaty as decided by the government in Beijing, which sent a telegram to that effect.⁵⁰ Mass demonstrations in Beijing on 4 May would give a name to a movement which sought to renew China and raise her to the position of equal among international powers. One of its immediate consequences was the emergence of a new standard for the written language, based on the modern Beijing dialect, which would replace classical Chinese..⁵¹ It would also lead to the creation of the Chinese Communist Party.

China’s intervention in the First World War, while contributing to the Allied victory, failed to secure for Beijing any significant geopolitical gains. Indeed, by boosting Japan and weakening the British Empire, it could even be argued that the war facilitated the later clash between the two Asian giants. In its wake, London put an end to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, sided with the United States, and started work on a new naval base in Singapore, designed to provide a measure of deterrence. The Great War, however, transformed the lives of many Chinese, both members of the Labour Corps and students and intellectuals at home, and helped reinforce the conviction that the country needed to become stronger and renew itself in order to be treated as an equal in the international sphere.⁵² It was yet another reminder, following less than a generation after the First Sino-Japanese War, that unlike Japan, China had not yet transformed itself into a modern nation state and gained a measure of recognition as an equal by the leading Western powers of the time.

Geopolitics, Public Diplomacy, and Soft Power: Competing Narratives.

The importance of commemorating the First World War and of highlighting their national contribution to the allied victory has not gone unnoticed in Beijing, New Delhi, or Tokyo. The fact that these three major Asian powers, competitors and often party to border disputes on land or at sea, fought on the same side in the Great War is a two-edged sword. It could have led to coordinated efforts and even have provided, in the case of China and Japan, a counter to other historical episodes, very much alive in popular memory, which act as major obstacles to a lasting peace. However, this does not seem to have been the case. China tends to see the Great War mainly in terms of having capped Japan’s successful move from colonialism target to colonial power, with Tokyo not just replacing Berlin in China and the Pacific, but decisively moving towards a paramount position in much of China.

Efforts at remembrance are also being made in the United Kingdom, where “The National Campaign for a Permanent Memorial to the Chinese Labour Corps of the First World War” was launched in August 2014⁵³, while initiatives in China include a documentary series by CCTV, introduced with a reminder that “An estimated 145,000 Chinese workers stood shoulder to shoulder with British and French soldiers during the conflict from 1914 to 1918. More than 20,000 of them were killed.”⁵⁴ A challenge as we commemorate the centenary of the Great War is to ensure it includes greater awareness of the contributions of the Chinese Labour Corps.

Alex Calvo is a guest professor at Nagoya University (Japan) and the author of ‘The Second World War in Central Asia: Events, Identity, and Memory’, in S. Akyildiz and R. Carlson eds., Social and cultural Change in Central Asia: The Soviet Legacy (London: Routledge, 2013).

Bao Qiaoni is an ECUPL (East China University of Political Science & Law) law undergraduate and exchange student (NUPACE Program) at Nagoya University (Japan) School of Law.

Notes:

Archival Materials

NA National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.

SHAT Service Historique de l’Armée de Terre, Service historique de la défense, Château de Vincennes, Avenue de Paris, 94306 Vincennes cedex

USNA US National Archives, National Archives and Records Administration, 700

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20408-0001, USA

Other Primary Sources

Huimin hetong zhaogonghetong惠民合同招工合同, Article 9.

Yingguo zhaogong hetong (Renjihetong) 英国招工合同（仁记合同）[The contract of British Recruitment], Article 12.

Secondary Sources

Calvo, Alex. 2014. “Japan and the Century Since World War I.” Shingetsu News Agency, 20 June

2014, available here.

CCTV. 2009. Chinese Labor Corps during World War I. Website of CCTV, available here.

CCTV, 2009. “Chinese labors corps”华工军团. Available here.

CCTV, 2014. “Chinese laborers in the first World War”一战中的华工. Available here.

Chen Sanjing陈三井.1986, 34—35. “Huagong yu ouzhan”华工与欧战[Chinese laborers and the first World War]. Taipei: Zhongyang yuanjinshisuo台北：中研院近史所. As seen in Xu Guoqi徐国琦. 2007, 56. “Wenming de jiaorong—diyi cishi jiedazhanqijian dezaifahuagong”文明的交融—第一次世界大战期间的在法华工[Cultural fusion–Chinese laborers in France during the first World War]. Wuzhou chuanbo chubanshe五洲传播出版社.

De Francis, John. 1984. The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Deng Xiaojun邓小军. February 15,2009. “Bokaimiwu, tanxun ‘yizhanhuagong’ delishi—fang meiguo kalamazudaxuejiaoshou Xuguoqi”, 拨开迷雾，探寻‘一战华工’的历史—访美国卡拉玛祖大学教授徐国琦, Zhongguodangan [China Archives].

Ermito, Daniele and Liu, Lawrence. 2013. “Military 軍事.” In British Chinese Workforce Heritage, available here.

Gu Xingqin顾杏卿. 1937, 50. “Ouzhan gongzuo huiyilu”欧战工作回忆录 [Memoirs of the working experience in first World War]. Shanghai shangwu yinshuguan上海商务印书馆. As seen in Xu Guoqi徐国琦. 2007, 56. “Wenming de jiaorong—diyici shijie dazhan qijian dezai fahuagong”文明的交融—第一次世界大战期间的在法华工 [Cultural fusion–Chinese laborers in France during the first World War]. Wuzhou chuanbo chubanshe五洲传播出版社.

Huang Yinghu黄英湖. December, 2011. “Yizhan fuou huagong jiqite dianfenxi”. 一战赴欧华工及其特点分析 [Chinese laborers in World War I and their characteristic analysis]. Bagui qiaokan.八桂侨刊[Overseas Chinese Journal of Bagui].No.4.

International academic conference of Chinese labors during World War I, held in Weihai威海. September17–19, 2008. Available here.

Jones, Arthur Philip. 1986. Britain’s Search for Chinese Cooperation in the First World War. Hamden: Garland Publishing Inc.

Li Zhancai 李占才. October 3, 2011. “Ouzhan huagong xueleishi”.欧战华工血泪史[The history of Chinese laborers in World War I]. Wenshitiandi.文史天地 [Journal of Literature and History].

Maillard, Domonique. 2009. “Diyici shijie dazhan qijian zaif aguo dezhong guolaogong” 第一次世界大战期间在法国的中国劳工[Chinese laborers in France during World War I]. Guojiguancha国际观察 [International Review]. No.2.

National Palace Museum. 2011. A Century of Resilient Tradition: Exhibition of the Republic of China’s Diplomatic Archives. Taipei: National Palace Museum.

Peng Zhiguo彭志国. April 1, 2014. “Yizhan huagong, bugai wangji de xuelei zhi ge” 一战华工，不该忘记的血泪之歌 [Chinese laborers in World War I，a song of blood and tears].Youpin优品 [Trading up]. No.4.

Pope, Stephen, Wheale, Elizabeth-Anne, and Robbins, Keith, eds. 1995. Dictionary of the First World War. New York: St.Martin’s Press.

Schwartz, Benjamin I. 1983. “Themes in Intellectual History: May Fourth and After.” In John King Fairbank, ed. The Cambridge History of China: Volume 12, Republican China 1912-1949, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Sheridan, James E. 1983. “The warlord era: politics and militarism under the Peking government , 1916-1928.” In John King Fairbank, ed. The Cambridge History of China: Volume 12, Republican China 1912-1949, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Song Enrong宋恩荣. 1989, 528. “Yanyangchu quanji”晏阳初全集[Complete works of Y.C. James Yen]. Hunan jiaoyu chubanshe湖南教育出版社　[Hunan education press]. Vol.2. As seen in XuGuoqi徐国琦. 2007, “Wenming de jiaorong—diyici shijie dazhan qijian de zaifa huagong”文明的交融—第一次世界大战期间的在法华工[Cultural fusion–Chinese laborers in France during the first World War]. Wuzhou chuanbo chubanshe五洲传播出版社.

Spence, Jonathan D. 1990. The Search for Modern China. New York: W W Norton and Company.

Stilwell, Joseph Warren. 1948. The Stilwell Papers. New York: William Sloane Associates Inc

“The Labour Corps of 1917-1918.” In The Long, Long Trail: the British Army in the Great War, undated, available here.

The National Campaign for a Permanent Memorial to the Chinese Labour Corps of the First World War, undated, available here.

Vancouver Public Library. 2012. “Chinese-Canadians in World War I (1914-1918).” In Chinese-Canadian Genealogy, available here.

Walker, James W. St. G. “Race and Recruitment in World War I: Enlistment of Visible Minorities in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.” Canadian Historical Review LXX I (1989)

Wang Jiading王家鼎. December 15, 1997. “Diyici shijie dazhan qijian huagong fufa”第一次世界大战期间华工赴法 [Chinese laborers who went to France during the first World War], Mingguochunqiu民国春秋. No.6.

Wang Jian王建. 2014, 33-36.“Diyici shijie dazhan qijian Shandong diquhuagong zhaomu”

第一次世界大战期间山东地区的华工招募 [Recruitment of Chinese laborers in Shandong Area during the First World War]. Anhui daxue shuoshi lunwen [安徽大学硕士论文].

Xu Guoqi徐国琦. 2007, 56–60. “Wenming de jiaorong—diyici shijie dazhan qijian dezai fahuagong”文明的交融—第一次世界大战期间的在法华工[Cultural fusion–Chinese laborers in France during the first World War]. Wuzhou chuanbo chubanshe五洲传播出版社.

Xu, Guoqi. 2011. Strangers on the Western Front: Chinese Workers in the Great War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Xu, Guoqi. 2011. China and the Great War: China’s Pursuit of a New National Identity and Internationalization (Studies in the Social and Cultural History of Modern Warfare). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, Jichen杨机臣. September 8, 2007. “Beiyi wangde 15wan zhongguo yizhanhuagong”被遗忘的中国一战华工[The forgotten Chinese laborers in the first World War]. Zhongguo zuojia中国作家Chinese writers.

Yao Na姚娜. September, 2011.”Yizhan qijian zhongguo zhengfu paiqian huagong fuou dongyinxi” . 一战期间中国政府派遣华工赴欧动因析. [Causes of Chinese government’s sending laborers to Europe during World War I]. Anhui ligong daxue xuebao (shehuikexueban) 安徽理工大学学报（社会科学版）[Journal of Anhui University of Science and Technology(Social Science)], Vol. 13. No. 3.

Yong, C. F. 1987. “The 1911 Revolution and the Kuomintang Movement in Malaya and Singapore, 1912-1925.” In Lee, L. T. ed. The 1911 Revolution: the Chinese in British and Dutch Southeast Asia. Singapore: Heinemann Asia, 1987, 100.

Notes

¹ A. Calvo, “Japan and the Century Since World War I”, Shingetsu News Agency, 20 June 2014, available here.

² International academic conference of Chinese laborers during World War I, 2008. CCTV, 2009; CCTV, 2014. Deng Xiaojun 邓小军. February 15, 2009.

³ Yao Na 姚娜. September, 2011.

⁴ Sheridan 1983, 308.

⁵ These demands alarmed Western powers bent on keeping the balance of power in China. They also prompted a rift between the Kuomintang, radically opposed to the Yuan Shikai regime, and those organizations stressing unity in the face of Japanese expansionism. For the latter see Yong 1987, 100. Yao Na姚娜. September, 2011.

⁶ Text of the demands, 7 May 1915 ultimatum, and Chinese reply, reproduced in Michael Duffy, “Primary Documents – ’21 Demands’ Made by Japan to China, 18 January 1915”, FirstWorldWar.Com, 22 August 2009, available here.

⁷ Spence 1990, 289-290. Li Zhancai 李占才. October 3, 2011.

⁸ Sheridan 1983, 304.

⁹ Anthony B. Chan, Arming the Chinese: The Western Armaments Trade in Warlord China, 1920-28, (Vancouver-Toronto: UBCPress, 2010), p. 18.

¹⁰ Huang Yinghu 黄英湖. December, 2011.

¹¹ The Long, Long Trail. Undated.

¹² Xu Guoqi 徐国琦. 2007, 56–60.

¹³ Xu Guoqi 徐国琦. 2007, 56.

¹⁴ Pope et al. 1995.

¹⁵ Jones 1986, 108-09.

¹⁶ Chen Sanjing 陈三井.1986, 34—35.

¹⁷ Gu Xingqin 顾杏卿. 1937, 50.

¹⁸ RG165M1444 Roll 2, documents 2055-12, USNA.

¹⁹ Ermito and Liu 2013.

²⁰ Huang Yinghu 黄英湖. December, 2011.

²¹ Yangjichen 杨机臣. September 8, 2007. Domonique Maillard.2009.

²² They had been hired by the French and thus did not belong to the Chinese Labour Corps, which was a British organization.

²³ Deng Xiaojun 邓小军. February 15,2009.

²⁴ Li Zhancai 李占才. October 3, 2011.

²⁵ Peng Zhiguo 彭志国.April 1, 2014.

²⁶ CAB 23/8, NA.

²⁷ Song Enrong 宋恩荣. 1989, 528.

²⁸ Ermito and Liu 2013. Li Zhancai 李占才. October 3, 2011.

²⁹ Huiminhetongzhaogonghetong 惠民合同招工合同, Article 9.　Yingguozhaogonghetong(Renjihetong) 英国招工合同（仁记合同）[The contract of British Recruitment], Article 12.

³⁰ Xu Guoqi 徐国琦. 2007.

³¹ Spence 1990, 291-292.

³² Wang Jiading 王家鼎. December15, 1997.

³³ Xu 2011 A, 191-192.

³⁴ CAB 24/39, NA.

³⁵ CAB 24/39, NA.

³⁶ Xu 2011 A, 3.

³⁷ Xu Guoqi 徐国琦. 2007.

³⁸ CAB 23/8, NA.

³⁹ CAB 23/8, NA.

⁴⁰ CAB 24/39, NA.

⁴¹ “The U.S. Army insisted that the soldiers at Ramgarh be paid individually and by public roll call. The Chinese constantly agitated that the soldiers’ pay be turned over in a lump sum to the commanding officer of the units involved. This was the traditional channel of theft in the Chinese Army, and the U.S. Army refused.” Stilwell 1948, 213.

⁴² Xu 2011 B, 185.

⁴³ 16N2450, GQG, 6498, SHAT.

⁴⁴ CAB/23/5, NA.

⁴⁵ CAB/24/31, NA.

⁴⁶ Vancouver Public Library 2012. Walker 1989.

⁴⁷ Nora Wang, “Deng Xiaoping: The Years in France”, The China Quarterly, Volume 92, 1982, pp. 698-705.

⁴⁸ Paul Bailey, “The Chinese Work—Study Movement in France”, The China Quarterly, Volume 115, 1988, pp. 441-461, p. 442.

⁴⁹ Schwartz 1983, 407.

⁵⁰ A copy of the telegram from the delegation reporting on the failure to secure German rights in Shandong is available in National Palace Museum 2011, 134-135. On the other hand, China signed the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria (Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Layle) and the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary (Treaty of Trianon) National Palace Museum 2011, 136-139.

⁵¹ De Francis 1984, 243-245.

⁵² Deng Xiaojun 邓小军. February 15,2009；　Wang Jian 王建. 2014, 33-36.

⁵³ The National Campaign, undated.

⁵⁴ CCTV 2009.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said following independent reports in support of Moscow’s intel and evidence on the Turkish scandal of oil trade with the ISIL Takfiri terrorist groups, it’s now President Erdogan’s turn to act on his words and resign.

Addressing a weekly press briefing in Moscow on Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that her country’s information about smuggling of ISIL oil in Turkey has been confirmed by other sources now.

“For instance, Danish newspaper Klassenkampen has published report on Turkish participation in oil smuggling, which has been prepared by consulting company Rystad Energy,” she said.

The Spokesperson stressed that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan had stated earlier that he would step down if ISIL oil smuggling would be confirmed, but Russia has presented evidence on Turkish partnership in the smuggling, implying that it’s now Erdogan’s turn.

“I would like to remind you that not too long ago, Turkish President announced his readiness to resign if it is proven that oil deliveries by Ankara or with the help of the government of Ankara from the terrorist group [are taking place], that ‘if this fact is proven, I’ll leave this chair,’ Erdogan told journalists on the sidelines of the climate summit in Paris. I’d like to understand: What’s up with that chair?” the Russian FM spokeswoman underlined.

“Russia is implementing all measures in countering oil smuggling by the ISIL and hopes that other countries will join in cooperating with Moscow,” Zakharova said.

“As you know, and we’ve said this constantly, Russia is implementing measures in order to stop and close the paths of oil deliveries by terrorists. We hope for active actual cooperation with other countries towards goals,” she added.

Earlier, the Russian defense ministry announced that Erdogan and his family members are directly involved in illegal oil deliveries from ISIL oil fields in Syria.

Turkey’s leadership, including president Erdogan and his family, is involved in illegal oil trade with ISIL militants, the Russian Defense Ministry had said, stressing that Turkey is the final destination for oil smuggled from Syria and Iraq.

Satellite and drone images showed hundreds and hundreds of oil trucks moving from ISIL-held territory to Turkey to reach their destination at Turkish refineries and ports controlled by Turkish president’s family.

According to 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe.

Major Cities in Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings.

Plans to Target People (“Population”) Violated International Legal Norms.

SAC Wanted a 60 Megaton Bomb, Equivalent to over 4,000 Hiroshima Atomic Weapons.

The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 and published today for the first time by the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.

The SAC study includes chilling details. According to its authors,  their target priorities and nuclear bombing tactics would expose nearby civilians and “friendly forces and people” to high levels of deadly radioactive fallout.  Moreover, the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.  Purposefully targeting civilian populations as such directly conflicted with the international norms of the day, which prohibited attacks on people per se (as opposed to military installations with civilians nearby).

The National Security Archive, based at The George Washington University, obtained the study, totaling more than 800 pages, through the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) process (see sidebar).

The SAC document includes lists of more than 1100 airfields in the Soviet bloc, with a priority number assigned to each base.  With the Soviet bomber force as the highest priority for nuclear targeting (this was before the age of ICBMs), SAC assigned priority one and two to Bykhov and Orsha airfields, both located in Belorussia. At both bases, the Soviet Air Force deployed medium-range Badger (TU-16) bombers, which would have posed a threat to NATO allies and U.S. forces in Western Europe.

A second list was of urban-industrial areas identified for “systematic destruction.”  SAC listed over 1200 cities in the Soviet bloc, from East Germany to China, also with priorities established.  Moscow and Leningrad were priority one and two respectively.  Moscow included 179 Designated Ground Zeros (DGZs) while Leningrad had 145, including “population” targets.  In both cities, SAC identified air power installations, such as Soviet Air Force command centers, which it would have devastated with thermonuclear weapons early in the war.

According to the study, SAC would have targeted Air Power targets with bombs ranging from 1.7 to 9 megatons.  Exploding them at ground level, as planned, would have produced significant fallout hazards to nearby civilians.  SAC also wanted a 60 megaton weapon which it believed necessary for deterrence, but also because it would produce “significant results” in the event of a Soviet surprise attack. One megaton would be 70 times the explosive yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

*

SAC Nuclear Planning for 1959

SAC’s top priority for destruction was Soviet “air power” because of the apparent immediate threat that Soviet bombers posed to the continental United States and to U.S. forces in Europe and East Asia.   The report’s detailed introduction explained that the priority given to Air Power (BRAVO) targets dictated the surface bursting of high-yield thermonuclear weapons to destroy priority targets, including airbases in Eastern Europe.  That tactic would produce large amounts of radioactive fallout compared to bursting weapons in the air.  According to the study, “the requirement to win the Air Battle is paramount to all other considerations.”

The “greatly compressed time factor”—the danger of a speedy Soviet attack and counterattack– encouraged targeters to require the surface bursting of high-yield nuclear weapons. According to SAC, bursting the weapon in the air would “result in decrease of blast effect.” Detonating the weapon on or close to the ground would maximize blast effects, destroy the target, and disperse irradiated particles which would be picked up by winds and descend far and near.[1]

According to the study, SAC planners placed “prime reliance” on blast effects, finding that thermal and radiation effects were “relatively ineffective.”  As Lynn Eden has demonstrated in her study, Whole World on Fire, the Air Force’s World War II experience encouraged target planners to emphasize blast effects when they tried to estimate the damage that nuclear weapons would cause. The resulting “blast frame” of mind overlooked the significant devastation caused by other nuclear weapons effect such as radiation and mass fires. [2]

Believing that a “favorable decision may be reached in the initial stages” SAC thought it essential to achieve high levels of damage. Accordingly, target planners wanted to be sure that enough firepower was launched to assure a 90 percent chance of destroying targets in the airpower category: collapsing above-ground structures or cratering airbase runways and underground facilities.

SAC laid out the numbers and types of nuclear weapons  required to destroy each DGZ.  The nuclear weapons information is completely excised from the report making it impossible to know how many weapons SAC believed were necessary to destroy the various targets.   In any event, SAC could anticipate a very large stockpile of nuclear weapons by 1959 to target priority objectives.  This was a period when the nuclear weapons stockpile was reaching large numbers, from over 2400 in calendar 1955 to over 12,000 in calendar 1959 and reaching 22,229 in 1961.

The Air Power and Systematic Destruction lists were not final lists of targets for a military plan. Nuclear war planning was always in a state of change because new intelligence information would become available and change the understanding of which targets had greater priority.  It is clear that SAC anticipated further refinement of target lists.  The target study included language about the “nomination” of objectives in all of the areas, Soviet Union, China, and the Eastern European satellites, which were responsive to the goal of destroying air power and “war-making” capability.

Air Power Target System

SAC’s top priority for destruction, the Soviet bloc’s air power, was a complex target system.  Before the Soviet Union  acquired the atomic bomb and significant capability to deliver nuclear weapons at long distances,  SAC’s priority had been the destruction of the Soviet urban-industrial complex, but during the mid-1950s the “greatly compressed time factor” produced a reversal.[3]   In the SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, SAC broadly defined the “Air Power” target: air and missile bases for strategic  and tactical forces, defensive and offensive, but also government and military control centers that would direct the air battle and nuclear weapons storage sites, air industry, atomic industry, and petroleum-oil-lubricants (POL) storage areas.  To this extent, the Air Power category cut across some of the major categories of target systems that Pentagon planners had developed in the early 1950s: strategic nuclear (BRAVO category), conventional forces (ROMEO category), and urban-industrial (DELTA).[4]

Given the expansive definition of Air Power, this suggested that targets in major cities such as Moscow and Leningrad could be subjected to H-bomb attack because both were rich in air power targets. For example, according to the SAC study, the Moscow area had 12 airbases. None of them were even in the top 400 airbases on the list so they may not have been attacked immediately, but Moscow had other potentially higher priority targets: 7 Air Force storage areas, 1 Air Force military control, 1 government control (presumably Kremlin and vicinity), 4 guided missile entities (R&D, production), 5 atomic energy research centers, 11 airframe entities, 6 aircraft engine entities, 2 liquid fuel plants, and 16 liquid fuel storage areas, including refineries. Moreover Moscow had a variety of other non-air military objectives, such as an Army military headquarters, Army and Navy military storage areas, and biological warfare research centers that might have been deemed worthy of attack at the opening of the war.

Leningrad was also a prime candidate for high-yield nuclear weapons aimed at air power targets.  It had 12 airbases in the vicinity, as well as such installations as: 1 air frame , 1 aircraft engine, 2 atomic energy research, 2 guided missiles, 3 liquid fuel, 1 Air Force military control, and 4 Air Force military storage areas.

At the heart of the Air Power target system were bases for bombers, missiles, and air defenses. The SAC Atomic Weapons Requirement Study listed alphabetically over 1100 air fields, with a priority number assigned to each. As noted earlier, the number one and number two priority bases on the list were in Belarus—Bykhov and Orsha (a.k.a. Balbasova)—as were four others in the top 20:  Baranovichi, Bobruysk (or Babruysk), Minsk/Machulische, and Gomel/Prybytki. Seven of the top 20 were in the Ukraine:  Priluki (Pryluky), Poltava, Zhitomir/Skomorokhi, Stryy, Melitpol, Melitpol, and Khorol.  Six were in Russia: Pochinok (Shatalovo), Seshcha, Ostrov (Gorokhov), Soltsy, Spassk Dalniy, and Vozdenzhenka.  One airfield, Tartu (number 13 in priority), was in Estonia.

Declassified CIA documents suggest why Bykhov and Orsha had such high prominence on the target list.  Months before the list was prepared, the CIA’s Current Intelligence Bulletin published an article indicating “Western” military attachés had seen Bison (M-4) jet bombers at Bykhov and possibly also at Orsha, although uncertainty existed as to whether the espied aircraft were Badger [Tu-16] or Bison bombers.  In fact, Orsha was becoming a site for Badger bombers, which were slated for strike missions in nearby theaters, such as Western Europe, where they would have posed a threat to NATO allies and U.S. forces. Despite Washington’s fears, the M-4 could not reach the United States on two-way missions (it lacked the technology for aerial refueling), but multiple flyovers of Red Square during a 1954 military parade created fears of a “bomber gap” in Washington.  Bykhov was a base for Badger bombers but later became prominent as a base for medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) so it was sure to remain a high priority target [5]

The 3M (Bison-B), successor to the M-4 and the Tu-95M (Bear), gave the Soviets their “first real intercontinental capability.”  The Bear was becoming operational, although it had significant technical problems.  The Soviet air force deployed Bears at only a handful of bases, but they were among the top 100 airfields targeted by SAC—for example, Mozdok (number 34) and Semipalitinsk (number 69).[6]

According to the SAC study, each airfield was one DGZ [designated ground zero].  Some targets, however, appeared in the war plans of more than one command. For SAC some element of duplication was “desirable and necessary” to assure the destruction of urgent targets in the event that one command or the other could not destroy them.  Therefore, the duplications were “confined to higher priority air fields.”

The “Final Blows”

If fighting continued once the air power battle was over, the second phase of the war was to be the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc war-making potential. The “final blows” in the bombing campaign would strike “basic industries”—those industries and economic activities which most contributed to war-making capability. This was consistent with Air Force ideas dating back to World War II and earlier that the destruction of key nodes in a society’s industrial fabric could  cause its collapse. Toward that end, SAC would drop atomic bombs, not H-bombs, on large numbers of specific installations in designated urban-industrial areas.

General Curtis LeMay, Commander-in-chief of the Strategic Air Command when SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959 was prepared. [Photo source: U.S. National Archives, Still Pictures Division, RG 342B, Box 507 B&W]

As the SAC  study indicates, Mark 6 (B and C) atomic bombs, implosion weapons with explosive yields of up to 160 kilotons—some eight times the yield of the “Fat Man” weapon which destroyed Nagasaki—were assigned to the “systematic destruction” mission.   The explosive yields of these bombs were likely to exceed by far the requirements of destroying specific targets in the systematic destruction mission, such as power plants or transportation nodes.[7]

Moscow, the number one urban target, had around 180 installations slated for destruction; some were in the air power category, but many involved a variety of industrial activities, including factories producing machine tools, cutting tools, oil extraction equipment, and a most vital medicine: penicillin.  Other targets involved significant infrastructural functions: locks and dams, electric power grids, railroad yards, and repair plants for railroad equipment. SAC might not have targeted each installation with a bomb but may have used the concept of “target islands” whereby adjacent installations were targeted at a central aiming point.  SAC may have assigned more than one weapon to large industrial complexes, however, because they were regarded as several installations.

What is particularly striking in the SAC study is the role of population targeting.  Moscow and its suburbs, like the Leningrad area, included distinct “population” targets (category 275), not further specified.  So did all the other cities recorded in the two sets of target lists. In other words, people as such, not specific industrial activities, were to be destroyed.   What the specific locations of these population targets were cannot now be determined. The SAC study includes the Bombing Encyclopedia numbers for those targets, but the BE itself remains classified (although under appeal).

The SAC study does not include any explanation for population targeting, but it was likely a legacy of earlier Air Force and Army Air Force thinking about the impact of bombing raids on civilian morale. For example, in a 1940 Air Corps Tactical School lecture, Major Muir Fairchild argued that an attack on a country’s economic structure “must be to so reduce the morale of the enemy civilian population through fear—of death or injury for themselves or loved ones, [so] that they would prefer our terms of peace to continuing the struggle, and that they would force their government to capitulate.” Thinking along those lines continued into the post-war period when social scientists studied the possible impact of nuclear bombing on civilian morale.[8]

Whatever SAC planners had in mind, attacks on civilian population per se were inconsistent with the standards followed by Air Force leaders.  While they were willing to accept mass civilian casualties as a consequence of attacking military targets, as was the case during the Korea War, they ruled out “intentional” attacks on civilians.  Moreover, attacks on populations violated international legal norms of the day, which were summarized in the then-unratified Hague rules on aerial warfare (1923).  Nevertheless, such targeting rules were not in force until the 1977 agreement on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention (1949). The United States, however, has consistently refused to accept claims that the targeting standards of the Additional Protocols apply to the use of nuclear weapons.[9]

The “systematic destruction” category would be struck with atomic weapons only. As suggested, that might not have made much difference for cities like Moscow and Leningrad which had numerous air power targets, along with the surrounding population, which may well have already been destroyed with thermonuclear weapons.  This planning occurred years before U.S. defense officials decided that there should be a “withhold” option to spare Moscow in order to leave someone to negotiate with.

How long, and to what extent, SAC planners followed  war plan with major phases of Air Power and Systematic Destruction is  unclear.   The priority given to Air Power priority posited the thermonuclear destruction of relevant military targets in Moscow and Leningrad, but that implied the simultaneous devastation of any nearby installations that had been slated for “Systematic Destruction” at a later stage of the conflict.  Whether SAC officers saw that as a problem or not, by the late 1950s, Pentagon planners were thinking in terms of an “optimum mix” war plan which sought rapid, but simultaneous, destruction of important military and urban-industrial targets, although giving priority to the Air Power target system in terms of numbers of DGZs.[10]

Eastern European Targets

The SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959 stipulated that with exceptions SAC would use lower-yield atomic bombs against targets in Eastern Europe.  Apparently this was for “political” and “psychological” reasons, to differentiate those countries from the Soviet Union through somewhat less destructive bombing. The exception was air power targets: because of the primacy of that category, such targets in Eastern Europe were scheduled to be destroyed by high-yield thermonuclear weapons.  For example, according to the SAC target list, Brieg and Modlin airfields, located near Warsaw, were 31^st and 80^th in priority respectively.  Tokol airport near Budapest was 125^th in priority, therefore a likely target.  Thus, urban populations in Eastern Europe would be exposed to the fallout and other effects of thermonuclear weapons, eroding much of the distinction between targets in that region and targets in the Soviet Union itself.

East Germany was the site of major Soviet airbases and East Berlin itself was a target for “systematic destruction.”  A sampling of the SAC airfields list finds more than a few Soviet-operated installations among the top 200, with some not very far from Berlin. Among them were Briesen (number 140), Gross Dolln (Templin) (number 70), Oranienberg (number 95), Welzow (number 96), Werneuchen (Verneuchen) (number 82).  For example, Oranienberg, which was then a base for Il-28 (Beagle) bombers, is only 22 miles (34 kilometers) north of Berlin. Gross Dolln (Templin), originally a base for Il-28 bombers and later for Soviet fighter aircraft, is 55 miles (66 kilometers) north of Berlin. Werneuchen (number 82), a base for interceptors and fighter/bombers, is about 22 miles (33 kilometers) northeast.  Presumably those bases would have been targeted with thermonuclear weapons which could have subjected the Berlin area to tremendous danger, including radiation hazards.

East Berlin had a priority ranking of 61 in the list of urban-industrial slated for “systematic destruction.”  The SAC study identified 91 DGZs in East Berlin and its suburbs: a wide range of industries and infrastructural activities including electric power, railroad yards, liquid fuel storage, machine tools, and radio and television stations.  In addition, East Berlin and its suburbs included “population” targets, as did Warsaw (target priority 62.) The atomic bombing of East Berlin and its suburbs would very likely have produced fire storms, among other effects, with disastrous implications for West Berlin.   Whether SAC conducted studies on the vulnerability of West Berlin to the effects of nuclear attacks on East Berlin or in other East German targets is unknown.

China

Whether China was fighting on the Soviet side or not in a war, SAC treated it as part of the Soviet bloc and listed Chinese airfields and cities in the target lists, including Beijing. Of the list of targets scheduled for “systematic destruction,” Beijing [Peiping in Wade-Giles transliteration] was in the top 20 (number 13) with 23 DGZs.  The list included several Air Power targets, including two Air Force military control centers and two Air Force storage areas. The location of those installations suggests that Beijing would have been targeted with thermonuclear weapons early in the war. For Beijing and its suburban district Fengtai, SAC identified various infrastructural and military DGZs, including “Population” targets.

Target Lists

SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959 provides two target lists. The Department of Energy has excised the numbers and types of weapons assigned to various DGZs in both of them but some general information about them has been declassified. The first list, Part I, consisted of 3400 DGZs—the “SAC Target System,” which suggested that it was the sum total of all targets then considered to be eligible.  The list was “unrestricted” apparently because  a large supply of fissionable material would be available for the weapons assigned to the targets    Taking into account duplicate targets in the Air Power category, the attack plan would have required more than 3400 weapons but that number remains classified.

The second list, Part II, consisted of 1209 DGZs targeted by a larger but classified number of nuclear weapons.  Part of the description for part II is excised so the reasoning behind it  cannot be explained, but it was a “restricted” target list.  According to the study, the “weapons are programmed against targets on the basis of 69,000 [kilograms] of oralloy equivalent (76 tons US).”  Oralloy [Oak Ridge alloy] was a term of art for highly-enriched uranium. “Oralloy equivalent” may refer to the total amount of HEU and plutonium (PU) that was available to fuel the atomic bombs and H-bombs slated to inflict the desired level of destruction.  Seventy-six tons conveys the significant quantities of fissile material required for the atomic bombs and the first generation of two-stage thermonuclear weapons.

The 3400 and 1209 DGZs in the unrestricted and restricted lists are worth comparing with the first Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), the war plan prepared in 1960 by the SAC-controlled Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff.  If the U.S. had strategic warning of a Soviet attack, it would preemptively strike with a full force of 3500 weapons against an “optimum mix” of 1050 DGZs, including strategic air, missile bases, air defenses, and 151 urban-industrial targets. Attrition and multiple weapons against priority targets accounted for the discrepancy between the number of weapons and the number of DGZs.[11]

Delivery Systems

To deliver the weapons to targets, SAC would use bombs and missiles. For bomber delivery systems, SAC would use B-47s, based in the United Kingdom, Morocco, and Spain, and intercontinental B-52s, which were just beginning to be deployed in the continental U.S.

SAC listed four missile types for delivering nuclear warheads: the Snark, the Rascal, the Cross Bow, and IRBM [Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile].  The Snark, an early intercontinental ground-launched cruise missile, was only briefly deployed, during 1959, because it was a fiasco (areas in the Atlantic Oceans where the missiles crashed were called “Snark infested waters”).  The Rascal (replaced by the Hound Dog in 1958) and Cross Bow were both bomber-launched missiles, with the Crossbow targeting radars.

President Eisenhower had made IRBMs, along with ICBMs, a national priority, but in 1956 the IRBM was still projected for the future. With a range of up to 1700 miles (1500 n.m.), deployment overseas would be necessary and the Air Force envisaged stationing them in the United Kingdom, although talks with the British had yet to begin. The Air Force would eventually deploy liquid-fueled Thor IRBMs in the United Kingdom during 1960-1963, while Jupiter missiles were stationed in Italy and Turkey during 1961-1963 (removed as part of the Cuban Missile crisis settlement).[12]

SAC also identified the atomic bombs and the thermonuclear weapons that would be mated to the delivery systems.  They would be Mark 6 (B and C) atomic weapons and Mark 15, 27, and 36 thermonuclear weapons. The latter had extraordinarily massive explosive yields: MK 15: 1.6 to 3.9 megatons; MK 27: 2 megatons, and MK 36: 9 to 10 megatons.  These compare with the size of the U.S. nuclear tests in Operation Castle during 1954, in which actual explosive yields (not counting one fizzle) ranged from 1.7 to 15 megatons.

SAC wanted a 60-megaton bomb, but it was not programmed for this particular study.  According to SAC, it was “essential, not only as a deterrent but also to ensure significant results even with a greatly reduced force in the event of a Soviet surprise attack.”  Discussion of ultra-high yield thermonuclear weapons continued during the 1950s and early 1960s so the concept of 60 megatons was not out of the ordinary in Air Force circles.  Indeed, in a moment of enthusiasm Edward Teller proposed a 10-gigaton device, and in the early 1960s, in another outburst, he suggested yields up to a 1,000 megatons. A 25-megaton bomb, the B-41, had the largest yield of any weapon in the U.S. stockpile and it stayed in service until the 1970s.  The Soviets staged the largest nuclear test in history in late October 1961 with the 50-megaton “Tsar bomba.”

Interpretative Problems 

Using the category code table in the SAC study it is possible to go to the list of cities slated for the systematic destruction mission and determine how many installations and of what type SAC had in mind.  For whatever reason, the two restricted and unrestricted target lists are not quite identical; for example, with respect to Moscow, there are minor variations in the types and numbers of installations itemized in the restricted and unrestricted target lists.  A larger puzzle has to do with targets itemized at the beginning of the catalogs for the various cities identified in each of the two lists.  For example, the beginning of the Moscow targets section in the unrestricted list includes 13 sets of numbers, beginning with 5545-03737, without category codes.

By contrast, the beginning of the Moscow target section in the restricted target list includes 7 sets of such numbers.  Presumably, the numbers are from the Bombing Encyclopedia, but what they mean is uncertain. The same pattern can be found in other city listings.  Also unclear are the letters in the DGZ [Designated Ground Zeroes] column; for example, at the beginning of the Moscow list above, A, AH, AM, AN, etc.

Archival location of the SAC study: U.S. National Archives, College Park, Record Group 242, Operational Planning, box 147, file B 89351

Note to readers:

Apparently the original version of SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959 was published as a compendium of spread-sheets.  To process this study for declassification, the National Archives and Records Administration scanned it so that the information would fit on 8 by 11 inch sheets of paper. To make this highly compressed PDF legible the reader will need to expand it to at least 150 percent of the text size.  Excerpts from this huge study, which is about 800 pages in length, are presented below. For ease of use, the document has been broken down into sections, as separate PDFs, as follows:

1. Title page, table of Contents and introduction.
2. Part 1 Unrestricted Allocation 22 and Cross-reference list [excerpts]
3. Category code list
4. Airfield list with weapons [excerpts]
5. Complex list with weapons [excerpts]
6. Part II Restricted allocation [1209 DGZ’s] with airfields list and weapons [complete list]
7. Complex List with Weapons [excerpts]
8. IV Tabular Presentation [As Outlined in Annex “C,“ Appendix SM 129-56]:
   1. Atomic Weapons Requirements and Summary [PDF 1-6]
   2. Desired Stockpile Composition [PDF 7-11]
   3. Part I Telescoped Summary [PDF 12-13]
   4. Part II Telescoped Summary [PDF 14-15]

Notes

Thanks to Michael Dobbs for his original MDR request and his suggestions about the posting, to Scott Sharon for his quantitative analysis of installations in major cities slated for targeting, to Gregory Grave for reviewing the numbers, to Steve Paschke for additonal help with the spread sheets, and to Lynn Eden, Alex Wellerstein, and Stephen Schwartz for invaluable advice and comments.

[1] .   The study’s authors mistakenly asserted that “worldwide contamination is minimized when the surface burst is utilized.” The anonymous authors may not have been scientists, but in light of the 1954 Castle Bravo test, which spread radioactive debris globally, they should have known better.

[2] .  Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Devastation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004).

[3] .  For targeting during the early 1950s and changes in priorities, see David A. Rosenberg, “A Smoking Radiating Ruin at the End Of Two Hours”: Documents on American Plans for Nuclear War with the Soviet Union, 1954-1955,” International Security 6 (1981/82), 3-38.

[4] .  For useful background on developments in SAC targeting during the 1950s, see Edward Kaplan, To Kill Nations: American Strategy in the Air-Atomic Age and the Rise of Mutually Assured Destruction (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2015), especially chapter four, “The Fantastic Compression of Time,” at pages 77-107.

[5] .  Steven J. Zaloga, The Kremlin’s Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces, 1945-2000 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002), 24; Oleg Bukharin, Pavel Podvig, et al., Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001), 342.

[6] . Zaloga, The Kremlin’s Nuclear Sword, 29.

[7] .   For World War II bombing concepts, see Tami Davis Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas About Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945 {Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

[8]. Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 31, 214.  On population targeting, see also Jeffrey Richelson, “Population Targeting and U.S. Strategic Doctrine,” in Desmond Ball and Jeffrey Richelson, eds., Strategic Nuclear Targeting (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), 234-249.

[9] .  Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue, eds., The American Way of Bombing: Changing Ethical and Legal Norms from Flying Fortresses to Drones (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), 36-37, 39, 58-60, and 62-63; David A. Rosenberg, “Nuclear War Planning,” in Michael E. Howard et al., The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 165.

[10] .   David A. Rosenberg, “The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy 1945-1960,” 7 International Security (1983) 3-71.  For JCS thinking in terms of a two-phase attack plan, see Kaplan, To Kill Nations, 98.

[11] .  Rosenberg, “The Origins of Overkill,” 6.  See also Kaplan, To Kill Nations, 99, without citing source for numbers of weapons and targets.

[12] .  For the history of the U.S. IRBM program, see Philip Nash, The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters, 1957-1963 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997).

The wars stoked up by American and European imperialism in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to what could possibly be the largest refugee crisis in human history, with the number of people forced to flee their homes “exceeding 60 million for the first time,” the United Nations said last week.

Over a million of those refugees sought asylum in Europe, the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported Monday.

“2015 will be remembered as a year of human suffering and migrant tragedies,” William Lacy Swing, the director general of the IOM, said in a statement.

Swing noted that more than 5,000 refugees had died while fleeing, including 3,692 who drowned in the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, while “millions have been made into scapegoats and become the targets of xenophobic policies and alarmist rhetoric.”

Eleven more refugees, including three children, died Tuesday after their wooden boat capsized in the Aegean Sea. The route from Turkey to Greece across the Mediterranean Sea has become “the deadliest route for migrants on our planet,” according to the UN.

More than a third of refugees entering Europe are children. The Save the Children charity issued a sharply worded response to the latest figures, declaring that “Europe is doing too little to protect and help vulnerable refugee children and stop families drowning on our shores.” It declared, “When children are dying on our doorstep we need to take bolder action. There can be no bigger priority.”

Commenting on the figures, António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said, “It’s clear humanitarian actors are no longer able to provide the minimum support both in relation to core protection and lifesaving activities.”

“If you become a refugee today your chances of going home are lower than at any time in more than 30 years,” declared Guterres. Only 124,000 international refugees returned in 2014, down from a million 10 years ago.

Having made “human rights” the watchword for bombing and plundering helpless countries, the Western powers stand exposed by the refugee crisis as completely indifferent to these same “human rights” when it comes to their own borders. Instead of providing aid and assistance to the thousands of people drowning on their shores, they are using the refugee crisis as a pretense to further escalate the drive to war and attack on democratic rights at home.

The German government, which has sought to posture as a supporter of refugees, has vastly expanded deportations while slashing social assistance to refugees. The country deported 18,363 people in 2015, nearly double the number deported in the previous year and up from 7,651 in 2012. A further 190,000 people currently reside in Germany whose applications for asylum have been denied, and live in constant fear of deportation. Behind the scenes, the German government is making plans to use the military to carry out mass deportations next year.

German authorities have spearheaded the drive by the EU to work out an agreement to pay Turkey some $3 billion to stop refugees from the Middle East from entering Europe via a land route. Some 2.2 million people have fled to Turkey, where they have been prevented from entering Europe and kept in abhorrent conditions in refugee camps.

With most land routes into Europe closed off, refugees seeking to flee to Europe have been forced to make the perilous journey by sea onto the Greek islands over the tempestuous Aegean. Some 816,752 people have arrived by this route, compared to only about 30,000 who traveled by land, a testament to the brutal effectiveness of the EU’s attempts to seal its external borders.

Greece’s Syriza-led government, which in its election campaign this year sought to pander to the altruistic pro-refugee sentiments of Greek workers, has, together with its total capitulation to the austerity demands of European officials, acquiesced to its role as a border guard for the larger European powers.

To this end, the Greek Island of Lesbos, the birthplace of the lyric poet Sappho, has been turned into a giant internment camp. Some 450,000 refugees arrived in Lesbos this year, more than five times the number of island’s permanent inhabitants. Over 4,000 arrived on Monday alone.

The island is the site of the EU’s first refugee “hot spot,” a sanitized term used to describe what is little more than a concentration camp. Under police guard and surrounded by barbed wire, refugees are kept in squalid conditions.

Reuters, which was allowed to visit the “hot spot” but denied permission to take photographs, described the deplorable conditions facing refugees. “As night falls and temperatures drop to about 6 degrees Celsius (43 Fahrenheit) or lower, groups of people huddle among piles of suitcases, burning pieces of cardboard to keep warm. The dusty plot of land turns to mud each time it rains.” Greece has promised the EU it would set up four more such miserable camps.

The one million refugees who have managed to enter Europe are among the five million people who have been newly displaced this year, according to figures released by the United Nations last week. This was on top of the 59.5 million who were displaced by the end of 2014.

But the UN figures cover only the first half of the year, before the enormous spike in people fleeing the Syrian Civil war as a result of intensified intervention by the Western powers. This means that the number of people displaced worldwide could hit over 70 million in 2015 once the figures are updated.

Fully half of those crossing the Mediterranean this year were refugees from Syria. Those fleeing the war in Afghanistan accounted for 20 percent, while those fleeing Iraq accounted for 7 percent. Thus, more than three quarters of those seeking refuge in Europe are seeking to escape wars directly stoked up by US and European imperialism in the Middle East.

The European powers have pledged to intensify their crackdown in the New Year. This month, The European Commission announced plans to double the funding and personnel of Frontex, the EU border patrol agency. It vowed to further militarize the organization, creating a force of “rapid intervention troops” provided with their own ships and helicopters to intercept and turn back refugees.

In his seminal ‘Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization,’ Bryan Ward-Perkins writes, “Romans before the fall were as certain as we are today that their world would continue forever… They were wrong. We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.”

The Empire of Chaos, today, is not about complacency. It’s about hubris – and fear. Ever since the start of the Cold War the crucial question has been who would control the great trading networks of Eurasia – or the “heartland”, according to Sir Halford John Mackinder (1861–1947), the father of geopolitics.

Russia says Turkish leadership involved in illegal oil trade with #ISIS https://t.co/0tt7cvgyrh pic.twitter.com/4ggMhPdIDI

— RT (@RT_com) December 2, 2015

We could say that for the Empire of Chaos, the game really started with the CIA-backed coup in Iran in 1953, when the US finally encountered, face to face, that famed Eurasia crisscrossed for centuries by the Silk Road(s), and set out to conquer them all.

Only six decades later, it’s clear there won’t be an American Silk Road in the 21st century, but rather, just like its ancient predecessor, a Chinese one. Beijing’s push for what it calls “One Belt, One Road” is inbuilt in the 21st century conflict between the declining empire and Eurasia integration. Key subplots include perennial NATO expansion and the empire’s obsession in creating a war zone out of the South China Sea.

As the Beijing-Moscow strategic partnership analyses it, the oligarchic elites who really run the Empire of Chaos are bent on the encirclement of Eurasia – considering they may be largely excluded from an integration process based on trade, commerce and advanced communication links.

Beijing and Moscow clearly identify provocation after provocation, coupled with relentless demonization. But they won’t be trapped, as they’re both playing a very long game.

Russian President Vladimir Putin diplomatically insists on treating the West as “partners”. But he knows, and those in the know in China also know, these are not really “partners”. Not after NATO’s 78-day bombing of Belgrade in 1999. Not after the purposeful bombing of the Chinese Embassy. Not after non-stop NATO expansionism. Not after a second Kosovo in the form of an illegal coup in Kiev. Not after the crashing of the oil price by Gulf petrodollar US clients. Not after the Wall Street-engineered crashing of the ruble. Not after US and EU sanctions. Not after the smashing of Chinese A shares by US proxies on Wall Street. Not after non-stop saber rattling in the South China Sea. Not after the shooting down of the Su-24.

It’s only a thread away

A quick rewind to the run-up towards the downing of the Su-24 is enlightening. Obama met Putin. Immediately afterwards Putin met Khamenei. Sultan Erdogan had to be alarmed; a serious Russian-Iranian alliance was graphically announced in Teheran. That was only a day before the downing of the Su-24.

France’s Hollande met Obama. But then Hollande met Putin. Erdogan was under the illusion he fabricated the perfect pretext for a NATO war, to be launched following Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Not by accident failed state Ukraine was the only country to endorse – in haste – the downing of the Su-24. Yet NATO itself recoiled – somewhat in horror; the empire was not ready for nuclear war.

At least not yet. Napoleon knew history turns on a slender thread. As much as Cold War 2.0 remains in effect we were, and will remain, just a thread away from nuclear war.

Whatever happens in the so-called Syrian peace process the proxy war between Washington and Moscow will continue. Hubristic US Think-Tank Land  can’t see it any other way.

For Exceptionalist neocons and neoliberalcons alike, the only digestible endgame is a partition of Syria. The Erdogan system would gobble up the north. Israel would gobble up the oil-rich Golan Heights. And House of Saud proxies would gobble up the eastern desert.

Russia literally bombed all these elaborate plans to ashes because the next step after partition would feature Ankara, Riyadh – and a “leading from behind” Washington – pushing a Jihadi Highway all the way north to the Caucasus as well as Central Asia and Xinjiang (there are already at least 300 Uyghurs fighting for ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.) When all else fails, nothing like a Jihadi Highway plunged as a dagger in the body of Eurasia integration.

In the Chinese front, whatever “creative” provocations the Empire of Chaos may come up with, they won’t derail Beijing’s aims in the South China Sea – that vast basin crammed with unexplored oil and gas wealth and prime naval highway to and from China. Beijing is inevitably configuring itself by 2020 as a formidable haiyang qiangguo – a naval power.

Washington may supply $250 million in military “aid” to Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia for the next two years, but that’s mostly irrelevant. Whatever “creative” imperial ideas would have to take into account, for instance, the DF-21D “carrier killer” ballistic missile, with a 2,500 km range and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

On the economic front, Washington-Beijing will remain prime proxy war territory. Washington pushes the TPP – or NATO on trade pivoting to Asia? It’s still a Sisyphean task, because the 12 member nations need to ratify it, not least the US featuring an extremely hostile Congress.

Against this American one-trick pony, Xi Jinping, for his part, is deploying a complex three-pronged strategy; China’s own counterpunch to the TPP, the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP); the immensely ambitious “One Belt, One Road”; and the means to finance a tsunami of projects, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – the Chinese counter-punch to the World Bank and the US-Japan-controlled Asian Development Bank (ADB).

For Southeast Asia, for instance, the numbers tell the story. Last year, China was the top ASEAN partner, to the tune of $367 billion. This will grow exponentially with One Belt, One Road – which will absorb $200 billion in Chinese investment up to 2018.

Heart of Darkness – revisited

Prospects for Europe are nothing but bleak. French-Iranian researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar has been one of the few who identified the crux of the problem. A jihadi reserve army across Europe will continue to feed on batallions of excluded youth in poor inner cities. There is no evidence EU neoliberalcons will be fostering sound socio-economic policies to extract these alienated masses from the ghettos, employing new forms of socialization.

So the escape route will continue to be a virus-like version of Salafi-jihadism, sold by wily, PR-savvy profiteers as a symbol of resistance; the only counter-ideology available on the market. Khosrokhavar defined it as the neo-umma – an “effervescent community that never existed historically”, but now openly inviting any young European, Muslim or otherwise, afflicted by an identity crisis.

In parallel, on our way into a full 15 years of the endless neocon war against independent states in the Middle East, the Pentagon will be turbo-charging an unlimited expansion of some of its existing bases – from Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan – into “hubs”.

From sub-Saharan Africa to Southwest Asia, expect a hub boom, all of them merrily hosting Special Forces; the operation was described by Pentagon supremo Ash “Empire of Whining” Carter as “essential”;

“Because we cannot predict the future, these regional nodes – from Moron, Spain to Jalalabad, Afghanistan – will provide forward presence to respond to a range of crises, terrorist and other kinds. These will enable unilateral crisis response, counter-terror operations, or strikes on high-value targets.”

It’s all here: unilateral Exceptionalistan in action against anyone who dares to defy imperial diktats.

From Ukraine to Syria, and all across MENA (Middle East and North Africa), the proxy war between Washington and Moscow, with higher and higher stakes, won’t abate. Imperial despair over the irreversible Chinese ascent also won’t abate. As the New Great Game picks up speed, and Russia supplies Eurasian powers Iran, China and India with missile defense systems beyond anything the West has, get used to the new normal; Cold War 2.0 between Washington and Beijing-Moscow.

I leave you with Joseph Conrad, writing in Heart of Darkness:

“There is a taint of death, a flavor or mortality in lies….To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe….We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember, because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign – and no memories…”

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he’s been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of “Globalistan” (2007), “Red Zone Blues” (2007), “Obama does Globalistan” (2009) and “Empire of Chaos” (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is “2030”, also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.

Zahran Alloush, the commander of the Jaysh al-Islam alliance was killed in a Damascus suburb. August 21, 2013 the Saudi intelligence asset Alloush was commanding Liwa-al-Islam when he gave the order to launch the chemical weapons attack against the East Ghouta suburb of Damascus. Zahran Alloush has been on the payroll of Saudi intelligence since the 1980s.

The Central Command of the Syrian Arab Army confirmed that it successfully launched an air strike in the Damascus suburb of Otaya, targeting and killing several Jihadist commanders.

Among them the leader of Jaysh al-Islam, Zahran Alloush. Jaysh al-Islam is an alliance of several Jihadist militia, including Liwa-al-Islam. Jaysh al-Islam is allied with the Syrian Al-Qaeda Franchise Jabhat Al-Nusrah.

An in-depth investigation by nsnbc international, in 2013, concluded that Zahran Alloush was the commander who gave the direct order to launch the chemical weapons attack in East Ghouta on August 21, 2013.

The investigation also concluded that command responsibility for Alloush’s decision led directly to the U.S.’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House, and to the Saudi government.

(Pictured right: Jaysh al-Islam and Liwa-al-Islam Commander and Chemical Waeapon Expert Zahran Alloush has been working for Saudi Intelligence since the 1980s)

Alloush would also be in control over choosing the “security guards” UN inspectors had to submit to while gathering evidence after the chemical weapons attack in East Ghouta. (see details and names in the report).

Zahran Alloush, Liwa-al-Islam and Saudi intelligence also played central roles in the attempt to obstruct Syria’s decommissioning of chemical weapons by launching attacks against chemical weapons transports. The information about these transports was highly classified, leading the Syrian government to the conclusion that Saudi intelligence provided information to Liwa-al-Islam.

Zahran Alloush was since the 1990s involved in the Salafist – Wahabbist terrorist networks in Syria which led to his arrest by Syrian intelligence. He was released in early of 2011, when the Assad administration granted a general amnesty. Immediately after his March 2011 release from prison, Zahran Alloush began receiving substantial funds and weapons from Saudi intelligence, which enabled him to establish Liwa-al-Islam as a de facto Saudi Arabia sponsored mercenary brigade under the auspices of the Saudi Interior Ministry.

The Saudi intelligence assets Alloush and Liwa-al-Islam also played crucial roles in the demise of the predominantly Qatari and Turkish backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other, predominantly Qatari-backed insurgencies. In June 2013 in the Jobar district of Damascus, for example, Alloush withdrew his Liwa-al-Islam troops during a major battle with the Syrian Arab Army without announcing the sudden withdrawal to the Qatar-sponsored First Brigade and the Liwa Jaish al-Muslimeen. Both brigades were literally wiped out by the Syrian Army.

The air strike that exterminated Zahran Alloush also exterminated one of the primary field commanders who were responsible for the transition from the primacy of Muslim Brotherhood linked insurgencies to Al-Qaeda-linked insurgencies in the Syrian theater. That includes the primacy of Jabhat al-Nusrah, Jaysh al-Islam, Liwa-al-Islam, and ultimately also the self-proclaimed Islamic State, a.k.a. ISIL, ISIS or Daesh.

Dr. Christof Lehmann is the founder and editor of nsnbc. He is a psychologist and independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and a wide range of other political issues. His work with traumatized victims of conflict has led him to also pursue the work as political consultant. He is a lifelong activist for peace and justice, human rights, Palestinians rights to self-determination in Palestine, and he is working on the establishment of international institutions for the prosecution of all war crimes, also those committed by privileged nations. On 28 August 2011 he started his blog nsnbc, appalled by misrepresentations of the aggression against Libya and Syria. In March 2013 he turned nsnbc into a daily, independent, international on-line newspaper. He can be contacted at nsnbc international at [email protected]

Judging by the developments of recent several years, Mustafa Kemal’s dream of a secular Turkish nation-state is, of not yet dead, then certainly on life support. Recent Turkish governments but particularly president Erdogan have changed course toward transforming Turkey into…something else. It is not yet clear what the new Turkey will look like, though it is already evident this is a country that has enormous ambitions which hint at a plan of imperial revival.

The Turkey of Ataturk and his Cold War-era successors pursued a relatively unambitious foreign policy. The country stayed out of World War 2, was a peripheral member of NATO, and did not become involved in the many conflicts in the Middle East, though there were the perennial crises and even clashes with Greece culminating in the invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

Turkey’s nationalist domestic policy and conservative foreign policy was jealously guarded by its military which was not above launching coups to remove heads of state who were deemed risking Ataturk’s legacy. The US looked benevolently at these developments. Under the de-facto military rule, Turkey was a stable southern flank of NATO and its inward-looking policies meant the country was unlikely to provoke a crisis that might conceivably unleash WW3. The fact that Turkey actually shared a border with USSR also helped moderate Turkish behavior.

All of that changed following the end of the Cold War. The US was no longer interested in internal Turkish politics. Turkey no longer bordered USSR or even Russia, for that matter. And the military’s grip on Turkey’s politics began to slip, allowing the country to recede back into Islamism as evidenced by the very existence and even success of first the Welfare Party (where Erdogan began his political career) and then the Justice and Development Party. Turkish notables such as the President Turgut Ozal, who proclaimed the 21st century to be “Turkey’s Century,” or Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel, who spoke of a “Turkish world” spanning between the Adriatic Sea and the Great Wall of China, gave voice to Turkish elites’ neo-Ottoman ambitions. Turkey began to shift away from ethnic Turkish nationalism as the founding principle and instead embrace Islam as the glue that binds together all the peoples of the state, which has the advantage potentially greatly expanding Turkey’s borders to absorb many of its neighbors. Nowhere was that shift more evident than in Erdogan’s calling Kurds Kurds, as opposed to Mountain Turks, which was the required term used since Ataturk’s times.

Until recently, the pan-Turkic agenda had been pursued through largely benign means of applying Turkey’s “soft power”, both through the institution of Turkic Council founded in 2009 and comprising Kazakhstan, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, and Azerbaijan, and through bilateral economic, cultural, and political ties which include educational and cultural exchanges among other measures. Turkey’s penetration into Muslim post-Soviet territories is facilitated by the success which Turkish businesses had in establishing themselves on post-Soviet markets.

However, America’s failures in and destabilization of Iraq and the subsequent “Arab Spring” revolutions have greatly expanded Turkey’s scope of interest, which now includes virtually all of North Africa (Turkey, for example, maintained close relations with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood) and other parts of the Middle East. US apparent withdrawal from the Middle East is creating a vacuum of power and a sea of instability which Turkey is very actively seeking to fill, and it is impatient to do so lest some other power preempt it in that task. The rift between Russia and the West caused by the West’s regime change policy in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russia likewise signaled to Ankara that the situation is optimal for Turkish expansion, with a window of opportunity that likely would not stay open for very long.

The interest in countries which are not populated by Turkic-speaking peoples suggests the pan-Turkic agenda now has a companion in the form of a neo-Ottoman one, as Turkey is striving to expand its influence in all directions including Balkans, Caucasus, Central Asia, Middle East proper, and North Africa. Moreover, it is now willing to pursue that agenda through not only patient diplomacy and “soft power,” but by raising proxy armies (such as Daesh) to extend its influence in the relevant regions and even through direct use of military force. Thus, pan-Osmanism encroaches on not only Iran’s and Russia’s interests but also Saudi Arabia’s, European Union’s (which is interested in Balkan stability) and even Israel’s, which would rather prefer to be surrounded by failing Arab states than by a powerful, unified neo-Ottoman entity. Given these implications, Ankara would have been well advised to pursue sphere of influence agreements with interested parties ahead of its military actions, which does not appear to be the case considering the division within the ranks of the anti-Assad coalition. It also appears rather contrary to Erdogan’s own personality. Russia is hardly the only country to have felt betrayed by Erdogan’s backflips. Turkey’s plans to establish a military base in Qatar (!) cannot possibly be viewed favorably by Saudi Arabia which almost certainly does not desire to see yet another foreign power in what it considers its own backyard.

Even the United States seems concerned by the breadth of Ankara’s ambitions, judging by it ordering Turkey to vacate its positions in northern Iraq and its unwillingness to rush to its “NATO ally’s” defense in recent weeks following the ambush of the Russian Su-24 near the border with Turkey. Finally, following the refugee crisis which was wholly of Erdogan’s making in order to bludgeon the EU into acquiescence in Ankara Middle East schemes, nobody in that organization will ever believe Erdogan is a reliable partner. Erdogan’s erratic policies appear to have had the effect of alarming the EU, in particular, so much so that the West, which usually has no trouble in coming up with excuses to impose sanctions on Russia, did not come to Turkey’s aid when it found itself on the receiving end of Russia’s economic restrictions.

However, Turkey’s internal political divisions and conflicts meant Erdogan was not able to establish a clear and focused policy of either pan-Turkism or neo-Ottomanism, with the effect of damaging Turkey’s international reputation in virtually every politically relevant part of the world and embroiling it in costly conflicts from which it will find it difficult to extricate itself in a face-saving manner. Turkey’s predicament is likely why Russia has been so bold in inflicting economic pain on Turkey in retaliation for its “stab in the back”, confident that at the moment Turkey has almost no friends willing to confront Russia on its behalf. Indeed, US and especially EU actually seem pleased with Russia taking Turkey to task in order to reduce its international adventurism. In the absence of a serious rethinking of priorities, Turkey’s pan-Turkic and neo-Ottoman ambitions are liable to suffer a major setback, undoing two decades of progress.

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

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

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

In a message to the Libyan people, the US President said the 2011 Libyan revolution liberated them from “42 years of dictatorship.” Now there are “profound challenges,” which the Libyan people “have demonstrated the commitment to resolve.”

Barack Obama welcomed the endorsement of the Libyan Political Agreement signed on December 17 and expressed confidence that with political dialogue and the establishment of a Government of National Accord, peace, prosperity, and security would come in the divided country.

Critics of GM promote pseudo-science, make false claims based on ignorance and are driven by politically motivated ideology. The actions of these affluent elitists effectively deny food to the hungry. They are therefore committing crimes against humanity. If you follow the GM issue, no doubt you’ve heard this kind of simplistic, tired and predictable diatribe before.

A good deal of the debate surrounding GMOs involves attacking critics of the technology who voice genuine concerns and put forward valid arguments to back up their case. The attacks by the pro-GM lobby are nonsensical because there is sufficient, credible evidence that questions the safety, efficacy and the science used to promote GM, as well as the politics and practices used to get GMOs on the commercial market.

This evidence has been validated many times before by peer-reviewed studies and official reports. Furthermore, many of the slick PR claims made by the pro-GM lobby have been deconstructed and found to be seriously wanting. Such evidence has been referred or linked on many occasions in my numerous previous articles, and I see no need to regurgitate this here.

Attacks on opponents of GM are designed to whip up emotive, populist sentiment and denigrate critics with the aim of diverting attention from the underlying issues pertaining to hunger and poverty, as well as ideology, commercial interests and political motivations of the pro-GM lobby itself.

Lobbyist Patrick Moore has called GMWatch “murdering bastards.” Journalist William Saletan portrays those who question GM as heretics clinging to faith and relying on an “army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science.” Claire Robinson has taken apart his pro-GM ideology and evangelising here, which is little more than disinformation masquerading as objective journalism.

Former UK environment minister Owen Paterson has described critics of GM as a ‘green blob’ bunch of affluent elitists who are anti-science Luddites. Then there is Fellow of the Royal Society Sir Richard John Roberts, who calls for less politics in science, implying that critics have a political agenda. He says they should stop scaremongering and forwarding propaganda.

Roberts recently said  that if you don’t want to eat GMOs, then don’t – conveniently ignoring that fact that Monsanto has denied choice by spending at least $100 million in the US to prevent labelling of GM food. He says that GM is probably safer than traditional foods, which it clearly isn’t, and has expressed dismay over the delay in the production of Golden Rice. Mirroring the propaganda of the GM sector, Roberts says though Golden Rice became a reality in February 1999 and could have been used as early as 2002, the opposition to GM has ensured that it is not currently available, which again is simply not the case.

He claims more than 15 million children have died or suffered globally due to vitamin A deficiency since 2002. Roberts asks: “How many must die before we consider this a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted?” His claims are baseless and his tactic is deliberately inflammatory.

Another prominent scientist-cum-lobbyist, Anthony Trewavas, uses similar tactics by calling on critics to defer to (pro-GM) scientists and stop forcing their authoritarian views on people, thus denying choice and GM to consumers and farmers alike. In a similar vein, C S Prakash has used politically-motivated attacks on opponents and made numerous claims in favour of GM in high-profile media outlets that he does not appear to want to back up.

If scaremongering and propaganda are occurring, Roberts, Trewavas, Prakash and others should look a little closer to home because what they are doing is engaging in a high-profile roll-out of psychological projection: accusing opponents of the very things the pro-GM lobby is guilty of doing in order to shift the focus of attention.

The bedrock of the industry and its supporters is driven by politics, commercial gain and ideology. It’s very foundation is based on a fraud and the capturing and corrupting of international and national bodies, including the WTO, trade deals, governments and regulatory bodies.

And, arguably, it is also driven by fear. “They are scared to death,” says Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University and author of several books on food policy. She adds:

“They have an industry to defend and are attacking in the hope that they’ll neutralize critics… It’s a paranoid industry and has been from the beginning.”

While massive financial clout and the capture of key political institutions (thereby curtailing the option of prioritising more productive  and sustainable models of agriculture) constitute the power base of global agribusiness corporations, we also must not overlook the role of prominent individuals, whether scientists or media figures.

These foot soldiers of the GM industry try to set the GM debate by painting critics as irrational, ignorant and politically motivated, whereas they (scientists especially) are supposedly objective and untainted by vested interests (clearly untrue). And they have been quite successful at getting this message into the mainstream media.

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

And these connections have resulted in well-orchestrated smear campaigns against individuals and groups (see this, this and this), pro -GM propaganda (see this about the sweet potato) and dirty tricks (for example, using fake identities to attacks critcs of GM). At the same time, those responsible for such things carefully manage the message that they themselves are the persecuted victims of ideologically-driven anti-GM campaigners.

The doublespeak and hypocrisy is plain to see.

If anything matters to the pro-GM lobby, contrary to the public persona it tries to convey, it clearly has little to do with ‘choice’, ‘democracy’ or objective science. It has more to do with undermining and debasing these concepts.

And if it were to genuinely embrace these values, along with ‘humanitarianism’, a concept it also lays claim to, it would flag up and protest against the corporate capture of science and the infiltration by commercial interests of institutions and regulatory bodies, and it would also protest against the way trade and aid is used to subjugate regions and the most productive components of global agriculture – the small/peasant farmer – to the needs of powerful commercial entities.

For all of its talk about GM ‘feeding the world’ and scaremongering about the actions of anti-GM activists leading to the deaths of “billions” due to their resistance to GM, the pro-GM lobby sidesteps the true nature of hunger and poverty. It is only by understanding the issues raised by Eric Holt-Giménez in the article from which the following quote comes from that we can begin to see how ridiculous the claims of Moore, Trewavas, Roberts and the rest really are:

“The World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the World Food Program, the Millennium Challenge, The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and industrial giants like Yara Fertilizer, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, DuPont, and Monsanto, carefully avoid addressing the root causes of the food crisis. The “solutions” they prescribe are rooted in the same policies and technologies that created the problem in the first place: increased food aid, de-regulated global trade in agricultural commodities, and more technological and genetic fixes. These measures only strengthen the corporate status quo controlling the world’s food. For this reason, thus far, there has been little official leadership in the face of the crisis. Nor has there been any informed public debate about the real reasons the numbers of hungry people are growing, or what we can do about it. The future of our food—and fuel—systems are being decided de facto by unregulated global markets, financial speculators, and global monopolies.”

But certain people would rather attack those who do actually flag up and campaign against such things and who desire transparency, democracy and the proper accountability of institutions that supposedly exist to protect the public interest. What we get instead is prominent figures decrying these campaigners as ‘murderers’, ‘elitists’ and regressive authoritarian ‘types’ and ludicrously comparing their actions with authoritarian regimes and mass death that occurred under such systems.

Anthony Trewavas:

“Most objectors in this area have a political programme not a scientific one but they like to bend science to their own political point of view. Science is by its nature not politics or political propaganda or anything like it. It deals with evidence not superstition, or political or social philosophies.”

Trewavas conveniently sidesteps the underlying politics and commercial interests underpinning GM and instead relies on a heavy dose of propaganda by stating:

“It is an unfortunate situation that in our present world many environmentalist groups have become typically authoritarian in attitude. Greenpeace notably decides its opinions must prevail regardless of others, so it arrogates to itself the right to tear up and destroy things it doesn’t like. That is absolutely typical of people who are unable to convince others by debate and discussion and in the last century such attitudes, amplified obviously, ended up killing people that others did not like. But the same personality type the authoritarian.”

Such a simplistic analysis indicates that Trewavas is not a psychologist, a historian or a political scientist. He is a molecular biologist but appears to think his status qualifies him to have his ill-informed personal views taken as fact and promoted by the media. And he is not alone.

Kevin Folta, another molecular biologist (with close links to big agribusiness), argues that adopting GM would offer “plentiful and affordable food supply using responsible and sustainable agricultural practices.” Is he also an economist, a political scientist, a trade policy analyst and an ecologist? No amount of gene splicing or fine-sounding rhetoric can overcome the structural factors that lead to poverty and hunger. (Folta has also often spoken on health-related issues, which again are beyond the field of his expertise and has got things wrong.)

Structural inequality, oil prices, debt repayment, trade policy, commodity speculation, land use (eg for biofuels), the destruction of indigenous food systems, access to land and credit, soil health, irrigation, etc, all feed into policies that determine plentiful, affordable food and sustainability. As the backbone of global food production, especially in the Global South, small farmers increasingly face marginalisation and oppression due to corporate seed monopolies, land speculation and takeovers, rigged trade that favours global agribusiness interests and commodity speculation: see this on food commodity speculation, this on the global food system and the dynamics that lead to hunger and inequality, this by the Oakland Institute on land grabs and the effects on small farmers and the following link on the impact of international trade rules.

So, what are we to conclude?

That certain figures within the pro-GM lobby are objective and independent? That they really do believe in choice and democracy, even when the evidence is clear that is being been denied consumers and farmers through, for example, unremitting regulatory fraud,  rigged markets, secrecy, manipulation of aid and trade and strings-attached loans? That they know where the line is between science and lobbying, between science and propaganda?

Please refer to Part 1 before reading this article.

The ‘Odd’ Men Out

Having just described the breadth of membership in the Saudis’ 34-nation “anti-terrorist” coalition, a few words deserve to be said about some of the states that aren’t party to this framework because their absence is indicative of certain political decisions that don’t often meet with scrutiny from the public eye. The sectarian reasons for Iran, Iraq, and Syria’s exclusions are obvious, but less known are the grounds on which Algeria, Eritrea, and Oman didn’t join:

Algeria:

This North African state has one of the most capable militaries on the continent and is routinely threatened by AQIM and other terrorist groups, but despite this, it refused to sign on to the Saudis’ coalition. The cause is actually pretty simple, and it’s that Algeria is a quasi-member of the Resistance Bloc – not being closely aligned enough with Iran to be a constituent member, but also being far away enough from the US and Saudi Arabia to retain a large degree of independence. Algeria’s historical relations with Russia are another added plus, and it could also be said that its 1990s civil war against Islamic terrorists convinced its present leadership of the need to stay as far away from the Saudis as is realistically possible. Another motivating factor for its government’s decision to abstain from the military coalition is because of Morocco’s membership within it. The two neighbors have a heated rivalry and are presently in a cold war with one another, even going as far as keeping the border closed between them. Under these conditions, as well as Morocco’s chummy ties with the US/NATO and Saudi Arabia/GCC, it’s impossible for Algeria to ever entertain the possibility of joining, although if aging and stroke-ridden President Bouteflika passes away soon and the country falls victim to an Islamist coup or Egyptian-style regime change, then all of this could rapidly change.

Eritrea:

The author previously wrote an extensive analysis about the GCC’s expansion to Eritrea, and it would naturally seem probable that Asmara would join the same framework as its new patrons. This didn’t happen, and it can be attributable to Saudi Arabia not wanting to endanger the viability of the militarily critical GCC naval base there.  To explain, after the revelation came out that Eritrea had sold its sovereignty to the Gulf, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn firmly declared in an interview that he would not tolerate the facility being used for any aggressive designs against his country. At the moment, it’s widely thought that a type of military parity exists between Ethiopia and Eritrea that has kept the conventional (but not asymmetrical) peace between them since their mutually disastrous war from 1998-2000, but the GCC base could theoretically tip the balance in favor of Eritrea.

Understanding the enormity of the threat that could be facing it, Ethiopia may have signaled to its Gulf counterparts (especially in this case GCC and “anti-terrorist” coalition leader Saudi Arabia) that it would not tolerate Eritrea’s formal incorporation into any military alliance and that it might preemptively act to stop such a development out of defense of its national interests. The GCC places such an importance on the Eritrean facility’s use in assisting in their War on Yemen that they don’t want to put it in any sort of danger at the moment, likely explaining why they didn’t allow Eritrea to join (although it likely would have if offered). Conversely, an alternative but complementary possibility is that Eritrea itself realized that it would probably spark a formal continuation war if it joined the bloc (provided that it was offered an invitation and refused, which is extraordinarily improbable considering its current GCC cooperation but still theoretically possible), and instead wagered against it out of its government’s interest for self-preservation.

Oman:

The GCC member is noticeably absent from the Saudi-led “anti-terrorist” coalition, but regular regional observers shouldn’t be too surprised. It’s a well-established fact that Oman is the most pragmatic and moderate of all of the Gulf States, and Muscat has a deeply entrenched reputation for pursuing a foreign policy that’s largely independent of any unipolar influence. For example, it played the role of neutral meeting ground between the US and Iran prior to the conclusion of the nuclear deal, and it’s also exploring the possibility of having Iran build a gas pipeline to the country. Sultan Qaboos has thus been geopolitically wise in preserving his country’s sovereignty and refraining from membership in the Saudi-led military bloc, knowing full well that joining it would likely put Shiite blood on the Kingdom’s hands sooner or later. Another fact that may have motivated this decision is that most Omanis follow the Ibadi sect of Islam, which might one day make them a target of the Wahhabist hordes if Saudi Arabia and its ilk decided that the geopolitical conditions were ripe for such an offensive (possibly after Qaboos’ passing if a power struggle ensued between pro-GCC and GCC-neutral elements). Therefore, by being in a similar sectarian vulnerability as Iran and others vis-à-vis the Wahhabis, the Ibadi Sultanate was already disinclined to join the alliance as it was.

“Terrorists” Everywhere

It was earlier mentioned that one of the ‘benefits’ that the Saudi-led coalition members can receive from one another is multilateral support in fighting their own “Wars on Terror”, with the label of “terrorist” being subjectively thrown around to any manner of anti-government or anti-establishment group. It’s very probable that the aforementioned support will presumably be dominated by Saudi financial largesse, but it could also potentially see the formation of regional ‘peacekeeping’ deployments in support of the host state’s “anti-terrorist” mission, provided of course that the anticipated strategic and economic benefits were enough to justify the military risk. Saudi Arabia’s forecasted geopolitical application of this strategy will be discussed in the next section, but for now, it’s relevant to briefly address some of the ways in which the coalition members might abuse the “terrorist” label (commonly associated in the current global context with extreme Islamic groups, although by no means exclusive to them) in order to aggressively pursue their own self-interests:

Guinea/Sierra Leone/Ivory Coast/Togo/Benin:

These five countries may likely label any rebel group or anti-government tribe as “terrorists” in order to discredit them and ‘justify’ a harsh community-wide crackdown against them (bordering, if not exceeding, outright ethnic cleansing).

Mali:

It’s foreseeable that separatist and/or autonomy-demanding Tuaregs might fall under this label if they continue to be a nuisance to the UN-led peace efforts in the country.

Sudan:

While the myriad of rebel groups fighting in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states already commit terrorist acts as it is, information about their crimes might become more widely disseminated among the Saudi bloc if Khartoum ties them in with the organization-wide “War on Terror”. There’s a possibility that Riyadh may not support this, however, so long as Washington continues to implicitly encourage the militant dissolution of the unified Sudanese state as a proxy attack against Chinese energy interests.

Turkey:

It’s without a doubt that Erdogan will use his Saudi-granted pedestal to preach about why the bloc should recognize the PKK and supportive Kurds as “terrorists”, hoping that he can gain wider acceptance for his bloody crackdown against them, and any other groups that rise up in defiance of his government (leftists, secular protesters, etc.) will also fall under this umbrella.

Lebanon/Palestine:

The only reason that these two states are part of Riyadh’s “anti-terrorist” coalition is so that the Saudis can ‘justify’ possibly forthcoming material assistance to each of their respective proxies within them (to varying extents, some Hariri-aligned elements in the Lebanese Armed Forces and the most pro-Saudi agents in Hamas) for their fight against Hezbollah. The reader should remember that Hezbollah is a Shiite Resistance organization whose religious identity makes it an irresistible target of the Wahhabist and identity-exterminating Saudis, and that the royal family will stop at nothing in trying to wipe out the group. Any (Saudi-driven) Lebanese Armed Forces and/or Hamas attack against Hezbollah also tacitly serves the interests of Israel, which isn’t at all coincidental because the exceptionalist convergences between Wahhabism and Zionism are an open secret in the Mideast.

Yemen:

The puppet government led by deposed premier Hadi has an existential interest in having the Ansarallah labeled and ‘widely’ recognized as “terrorists” so that an expanded Saudi-coalition-led occupation force (probably euphemistically labeled as “peacekeepers”) can come in and wipe them out completely.

The Contradiction And It’s Anti-Shiite “Solution”

In speaking about the self-serving interests that many members of the Saudi-led coalition are expected to promote through the “terrorist” label, it seems almost inevitable that the Saudis will turn against their Turkish and Qatari ‘partners’ by declaring war against the Muslim Brotherhood. One should bear in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood legitimately is a terrorist group, but that Riyadh is purposely turning somewhat of a temporary blind eye to Turkey and Qatar’s support of it for the moment in order to pursue the broad-based multilateral alliance that it’s constructed. Sooner or later, however, the internal terrorist contradictions between the Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood (different for the most part only by their hierarchy, foreign patronage, and slight divergences in religious misinterpretation) might become too strong to ignore, especially if one or the other feels confident enough to make a power play on their respective host’s territory one day. Another coalition-disrupting scenario would be if the Turkey and Qatar use the Saudi-led framework as a vehicle for advancing the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological interests in some respect among all of the other coalition members, thereby engendering fierce competition from the Saudis that might warrant a militant backlash.

Either way, in order to prevent the bloc from falling apart along diverging terrorist lines, the Saudis are expected to informally link their alliance with a larger crusade against Shiites. The presence of an external, non-Sunni ‘enemy’ is the only real force capable of holding the alliance together for the long-term and indefinitely mitigating the terrorist differences between its respective Saudi and Turkish/Qatari ideological poles. Perceived in this manner, it’s not coincidental then that the Saudis probably masterminded the Zaria massacre in order to show that the so-called “Shiite threat” even stretches into Africa’s largest country. Considering that the Saudi-led coalition will most likely functionally become an anti-Shiite NATO (and therefore anti-Iranian, anti-Iraqi, anti-Syrian, and anti-Ansarallah), it implicitly supports the US and Israel’s grand strategic vision for the Mideast and can be seen as logical extensions of both of their militaries. From a conceptual standpoint, the Saudi-led bloc represents a partial civilization-wide Lead From Behind application of the US and Israel’s decades-long attempts in fiendishly trying to initiate a Muslim fratricide by turning most of the Islamic world against its Resistance Bloc members.

Riyadh’s Geopolitical Designs

Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 30-year-old Defense Minister, announced that the Saudi “anti-terrorist” coalition would be active in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan, and given everything that’s been discussed in the research thus far, it’s possible to make some solid assessments about Riyadh’s interests in each and possible forecasts for how they may be actualized.

Syria and Iraq

It’s not yet known what form of “anti-terrorist” support Saudi Arabia wants the coalition to apply in Syria and Iraq, but it’s anticipated beyond any pale of doubt that it will have to do with anti-Shiite activity of some sort or form. For example, this could take the shape of Riyadh decreeing that the Shiite anti-ISIL militias in Iraq are “terrorists” and then ordering airstrikes or other attacks against them in order to support pro-Saudi Sunni militias that may be fighting to carve out a pseudo- or fully independent “Sunnistan” there or in eastern Syria. A more watered-down variation of this strategy would be for the coalition to provide arms, training, and special forces support to Sunni anti-government militias in each of these countries, all with the eventual grand intent of actualizing the geopolitical construct mentioned above and described in detail in the afore-cited link.

Libya and Egypt

Moving along to Libya and Egypt, these two theaters are inherently intertwined. Cairo frets about a full Islamist takeover in Libya but is very reluctant to get caught up in a quagmire there to prevent it. Instead, Egypt and the UAE have carried out a few surgical and highly symbolic (but scarcely substantial) strikes against terrorists there, but the formalization of the Saudi-led coalition might provide them with additional multilateral support. Also, because Libya is becoming a central focus in the West’s anti-ISIL efforts, doing so could also earn the praise and international acceptance of the EU and could substitute for NATO’s own possibly planned efforts there (a War on Libya 2.0). As positive as this could be for the Saudis’ image, there’s a very strong potential for intra-bloc conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood-supporting states of Turkey and Qatar on one hand, and the internationally recognized Libyan government-supporting states of Egypt and the UAE on the other, with the Saudis conceivably trying to play ‘kingmaker’ (but predictably to no avail) if their competition comes to cataclysmic heights. A similar fallout could be possible in the Sinai as well, with the Qatari-supported terrorist groups there likely not giving up without a very brutal fight that might escalate to the level of state-on-state (Turkish/Qatari-on-Egyptian/Saudi) tensions.

Afghanistan

The final publicly stated theater of intent is in Afghanistan, and here it’s a bit more difficult for the Saudis to directly exert influence in this area. Nonetheless, this explains why the bloc was so eager to bring Pakistan on board, since Riyadh would like for Islamabad to play a destabilizing role there which would be fundamentally contradictory to it and its Chinese ally’s national self-interests. At this point, it’s not possible to tell how deep the Saudis and their influence may have infiltrated the Pakistani military and intelligence services or whether it’s just isolated to a few high-level decision makers, but the fact remains that the Saudi intent (key word) is to use Pakistan as a springboard for further Afghan destabilization at the expense of Russia’s CSTO peripheral security. There’s also the tangential ‘benefit’ of keeping Afghanistan as a black hole of US- and Saudi-supported chaos so as to indefinitely retain a geographically convenient training ground for Uighur terrorists and to perpetually keep Turkmenistan under threat. The latter is very important nowadays because the former Central Asian republic is an energy super-hub for the multipolar world, being linked mostly to China, but also to Russia, Iran, and in the future to India. It’s also a ‘sitting duck’ for destabilization due to the constitutional neutrality that prohibits it from fruitful and productive cooperation with the CSTO and SCO’s anti-terrorist bodies, and if ISIL, the Taliban, a new terrorist group, and/or some sort of hybrid repeats the “Syraq” scenario and storms across the Afghan-Turkmen border, then it could suddenly create an urgent and simultaneous strategic threat to Russia, China, and Iran.

It All Comes Back To Yemen

Prior to concluding this far-reaching study, it’s necessary to bring the reader’s focus back towards its beginnings and the failed War on Yemen. The Saudis interpret this unnecessary conflict as being integral to their conception of “security”, and they’re obsessed with ‘winning’ at all costs. Their present losses, the pathetically underperforming capabilities of their contracted armies, and the embarrassing ineptitude of their own Armed Forces have created a pitiful military situation that’s in need of immediate correcting. The “anti-terrorist” coalition is one of the methods by which Saudi Arabia hopes to gain tangible support for its war-fighting efforts, and it’s anticipated that some (if not most) of the members will pay ‘mercenary tributes’ to their institutional leader in exchange for the financial largesse mentioned earlier. They also have their own perceived self-interests in having the entire bloc play along with their “anti-terrorist” labelling and supporting them in a similar manner, thus meaning that the Saudi-led coalition is really a ‘legitimized’ and large-scale marketplace for mercenaries. It’s also very probable that with the War on Yemen continuing to go south for the Saudis, they may desperately try to ‘institutionalize’ the aggrandized mercenary presence there under the false auspices of an illegal non-UN-mandated “peacekeeping” mission deployed by the “anti-terrorist” bloc. This, more so than any other possible application, would dramatically (albeit very  brutally and with the major risk of identity cleansing) increase the likelihood that the Saudis could win their War on Yemen, which as was mentioned, has become an obsession for them and might even pave the way for future “peacekeeping” deployments in other “anti-terrorist” locations within the coalition.

Concluding Thoughts

Saudi Arabia’s “anti-terrorist” coalition may have come as a news-making surprise the moment it was first reported and was widely treated as a sick and ironic joke by most of those who heard about it, but upon closer examination, it can authoritatively be said that it was predictable in hindsight and is predicated on long-standing sectarian and geopolitical designs.

The bloc encompasses a wide swatch of territory across the world and abuts three separate oceans, but the cohesiveness of the organization has yet to be tested, especially as it relates to the group’s internal Wahhabi-Muslim Brotherhood fault line. In light of this terrorist contradiction within its own ranks, it means that the Saudis will press the anti-Shiite identity of the organization even more feverishly than if Turkey and Qatar hadn’t been admitted to the organization, thus raising fears that Saudi Arabia is preparing for a prolonged proxy conflict with Iran and other Resistance Bloc members like Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Ansarallah. However, it’ll probably be the last of the bunch that the Saudi-led military alliance attacks first, turning it into an unwitting bell weather of the bloc’s capabilities. If Saudi Arabia’s “anti-terrorist” coalition is ‘successful’ in their first real battle (given that the earlier GCC-majority coalition was a dismal failure by all metrics), then it’s exceedingly probable that it’ll swiftly ride the wave of confidence that this creates in getting itself directly entangled in Syria and Iraq, with all of the globally destabilizing consequences.

On December 7, 2015, after the December 6 elections, the White House indicated in a press briefing:

“What is clear is that the people of Venezuela have expressed their overwhelming desire for a change in direction.  And what is necessary is for all of the parties involved to engage in a dialogue about the future of that country mindful of the election results.  So that’s a process that we’ll certainly continue to watch closely from here.” (Emphasis added)

This is a clear interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela. Who is the United States to tell the Venezuelan people how to interpret the new situation? The White House promotes the same narrative that the opposition in Venezuela is pushing.

In a December 7 press statement issued by Secretary of State John Kerry, he declares:

“Venezuelan voters expressed their overwhelming desire for a change in the direction of their country.  Dialogue among all parties in Venezuela is necessary to address the social and economic challenges facing the country, and the United States stands ready to support such a dialogue together with others in the international community.”

What right does the United States have to impose themselves, along with their few allies in Latin America and an international organization, as a mediator in Venezuela?

The outstanding Argentine journalist, Stella Calloni, wrote an article published on December 17 in CubaDebate:

“We are witnessing a new pattern of intervention in our countries, that we can call ‘election coups….’”

Her full article provides us with an excellent orientation for analyzing events. As far as Venezuela is concerned, the U.S. and its allies in that country have been waging a relentless economic war combined with media terrorism against the Bolivarian Revolution and President Nicolás Maduro. In addition, the collapse of international oil prices on which Venezuela depends but beyond its control, fed into the economic war. The goal of the U.S. in the last year or so was to clear the path for the opposition to win the legislative elections on December 6, 2015. Yes, there are weaknesses in the Bolivarian Revolution, everyone recognizes it, including the Maduro government. It is striving to take action in conjunction with the people at the base. However, the combined economic and media war orchestrated by Washington was the main reason for the December 6 defeat.

The hand of Washington is exposed if one takes into account the interference by the U.S. in  Venezuelan elections before the December 6, 2015 and in the context of its Latin American policy.

Click here to see the book cover. The December 6, 2015 election is not the first time that Latin American and Caribbean countries have been the target of the Obama administration. In 2009, right after Obama’s coming to power, the Honduras coup took place with Washington’s full involvement. The role of the Honduran military, armed and trained by the U.S., became notorious for its violent suppression of the Hondurans, who struggled for months on end against what the grass roots called a dictatorship.

The February 2014 U.S. interference in Venezuela was initiated in Washington by the Obama administration the day after the April 14, 2013, presidential election victory by the Bolivarian Revolution’s candidate, Nicolás Maduro. From April 15, 2013 to date Washington has tried everything to provoke incidents in Venezuela in order to usher in a coup d’état. This amounts to a slow-motion coup attempt based on a series of “election coups”. The goal was and is to draw Venezuela into its orbit once again, as was the case before Hugo Chávez won the presidential elections in December 1998. On April 15, 2013, White House press secretary Jay Carney gave the green light to the pro-U.S. opposition to violently protest the election results by declaring:

“…given the tightness of the result — around 1 percent of the votes cast separate the candidates — the opposition candidate and at least one member of the electoral council have called for a 100 percent audit of the results. And this appears an important, prudent and necessary step to ensure that all Venezuelans have confidence in these results.”

 That same day, the opposition organized violent riots and killed eight Chavistas who were defending health centers and other public places from the bands. On April 16, Patrick Ventrell, Acting Deputy Spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, appeared in a press briefing. The following interaction with a journalist indicated the desire of the U.S. to refrain from recognizing the election results and call into question the legitimacy of the Maduro government:

 “MR. VENTRELL: …And we said yesterday, a full recount would be important, prudent, and necessary in ensuring that an evenly divided Venezuelan electorate is confident that the election meets their democratic aspirations….

QUESTION [from a journalist]: Well, okay. So are you prepared to congratulate Mr. Maduro on his victory?

MR. VENTRELL: We’re not there.

QUESTION: Why? The vote has been certified. He has been elected. So either you say, “Okay, and we’ll work with you,” or, “try to work with you,” or you say, “We don’t think that you’re the real winner”, or, “We think that there is no winner because the vote hasn’t been certified,” so — I mean, are you prepared to work with President Maduro, President-Elect Maduro?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, we said we’re prepared to work with whichever government comes out of this electoral process. Having said that, given what happened yesterday, we’re consulting with key partners, the OAS [the Washington-based Organization of American States], the EU [European Union], other regional neighbors as we examine this.”

The next day on April 17, the White House issued the following statement:

“The United States congratulates the Venezuelan people for their participation in the April 14 presidential elections in a peaceful and orderly manner. We call on the Venezuelan government to respect the rights of Venezuelan citizens to peaceful assembly and free speech. We also urge everyone to refrain from violence and other measure [sic] that could raise tensions at this difficult moment. The United States notes the acceptance by both candidates for an audit of the ballots and supports calls for a credible and transparent process to reassure the Venezuelan people regarding the results. Such a process would contribute to political dialogue and help advance the country’s democracy.”

On April 19, 2013, regarding the elections in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a communiqué from the 33 countries — that is, the entire hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and Canada — composing the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), read in part: “…CELAC congratulates President Nicolás Maduro on the election results and for his election as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

Despite, and perhaps in response to this, Obama himself stepped up to the plate and said in a May 4 interview to an important and widely accessed Spanish-language media, Univision.com:

“…María Elena Salinas: I have two more questions. One is does the U.S. recognize Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate President of Venezuela?

President Barack Obama: Well, you know, I think it’s not what the U.S. alone is concerned about. But I think that the entire hemisphere has been watching the violence, the protests, the crackdowns on the opposition. I think our general view has been that it’s up to the people of Venezuela to choose their leaders in legitimate elections….” (Emphasis added)

Obama went even further than his own administration by implicitly proclaiming the Venezuelan election as being illegitimate. In addition, by completely ignoring the CELAC position taken only a few days earlier, Obama de facto claimed that the “entire hemisphere” is composed of only the U.S. and Canada!

By Googling for the repercussions from this interview right after it was made public, it was immediately found in over 50 entries in Spanish “Obama habló de Venezuela: ‘El hemisferio completo está viendo la violencia y los ataques a la oposición’” (the entire hemisphere has been watching the violence, the protests, the crackdowns on the opposition).

In February 2014, a wave of violence occurred in Venezuela. It was carried out by the opposition, this time led by another figure (Leopoldo López rather than Capriles). What did the Deputy U.S. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf say in a Washington, D.C. press briefing held on February 13, 2014? She left the door wide open for Washington to switch loyalties from Capriles to the more openly violent López, if it was not already done:

“…QUESTION [from a journalist]: I’d like to ask if you have any comment about the violent protest that took place yesterday there and the lack of coverage provided by the local TV. And also, this morning the Venezuelan foreign minister in an interview blamed an opposition politician, Leopoldo López, for violence that took place yesterday and said that López and his acolytes have been financed by the U.S. Government for a long time. If you please have a comment on those two points, I would appreciate it.

MS. HARF: Yeah. Well, let me see if I can get some specifics on what’s happened in the last few days. In general, when it comes to Venezuela, we’ve made clear that we’re open to having a constructive relationship with the Government of Venezuela. Quite frankly, we haven’t seen that — we have not seen that reciprocated, to be clear. So we also, I think, see a lot of conspiracy theories or rumors out there in the press about how the U.S. is interested in influencing the domestic political situation in Venezuela, which is absolutely not true. It’s not up to us to comment on internal Venezuelan politics. So I’m happy to check with our team to see if there is more specifics about the protest specifically that I’m not as familiar with, and see if we can get you something on that….” (Emphasis added)

The very next day, on February 14, in another regular press briefing by Harf, notice how Washington walks the tightrope. It continues with the claim that the U.S. is not involved in the internal affairs of Venezuela, while at the same time taking sides with the violent opposition leader against the constitutionally elected Maduro government:

“…QUESTION [from a journalist]: So the government accused Washington of being involved in these — the [Venezuelan] protests.

MS. HARF: It’s not true. It’s not true.

QUESTION: They didn’t accuse you?

MS. HARF: No. We are not involved in them.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MS. HARF: They may have accused us; we’re not involved in them.

QUESTION: And they’re also accusing an opposition leader. Do you think this is a step up in the regime’s —

MS. HARF: Are you talking about Mr. López?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: Yes. So we are deeply concerned by rising tensions, by the violence surrounding these February 12th protests, and by the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of opposition leader Leopoldo López. We join the Secretary General of the OAS [the Washington-based Organization of American States] in condemning the violence and calling on authorities to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of peaceful protestors. We also call on the Venezuelan Government to release the 19 detained protestors and urge all parties to work to restore calm and refrain from violence….” (Emphasis added)

This interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela was solidified even more through a press statement by John Kerry, Secretary of State, on February 15, 2014, which reads in full:

“Recent Violence in Venezuela

The United States is deeply concerned by rising tensions and violence surrounding this week’s protests in Venezuela. Our condolences go to the families of those killed as a result of this tragic violence.

We are particularly alarmed by reports that the Venezuelan government has arrested or detained scores of anti-government protestors and issued an arrest warrant for opposition leader Leopoldo López. These actions have a chilling effect on citizens’ rights to express their grievances peacefully.

We join the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and others in condemning this senseless violence. We call on the Venezuelan government to provide the political space necessary for meaningful dialogue with the Venezuelan people and to release detained protestors. We urge all parties to work to restore calm and refrain from violence.

Freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are universal human rights. They are essential to a functioning democracy, and the Venezuelan government has an obligation to protect these fundamental freedoms and the safety of its citizens.” (Emphasis added)

On February 17, the then Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elías Jaua disclosed in a press conference in Caracas that the Venezuelan ambassador to the OAS, Roy Chaderton, had received a telephone call from a State Department official. According to the Venezuelans, the U.S. is “asking” the Maduro government for “a series of conditions” and threatened Venezuela with “international consequences” if opposition leader Leopoldo López were to be arrested. Elías Jaua also revealed proof indicating that Washington has been directly involved in training the violent groups.

On February 19, 2014, at a Press Conference by President Obama, President Peña Nieto (Mexico) and then Prime Minister Harper (Canada), in Toluca, Mexico, Obama stated:

“In Venezuela, rather than trying to distract from its own failings by making up false accusations against diplomats from the United States, the government ought to focus on addressing the legitimate grievances of the Venezuelan people. So, along with the Organization of American States, we call on the Venezuelan government to release protestors that it’s detained and engage in real dialogue. And all parties have an obligation to work together to restrain violence and restore calm.”

How can Obama say that the accusations against U.S. diplomats for interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela are false? The above three-sentence statement exclusively on Venezuela uttered by the U.S. president consists in itself an arrogant attempt to interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs. The “legitimate grievances” of the Venezuelan people were addressed by the Bolivarian Revolution in numerous ballot box contests since December 1998. These electoral gains precisely target the U.S.-dominated economic and political system existing from 1958 to 1998. The voting included at that time the April 14, 2013, presidential election won by Nicolás Maduro and which the U.S. refused to recognize; by negating the results recognized by the whole continent, Washington had planted the seeds of the current violence carried out by the pro-U.S. elements in the country. The candidates of the Bolivarian Revolution’s Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) also won the majority of municipalities, mayoralties and the popular vote in the December 8, 2013, municipal elections.

Furthermore, who is Obama to declare that the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) is the reference point for Venezuela, while the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELA) is not considered? CELAC excludes two of the three countries represented at the above-cited press conference in Mexico: Canada and the U.S. They are omitted because of the historical role in the south played especially by the U.S., but also Canada, as gendarmes and plunderers of natural resources. Moreover, by what right does the U.S. define the vandals and their leader Leopoldo López as “protesters” and representatives of the “Venezuelan people,” as if they have no history of U.S.-driven violent coup attempts against the Hugo Chávez and Maduro legitimate governments? Does Venezuela not have the right to arrest and put on trial individuals who have been responsible for the violence? Obama urges “all parties” to “restrain violence.” He thus places the perpetrators of violence on the same footing as those who are trying to calm the situation, restore order and protect public and private property as well as lives from the vandals. Furthermore, by calling for “real dialogue,” he thus condemns the government for failing to consider grievances while painting a picture of the “protesters” as innocent victims of the Maduro government. However, despite the provocations, Maduro was calling for dialogue with the opponents.

This “opposition promotion” is part of the U.S. plan to create a pretext for a coup d’état in that oil-rich country. The role of the media in turning truth on its head and thus invent excuses for intervention in Venezuela is pointed out in an article by Professor Steve Ellner (who, since 1977, has taught at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela). Despite the combined forces of the oligarchy’s international and local Venezuelan media, as well as the U.S.-financed and inspired democracy promotion groups, the first battle was won by Venezuela’s participatory democracy. On February 18, the Bolivarian Revolution, led by its government and Nicolás Maduro, displayed a show of force. A massive demonstration was held by mainly oil-industry workers in Caracas. This sector has been the source of forces to overthrow the legitimate constitutional regime and open up a path for the re-colonization of Venezuela. This demonstration temporarily put the pro-U.S. forces in Venezuela on the defensive. It is only because the people are empowered and are effectively part of political power that this momentary victory and other subsequent ones are able to take place. These successful inroads into the pro-U.S. imperialist camp came about because of Venezuela’s new experiments in participatory democracy under way since Hugo Chávez won the election in December 1998. Thus, on April 19, the day after the Chavista counter-offensive, the situation was relatively calm.

However, to counter the February 18 victory and the ensuing relative order prevailing on February 19, it was no accident that Obama came to the rescue. The above-quoted statement by Obama on February 19 encouraged Washington’s allies in Venezuela to restart their violent activities in Venezuela and create a climate of chaos. Thus, the next day, on February 20, violent incidents erupted once again, inflamed by Washington’s support, in various parts of Venezuela. On-the-spot reporting by “Venezuelanalysis.com” testifies to the nature of the violent opposition protests and the growing desire at the grass roots to take the streets back from the perpetrators of violence; others deftly analyze the proponents of violent regime change.

The international media, including the liberal CNN, played their usual role. However, it was very refreshing to hear Maduro telling the CNN that, if it does not cease its “war propaganda,” it “will have to leave Venezuela.”

The U.S. and their Venezuelan powerful media allies are blaming the Venezuelan government for the violence in that country, while it is the so-called “pro-democracy” groups that are in fact causing the rampage and disturbances. The U.S. expansionist goals toward Latin America and the Caribbean go all the way back to the last quarter of the 18th century. U.S. mainstream political parties, now known as Republicans and Democrats, have always been involved in direct and indirect military intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean; in fact, the Democrats actually scored better than their Republican with more — not less — military interventions.

In order to increase the U.S. policy of domination over the southern part of the hemisphere, much of which has been in revolt against U.S. control, a new face was needed for U.S. ambitions; this new image was necessary in order to close the international and domestic credibility gap created by the Bush years. This is the role of Obama; his image of “change” was, and is, consciously promoted by Obama himself and the Chicago marketing specialists.

The arrogant interference in Venezuela by Washington and its allies constitutes the latest example from among the long list of U.S. presidents who adopt and actively sponsor the original 17th- century evangelical notion: the Thirteen Colonies and then the U.S. constitute a chosen people, the beacon on the hill for the world to look toward for salvation. Herein lays the pompous nature of Washington. It can only be smashed in Venezuela through the channels of daily participatory democracy fashioned by the Bolivarian Revolution; it is striving to do so at this time in the most difficult circumstances after the December 6, 2015 serious electoral defeat. One must also add that the solidarity of other countries and peoples, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, but also the world, is a key ingredient.  The “election coups” make the situation all the more complex and dangerous.

Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are the US, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

Thursday marked the 150^th anniversary of the founding of America’s deadliest terrorist organization: the Klu Klux Klan.

Since September 11, extremists associated with various far-right wing ideologies, including the KKK and Jewish extremists, have killed far more people in the United States than extremists motivated by radical Islam.

One centuries’ old example of US government double standards when it comes to terrorism, is the infamous Klu Klux Klan. The Klan has terrorized and killed far more Americans than Islamic terrorists ever have; and despite being America’s oldest terrorist organization, the US government does not officially consider the KKK a terrorist organization, classifying it merely as a “hate group”.

By classifying the KKK’s actions as hate rather than terror, the US government allows the Klan, unlike ISIS, to freely hold rallies in America, fundraise, and even appear on TV to promote their ideology. Recently Franc Ancona, a KKK leader, appeared on national television and threatened “lethal force” against black protestors.

The KKK was founded just days after slavery was abolished in America; and ever since then, bombings, lynchings, tar-and-featherings, and other violent forms of terrorism on those challenging white supremacy have always been the hallmark of the Klan. At its peak in the 1920’s, Klan membership exceeded the equivalent of 8 million Americans nationwide.

The simple fact that, to this day, the U.S. Government refuses to designate the KKK as a domestic terrorist organization speaks volumes about the nation’s commitment to combating terrorism and promoting racial equality.

The deadliest terrorist attack on US soil, prior to 9/11, was the Oklahoma City bombing, which was masterminded by Timothy McVeigh, a man who had deep ties to far-right Nazi militant circles. In 2011, Kevin Harpham, who was a war veteran, placed a bomb along the route of a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade. In 2012, Wade Michael Page killed six innocent people in a shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Page was a member of a white supremacist band and associated with the Hammerskins, a violent neo-Nazi group. A few months ago an Imperial Grand Wizard of the KKK from Kansas, went on a killing spree whilst shouting “Heil Hitler”, in which a fourteen-year-old boy was among the dead.

Despite the growing number of mass shootings and terrorist attacks by the far right, the media chooses to focus almost exclusively on the lesser threat of radical Islam. Media pundits routinely demand that moderate Muslims condemn acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims. When was the last time that you have seen white priests being pressured to go on television to denounce violence by white supremacists in order to show that “not all Christians” are like that? How long would a Muslim group, with as violent a record as the KKK, be allowed to operate freely before it was shut down by Homeland Security? Clearly racism, as much as oil, fuels the War on Terror.

The threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism has been largely manufactured so that the so-called War on Terror can promote profitable militarism abroad and erode civil liberties at home.

Fourteen years after 9/11, al Qaeda has not successfully conducted another attack inside the United States. According to a recent Harvard University report, named The Exaggerated Threat of Home Grown Terror:

“… since 2001, despite warnings by public officials and terrorism analysts, there is little evidence that the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States by American Muslims is especially serious or growing.”

So why then has the United States spent over $6 trillion dollars on the War on Terror?

FBI data from 1980 to 2005 show that Jewish terrorists committed 7 percent of the acts of terrorism within the United States, which was more than the 6 percent committed by Islamist extremists. This statistic is made even more remarkable by the fact that the FBI drastically undercounts instances of terrorism perpetrated by Jewish extremists because of institutional racial double standards. How many Americans can name the Jewish Defense League or Jewish Armed Resistance, both terror groups that have committed more acts of terror than their Muslim counterparts?

The infamous Jewish Defense League has been operating in the U.S. for over half a century. A Department of Energy report on terror threats to nuclear facilities notes:

“…for more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States.”

Unbeknown to many Americans, these Jewish extremists have mail-bombed police, targeted UN ambassadors, and firebombed civilians at a Symphony Orchestra performance.

If the U.S. Government is serious about combating domestic terror and mass shootings, the FBI’s statistics suggest that it should be aggressively surveilling white males. The simple fact that U.S. law enforcement has not infiltrated and spied on conservative Christian or Jewish communities to disrupt violent rightwing extremism confirms what Muslims in America know in their bones: to worship Allah is to be a suspect.

Muslim-Americans increasingly feel as though they are living in a totalitarian police state with worsening harassment, profiling, and surveillance by the state. Researcher, Arun Kundnani, has shown how the FBI has 1 counterterrorism spy for every 94 Muslims in the US, which approaches totalitarian East Germany’s infamous spy agency Stasi’s ratio of 1 spy for every 66 citizens.

White Christians and Jews don’t have to worry that an undercover agent or informant has infiltrated their churches, student groups, or social clubs.

For centuries, white terrorists in America have been allowed ample breathing room to spread their ideology and to plan and orchestrate their attacks, which explains both the greater relative lethality of white supremacist terrorism, and also the much lower rate of indictment for white perpetrators.

In America Brown and Black people are reflexively considered terrorists, thugs and gangbangers, deserving of society’s derision, whereas white people who commit terrorist attacks are simply “mentally disturbed” loners who were in need of society’s help.

Society’s decision to call a particular act of violence ‘terrorism’ indicates that the act belongs to a more widespread pattern that needs consideration beyond normal crime fighting. Calling mass shootings by white supremacists merely “hate” or murder, rather than terrorism, downplays the significant role of the perpetrator’s racist motives and avoids tough questions about the prevalence of racism in American society.

Recently, James Holmes shot over 80 people in a movie theatre but he was brought in alive by law enforcement and the media refused to call his actions terrorism, focusing instead on portraying Mr. Holmes as an “awkward” and tender “loner”. Similarly, white supremacist Dylan Roof massacred nine black churchgoers in Charlestown and not only was Roof brought in alive by law enforcement, but also the police described Roof at the time of his arrest as “very quiet, very calm … not problematic.” The police even went so far as to buy Mr. Roof lunch at Burger King, moments after he unleashed terror on innocent churchgoers. Contrasted with the police’s countless modern day lynchings of innocent and often unnamed black boys and men, it is clear that US law enforcement is as tolerant of white terrorism as it is institutionally racist to its core.

Clearly, there is a costly and unhealthy obsession among U.S. society and law enforcement, with preventing violence perpetrated by American Muslims, one that ignores both the real threat of white terrorism and the ongoing terrorism by police towards Black American citizens.

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on [email protected]

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokeperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the co-author, with Damien Millet of Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He is the author of many essays including one on Jacques de Groote entitled Procès d’un homme exemplaire (The Trial of an Exemplary Man), Al Dante, Marseille, 2013, and wrote with Damien Millet, AAA. Audit Annulation Autre politique (Audit, Abolition, Alternative Politics), Le Seuil, Paris, 2012. See his Series “Banks versus the People: the Underside of a Rigged Game!” Next publication : Bankocracy Merlin Press, Londres, May 2015 (English version).
Since the 4^th April 2015 he is coordinator of the Truth Commission on Public Debt.

Notes:

|1| The DEA (Internationalist Workers’ Left) is a revolutionary Marxist organization and Syriza’s co-founder. With Kokkino and APO (anti-capitalist political group), two other revolutionary Marxist organizations, and with other independent activists, the DEA has created the Red Network group within Syriza. Kokkino and DEA merged in December 2014. The Red Network and the left-wing group inside Synapismos (Panagiotis Lafazanis being its most famous member) formed the Left Platform within Syriza. About 25 Syriza MPs (out of 149) directly participate in this platform (two of whom are from the Red Network). Approximately 30% of Syriza’s delegates supported this Platform during the convention held in 2013. During the July/August 2015 voting on the new Memorandum imposed by the Eurogroup, the MPs Elena Psarrou (DEA) and Ioanna Gaïtani (APO) as well as 23 members of the left and other Syriza MPs such as Zoe Konstantopoulou voted against. On 16 July, 32 Syriza MPs voted against the 13 July agreement. On 23 July, 31 voted against and on 14 August, 32 voted against. Now the Red Network is part of Popular Unity which didn’t succeed in electing members of the parliament in the anticipated general elections of 20^th September 2015.

French Government Proposes Constitutional Amendment on State of Emergency, Deprivation of Citizenship

The Syrian Arab Army is continuing its military operations to secure the recently-captured military airport of Marj al-Sultan, and retook new areas in the Damascus province. According to the reports, the SAA attacked al-Nusra, Jeish al-Islam, al-Rahman and other terrorist groups in Eastern Ghouta, in the vicinity of Marj al-Sultan Military Airport and Harasta farms. The Syrian troops killed at least 14 militants and destroyed their vehicles and weapons in the clashes.

Separately, the SAA cut off the terrorists’ supply line militants between Darayya and al-Moadamyeh in the Damascus province. The pro-government forces captured over 1 km of the supply route disconnecting the most important arms and logistical supply route used by the militants in the region.

In North Latakia, the SAA gained control of Height 489.5 after and Height 465.5 in the al-Kabir Black mountain. Height 489.5 is located at the east side of the Attira town and around 1.5 km away from the al-Saraf town. The height is a major crossing leading to Jabal Zahia. The loss of this important logistical point made the terrorists’ counter attack in the area very difficult.

In West Idlib, the SAA and its allies launched an assault to capture the village of Al-Sirmaniyah after partly encircling it after the recent clashes. The village is controlled by the Jaysh Al-Fateh terrorist alliance. According to the field reports, the Syrian forces are advancing on Al-Sirmaniyah from the western flank while the Russian MI-24 Hind Helicopter Gunships provide air support.

The SAA has reportedly used Russia-made military robots took the strategic tower of “Syriatel”, 754m in height in the Latakia province. According to the unconfirmed reports, 6 robotic complexes “Platform-M” and 4 complexes “Argo” were used to detect the terrorists’ fire positions which then were destroyed by the SAA artillery. Amid the usage of Kalibr cruise missiles and strategic bombers in Syria, these reports could be truthful. Thus, Moscow is continuing to test the newest military equipment in the real battle conditions in Syria.

If you have a possibility, if you like our content and approaches, please, support the project.

Our work wont be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/

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

 It is now openly discussed even in mainstream media the fact that Turkey has been intimately involved in fomenting and supporting the war on Syria, with its ultimate goal of the overthrow of the Syrian government and its replacement by a compliant proxy aligned with Turkish President Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood. That this is no longer a ‘conspiracy theory’ but a conspiracy fact not only vindicates my analysis over the last four years, but it also brings to the fore the nefarious role of a NATO member in stoking a brutal and bloody war for its own ends.

Beyond just the war itself, Turkey has been implicated in a wide variety of crimes (some constituting war crimes) which cast Ankara in a very bad light: a supporter of terrorism, a criminal government engaging in acts of aggression against its neighbors and other world powers, the repression of journalists and others who have brought the truth to the light of day, among many others. Taken in total, it becomes clear that under President Erdogan Turkey has become a belligerent actor with delusions of hegemony and a complete disregard for human rights and sovereignty.

But how exactly has this transformation happened? What has been proven regarding Turkish government actions that make it so clear that the regime in Ankara is criminal in nature?

Cataloguing Turkish Crimes

The criminality of the Erdogan government can be roughly broken down into the following categories: aggression against sovereign states, material support for international terrorism, and systematic violation of human rights. Naturally, there are many other crimes that would also be included in a full and completing accounting of Ankara’s illegal actions including, but not limited to, corruption, promoting and tacitly supporting fascist gangs, and many others. But it is the support for international terrorism that rises above all others to thrust Turkey into the spotlight as one of the single most important supporters of the global scourge of terrorism.

Turkey’s central role in each and every aspect of terrorism in Syria must be the starting point of any analysis of Turkey’s grave crimes. President Erdogan has not been shy about calling for regime changein Syria, but his position has been far more than merely rhetorical; Erdogan’s government has played a very direct role in the sponsorship, arming, facilitation and military backing of everyone from the Free Syrian Army to Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh).

In 2012, the New York Times confirmed that the CIA was sending weapons and other military materiel into the hands of anti-Assad forces from the Turkish side of the border, using their connections with the Muslim Brotherhood to do so. However, it has also come to light that Turkish intelligence has been front and center in the ongoing campaign to arm and resupply the terror groups such as the al-Nusra Front and others. This fact was exposed by Can Dündar, the editor-in-chief of the Cumhuriyet, who now faces a potential life sentence at the behest of President Erdogan, who himself called for Dündar to receive multiple life sentences.

What is the reason for the attack on Dündar and other opposition journalists? The Cumhuriyet, one of the most widely read Turkish dailies, published video footage confirming the widespread allegations that Turkish trucks, ostensibly loaded with humanitarian supplies, were actually filled with arms bound for terror groups fighting against Assad, and that those trucks were operated by Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MİT). But it goes much further than that.

Turkey has been directly involved on the ground in Syria both in active military and support roles. In fact, transcripts of wiretaps obtained by Cumhuriyet, and presented in Turkish courts, along with shockingvideo footage, have confirmed what numerous eyewitnesses have stated: Turkish security forces have been directly involved in shelling and support operations for Nusra front and other jihadi groups in and around Kassab, Syria, among other sites. This is a crucial piece of information because it explains just why those terror groups were able to successfully capture that region in 2014, and recapture it this year. Eyewitnesses in Kassab have confirmed what Syrian soldiers speaking on condition of anonymity had reported, namely that Turkish helicopters and heavy artillery were used in support of Nusra and the other terror groups during both the 2014 and the current campaign.

Of course this policy of alliance with anti-Assad terrorists has been part of Turkey’s modus operandi since the beginning of the conflict. In 2012, Reuters revealed that Turkey, “set up a secret base with allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to direct vital military and communications aid to Syria’s rebels from a city near the border… ‘It’s the Turks who are militarily controlling it. Turkey is the main coordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom,’ said a Doha-based source.”

This information was confirmed by Vice President Joe Biden in his spectacular foot-in-mouth speech at Harvard University where he stated:

Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends… [and] the Saudis, the Emirates, etcetera. What were they doing?…They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied, [they] were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.

But one must guard against the false notion that somehow Turkey’s role has been merely as auxiliary in Syria, as a supporter, but not leader, of the terrorist factions wreaking havoc on the Syrian battlefield. Instead, it is now an inescapable fact, even acknowledged by some high-ranking military and intelligence officials, that Turkey has been the principal financier and supporter of the Islamic State and the other jihadist groups.

According to the UK Independent, President Erdogan’s son Bilal Erdogan, along with a number of other close associates, have been directly benefitting from the illicit oil trade with the Islamic State. The paper noted that, “Bilal Erdogan…is one of three equal partners in the BMZ group, a major Turkish oil and marine shipping company, which both the Russian and Syrian governments have accused of purchasing oil from ISIS…Bilal Erdogan has been directly involved in the oil trade with ISIS… Turkey downed a Russian jet on 24 November specifically to protect his oil smuggling business.”

In fact, Syria’s Information Minister Omran al-Zoabi explained that “All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. They’re importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts [sic] as well.”

So it seems that Erdogan and his clique are involved not simply in fomenting war and terrorism in Syria, but also in its plunder, with complex smuggling networks being directly tied to the Turkish President himself. Indeed, just such smuggling networks have been uncovered throughout Asia, tying Turkey into the broader international architecture of terrorism trafficking.

In late 2014 and early 2015, a human trafficking ring was exposed by Chinese authorities. It was revealed that at least ten Turks were responsible for organizing and facilitating the border crossings of a number of Uighurs (Chinese Muslims from Xinjiang), at least one of whom was a wanted Uighur terrorist with others being “radicalized potential terrorists.” These individuals were likely part of a previously documented trend of Uighur extremists traveling to the Middle East to train and fight with the Islamic State and/or other terror groups.

In fact, precisely this trend was exposed two months earlier in September 2014 when Reuters reportedthat Beijing formally accused militant Uighurs from Xinjiang of having traveled to Islamic State-controlled territory to receive training. Further corroborating these accusations, the Jakarta Post of Indonesiareported that four Chinese Uighur jihadists had been arrested in Indonesia after having travelled from Xinjiang through Malaysia. Other, similar reports have also surfaced in recent months, painting a picture of a concerted campaign to help Uighur extremists travel throughout Asia, communicating and collaborating with transnational terror groups such as IS.

Now, with these latest revelations regarding Turkish nationals being involved in the trafficking of extremists, it seems an invaluable piece of the terrorist transit infrastructure has been exposed. Indeed my assertions above (initially made here in early February 2015) have been substantiated by Syria’s ambassador to China, quoted at length by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his pieceMilitary to Military which notes the following:

[Syria’s ambassador to China Imad Moustapha explained that] ‘China regards the Syrian crisis from three perspectives,’ he said: international law and legitimacy; global strategic positioning; and the activities of jihadist Uighurs, from Xinjiang province in China’s far west. Xinjiang borders eight nations…and, in China’s view, serves as a funnel for terrorism around the world and within China. Many Uighur fighters now in Syria are known to be members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement – an often violent separatist organisation that seeks to establish an Islamist Uighur state in Xinjiang. ‘The fact that they have been aided by Turkish intelligence to move from China into Syria through Turkey has caused a tremendous amount of tension between the Chinese and Turkish intelligence,’ Moustapha said. ‘China is concerned that the Turkish role of supporting the Uighur fighters in Syria may be extended in the future to support Turkey’s agenda in Xinjiang. We are already providing the Chinese intelligence service with information regarding these terrorists and the routes they crossed from on travelling into Syria’ [emphasis added].

Moustapha’s concerns were echoed by a Washington foreign affairs analyst who has closely followed the passage of jihadists through Turkey and into Syria. The analyst, whose views are routinely sought by senior government officials, told me that ‘Erdoğan has been bringing Uighurs into Syria by special transport while his government has been agitating in favour of their struggle in China. Uighur and Burmese Muslim terrorists who escape into Thailand somehow get Turkish passports and are then flown to Turkey for transit into Syria.’ He added that there was also what amounted to another ‘rat line’ that was funnelling Uighurs – estimates range from a few hundred to many thousands over the years – from China into Kazakhstan for eventual relay to Turkey, and then to IS territory in Syria [emphasis added]. ‘US intelligence,’ he said, ‘is not getting good information about these activities because those insiders who are unhappy with the policy are not talking to them.’ He also said it was ‘not clear’ that the officials responsible for Syrian policy in the State Department and White House ‘get it’. IHS-Jane’s Defence Weekly estimated in October that as many as five thousand Uighur would-be fighters have arrived in Turkey since 2013, with perhaps two thousand moving on to Syria. Moustapha said he has information that ‘up to 860 Uighur fighters are currently in Syria.’

It has become clear that Turkey is now unmistakably a major supporter of international terrorism, with Syria being merely the proving ground for a stable of terror groups directly or indirectly working with Erdogan’s government. This is further evidenced by the now documented and verified fact that the Erdogan government was directly involved in the transfer of chemical weapons into the hands of ISIS.

As Turkish MP Eren Erdem explained before the Turkish parliament and to international media, “There is data in this indictment. Chemical weapon materials are being brought to Turkey and being put together in Syria in camps of ISIS which was known as Iraqi Al Qaeda during that time.” Erdem noted that according to an investigation launched (and abruptly closed) by the General Prosecutor’s Office in Adana, Turkish citizens with ties to the intelligence community took part in negotiations with ISIS-linked and Al-Qaeda-linked militants to sell sarin gas for use in Syria. The evidence of these allegations came in the form of wiretapped phone conversations similar to those published earlier this year by Cumhuriyet.

Taken in total, the case against Erdogan’s government is damning. At the same time, one must also note Erdogan’s grave crimes against his own people.

As noted already, Can Dündar and his colleagues at Cumhuriyet have been targeted by Erdogan’s state for their disclosure of Ankara’s dealings with the terrorists of Syria. Just a few weeks ago Dündar, along with Cumhuriyet’s Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gul, were charged in a Turkish court with “spying” and “divulging state secrets.” This should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Turkey’s track record when it comes to opposition journalism.

In fact, in December 2014, the Turkish police raided the offices of the Zaman newspaper, one of the most popular in the country, alleging that Zaman was responsible for “launching an armed terror organization.” The authorities detained the Zaman Editor-in-Chief Ekrem Dumanlı , as well as the head of the Samanyolu Media Group, Hidayet Karaca, along with a producer, scriptwriter and director.

The Turkish Journalists Association (TGC) and the Turkey Journalists’ Labor Union (TGS) released a joint statement in condemnation of the raids and the ongoing repression of journalists by the Erdogan government, noting that “Almost 200 journalists were previously held in prison on charges of being a member of a terror organization, violating their right to a fair trial. Journalists are now being detained once again. These developments mean that freedom of the press and opinion is punished in Turkey, which takes its place in the class of countries where the press is not free.”

International organizations too expressed their outrage at this blatant violation of freedom of the press. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), and its regional group the European Federation of Journalists (EFL), stated that, “We are appalled by this brazen assault on press freedom and Turkish democracy…One year after the exposure of corruption at the heart of government, the authorities appear to be exacting their revenge by targeting those who express opposing views…This latest act demonstrates that the authorities’ contempt for journalism has not diminished.”

Of course, Ankara’s war on freedom of speech, and the media generally, is not relegated to established media outlets such as Zaman and Cumhuriyet, but also to citizen media and social media as well. In response to the leaking of recordings on Twitter documenting corruption among Erdogan cronies and political elites within his Justice and Development Party (AKP), Erdogan attacked the social media platform, and his government immediately moved to restrict access to Twitter.

Erdogan even went so far as to suggest a total ban on all social media sites, including Facebook and YouTube, saying that “The international community can say this, can say that. I don’t care at all. Everyone will see how powerful the Republic of Turkey is.” This sort of megalomaniacal rhetoric has become the norm for Erdogan, who sees himself as less a president and more a sultan or absolute monarch.

The famous words of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg succinctly and matter-of-factly state that the waging of aggressive war is “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” This is undeniably true. But what happens when one is engaged in an international campaign to destroy a neighboring country through war? What happens when one country enables and participates in the destruction of another? What happens when one country will stop at nothing to come out victorious in a war it is not officially involved in, but covertly manages, and from which it directly benefits? Are these not simply different forms of the same crime, the supreme crime, as it were?

Let’s face it, Turkey is now a mafia state ruled by a criminal regime. It is also a NATO member state. Perhaps now the pernicious illusion of NATO as military alliance defending justice, human rights, and the rule of law can finally be put to rest. While the propagandists will continue the charade, Turkey has permanently exposed the US-NATO-GCC-Israel for the warmongers they are in Syria and around the world. Let’s just hope the world notices.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

French President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls presented to the council of ministers yesterday an amendment inscribing the state of emergency in the French constitution.

Even the fragmentary initial reports that emerged from the meeting show that it opened the way to the lasting imposition of police-state rule in France. The amendment that Hollande proposed would allow the president to call a state of emergency the duration of which would be set by legislation. The amendment places no restrictions on how long a state of emergency parliamentarians could decide to allow. It also permits a stepped-up use by police of their already enormous powers of repression and electronic surveillance of the population.

Moreover, by proposing to extend the deprivation of nationality to dual nationals condemned for “terrorist crimes,” including dual nationals born French, the ruling Socialist Party (PS) is openly affirming its sympathies for the ideas of the neo-fascist National Front (FN).

Deprivation of nationality, a policy traditionally advocated by the FN, was employed under the Nazi Occupation amid the French authorities’ participation in the Holocaust.

The French state pronounced collective deprivations of French nationality under the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime to deprive Jewish refugees in France who had been naturalized of their citizenship. The law of July 22, 1940 deprived 15,154 people of their French citizenship, including approximately 6,000 Jews as well as leaders of the Resistance. Vichy first interned Jews deprived of French citizenship in concentration camps and then, after passing a Franco-German accord on July 2, 1942, began deporting them out of France towards death camps to the east.

The proposals by the PS underscore the sharp shift towards the extreme right of the entire political establishment, including its social-democratic components and their pseudo-left satellites, such as the Left Front and the New Anti-capitalist Party in France.

These forces defended in 2014 the NATO powers’ decision to back a fascist-led putsch in Kiev and refused this year to travel to Moscow to celebrate the 70h anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory against Nazi Germany in World War II. Now, the PS government is highlighting its counter-revolutionary historical sympathies inside France itself.

PS Justice Minister Christiane Taubira had announced during a trip to Algiers on December 20-21 that the PS had in fact definitively ruled out new measures on deprivations of citizenship. She told Algerian Channel 3 radio that this was “a subject that will go away,” as it “created a problem for the fundamental principle that one can acquire full citizenship through residence in France.”

Taubira was echoing the position of the PS only a few years ago. In 2010, Valls denounced a debate on imposing new measures on deprivation of citizenship by right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy as “foul and absurd.” However, Taubira learned upon her return to France that the PS would take a decision on this issue in meetings to which she was not invited.

Observing Valls’ and Hollande’s rush to propose measures they previously denounced as “foul,” Le Monde concluded that Taubira had been reduced to a “sort of political cover for the government, to reassure a left-wing electorate increasingly disturbed by the head of state’s turn to law and order.”

This debate underscores that far deeper political issues are involved in the state of emergency than police matters on how to prevent terrorist attacks.

A deep crisis of the capitalist regime is shaking Europe. As austerity devastates workers across the continent, and imperialist wars in the Middle East are provoking growing opposition, the ruling class is pushing for a broad ideological reorientation towards the far right.

The PS is appealing to nationalism and racism in order to fashion an ultra-reactionary political consensus that will allow it to continue imposing its unpopular measures. The fact that this operation has produced a return to measures championed by the Vichy regime underscores the immense dangers posed.

Hollande initially proposed the preparation of a constitutional amendment on November 16, three days after the terror attacks in Paris, at a joint session of parliament at Versailles. He said the amendment would allow for a state of emergency in France for the duration of the “war on terror.” It would allow the police to use the vast powers of surveillance and repression under the state of emergency against anyone police believed posed even a potential threat to public order, based on their “behavior, friendships, statements, or plans.”

Hollande was thus proposing to give a blank check for the elimination of freedom of opinion and the installation of a police dictatorship of indefinite duration.

Now, the media are seeking to somehow reassure the public that the state of emergency poses no threat to democracy. Hollande’s amendment has been modified, L’ Obs wrote, “after numerous debates.” Several reports indicated that high-ranking judicial officials and legislators had firmly criticized parts of the first text presented by the PS. Valls’ staff insisted yesterday that the new amendment, due to be debated by the National Assembly, would not establish a permanent state of emergency.

The council of ministers did not publish the new amendment proposed by Hollande, so it is of course impossible to establish its precise contents. However, the entire political evolution of the PS suggests that it aims to use the law-and-order measures and the political hysteria surrounding the state of emergency to try to crush political opposition inside France and to found an authoritarian regime.

The PS banned outright protests against the Gaza war last year and recently against the COP-21 ecological summit, and it is now backing the illegal mass sacking of Sodexo workers in Marseille for striking.

Another indication of the character of the PS’ proposals on the state of emergency is the close link that exists between Hollande and the military dictatorship in Egypt. Only a few hours after the November 13 attacks, Hollande received a phone call from General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to discuss how to fight terrorism.

Sisi, who overthrew Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi, runs a bloody dictatorship under a state of emergency, citing the threat of Islamist terrorism. He has ordered army units to shoot thousands of unarmed protesters in the streets of Egypt, had police imprison and torture tens of thousands of workers and youth, and had Egypt’s obedient judicial system impose mass death sentences against members of oppositional political parties.

According to RFI, Sisi called Hollande just after the terror attacks “to present his condolences and those of Egypt … Relations between Presidents Sisi and Hollande go well beyond simple protocol. French sources said there is ‘friendship’ between the two men. Official sources in Cairo said that the two presidents discussed reinforced cooperation in the anti-terror struggle, especially against the Islamic State.”

The West has forced millions to become wandering, destitute refugees, as it destroys nations and peoples that get in the way of Empire. Palestinians have lived this reality for 67 years. Beirut sits at the lip of the volcano.

They cluster on the prosperous, Christmas-themed streets of Beirut: Syrian mothers and their children begging from passersby until deep in the night; young girls holding infant siblings; pre-teen boys with shoe shine cans who persist for blocks before finally taking no for an answer; grandmothers tapping on the windows of traffic-trapped cars. One million Syrians have descended on neighboring Lebanon, a tiny nation of only four million people that now hosts the highest percentage of refugees in the world.

When Syria held presidential elections in June of 2014, so many refugees rushed to vote at the Syrian Embassy, located high on a hill (everything is high on a hill or low in a valley in Lebanon), that many had to abandon their cars and walk several kilometers to cast their ballots, according the Eva Bartlett, part of our small delegation in solidarity with Palestine. We were hoping to spend a few days in Syria before participating in the Third Global Convention of Solidarity with Palestine, at a grand hotel in southern Beirut, December 8 through 10. The problem was, nobody in the Syrian ambassador’s office had been informed of our urgent need for visas, and soon our time would run out.

Nowhere is the refugee crisis more acute than in the camps of Palestinians, themselves exiled from their neighboring homeland by Zionist terror 67 years ago. Half a million Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon, with somewhat less than half of them living in 12 camps. The Bourj el-Barajneh camp sits next to a highway in what used to be the southern outskirts of Beirut, but is now surrounded by a crowded Shia neighborhood that is overwhelmingly loyal to Hezbollah, the most politically and militarily powerful institution in the country. Bourj el-Barajneh was already densely packed with 18,000 Palestinians before the West and its royal Persian Gulf allies plunged Syria into a multi-front proxy war, in 2011. With the influx of Palestinians from Syria’s 13 refugee camps – especially the largest, Yarmouk, which had nearly 150,000 residents before it was partially overrun by al-Nusra terrorists – Bourj el-Barajneh more than doubled in population, adding 25,000 new residents.

“One million Syrians have descended on neighboring Lebanon, a tiny nation of only four million people that now hosts the highest percentage of refugees in the world.”

Ayoub is the fatigue-jacketed leader of the dominant political organization in the camp, a man who carries around his own coffee and knows every nook and cranny of the one square kilometer warren of alleyways and lethal, drooping wires. (On average, 10 or 12 people are electrocuted in the wilderness of wires, every year.) He escorts our small group of two Americans, a French/Moroccan, a Canadian and an Englishwoman out of the camp shadows and down a hill to the street where two ISIS suicide bombers killed 43 people on November 12. The Shia neighborhood, also known as Bourj el-Barajneh, is once again full of shoppers – poor people, patronizing cheap shops, whose deaths were cheapened when western media focused all their attention on the attacks in Paris, the next day.

Swarms of Palestinian and Lebanese youths on battered motor scooters buzzed past a memorial to those “martyred” in the bombing, mostly young men, whose photographs sanctify the corner. The street is still indented where the first bomber blew himself up. A block away, another scar in the pavement marks the second bomber’s self-demolition, timed to kill people coming to the aid of the first victims.

Riches and Refugees

If it were located in Manhattan, the Hamra area of Beirut would call itself Chelsea. It abuts the wealthy seaside international corporate zone, where English advertising blasts from blinding billboards. Christmas rules along Hamra Street, with holiday mall-music wafting over shoppers and Syrian beggars. Dollars (but not euros) are as spendable as Lebanese lira. On the cross streets are bars and clubs in numbers that rival the new York City’s West Village. The neighborhood is also home to the American University, where delegations like ours can find an audience.

If there is anyplace that exudes “internationalism,” it is the American University in Beirut. In a country where it is permissible to smoke almost everywhere, tobacco stops at the AU campus gate. Mariam, an AU professor and political activist who spent many years in the Triangle area of North Carolina, filled a classroom with students, teachers, and activists. I stressed that internationalism lay at the core of the Black Radical Tradition; that, historically, when Black folks talked among themselves about foreign policy, they would say, “What are THEY doing?” in Vietnam, or Latin American, or wherever the U.S. was meddling in other people’s affairs – not “What are WE doing?” We didn’t identify with the actions of the U.S. government: that was “them,” not “us.”

Early in African American history, for complex reasons, many Blacks chose to identify as “Arab” or “Moorish” – culturally advanced civilizations that had defeated whites, militarily, crossing from Africa to conquer Spain. Moorish societies proliferated in Black America, along with the wearing of the fez. Deep into the late 20^th century, Black men who sold fruits and vegetables from horse-drawn wagons on the streets of Baltimore were called “A-rabs.” Not Arabs, but A-rabs.

Identification with Arab civilization led to identification with Islam, so that by the 1930s and ‘40s Black Americans had created their own, Black brand of Muslim religion: the Nation of Islam. This was, I told our university audience, “an entirely political project, an ideological assault on the belief system of the white American oppressor.” It was a project rooted in identification with the Arab world.

The Nation of Islam provided “a pathway to the internationalist framework espoused by Malcolm X, without whose influence the Black Panther Party’s internationalism would not have been possible.” The explosion of Black American Islam began with Elijah Muhammad’s organization, and then spread to mainstream Islamic branches. By the early Nineties, Black Americans made up a majority of Muslims in the United States.

Even today, after a huge influx of Muslims from around the world, African Americans still make up 23 percent of U.S. Muslims – and 60 percent of third generation U.S. Muslims.

By the late Sixties, U.S. Zionists were calling Black Americans the “most anti-Semitic” group in the U.S. That was never true, although Blacks were by far the most Islamic-oriented major ethnic group in the country. The long-time Black identification with Arabs had nothing to do with Jews; it was all about Black rejection of domination of the world by white people. If Jews wanted to be “white” – here in the U.S. and in the Middle East – that was their own doing.

The Zionists threatened to withhold their money and bring down the wrath of their influence on Black projects if African Americans did not tow the Israeli line in foreign policy. The blackmail has been very successful, especially with the Black political class aligned with the Democratic Party – which means virtually all Black elected officials. In the summer of 2014, every Black member of Congress voted for a resolution favoring Israel during its murderous assault on Gaza – even though Black Americans are the nation’s most pro-Arab (or the least anti-Arab) constituency, historically and currently.

How do you prove such a proposition, when the overwhelming bulk of Black elected officials are in Israel’s pocket? The best evidence came in February of 2003, six weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Zogby polling organization (owned by two Lebanese Americans of Arab Christian extraction) asked the question: “Would you support a U.S. invasion of Iraq if it would result in the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians?”

Strong majorities of white males said Yes, bring the war on, to hell with Arab civilians.

Slightly more than half of white females agreed.

Among Hispanic Americans, 16 percent answered the Zogby question in the affirmative.

But, only 7 percent of Black Americans were willing to go to war if meant the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

When it comes to blood lust, White America – and even Hispanic America – live in a different world than Black America, where war mongers are confined to single digits. Black American internationalism flows from humanitarian compassion and identification with the victims of white American savagery.

Resistance, and Dissidence

Malcolm X is big in Lebanon. Ajamu Baraka, a founder of the U.S. Human Rights Network and columnist for Black Agenda Report, found that out early last year when he spoke about Malcolm on a television station that caters to Shia Lebanese, the country’s largest population group. When Baraka returned to Beirut this December, folks stopped him on the street to commend his presentation. Thus, when Baraka was called upon to speak to the full Convention of Solidarity with Palestine, he cited Malcolm X and declared: “There can be no compromise between settler colonialism in the U.S. and settler colonialism in Palestine. We have never given up on that objective. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with Palestine and Palestine has stood with us,” most dramatically since the rebellions in Ferguson and Baltimore (where the “A-rabs” once roamed). “The 21^st century,” said Baraka, “will be the last century of western dominance.”

“There can be no compromise between settler colonialism in the U.S. and settler colonialism in Palestine.”

With almost daily reports of stabbings of Israelis by Palestinian youths, the convention hummed with excitement at the prospect of a prolonged Third Intifada. Ismail Haniyeh, a leader of Hamas in Gaza and former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, said in a video message to the convention:

“The Intifada will only stop at its real stop, which is the stop of Return. We call on all states to unite around the Intifada. The real enemy, the constant enemy, is the Israeli occupation.”

Salah al-Khawaja, of the Stop the Wall campaign, told the convention:

“There has been a clear message from the youth of Palestine to the political leadership: If you are resisting or not resisting, you will be a target. You have no choice but to unite and adopt a position of resistance. The political and diplomatic movement of the occupation has to be paralyzed all over the world, especially the Arab world.”

Saeb Erekat, Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), called for an international tribunal to hold the Israelis “responsible for their crimes, their war crimes.”

But the most compelling comments, rebelliously delivered, came from a Palestinian student who somehow gained possession of the microphone amidst the turbaned and suited dignitaries. He spoke for “a new generation that doesn’t waver to any kind of aggression.” The PLO was directly criticized for its “absence” from the struggle and its role in the discredited Oslo agreement. “We have no arms because of the Oslo authority in our homeland, and we will not accept the continuity of the aggression, regardless of who signed the occupation agreement,” said the young activist. “There is no money for the resistance, for schools, but there is money for the big shots, it goes to their pockets, probably to those who are among us, here.”

Soldiers, Sons and Sheikhs

The next day, the remaining convention delegates boarded busses to southern Lebanon to visit Beaufort Castle, a Crusader fort once held by the Israelis when they maintained a six-mile “buffer zone” of Lebanese territory, and the Mleeta Tourist Memorial to the Hezbollah fighters that drove the Israelis from the country once and for all in 2006. At one of the observation platforms high on a mountain, a young Palestinian engaged the Americans from the solidarity delegation. He had snuck out of “occupied Palestine” to attend the conference and to make contact with comrades outside of Israeli-controlled territory, and intended to return by the same dangerous path. Yes, he said, it was horrible that Arab nations like the United Arab Emirates and Dubai were considering “normalizing” relations with Israel, but he was even more concerned that militancy was ebbing on the occupied West Bank. Tens of thousands of Palestinian households were now hooked to home mortgages, a pacification policy urged on the Israelis by Americans – and it was having an effect. Still, he said, there were plenty of youth willing to fight the occupiers and their Palestinian collaborators. “That guy is a soldier of the revolution,” the Americans agreed.

Only days later, Kristian Bailey, the organizer who helped get 1,000 Black American academics, artists and celebrities to sign a petition to stand with Palestinians and against Zionism, and who was among 100 youths from around the world that attended the Beirut convention, was arrested by the Israelis. He’s becoming a soldier, too.

Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky, leader of Nigeria’s Shia Muslims, and his son Hammad left Beirut while we were touring battle sites. Hammad was dead by Saturday, killed by the Nigerian military along with as many as 1,000 other unarmed Shia while trying to defend his father, who suffered four bullet wounds to his hands. Six years ago, the Nigerian military killed three other sons of Sheikh Zakzaky. His followers have also been suicide bombed by Boko Harma, which the Sheikh charges is manipulated by the Nigerian military and elements of the country’s elite.

Nigeria recently joined the Saudi Arabia-led coalition against “terror” – which means exactly the opposite.

Glen Ford is the executive editor of BAR

Afghan opium is being processed into high-grade heroin in clandestine Turkish drug labs for distribution in Europe and Russia, Russia’s anti-drug chief has revealed. The trafficking route was exposed after a joint Russian-Afghan anti-drug operation.

“The cargo traveled through Badakhshan-Doshi-Bamiyan-Herat, then further through Iran and into Turkey, where the opium was processed in well-equipped laboratories…into high quality heroin, and then was to be sent to Europe and Russia,” Ivanov said during an anti-narcotics committee meeting.

#ISIS uses Turkey for trafficking heroin to Europe – Russian anti-drugs chief https://t.co/nfXx9Rjgzn pic.twitter.com/2QWyJviif0

— RT (@RT_com) December 20, 2015

The head of Russia’s federal anti-drug agency (FKSN) Viktor Ivanov reported that 600 kilograms of opium was seized in a joint operation carried out by Russian and Afghan special anti-drug units in the city of Doshi in Afghanistan’s Baglan Province.

The operation was conducted in mid-December by Afghanistan’s Kabul Gates anti-drug unit with intelligence support from the FKSN, Ivanov said. The drug shipment was found in an Afghani truck traveling to Turkey via Iran.

The FSKN head stressed that drug trafficking has enabled Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) to boost its numbers four-fold since 2014, Ivanov said.

“The spike in IS fighters corresponds with the annual increase of drug smuggling in the Middle East, which is confirmed by the growing number of heroin seizures in the region,” Ivanov said.

Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is “actively engaged with drug trafficking,” Ivanov said, adding that according to the FSKN estimates, the group’s income from illegal drug trade “makes up to $200-500 million annually.”

Another season of Zionist violence and dispossession in the Holy Land.

This Christmas, as every year since 1948, Jewish and Christian Zionists will continue the catastrophe that already violently destroyed hundreds of Arab villages and forced three quarters of a million civilians to become refugees in their own land. 

A catastrophe that continues to this day, courtesy of an American congress that cares nothing for human rights or justice at this time of Christian celebration as it increases its arms shipments to the military occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to over US$6billion a year under the political pressure of AIPAC and its affiliated lobby groups.

As tourists cavort themselves upon the beach at Tel Aviv, the rest of the world sings Christmas carols to the glory of God; praising peace and goodwill to all men. But not in the Holy Land where darkness and death still pervade every corner of the Israeli-occupied, Palestinian lands.

For here there is no light, save for the flashing fire of a US-Israeli tank-shell destroying another home and another family, as God weeps yet again at another Zionist season of violence and inhumanity to mankind, this Christmas.

The terms of Resolution 2254 mostly confirm those of the Geneva Communiqué, which was adopted three years ago. The two greatest military powers in the world agree that the Syrian Arab Republic should be maintained, while the imperialists – with France in the front line – pursue their dream of changing the Syrian régime by force. But the world has changed over the last few years, and it will not be as easy to sabotage this new agreement as it was in 2012.

Washington-Moscow relations

For the second time, the United States and Russia have signed an agreement and concluded a peace plan for Syria.

• The first time was during the Geneva Conference in June 2012 [1]. The content of this agreement concerned bringing peace both to Syria and the whole of the Middle East by dividing the region into zones of influence [2]. However, this agreement was immediately sabotaged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her group of « liberal hawks » and « neo-conservatives ». And less than two weeks later, France organised a reprise of the war, during the Paris Conference of « Friends of Syria » [3], then with the operation « Damascus Volcano and Syrian Earthquake » [4]. To this dispute was added the coup d’État in Ukraine at the end of 2013. The two events marked the almost total suspension of diplomatic relations between Washington and Moscow.

• The second time was during the visit by John Kerry to Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin, on the 15th Decembre 2015 [5]. Their encounter was immediately followed by a meeting of the High Commission of the Syrian opposition, and the adoption of Resolution 2253 [6], which forbade the financing of Al-Qaïda and Daesh, and Resolution 2254 [7], which institutionalised the efforts deployed in Geneva and Vienna for Syria. To general surprise, the High Commission of the opposition elected the Ba’athist ex-Prime Minister Riad Hijab – member of a tribe present in Arabia – to lead its delegation. In order to avoid errors of interpretation, Secretary of State Kerry declared at the Kremlin that the United States’ opinion of President Assad would not be an obstacle to the Syrian vote, then confirmed at the Security Council that the « political process will not offer a choice between Assad and Daesh, but between war and peace ».

The withdrawal of the Iranian military advisors had begun a little before the summit meeting at the Kremlin .

Russia accepted to conform with the Geneva Communiqué, which stipulates that elements of the opposition should be integrated into a sort of government of national union for the Syrian Arab Republic. In order to demonstrate that it is fighting the terrorists, but not the political opposition, whether or not they are armed, Russia concluded an agreement with the Free Syrian Army and its sponsor, France.

While this army has never had the importance on the ground that the Atlantist media claim, and although it has not existed since the end of 2013, as many as 5,000 combatants, who have appeared from no-one knows where, are now collaborating with the Russian army as well as the Syrian army against Al-Qaïda and Daesh – this is a surprising development considering that the Free Syrian Army was supposed to be settled in the South, but is now fighting in the North of the country.

Since the fiasco of the Geneva Conference of June 2012, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. Certain of the protagonists have been eliminated, and the balance of power has been inverted.

• President Obama seems to have regained a portion of his power and closed down the « Arab Spring » project. He has managed, successively, to get rid of General David Petraeus (whom he had arrested in handcuffs in November 2012), Hillary Clinton (in January 2013), and General John Allen (forced to resign just two months ago in October 2015). In the same way, he has cleaned out his administration – including the National Security Council – by banishing the Muslim Brotherhood. However, Jeffrey Feltman remains the number 2 at the UNO. Feltman has drawn up a plan for the total and unconditional surrender of Syria, and has been dragging his feet on peace negotiations in the hope that the Syrian Arab Army will be defeated first [8].

• In June 2013, the White House forced Emir Hamad al-Thani of Qatar to abdicate, and his Prime Minister Hamad ben Jassem to withdraw from political life [9]. However, ben Jassem has become the co-President of the Brookings Institute in Doha, while the new Emir, Tamim, maintained the financing of the Muslim Brotherhood and their terrorist organisations until the diplomatic crisis with his Saudi neighbour, in March 2014 [10].

• Despite warnings from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), David Petraeus’ group was able, in mid-2014, to manage the development of an organisation that he had created in 2004, with Colonel James Steele, Colonel James Coffman and ambassador John Negroponte, under the name of the « Islamic Emirate in Iraq ». They used it to ethnically cleanse part of the country with a view to partition. This operation was supported by several states (Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates, France, Italy, Israël, Qatar, Turkey and Ukraine) and multinationals (Exxon-Mobil, KKR, Academi).

• The White House was able to eliminate the clans of both ex-king Abdallah and prince Bandar ben Sultan from the Saudi directorate, leaving it in the hands of princes Mohamed ben Nayef and Mohamad ben Salmane, under the authority of the new king Salmane. This new distribution weakened the power structure, but made political change possible.

• The 5+1 agreement with Iran marked Teheran’s renunciation of its revolutionary ambitions [11], so that a modus vivendi with the Saudis became conceivable [12], even though the Yemen episode complicated the situation.

• Both Washington and Moscow have taken a firm dislike to Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan [13]. However, the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO forced the White House to play carefully, parrticularly since Ankara is allied with Kiev [14], another important theatre of war in the global strategy of the United States [15].

• The balance of power between Washington and Moscow was progressively inverted, in June 2012 and September 2015. NATO lost its superiority in both intercontinental missiles [16] and conventional warfare [17], so that Russia has now become the world’s leading military power.

As a result, the roles have been inverted. In 2012, the Kremlin aimed at becoming the equal of the White House. Today, the US needs to negotiate in political terms the loss of its military domination.

A sign of the times – the Rand Corporation, the emblematic think tank of the military-industrial complex, has just published its Peace Plan for Syria. This powerful group had already shocked the US establishment in October 2014, when it confirmed that the victory of President el-Assad would be the best result for Washington [18]. It then proposed a cease-fire which would justify the presence of representatives from the opposition and the Kurds in the future government of national union [19].

The opposition to the new world order

The opposition to Barack Obama’s policy has not altogether disappeared. For example, the Washington Post accuses him of having surrendered to Russia on the question of régime change in Syria [20].

In 2012, it was possible to interpret the opposition of the Petraeus-Clinton clan to peace as a desire to profit as far as possible from US military supremacy. But with the development of new Russian weaponry, this no longer makes any sense. As of now, the only possible interpretation is the hope of provoking, with minimal delay, an international confrontation, believing that the Western powers may still have a chance of winning – something that will become unimaginable as soon as China is in a position to field its army.

Just as it did at the Geneva Conference, France stepped in as soon as Resolution 2254 was adopted. Its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, once again declared that while all opposition groups should be allowed to participate in the transition in Syria, only President el-Assad should be excluded – an idea which is contrary to the principles of the Geneva Communiqué and Resolution 2254 itself.

While in 2012 it was still possible to interpret the French position as a desire to replace the Ba’athist régime with a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood, in the continuity of the overthrow of secular Arab régimes (the « Arab Spring ») – or as an attempt to « bleed the Syrian army » in order to facilitate regional domination by Israël – or simply as a desire for recolonisation – this is no longer possible today, because any of these three objectives would imply war with Russia.

France is orchestrating the Syrian question on behalf of the US liberal hawks and neo-conservatives. In doing so, it is supported by the Messianic Zionists who, like Benjamin Netanyahu, consider it a religious duty to hasten the arrival of the Messiah by provoking an eschatological confrontation.

Peace in Syria or nuclear war ?

It does not seem credible that the liberal hawks, the neo-conservatives and the  Zionists could manage to impose their politics on the two great powers. However, it will be difficult to arrive at a definitive result before January 2017 and the arrival of a new President in the White House. Now we may better understand the support proclaimed by Vladimir Putin for Donald Trump, who seems the best placed to block his friend Hillary Clinton [21].

In reality, everything is now ready for a peace that will allow the losers to hold their heads high.

Key points:

• Resolution 2253 forbids the sponsors of Daesh and Al-Qaïda to continue to support them. Resolution 2254 confirms the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012. Both Russia and the US agree to maintain the Syrian Arab Republic and to support a government of national union.

• During the Geneva Communiqué, the opposition army, supported by Saudi Arabia, elected Ba’athist ex-Prime Minister Riad Hijab to lead its delegation. Meanwhile, Russia concluded an agreement with the Free Syrian Army and its sponsor, France.

• Everything is ready for the conclusion of a peace agreement which would allow the losers to save face. But, just as in 2012, France reiterated its demands as soon as Resolution 2254 was adopted.

Global Editor’s Note

The Department of Defense now authorizes the domestic deployment of US troops  in “the conduct of operations other than war”  including law enforcement activities and the quelling of “civil disturbances”: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances…“

These developments –which are currently the object of heated debate– are the result of  more than ten years of “repressive legislation” which increasingly points to the “fusion of the police and military functions both within the US and abroad”.

In a path breaking article published by Global Research in 2003,  award winning author Frank Morales shows how the post 911 “Patriot Act” which he describes as a “repressive coordination” had set the stage for the militarization of America, namely “a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself.”

The “domestic war on terrorism” hinges upon the Pentagon’s doctrine of homeland defense. Mountains of repressive legislation are being enacted in the name of internal security. So called “homeland security”, originally set within the Pentagon’s “operations other than war”, is actually a case in which the Pentagon has declared war on America.

Shaping up as the new battleground, this proliferating military “doctrine” seeks to justify new roles and missions for the Pentagon within America. Vast “legal” authority and funds to spy on the dissenting public, reconfigured as terrorist threats, is being lavished upon the defense, intelligence and law enforcement “community.”

We bring to the attention of our readers this path-breaking analysis by Frank Morales

Michel Chossudovsky, December 25, 2015

The “PATRIOT Act” is a repressive “coordination” of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military. It broadens, centralizes and combines the surveillance, arrest and harassment capabilities of the police and intelligence apparatus. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.

The “domestic war on terrorism” hinges upon the Pentagon’s doctrine of homeland defense. Mountains of repressive legislation are being enacted in the name of internal security. So called “homeland security”, originally set within the Pentagon’s “operations other than war”, is actually a case in which the Pentagon has declared war on America. Shaping up as the new battleground, this proliferating military “doctrine” seeks to justify new roles and missions for the Pentagon within America. Vast “legal” authority and funds to spy on the dissenting public, reconfigured as terrorist threats, is being lavished upon the defense, intelligence and law enforcement “community.”

All this is taking place amidst an increasingly perfected “fusion” of the police and military functions both within the US and abroad, where the phenomena is referred to as “peacekeeping”, or the “policization of the military”. Here in America, all distinction between the military and police functions is about to be forever expunged with the looming repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. The latter, was passed after the Civil War to rein in the military. It bars federal troops from doing police work within United States borders, although strictly speaking, the Act refers only to the Army and the Air Force, not to the Marines or the National Guard in “state status.” According to the New York Times:

“the Bush administration has directed lawyers in the Department of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and any other laws that sharply restrict the military’s ability to participate in domestic law enforcement.”

The Washington Post (7/21/02) put it a bit more starkly, stating that the Bush administration:

“has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on US soil.”

In other words, the “New World Law and Order” based on the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, requires a system of domestic and global counterinsurgency led by the Pentagon.

The first requirement of this counterinsurgency, which is directed at all forms of social dissent is the “collection”, “retention” and “dissemination” of information, information on anyone who resists, whether through violent means or otherwise. Recall, that the protests in Seattle and numerous other cities in recent years were more often than not classified within official DoD and FEMA documents as “terrorist events”. The objective is to centralize all intelligence gathering under one roof, the Department of Homeland Security and to widely cast the net over all of us, making certain that we all fall in line with the Pentagon Inc. agenda.

To this end the myriad modes of intelligence gathering or “collection” have been beefed up: From CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) to Carnivore (e-mail spying), from the NSA’s Echelon (global listening device), to spy satellite imagery, from FBI “roving wiretaps”, to CIA access to grand juries and secret FISA “foreign intelligence” courts, the means, legal sanctions and technology of social control proliferate, are sanctioned, are demanded by a paranoid public. Homeland security requires manufactured insecurity. A bit of anthrax to keep em on their toes and minding their p’s and q’s…

Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS)

Typical of the need for “tactical (on the ground) intelligence” is the creation of TIPS or the Terrorism Information and Prevention System. Set up in January 2002 by Ashcroft’s Justice Department, TIPS is described as a “national system for concerned workers to report suspicious activity”. In fact, TIPS is a hotline to the National White Collar Crime Center, a Justice Department organization that deals with “economic crime” and cyberattack. For a little under a million bucks they plan to register all “suspicious, publicly observable activity that could be related to terrorism” and forward it to law enforcement and other agencies “opting to receive TIPS information.” These agencies “would be responsible for determining how to respond to the tips they receive.”

The “workers” that TIPS is willing to offer its hotline service are those in the transportation, trucking, shipping, maritime, and mass transit industries. The truckers, for their part, are jumping in with both feet. The trucker magazine FleetOwner recently noted (6/1/02) that:

“attempting to stay ahead of Federal regulators charged with securing US transportation networks from terrorist attacks, the American Trucking Assns. has readied a ‘Neighborhood Watch’ program for the nation’s highways.”

The ATA’s “Anti-Terrorism Action Plan”, geared to keeping the “wheels of commerce” rolling, envision a plan in which “a potential 3 million professional truck drivers will be trained to spot and report any suspicious activities that might have terrorism or national security implications.” As if truckers don’t have enough on their minds, although it might be wise for them to keep their eyes wide open.

It seems that the Bush administration concern for workers knows no bounds. According to the New York Times (8/!4/02) President Bush wants to exempt all homeland security coordinated agencies “from collective bargaining requirements if (he) were to determine that our national security demands it.” Little known to the public, the president is seeking not only to “exempt agency employees from federal labor relations rules and prohibit them from joining unions”, but he’s also prepared to force them to work, under the conditions he chooses, if “national security demands it”. The “flexibility” that Bush is calling for, a “fast moving homeland security department unfettered by work rules and red tape” is sure to result in a lot less “flexibility” on the part of workers who may soon be confronted with a form of involuntary employment during “times of war”, all set out in Department of Defense directives.

Financing Homeland Defense

TIPS, which is an integral part of the CitizenCorps/ FreedomCorps/ AmeriCorps axis of patriotic, police loving do-gooders, is buttressed with funds from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). In the wake of 9/11, CNCS was fully integrated into “homeland defense efforts”. In March 2002, the Corporation issued a “notice of availability of funds to strengthen communities and organizations in using service and volunteers to support homeland security.” With an emphasis on “public safety” and “freeing up police time”, the grants offered under the announcement “are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front.” In the area of “public safety” the grants “will help provide members to support police departments…in tasks and other functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers.” Now mind you, the volunteers “are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups…” They also “organize communities to identify and respond to crime and disorder problems…”

In July 2002, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge announced, while sitting in a Washington DC police station, the first round of CNCS homeland security grants totaling $10.3 million, an “initiative” that is to involve some 37,000 volunteers nationwide. One recipient of a $484,000 Corporation grant, based in NYC, is the Center for Court Innovation. Linked to the NYC Public Safety Corps, the grant “will enhance homeland security by assisting criminal justice officials (police, probation officers, judges) as they perform their duties…(while) 40 full time AmeriCorps members will…free up police…to address conditions of disorder that if left unchecked create a climate where crime would flourish.”

In NYC, ground zero for the attack, homeland defense equates to the same old thing, cracking down on “disorder” (protest) and “quality of life crimes”, which is a racist police code for arresting and jailing more poor people.

The euphemism of “homeland defense”, codified within the halls of the Pentagon as early as the mid-1990’s, long before 9/11, buttressed with various Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders, includes, within the doctrinal rubric of “operations other than war”, continual training to suppress dissent, or as it is conveniently phrased, to put down “civil disturbance.” The decades old “Garden Plot” operation, which is the Pentagon’s stand alone “civil disturbance” plan, has become generalized in the “homeland defense” concept and it’s focus on the “asymmetric threat”. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Defense, Homeland Security Council etc. the Bush administration is seeking to institutionalize it’s “permanent war” against “terrorism”, dovetailed with it’s ongoing war against dissent.

So while Garden Plot directives, geared for domestic use, are exported to “peacekeeping” troops abroad, “homeland defense” tightens the grip at home. The recent appointment of General Ralph E. Eberhart and the creation of a Northern Command within the Pentagon reflect the depth of commitment the elite have to maintaining “full spectrum dominance” at home.

With “the PATRIOT Act” and other legal monstrosities foisted upon the people, what emerges is a repressive “coordination” (as the Nazis used to call it) of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military, in the interests of a “permanent” counterinsurgency, by way of the centralization and broadening of surveillance capabilities, arrest capabilities, and harassment capabilities, which target anyone corporate America doesn’t like. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.

Global Counterinsurgency

The “war on terrorism” is a global counterinsurgency whose aim is to wipe out any and all resistance to US global hegemony and corporate domination. Utilizing “operations other than war” (OOTW), corporate America and it’s military are taking a more direct, hands on approach to the needs and requirements of corporate globalization. OOTW, with its host of new missions (e.g. peacekeeping and civil disturbance operations), is based on a pre-emptive doctrine. In this new war, which relies on both standard means of killing along with so-called non-lethal weapons, so-called ” non-combatants” (i.e. civilians) become the primary target. And in so doing, the military, via its OOTW doctrine, is violating one of the sacred tenets of the so-called “laws of war”, namely, that militaries not target civilian populations. But after all, as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld noted in a (12/12/01) statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the “enemy” “hides in caves abroad”, and more importantly, “among us here at home.”

Now, despite the fact that both the Presidential and military directives target “non-United States citizens” (as if that’s not bad enough), in June 2002, the Bush administration jailed a New York City man of Puerto Rican descent, Jose Padilla – or as he now calls himself – Abdullah al Muhajir, and is holding him in a military brig in South Carolina. He has yet to be charged with any crime. Like the hundreds of Muslim immigrants still being held in detention since September 11, he is considered a “material witness” to the investigation of the attack. And yet, rather than have him subject to the discretion of Federal courts, he was handed over to the military as an “enemy combatant” after Ashcroft and the Pentagon talked it over. At that moment, Padilla was taken out of his New York prison cell and transferred to a US Navy brig in South Carolina. His attorney, Donna Newman of NYC was not informed of his transfer and has been denied access to her client. Even the Washington Post, which has backed virtually all of the repressive measures of the Bush administration since September 11, wrote at the time of Padilla’s jailing that:

 “the governments actions in this latest case cut against basic elements of life under the rule of law” and that “if its positions are correct, nothing would prevent the president – even in the absence of a formal declaration of war – from designating any American as an enemy combatant…If that’s the case, nobody’s constitutional rights are safe.”

This “chilling legal precedent” is but the tip of the iceberg of the complete subsuming of normal judicial processes to the growing militarization of law enforcement and jurisprudence.

“Homeland defense”, as we experience it today, has been percolating in the bowels of the Pentagon and corporate think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations, along with their Congressional counterparts, for nearly a decade. What it required was an emergency situation. The “homeland security” apparatus presently being constructed is modeled roughly after the military’s “combatant command structure” and is –in the wake of 9/11– set within the context of the “laws and customs of war”, hence the introduction of military courts and the shifting of jurisdictions for so-called “crimes associated with terrorism”. The Northern Command, based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, whose job as of October 1st is to patrol America, will head up this homeland defense “command structure”.

Concurrent with the round-up of over a thousand people following the September 11 attack, many of whom have been held in solitary confinement, with no charges being filed, President Bush signed in November 2991 order, establishing military “tribunals” for those non-citizens accused, anywhere, of “terrorist related crimes”. According to the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the order violates the constitutional separation of powers:

 “[It] has not been authorized by the Congress and is outside the President’s constitutional powers”… the order strips away a variety of checks and balances on governmental power and the reliability and integrity of criminal judgments… [T]he order undermines the rule of law worldwide, and invites reciprocal treatment of US nationals by hostile nations utilizing secret trials, a single entity as prosecutor, judge and jury, no judicial review and summary executions.”

Department of Defense Military Commission Order No.1, issued March 21, 2002, is concerned with “procedures for trials by military commissions of certain non-United States citizens in the War Against Terrorism.” The “commissions”, according to the order, “shall have jurisdiction over violations of the laws of war and all other offenses triable by military commission.” Overseen by a “military officer” who will “admit or exclude evidence at trial”, the “prosecutor” would be a “special trial counsel of the Department of Justice.” On the defense side, well, one could opt to go with the DoD’s version of the public defender, namely another “military officer”, or one could secure an attorney.

Although “the Accused may also retain the services of a civilian attorney of the Accused’s own choosing…at no expense to the United States Government”, this would only be possible once it “has been determined” that the civilian attorney is “eligible for access to information classified at the level of SECRET or higher…”

In other words, to get any kind of impartial and efficient legal representation in Mr.Rumsfeld’s court, your attorney has to be cleared by the Pentagon.

Over the past six days, Russian warplanes have conducted 302 sorties and hit 1,093 terrorist targets in the provinces of Idlib, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, Hama and Homs. Russian Su-34 bombers destroyed a large terrorist training camp in the Syrian province of Idlib hosting fighters from Turkey and CIS states. Also, Russian warplanes have destroyed two oil storage facilities, three oil-extraction plants along with dozens of fuel pumps in the Deir ez-Zor province.

Moreover, six off-road vehicles equipped with heavy machine guns and three militants’ trucks were destroyed in the Homs province. And an Ahrar ash-Sham militant group’s command post was destroyed in the Aleppo province.

On Wednesday evening, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the National Defense Forces (NDF) took control of the farms north of the Marj Al-Sultan Military Airport after a heavy fight with Nusra and Jaysh Al-Islam and advanced north towards the town of Harasta in the East Ghouta. Currently, intense clashes are still going between the SAA and terrorists near the P-35 Radar Base.

In the Deir Ezzor province, ISIS launched a massive offensive that targeted the government-controlled districts of Al-Sina’a, Al-Rusafa and ‘Amal located along the vast Euphrates River.

Initially, hundreds ISIS militants stormed the SAA defenses at the Al-Sina’a District’s eastern flank. After the heavy clashes, militants moved deeper into the district but found the SAA has fire superiority in combat. Thus, ISIS was pushed to retreat. According to the SAA reports, over 40 militants were killed. Separately, ISIS launched counter-attacks in Al-Rusafa, Al-‘Amal, and the Old Airport District.

Iraqi Security Forces, Kurdish Peshmerga, local Yazidi militia, supported by the Iraqi and US-led coalition air forces are fighting to regain control over the city of Ramadi from ISIS. According to the Iraqi government, the military captured parts of the city on Tuesday and are advancing toward the government complex in the central district of Ramadi. It’s confirmed that the Iraqi and coalition warplanes have been conducting airstrikes in neighborhoods around the complex. The progress in recapturing Ramadi is slowed down by the decision to ban local Shia militias from fighting in the area. With this, the US and US-backed Iraqi officials are trying to prevent the grow of the militias’ influence in the country.

Global Research encourages its readers to support the South Front initiative:

If you have a possibility, if you like our content and approaches, please, support the project.

Our work wont be possible without your help:

PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/

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

From Libya and Egypt to Syria and Yemen, the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region is undergoing unprecedented tumult and chaos. To understand the current breakdown of states and society, examining the so-called Arab Spring of 2011 that laid the groundwork for this ongoing regional anarchy is indispensable.

Global Research brings to the attention of its readers the newly released book by Christopher L. Brennan.  Fall of the Arab Spring: From Revolution to Destruction (available here), propounds an incisive and timely analysis. The book views this widespread Arab upheaval, not as authentic grass roots movements for democracy, but as a US-engineered destabilization. Below are excerpts largely from the introduction. 

*        *       *  

From 2011 to around early 2014, the so-called “Arab Spring” encompassing the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region came to the forefront of international political affairs. In the words of Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, it was “frequently referred to as the most remarkable episode in the international life of the new 21st century.” The authoritarian regimes of the Arab world have been fragile systems. This is especially true more recently in their relationship with burgeoning youthful populations. Arab historian Said K. Aburish argues that these various regimes all lack modern political legitimacy—from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to Egypt, from military cliques to monarchies. [1]

This lack of modern political legitimacy—coupled with decades of political repression, world economic crises, and unresolved grievances such as the unmitigated oppression of the Palestinian people—creates potential for massive political awakening. This dynamic was particularly pronounced because of the region’s marked demographic ‘youth bulge.’ Historically, youth cohorts are receptive to new ideas, eager to challenge the status quo, and active in times of political crisis. Indeed, it was the age 25 and under demographic that spearheaded the MENA mass protests. Using what is referred to as ‘civilian-based power,’ Western powers exploited and guided this massive potential for political awakening to advance Western and Israeli geopolitical imperatives. These eruptions were followed closely by covert and overt military intervention.

[To order book click image right]

Fall of the Arab Spring: From Revolution to Destruction examines modern imperialism vis-à-vis the so-called ‘Arab Spring.’ This widespread Arab upheaval takes place in the context of a period when the restructuring of the world order—from unipolarity (uncontested world hegemony) toward multipolarity (multiple centers of power)—converges with aggravated economic breakdown. This provides the lens from which this study is viewed. The focus of this analysis is the underlying themes, methods, and most prevalent aspects of the MENA uprisings. Particular focus is given to Egypt and Libya as highly instructive case studies. Egypt demonstrates an effective utilization of ‘civilian-based power,’ while Libya provides one of the most palpable displays of the empire’s ruthless stewardship of the “Arab Spring” to smash a recalcitrant Arab state.

In his study The Sorrows of Empire, author Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego, categorizes modern imperialists into two groups: “those who advocate unconstrained, unilateral American domination of the world (couched sometimes in terms of following in the footsteps of the British Empire) and those who call for imperialism devoted to ‘humanitarian’ objectives…. The complex issue at the heart of liberal imperialism is ‘humanitarian intervention’ … ‘the responsibility to protect’”[2]  as a pretext for military intervention.

In truth, the so-called “Arab Spring”which swept through the MENA region was a wave of destabilizations sponsored by Washington and launched through ‘civilian-based power’ techniques. It was American imperialism of the most modern form. With the onset of multipolarity—with many of Washington’s vassals looking to resurgent power centers such as Moscow and Beijing—the US moved pre-emptively for ‘regime change’ against the independence of ‘enemy’ states and erstwhile clients. Additionally, the ‘Arab Spring’ offensive was given impetus by the imperative to accelerate the regional process of what Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most influential British Arabist, termed “Lebanonization” as a self- fulfilling prophecy. [3] This refers to the far-reaching balkanization, societal breakdown, and explosion of sectarian conflicts following the attenuation or collapse of the state—the model of Somalia.

Although it is commonly thought to have gradually faded following World War II, imperialism continues via neo-colonialism.The actions of the West, with its leading state the US at the forefront, have followed an imperialist tendency throughout the Arab uprisings. As we shall see, the West’s ongoing involvement in the “Arab Spring” is part of a larger offensive to maintain the status quo of Western and Israeli hegemony. This was done—not through the crude and direct means of the Bush II regime—but more indirectly and via a sustained synergy of hard and soft power: so-called ‘smart power.’ This was supplemented and spearheaded through the techniques of the ‘color revolution.’ Thus, although a new cadre emerged with the onset of the Obama regime, the status quo imperative to secure Israel remained, and Obama administration introduced new techniques of projecting power. Whereas the second Bush administration was blunt and bellicose, the Obama regime acted more indirectly and surreptitiously, often relying on local proxies and ambitious regional powers such as Qatar and Turkey. This approach can be aptly labeled ‘imperialism on the cheap.’ It has been the defining foreign policy strategy of the Obama presidency.

The excessive reliance on ‘hard power,’ overt military and economic means to project power, during the George W. Bush presidency, generated widespread discourse on its imperial nature.[4]  In contrast, the presidency of Obama was rarely, if ever, characterized in similar terms in its early stage. On the contrary, it was often branded as a radical departure from the aggressive tendencies of the Bush II regime. ‘Soft power’ is defined as “the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or coercion.”[5] After President Bush put US standing in a compromised position—with allies antagonized and a military and populace demoralized—the American establishment opted to shift to a more emphatically ‘soft power’ approach, as advanced by theoreticians such as Joseph Nye, Jr. and Zbigniew Brzezinski of the elite Trilateral Commission. The new strategy rejected an outright bellicose use of ‘hard power,’ the proclivity of the Bush II regime. Instead, ‘hard power’ was used more selectively and from the standpoint of ‘leading from behind.’ This means encouraging allies (or vassals) to engage in geopolitical initiatives for the US, which provides necessary military aid covertly.

Reacting to a waning American empire and a need to ensure the security of Israel, this synergy of ‘soft power,’ alliances, and ‘hard power’ came to characterize US strategy. In Libya—where direct military intervention took place—humanitarian imperialism was carried out with these as guiding principles. Fall of the Arab Spring outlines the synergy between this array of methods including the use of information and irregular warfare. In the final outcome, for the Arab world, the romantic illusions of ‘democracy’ and ‘dignity’—platitudes sold by the West—were shattered, and much of the region degenerated into the breakdown of the state and society.

PressTV:  Russia has voiced regret over the extension of the US sanctions against Moscow, saying it will consider possible counter measures.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the sanctions are a continuation of Washington’s “unfriendly stance against Russia”, which have a devastating impact on bilateral relations. Russian deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov has also condemned the move and accused US government institutions of what he called acting zombie style. He added that the new sanctions may change the reality of relations between Moscow and Washington. Earlier, the US treasury announced an updated sanctions list targeting 34 individuals and entities in Russia to put pressure on Moscow over the crisis in Ukraine. 

Peter Koenig: As I said on other occasions – Washington simply cannot let go.

These sanctions have nothing to do with reality. These sanctions are used for propaganda purposes. Russia – especially Mr. Putin – must remain the villain in the eyes of the western world which is mercilessly subjected to media lies and falsehood time and again.

Washington has no interest in peace, or peaceful relations with Russia. These sanctions just show the farce and hypocrisy behind John Kerry’s recent visit to Moscow, when he acted like a well-behaved little boy wanting to please and cooperate in the fight against ISIS. What a miserable farce.

The Islamic State or Daesh or ISIL – for those who still believe the Islamic State emerged out of the blue – the ISIL/S monster is the creation of the composite of other monsters, the Pentagon (already at the early stages of the Iraq war), NATO and CIA, entirely supported and funded by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, NATO – and yes, Turkey – trained by the CIA, associated secret services and NATO.

Obviously everything Kerry and Obama say in terms of cooperation is an outright lie. It is propaganda making the western world believe that if cooperation doesn’t happen it is Russia’s fault. As the extension of these sanctions just show again.

US Foreign Policy begins losing credibility even in Washington’s inner-circles. Kerry and Obama often make contradictory statements regarding President Assad’s ‘staying’ or ‘going’. And, to put the icing on the cake, Obama’s generals, who officially are supposed to fight the Islamic Jihadists in Iraq and Syria, but really are ordered to support them, as they have done from the beginning  – these generals, fed-up with the ludicrous policies of US fraud Number One, Barack Obama, are now clandestinely supporting President Assad, informing him about ISIL’s whereabouts, so Mr. Assad’s army (and Russian air cover) can fight them – see Seymour Hersh 

Back to sanctions. The main argument for them is Ukraine – and of course, always, so the western stooges won’t forget, as a by-line – the invasion and ‘annexation’ by Russia of Crimea. Western media never mention that the people of Crimea themselves launched a referendum to re-join their motherland to where they belonged for hundreds of years.

By now everybody should know that the coup d’état in Kiev that killed a hundred people at Kiev-Maidan on 21 February 2014, when the democratically elected president was deposed, was instigated and funded by the US and NATO, directed from Washington’s Embassy in Kiev and carried out by Washington paid mercenaries.

PressTV: On 21 December Brussels also decided to extend their sanctions on Moscow. Why is that? What does the EU get out of these sanctions?

PK: Europe plays Washington’s ball game. They have to.

The EU puppets have conceded long ago the last vestiges of their sovereignty to Washington. They have no own will. The self-styled lords of Brussels, those who make-believe they command Europe, those of the unelected European Commission, have nothing to say, nothing to decide – just to follow Washington’s orders. Unfortunately this is a fact.

A living proof is the ongoing behind closed doors ‘negotiation’ about the evil TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) – to which not even EU deputies have access. If ratified, it would be so nefarious for Europe (as would be the TPP for 11 Asian and South American partner countries), those in Washington with their puppets in Europe who pull the strings are afraid, that if it would be made public – it would not only fall apart, but might cause an anti-globalization revolution in Europe.

Europe is owned by Washington – owned as in slavehood. Nobody seems to wonder who put 28 neoliberal so-called leaders (sic) of the EU nations at the head of these nations; nobody seems to logically conclude that this is no coincidence; that occult forces similar to those that commanded, divided and decided the Spanish 20 December election

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/spain-has-fallen-not-like-greece-but-fallen-all-the-same/5497397).

As long as spineless lackeys are sitting in Brussels and are tolerated by a duped European public, there is no alternative – Brussels will follow the dictate of Washington for everything, and of course also for sanctions. This regardless of whether these so-called sanctions hurt Europe far more than Russia. That is immaterial. This is part of Washington’s ‘Plan’.

For those who don’t know – the EU was from the start a product of the United States, beginning with the 1948 Brussels Treaty, coerced as a European concession for the Marshall Plan and signed just after WWII. That ‘treaty’ or contract was covertly (for the public) followed and directed through a string of other treaties, all the way to the Maastricht Treaty, the basis for the current EU, and on to the present-day Lisbon Treaty. The EU doesn’t have a Constitution uniting them as a political entity.

Why? – Because Washington didn’t have a free and sovereign Europe in mind when they initiated in 1948 the process that eventually led to the so-called European Union – which, in reality has little if anything to do with a union. Such a non-union is not sustainable. No solidarity between nations and everyone for him-self is exactly what Washington wanted – the old divide to conquer. And they got it. It’s blatantly glaring into every citizen’s face, but they are blinded and can’t see it.

Probably many European politicians don’t even know that the Mastermind behind this built-to-fail malicious construct, the EU is the US of A – not Europe.

And the common currency the Euro, in a Union that has no political goal and objective cannot be sustainable and is bound to fail. This is demonstrated by the presently ongoing semi-clandestine purchasing of government bonds by some of the EU member countries’ central banks, an act which is per se against the official ECB (European Central Bank) rules.

It is, however, quietly tolerated by ECB’s President Draghi, a former Goldman Sachs Executive, for some privileged countries, like France, Italy and perhaps some others. This local money-printing serves to balance over-burdened state budgets, at the same time putting more liquidity into banks, making them more vulnerable. Draghi is shaping European monetary and financial policies exactly the way the Wall Street- FED tandem wants it.

Never mind that these ECB ‘rules’, enforced by blackmail and criminal intimidations for some countries, like Greece, are against member countries’ sovereignty; sovereignty which they have not given up in any signed document or treaty. Had Greece sidestepped this ‘rule’, as others are doing, resisted the threats and produced her own euros to revamp their economy, as an internal debt, rather than a huge and high-interest debt to German and French private banks, their economy would now be recovering rather than sinking into a bottomless pit.

Europe had now the opportunity to say STOP. No more sanctions. No more following the Washington dictate; no more committing economic suicide – and punishing the only true, honest and long-term real partner, Russia. The Merkels and Hollands and consortia, those supposedly in charge of Europe, they know very well who is behind and instigated the Ukraine bloodbath, the civil war which left millions homeless, causing a flood of more than 2 million refugees into Russia. They could have said NO to more sanctions and break loose and free from the fangs of the US. But they didn’t. They can’t.

Sadly Brussels and the entire gang of politicians that command over 28 member countries BELONG to Washington. Yes, correct: they are enslaved to Washington. You may only speculate what miht happen to them, if they would dare exiting the miserable path of destruction they have embarked on. This mob of spineless vassals is afraid of – or sold to – the naked emperor and his cardboard sword.

PressTV: What will be Russia’s reaction and how will it impact.

PK: The Impact of the sanctions on Russia will be minor, compared to the impact these sanctions have already had and will continue to have on the European economy. Over the last year or so, Russia’s economy has begun adjusting to the ‘sanctions’ regime, by becoming self-sufficient, revamping her agriculture and industrial production, largely delinking the economy from the deceitful dollar, building a close economic (and military) alliance with China and the other BRICS and SCO countries (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).

China and Russia have developed their own international payment system (CIPS – Chinese International Payment System) which replaces the western SWIFT system and circumvents the control of the obscure BIS (Bank for International Settlements), also considered the central bank of (western) central banks, a 1930 Rockefeller-Rothschild construct.

In the last two years the BRICS and SCO countries have started dealing among each other outside the dollar control, in their own currencies which makes them less vulnerable to the illegal US-EU sanctions. Surely, the US / Saudi engineered drop of the oil price from about US$ 100 / barrel a year ago to US$ 40 to ‘hurt’ US enemies, particularly, Russia, Venezuela and Iran, is harming any hydrocarbon producer. It is even ruining America’s own fracking industry. Maybe Washington absurdly considers this a small sacrifice for conquering the world. Among themselves BRICS and SCO countries which, by the way, make up about 50% of the world population and about one third of the world’s GDP, are trading hydrocarbons in their own currencies and in some cases with the outside world in gold.

As Russia is moving out of the dollar system, sanctions will have an ever declining impact. Russia and China can today easily survive and thrive without the dollar. This is not mainstream media news, as it doesn’t fit the anti-Putin propaganda purpose.

Russia’s response to the sanctions will continue to be barring imports from the EU, agricultural produce, as well as manufactured goods, leaving hundreds of thousands if not millions of European workers without a job, or with jobs at risk. In Germany alone, estimates range from 300,000 to 500,000 employments being lost or at risk. This compounded with the endless influx of highly educated refugees from Syrian and Iraq, from the very countries the US and NATO devastated may leave the European labor market – and economies – in shambles. This is exactly what Washington wants.

The elite of the European serfs of the self-proclaimed hegemon must know this. They know what’s at stake for Europe’s future. Yet somehow they are bound – like in an occult evil alliance – to Washington, condemning perhaps hundreds of millions of future generations to misery.

It sounds and looks like a criminal conspiracy to help America to reach global hegemony; a conspiracy of those same Europeans whose forefathers have usurped, colonized and raped Africa, Asia and the Americas for hundreds of years.

But they are not there yet – and most likely won’t achieve this elusive goal.

Russia and China and their allies within the BRICS and SCO are strong countries, with a strong and free monetary system backed by their strong economies – unlike the criminal fiat dollar system that keeps unaligned and un-obedient countries hostage with sanctions. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have already created two development institutions to challenge and replace the World Bank and the IMF, the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank BRICS (NDB BRICS, formerly the BRICS Development Bank), both located in Shanghai. Unlike at the World Bank and IMF, no country has a veto, and decisions are taken by one country one vote. These economies don’t need fraud, financial coercion and military aggression for survival as Washington does.

Russia and China and the other BRICS and SCO countries’ presence with their free and fair trade and monetary system, delinked from the dollar, will eventually attract all those that have been suffering under US oppression for years and decades.

With President Putin’s speech at the UN General Assembly on 28 September and Russia’s subsequent intervention in Syria to truly fight the western made terror – a worldwide awakening has started and the tectonic shift of the political plates has begun.

Edited version of an interview with Press TV

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, CounterPunch, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance .

Cuba will not “negotiate matters that are inherent to its internal system in exchange for an improvement of relations with the United States,” Josefina Vidal, director of U.S. affairs in the Cuban foreign ministry, said Wednesday.

U.S. President Barack Obama was welcomed to visit Cuba Wednesday evening, so long as he does not interfere in the internal affairs of the country.

“The day that the president of the United States decides to visit Cuba, he will be welcome,” Reuters reported Josefina Vidal, director of U.S. affairs in the Cuban foreign ministry, as telling reporters.

“Regarding what I just said, I’d like to recall that Cuba has always said … it is not going to negotiate matters that are inherent to its internal system in exchange for an improvement in or the normalization of relations with the United States,” Vidal added.

On Monday, Obama suggested he would visit the Caribbean nation in 2016 providing the “conditions” are “right.” For the U.S. leader, these conditions include being able to “talk to anybody,” including U.S. funded “pro-democracy” groups and political dissidents, as well as being able to “nudge” the Cuban government in a “new direction.”

Obama made the comments days before the Dec. 17, 2014 anniversary of Cuban President Raul Castro and U.S. President Barack Obama announcing the beginning of the normalization of relations between the two countries.

While both sides say significant progress has been made over the past year, the Cuban government says normal ties will be impossible unless the United States meets four conditions: leave the Guantanamo Bay detention camp; end the blockade; end the “wet-foot-dry-foot” policy encouraging Cubans to pursue residency in the U.S.; and end anti-government radio and television transmissions on the island.

The lifting of the half-century blockade would represent a historic moment for Cubans, 77 percent of whom were born under the harsh economic conditions resulting from it.

I recently posted a historical copy of “Popular Science” from June of 1958, which contained a feature article warning about the use of “Weather As A Weapon”. There were a number of important informational declarations made that warrant critical clarification and investigation.

“Control of Earth’s weather and temperature is within the realm of practicability now” says Dr. Joseph Kaplan, chairman of the International Geophysical Year.

…present knowledge lists seven possible ways of changing weather on a global scale………..All of these methods would regulate the distribution of heat in different parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the basis of global weather control.

The next excerpt from the Popular Science publication is extremely important to consider.

Air Force scientists are already experimenting with sodium vapor , ejected from jet planes, to intercept solar radiation (solar radiation management). Other gases would admit solar radiation but trap heat reflected back from earth. The last half-century, during which we have burned huge amounts of fossil fuels, has shown what an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can do. The amount spewed from chimneys and automobiles has created a so called “greenhouse effect,” which has raised Earth’s temperature by an estimated two degrees Fahrenheit—- a significant rise.

Dr. Joseph Kaplan (chairman of the International Geophysical Year) stated the following in the Popular Science article:

This so-far accidental result (rapid warming of Earth) is already serious, and we must find a means to counteract it. Melting polar ice will make ocean levels rise at least 40 feet, and inundate vast areas in the next 50 or 60 years unless atmospheric temperatures are controlled.

Again, it is important to understand who Kaplan was, the chairman of the “International Geophysical Year”, an exceptionally important event that gathered scientists from around the world to discuss the state of the planet.

The  global geoengineering card was played many decades ago. The campaign of total deception to hide this fact has been carried out for many decades. The whole of the climate science and meteorological communities can only be put in one of two categories. They are either lying to a degree that cannot be truly comprehended, or they are criminally ignorant to a degree that cannot be truly comprehended. Certainly we must consider that many in the science community are being threatened into silence or into lying, others are being muzzled with federal “gag” orders. Those in power (and the military/industrial complex they control) have long since known the planet was rapidly heating due to anthropogenic activities. Gases that enter the atmosphere stay there, they don’t just float off into outer space as some seem to have chosen to believe. The historical photographs below show the already profound early signs of Arctic warming and polar meltdown as far back as 1959.

USS “Skate” (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17th of March, 1959 (NavSource naval history)

Two US submarines surfaced at the North Pole in August, 1962 (NavSource naval history)

Greenhouse gases have an impact on Earth’s energy balance, there is no other possible outcome. There is (and had been) an ongoing toxic tug of war between atmospheric aerosols and the buildup of greenhouse gases. This fact is scientifically undisputed. The current rate of planetary warming is equal to the thermal energy of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, or 400,000 a day. In order to keep the military industrial complex juggernaut of insanity rolling forward, and to keep the myth of perpetual expansion on a finite planet going, those in power long ago unleashed the climate engineering insanity without the knowledge or consent of the people. Examine the graph below carefully. Note that the protracted warming of the planet hit a profound peak in the mid 1940s. Unexplainably, it then declined radically and leveled out until the mid 70s. Many sources now admit this cooling was due to atmospheric aerosols, though no mainstream source will admit to geoengineering as the primary source of the aerosols.

The post WWll comencement of climate engineering is clearly visible on global temperature graphs.

The power structure deployed the first large scale geoengineering efforts immediately after WWll. Massive historical congressional reports and presidential reports prove climate engineering has been conducted since the mid 1940s. The warming of the planet was temporarily slowed (till the mid 70s) due to the short term cooling effect of injecting of aerosols into the atmosphere (as mentioned earlier in this article). The toxic battle between the buildup of greenhouse gases and the loading of the atmosphere with light scattering particles was underway.

Arctic sky, photo credit: Thomas Laupstad

The poles were an initial target for heavy spraying, likely for a number of reasons. These remote locations are out of sight and out of mind, and are also the temperature regulators for the planet. An unusual and unexpected “Arctic haze” was first reported as early as the 1950s, though the true primary source of this haze was not admitted to. The cooling of the Arctic was initially profound, until the catastrophic consequences of climate engineering began to manifest.

The graph above clearly reflects the anomalous downturn in Arctic temperatures that occurred in the initial three decades after climate engineering was commenced.

As the continued greenhouse gas buildup and ozone destruction effects began to overwhelm the cooling effect of the highly toxic geoenginering aerosols, Earth again began to warm rapidly, especially in the Arctic circle. Arctic sea temperatures are now the warmest on record. This factor is causing formerly frozen methane deposits to thaw and release, furthering the buildup of greenhouse gasses (this is one of many unfolding feedback loops that have now been triggered). Arctic ice extent hit record low levels in 2015. The geoengineers have continually increased the scope and scale of the ongoing aerosol spraying in a catastrophic attempt to compensate. The climate engineering creed is to relentlessly “double down” and thus they are plowing forward with their expanding course of planetary decimation to this day. The length the climate engineers are now going to in their attempt to retain what is left of the Arctic sea can only be categorized as unimaginably desperate and completely destructive to the biosphere overall.

Global temperatures have gone exponentially upward. The slight downturn in global temperatures that occurred during the first three decades of geoengineering is also visible in this graph.

Climate engineering has been wreaking havoc around the globe for over six decades with countless, unimaginable, and irreparable consequences. These include a shredded ozone layer, a completely disrupted hydrological cycle, and the total contamination of our once thriving planet. The ongoing programs have been (and are) a primary weapon for the controlling of countries and populations around the globe.

All of us have been forced to be test subjects in greatest and most lethal experiment ever conducted by the human race. If this experiment is allowed to continue, near term total global extinction is a mathematical certainty. Industrialized/militarized society is collapsing and as a whole has all but sealed our collective fate. Earth’s climate and life support systems are unraveling by the day.  Global climate engineering is the epitome of the industrialized/militarized destruction of our planet. All are needed in the desperate fight to expose and halt the ongoing geoengineering insanity, make your voice heard. DW

Since the fall of Mu’ammar Gaddafi in late 2011, various militias with very different political agendas have attempted to seize power in Libya.

Elections were held in the country in both 2012 and 2014; however, election turnout dropped from 60% to 18% largely due to the Islamist parties and Gaddafi loyalists boycutting the 2014 election.

Effectively, a coalition of nationalists known as ‘Majlis al-Nuwaab’ (i.e Council of Deputies) gained power after years instability.

However, the Islamist umbrella organization “New General National Congress” (predominantly constituted by the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood branch), ousted the newly elected government from Tripoli and from then on, Libyans could once again witness their homeland in all-out war.

Meanwhile, Ansar al-Sharia (al-Qaeda’s branch in Libya) emerged in 3 key cities, Benghazi, Ajdabiyah and Derna while the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) managed to spawn fighters seemingly out of nowhere, thereby seizing control of both Sirte and Sabratha.

Mapping up modern day Libya leaves the country split in 5 regions:

Red: Current Libyan government – Council of Deputies

Recognized by most countries as the legitimate government of Libya; this faction controls the remnants of the Libyan National Army along with militias loyal to the Council of Deputies bloc.

Unfortunately, they only control the eastern part of Libya and find themselves in a bitter struggle with Islamists from Ansar al-Shariah and the New General National Congress respectively.

If they are to regain control of Libya, they must first rout Ansar al-Shariah from Benghazi, Ajdabiyah and Derna.

Once these cities are secured, they must push west towards the capital of Tripoli; nevertheless, they currently maintain control of more than 50 % of the country.

Chris Tomson | Al-Masdar News

Green: New General National Congress – Libya Dawn

The New General National Congress (NGNC) is quite possibly the most popular party in Libya; however, they lack international support for their newly-formed government in Tripoli after the latter was seized in a Coup D’état in 2014.

Their militia fighters are commonly known as ‘Libya Dawn’.

The strongest voice in the NGNC bloc is the Muslim Brotherhood, which for decades was deemed illegal and heavily repressed by the former Libyan regime.

For the New General National Congress to win the war, they must choose their allies and battles wisely whilst also achieving backing from at least some friendly foreign countries.

Chris Tomson | Al-Masdar News

Yellow: Ansar al-Shariah – Shura Council of Libya

The Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Shariah, made itself internationally known with the 2012 Benghazi attack which killed U.S. Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer, Sean Smith; this Salafist group has been active since the Libyan rebellion against Gaddafi in early 2011.

Despite a strong underground presence, Ansar al-Shariah controls merely 3 seperate enclaves in eastern Libya, most notably in Benghazi itself.

Chris Tomson | Al-Masdar News

Purple: Toureg militia tribesmen

Much of the newly reopened border with Algeria is controlled by the ethnically diverse Tuareg tribal militias.

These indigenous Berber people are genetically unrelated to the Arab Libyans in the north.

For years, Tuareg tribesmen clashed with the Libyan Army under Gaddafi which effectively caused them to form an army of their own in retaliation.

The forces unified under the Toureg banner are largely autonomous but maintain close ties to the Tripoli-based New General National Congress while hostility continues between Toureg tribesmen and the Tobruk-Benghazi based Council of Deputies.

These tribesmen do not intend to capture all of Libya but merely to protect the Tuareg lands.

Chris Tomson | Al-Masdar News

Black: Islamic State

The new phenomenon in northeast Africa and southwest Asia is the rise of the so-called “Islamic State.”

The fighters loyal to the IS caliphate first emerged in Libya in November, 2014.

Despite reports to the contrary, these ISIS fighters are believed to have emerged from Islamist NGNC deserters who aligned themselves with a more hardcore interpretation of Islam.

This explains how ISIS was able to seize control of both the port city of Sirte and the ancient Roman city of Sabratah – both were formerly controlled by the Islamist New General National Congress.

Strategically, long-term ISIS plans look to incorporate the whole of Libya under one Pan-Islamic caliphate which would be in line with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s 5-year plan of conquering both the Middle East and Africa.

Chris Tomson | Al-Masdar News

On December 23rd, Gallup headlines “Ukrainians Disillusioned With Leadership,” and reports that “nearly nine in 10 Ukrainians (88%) say corruption is widespread in their government, and about eight in 10 (81%) see the same widespread problem in their country’s businesses.” 8% of Ukrainians now say they “have confidence … about the national government.” 17% approve of the job-performance of their President, Petro Poroshenko. While the pre-coup President, Viktor Yanukovych, was in office, 2010-2014, that figure had been averaging about 23%, and was never as low as Poroshenko’s is now.

Gallup reports, “fewer Ukrainians now say their leadership is taking them in the right direction than before the revolution,” but that statement calling this coup a ‘revolution’ embodies the propaganda-lie of one of Gallup’s main clients, the U.S. government itself, which calls the U.S. coup in Ukraine in February 2014 a “revolution,” when every honest and knowledgeable person now knows that this U.S. government claim — that it had helped install democracy instead of having ended it in Ukraine on 20 February 2014 — to have been a lie. Even the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor has called the overthrow of Yanukovych “the most blatant coup in history.” It had been that because it was the first coup to be videoed by numerous people from many different angles with their cellphones and by TV cameras, uploaded to the Web by even anti-Yanukovych countries such as the UK’s BBC; and those videos, the best compilation of which is here, make clear that this was, indeed, a coup d’etat, no authentic revolution at all, such as the U.S. government claims.

Furthermore, the EU’s investigator who had been assigned to report to their Foreign Affairs Minister Cathy Ashton about the overthrow, reported to her that it had been a coup, and that even Petro Poroshenko himself said that “our” side — meaning the anti-Yanukovych people, had done it. Subsequently, evidence came to light showing how it had been organized: the organization for it had started in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than March 2013. Then, after all of that preparation, on 4 February 2014, the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland gave the final instruction to the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, to have Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed to run the country after the coup, and he became appointed 18 days later, on 22 February 2014, to run the country as Prime Minister, until a new President would be elected ‘democratically’; but, even the election of President Poroshenko on 25 May 2014 was no democratic event, because the U.S. government didn’t want residents in the area of Ukraine that had voted over 90% for Yanukovych to be voting in that election. That area of Ukraine (which historically had been a part of Russia) was called Donbass, and it had no say whatsoever in determining Ukraine’s President after the coup, because the new coup-imposed Ukrainian government was already bombing it, starting on 9 May 2014. None of this could have happened without that ‘revolution’: U.S. President Barack Obama’s very bloody coup in Ukraine.

Here is the man whom the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, worked with to organize the coup (or ‘revolution’), the co-founder of one of the two racist-fascist, or ideologically nazi, political parties in Ukraine. But Pyatt’s appointee (Andriy Parubiy) left the coup’s gun-play and military planning to that man’s paramilitary friend (Dmitriy Yarosh) who had founded the other of the two Ukrainian nazi parties.

And then, right after the coup, America’s stooge who now was running Ukraine for the U.S. regime, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, installed leaders of Ukraine’s two rabidly anti-Russian racist fascist or nazi parties into all of the top internal security and military positions, in order to carry out what they called the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ (ATO), or program to exterminate and drive out the residents of Donbass. The prestigious fascist U.S. think tank, the Brookings Institution, urged Obama to increase the firebombings of Donbass, but he decided not to follow that advice, at that particular time.

Obama wants ultimately to base American nuclear missiles in Ukraine on Russia’s border (much like the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev had unsuccessfully tried to do to America in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis), and this coup and ethnic-cleansing (to make the coup-regime stick) is how he goes about achieving his goal. Perhaps the next U.S. President will succeed in it. The entire plan had started under U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, in 1990; and every U.S. President since then has advanced it further. The United States, ever since around 1980, hasn’t been a democracy; it’s a dictatorship. That’s why it does things like this.

Back in June 2014, shortly after Poroshenko became Ukraine’s President, a Gallup poll in Ukraine taken for the U.S. government showed (p. 27) a geographical breakdown of the answers to the question “Tell me whether you think Russia has played a mostly positive role or a mostly negative role in the crisis in Ukraine. Percent ‘mostly positive’”. The entire country was broken down into 6 regions there, which included not only the regions that had voted against Yanukovych in 2010 (such as the May 25th election had excluded) but also the two regions that had voted the most heavily for Yanukovych, Donbass (which had voted over 90% for him, and which here constituted the eastern half of the region called “East,” which entire region was shown as having rated Russia’s “role in the crisis in Ukraine” 35.7% as having been “mostly positive”), and also Crimea (which constituted the entirety of one of those 6 regions, and which had voted around 75% for Yanukovych, and which answered 71.3% that Russia’s “role” had been “mostly positive”). The only other region where Russia’s “role” had been rated as “mostly positive” by more than 3% was the area around Odessa, called here “South,” where 28.4% of the people rated it “mostly positive.”

All three of the other regions of the pre-coup Ukraine were the regions where the Presidential election had been held on May 25th of 2014: these were the regions Gallup categorized as Center (2.4% “mostly positive”), North (1.8% “mostly positive”), and West (1% “mostly positive”). So, Poroshenko had been elected as the President for all of Ukraine, but by  only voters in the most anti-Russian half  of that extremely divided country; and now the residents of two of the other areas (areas in the strongly pro-Yanukovych half of Ukraine) had tried to separate from Ukraine and to join again with Russia (of which those regions had long been parts): Crimea, and Donbass. Crimea was accepted by Putin into Russia, but Donbass was not.

U.S. President Obama imposed the economic sanctions against Russia for Russia’s having accepted the pleas of Crimeans to rejoin Russia, and for Russia’s opposition to the Obama-imposed government’s ethnic-cleansing program to exterminate and/or expell from Ukraine the residents of the Donbass region of Ukraine. The same European Union that accepted Obama’s bloody February 2014 Ukrainian coup have also been accepting his ethnic-cleansing campaign there; and Obama insists upon its being ultimately continued, notwithstanding his Secretary of State, John Kerry’s, internal opposition to it.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

“It is remarkable that western leaders only remember the term ceasefire when their rebels on the ground are losing. Why didn’t they see the need for peace in Syria before the Russian operation started?” — Iyad Khuder, Damascus-based political analyst

Imagine if the American people elected a president who was much worse than George W. Bush or Barack Obama. A real tyrant. Would that be sufficient justification for someone like Vladimir Putin to arm and train Mexican and Canadian mercenaries to invade America, kill US civilians, destroy cities and critical infrastructure, seize vital oil refineries and pipeline corridors, behead government officials and prisoners they’d captured, declare their own independent state, and do everything in their power to overthrow the elected-government in Washington?

Of course not. The question is ridiculous. It wouldn’t matter if the US president was a tyrant or not, that doesn’t justify an invasion by armed proxies from another country.  And yet, this is precisely the policy that US Secretary of State John Kerry defended at the United Nations on Friday.  Behind all the political blabber about a “roadmap to peace”, Kerry was tacitly defending a policy which has led to the deaths of 250,000 Syrians and the destruction of the country.

And, keep in mind, Kerry didn’t drag his case before the UN Security Council because he’s serious about a negotiated settlement or peace. That’s baloney. What Kerry wants is a resolution that will protect the groups of US-backed jihadis on the ground from the Russian-led offensive. That’s what’s really going on. The Obama administration sees the handwriting on the wall. They know that Russia is going to win the war, so they’ve settled on a plan for protecting their agents in the field. That’s why the emphasis is on a ceasefire; it’s because Kerry wants a  “Timeout” so his Sunni militants can either regroup or retreat.  Just take a look at this short excerpt from the UN’s summary of last Friday’s confab and you’ll see Kerry’s really up-to:

“In its first resolution to focus on the politics of ending Syria’s five-year-long war, the Security Council today gave the United Nations an enhanced role in shepherding the opposing sides to talks for a political transition, with a timetable for a ceasefire, a new constitution and elections, all under UN auspices….

(The Security Council) acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process, with the former to come into effect as soon as the sides have begun initial steps towards a political transition under UN auspices….

The resolution asked Mr. Ban through the offices of his Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to determine the modalities of a ceasefire and plan to support its implementation, while urging Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to adhere to one.

Emphasizing the need for a ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism, the Council asked Mr. Ban to report back to it on options with a month, and called on Member States to provide “expertise and in-kind contributions” to support such a mechanism…”

(“In first political resolution on war-torn Syria, Security Council gives UN major role in seeking peace”, UN News Centre)

See what I mean: Ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire. It’s all about a ceasefire. Kerry wants a ceasefire. Obama wants a ceasefire. A big part of the ruling US establishment want a ceasefire. No, not the neocons, not the liberal interventionists, and not the diehard hawks like Ash Carter at the Pentagon, but a good portion of the ruling elites who’ve been following events on the ground and who know how this thing is going to end. The smart money has already moved on to Plan B, which is why they’re now focused on cutting their losses and saving as many of “their guys” as possible.  Naturally, the people who funded, armed, trained and deployed these various Sunni fighters feel responsible for their safety, so they’re going to do whatever they can to get them out. That’s where Kerry comes in. Kerry’s job was to fly to Moscow, tell Putin that Obama had changed his mind about regime change, and get the Kremlin to back Kerry’s UN resolution. The primary objective of this farce is to garner international support for designating terrorist groups as “moderates” and to move in the direction of UN-mandated ceasefire that will stop the Russian-led offensive in its tracks.

But isn’t that what everyone wants, an end to the hostilities?

Not exactly. A war against terrorists is different than a war between nation-states or a civil war. A group like Jabhat al-Nusra, for example, can’t be treated the same way as armed members of the political opposition. These are religious fanatics determined to use any means possible to achieve their goal of a fascist Islamic Caliphate. Reasoned discourse doesn’t work with people like this,  they have to be killed or captured. And this is exactly what the Russian-led coalition is doing, they’re progressively mopping up the terrorist threat in Syria at great risk to themselves and their fellow-collation members Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian Arab Army.  Kerry’s job is to throw a wrench in the anti-terror campaign to impede the coalition’s progress. And he’s willing to lie to do it.  Case in point: Here’s a quote from Kerry in Moscow just last Tuesday:

“As I emphasized today, the United States and our partners are not seeking so-called “regime change,” as it is known in Syria.

Later in the day, Kerry underscored the administration’s dramatic about-face saying: “We are not trying to do a regime change. We are not engaged in a color revolution.  We’re not engaged in trying to interfere in another country … We’re trying to make peace.”

Okay, so the US has given up on regime change?

Not at all. Kerry was just lying through his teeth as usual.  Here’s what he said less than 24 hours later:

“Russia can’t stop the war with Assad there because Assad attracts the foreign fighters. Assad is a magnet for terrorists, because they’re coming to fight Assad.  So if you want to stop the war in Syria, and we do, if you want to fight Daesh and stop the growth of terrorism, you have to deal with the problem of Assad. Now, that doesn’t mean we want to change every aspect of the government; we don’t.”

(‘US not after regime change in Syria, but Assad must go’ – Kerry to Russian TV”, RT)

Got that? So the US doesn’t support regime change, but Assad’s still got to go.

How’s that for hypocrisy? The truth is the Obama administration is just as committed to toppling Assad as ever. Kerry was just misleading Putin to get his approval for his ridiculous resolution at the UN.  As a result, Assad’s name was never mentioned in the resolution which,  Kerry seems to think, is a big victory for the US. But it’s not a victory, in fact, all of Russia’s demands were met in full through the passing of UN Resolution  2254 (three resolutions were passed on Friday) which reiterates all Putin’s demands dating back to the Geneva Communique’ of 2012.  Assad was never mentioned in 2254 either, because naming the president wasn’t necessary to establish the conditions for 1–a transitional government, 2–outlining the terms for a new constitution and  a non-Islamist Syrian state, and 3—free and fair elections to ensure the Syrian people control their own future. In 2012, the US rejected these three provisions saying that the would not agree unless Assad was excluded from participating in the transitional government. Now the US has reversed its position on Assad which means that 100 percent of Moscow’s demands have been met.  UN Resolution  2254 is complete capitulation on the part of the US. It is a humiliating diplomatic defeat which no one in the media is even willing to acknowledge.

So what did Kerry gain by all his globe-trekking and backroom maneuvering?

Nothing. In fact, he gave away the farm by making a number of concessions to gain Russia’s support.

What “concessions” are we talking about?

Here’s a short list:  Kerry met with Putin in Moscow on December 15. On December 16, the IMF ruled in favor of Russia in its $3 billion claim against Ukraine. Here’s the story:

“The executive board of the International Monetary Fund has recognized Ukraine’s $3 billion debt to Russia as official and sovereign – a status Kiev has been attempting to contest.

“In the case of the Eurobond, the Russian authorities have represented that this claim is official. The information available regarding the history of the claim supports this representation,” the IMF said in a statement.” (“IMF recognizes Ukraine’s contested $3bn debt to Russia as sovereign “, RT)

How many strings do you think Washington had to pull to seal that deal?

Also on December 16,  the US announced that it would remove its F-15 fighters stationed in Turkey immediately. Here’s the story:

Twelve U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters sent to Incirlik airbase only last month to guard Turkish airspace and hit ISIS targets in Syria were suddenly flown back Wednesday to their home base in Britain, U.S. European Command announced….

The redeployment of the fighters came amid a flurry of diplomatic and military-to-military activity in the region and with Russia …

A day before the planes left, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of United Nations Security Council meetings in New York Friday on Syria and U.S. efforts to ease out President Bashar al-Assad.

(“US Air Force Begins Withdrawing F-15 Fighter Jets From Turkey“, Military.com)

Another coincidence?

Not likely.

Then there’s this:  On December 17, Obama allowed a Russian-backed resolution to pass the UNSC unanimously that that will help uncover secret  financing for ISIS and “strengthen legal measures against those doing business with terrorist groups.” According to RT:

“The resolution is the result of a joint effort by Russia and the US, which are both leading anti-IS campaigns in Syria….The key objective of the new resolution is the “enforcement of a framework to reveal and disrupt illegal financing of IS and groups related to it by means of trade in oil, artifacts, and other illegal sources.”…

The document, which is based on UN Charter Article VII and takes effect immediately, calls for members to “move vigorously and decisively to cut the flow of funds” to IS.”

UN Security Council unanimously adopts resolution targeting ISIS finances

Is that what Obama really wants, to expose the revenue streams for these extremist organizations that are clearly getting support from Washington’s main allies in the Gulf?

Probably not, but Kerry caved-in anyway hoping that his support would help him to nab the elusive ceasefire.

Finally,  on December 18, Obama told Turkish President Erdogan that he wanted him to  remove his troops and tanks from Iraq. Here’s the story:

“US President Barack Obama has called on his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to withdraw his country’s troops out of Iraq and respect its integrity. In a telephone call on Friday, Obama “urged President Erdogan to take additional steps to deescalate tensions with Iraq, including by continuing to withdraw Turkish military forces.”

He also “reinforced the need for Turkey to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq,” the White House said.

A 300-strong contingent of Turkish forces backed by 20 to 25 tanks was stationed on the outskirts of the city of Mosul, the capital of Iraq’s Nineveh Province, on December 4.” (“Obama to Erdogan: Withdraw Turkish troops from Iraq“, Press TV)

(Turkey has since promised to remove more troops following Obama’s call.)

In other words, the Turkish occupation began on December 4, but Obama never responded until two days after Kerry talked with Putin in Moscow. Another coincidence?

Maybe or maybe not. In any event the US had to do some serious horse-trading to persuade Putin to take Kerry’s issue to the Security Council. (By the way, Obama knew beforehand that Turkey planned to invade Iraq, in fact, “an important Turkish official  confirmed this claim by saying “all relevant countries” were informed about the deployment of the troops. See here for details.

Like we said earlier: Kerry gave away the farm to slam a deal that isn’t going to have the slightest impact on the outcome of the war.  And that’s what’s so tragic about all this diplomatic tap-dancing, is that it doesn’t really change anything. Syria’s future is going to be decided on the battlefield not at the United Nations and not at the bargaining table. Washington decided that long ago when it elected to use force of arms to try to achieve its geopolitical ambitions.  Now an organized opposition has emerged that is openly challenging US-backed proxies leaving Washington with just two options, fight or retreat.

It had to come to this, didn’t it?   After all, if you push people hard enough, eventually they push back.

In American politics the nation of Russia, especially as personified in its leader Vladimir Putin, becomes all things to all men.

To many American “leftists”, Russia is a violently nationalist country that ruthlessly suppressed minority groups. To some on the  “American Right”, Putin is the second coming of Stalin who is working to subvert good old-fashioned American values around the world.

In line with the latter narrative, a certain Christian Gomez recently published an article on The New American website, the flagship of the John Birch Society, supposedly revealing that the Russian government is the real power behind the ISIS terrorist group, as well as being behind the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. The source of this “revelation” is a single, alleged and unidentified ‘defector’ from the FSB, Russia’s security service, who spilled these supposed secrets on Ukrainian television, a mouthpiece for the Washington-backed Kiev coup-junta that never misses an opportunity to slander all things Russian.

Such charges are absurd on their face; there is absolutely no evidence to hint, much less demonstrate, that Russian intelligence had any involvement in the formation of ISIS. Why Russia would want to support a terrorist entity that seeks to destabilize and overthrow its close and reliable ally, Bashar Assad of Syria, is never explained or analyzed by either the faux defector or his American champions at the John Birch Society.

Indeed, even mainstream Western media sources no longer make serious attempts to hide the fact that America’s regional allies, and not Russia, are to be identified as the sources of ISIS development and support. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even Israel have all played a significant role in funding, arming, and enabling ISIS, Jahbat al-Nusra, and other similar jihadist factions in Iraq and Syria.

Turkey has an awfully peculiar way of “fighting” ISIS (Image: RT)

America itself is certainly in a far better position to be plastered with the charge of supporting ISIS. According to Washington’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the American government knew from the beginning of its support for the “Arab Spring” in Syria that the violent insurgency against Bashar Assad was composed primarily of unsavory, vicious Islamist factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda sympathizers, and even predicted these factions, if empowered, would seek to create a Salafist “principality.”

Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin has been stalwart in his support for Bashar Assad, recently going as far to providing air cover to the Syrian military as it seeks to reclaim the country from ISIS and other terrorist brigades. An undertaking that has earned Putin even more irrational hatred from the Western media and political establishment, which cheers on jihadists as they pillage and plunder their way through Syria.

So where did this preposterous charge against Russia originate? The faux defector that would smear Russia with responsibility for ISIS is obviously a pawn of Langley’s Ukrainian satraps, but his absurd conspiracy theory still finds fans in the West, especially among so-called American conservatives and ‘patriots’, since it fits in with a much older narrative, one stretching back to the Cold War.

During the height of the Cold War, figures like W. Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent and an associate of the John Birch Society, and the opportunistic Soviet KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn propagated the narrative that the Soviet Union was not merely a geopolitical rival of the United States, but was fantastically successful in its quest to undermine American democracy and replace it with a communist society. Golitsyn and Cleon Skousen’s nephew, Joel Skousen, have gone as far as to claim the collapse of the Soviet Union was a clever ruse designed to lull America and the West into a false sense of security so that the “communist agenda” might continue, with no one the wiser.

Coincidentally, this non-falsifiable conspiracy theory plays well to more fringe elements of the American “patriot” movement and many Christian dispensationalists, who see Russia as the Biblical ‘Gog and Magog’ set to devour their idol, the State of Israel. It also provides a convenient scapegoat for American conservatives who are unable or unwilling to see the real culprits behind the social chaos in their country – and that their country is the prime source of both geopolitical and cultural subversion abroad.

Communist influence on American society and culture during the era of the Cold War shouldn’t be wholly discounted. In fact, the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School certainly left its mark, though often exaggerated, on the deconstruction of traditional institutions in the West. But often overlooked by anti-communist conspiracy theorists is the reality that cultural Bolsheviks like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno didn’t receive their marching orders from Moscow, a power which they disdained, but rather were assets of Western elites and their intelligence apparatus, particularly the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Nor did Bolshevism in the first part of the 20th century spawn indigenously from Russian soil, like Athena from the head of Zeus. Rather, the dictatorship of the proletariat was helped along in its ascendancy by oligarchs in New York and London.

PROPAGANDA’S ROLE REVERSAL: “It’s only feigned reverence, obviously Neo-Soviet propaganda.”

Furthermore, its impossible to find any evidence that Russia exerts any significant social, economic, or political influence on America, or is working toward turning America into the “socialist workers’ paradise”. On the contrary, whatever minor outreach that Russians have extended to America has actually been toward Christian conservatives wishing to preserve the traditional family and other social values.

While neoconservatives and their useful idiots among the American “patriots” cynically dismiss President Putin as a Soviet retrograde and Tom Clancy villain, the Kremlin implements communist policies neither at home, nor abroad. On the other hand, Russian Orthodoxy has returned slowly but surely as a central part of Russian life, and Russian patriotism has no need for Marxist rhetoric about workers’ revolutions or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Instead of tired, CIA-fueled Cold War narratives and covers for liberal imperialism, perhaps sincere conservatives and ‘patriots’ in America should look to the Soviet dissident, Russian patriot, and devout Christian, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a man far wiser than any ‘FSB defector’. Solzhenitsyn saw a positive, stabilizing role in Putin’s leadership as Russian culture and identity revived, and it was Solzhenitsyn who also saw that the “Euro-Atlantic alliance” was the engine of the “decline of Christian civilization.” Meanwhile, the West sinks further into its simulacrum Babylon, and its spiritually blind “defenders” will blame anyone but themselves.

Author Daniel Spaulding earned a BA in English literature from Bridgewater State University. He currently works and lives in Seoul, South Korea. He enjoys reading philosophy, history, politics, and science fiction. This article was originally published at Soul of the East.

A commander of the Iraqi volunteer forces (Hashd al-Shaabi) revealed that a mobile phone found with one of the killed ISIL ringleaders proved the Turkish spy agency’s support for the terrorist group.

“The mobile phone was found with one of the killed ISIL leaders in the Northern parts of Salahuddin province two days ago,” Jabbar al-Ma’mouri told Soumeriya news on Monday.

He said that the mobile set and history files contain messages from the Turkish intelligence agency which show that Ankara supports the ISIL terrorist group through providing security at the points of entry used by ISIL militants from Turkey to Iraq.

“The mobile phone also contains other important information which cannot be disclosed now, and it has been delivered to the specialized security groups for further scrutiny,” Ma’mouri said.

In relevant remarks on November, Russian Ambassador to France Alexander Orlov said that Turkey has played an “ambiguous” role in the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) while acting as an accomplice to the terrorist group’s activities.

Also last month, former US Department of State senior advisor David Phillips said Turkey has blatantly provided material support to the ISIL because they share an ideological connection along with a common foe in Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“Turkey’s role has not been ambiguous — it has overtly supported the ISIL,” Phillips, currently Director of Columbia University’s Peace-building and Rights Program, said. “It has provided logistical support, money, weapons, transport and healthcare to wounded warriors.”

Phillips explained that Turkey has been supporting the ISIL to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power and because of a “spiritual bond” that exists between Turkey’s governing party and the jihadists.

First published on September 12, 2015

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria.

This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasionsadmitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, thisand this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

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

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

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

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

• The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)

• Bombings in Portugal (1966)

• The Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969)

• Terror attacks in Turkey (1971)

• The Peteano bombing in Italy (1972)

• Shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974)

• Shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977)

• The Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977)

• The abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978)

• The bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980)

• Shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985)

(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

Operation Northwoods. False Flag

(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

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

(20) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to investigate terrorist acts:

The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….

[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]

a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiaries as they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.

b. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.

c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planning that a saboteur or terrorist must employ.

d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques givingpractical experience with both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.

The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and proficiently through handling, preparing applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents, terrorist devices sabotage techniques.

(21) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(22) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(23) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(24) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(25) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 –recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.

(26) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations” manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual wasauthenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

(27) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

(28) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(29) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

(30) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa subsequently admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit, in order to justify aviolent crackdown against protesters.

(31) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials nowadmit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).

(32) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(33) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(34) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(35) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmedplanting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester

(36) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launchfake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(37) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a renowned US defense analyst credited with developing the concept of ‘netwar’ – called for western intelligence services to create new “pseudo gang” terrorist groups, as a way of undermining “real” terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, Arquilla’s ‘pseudo-gang’ strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by the Pentagon:

Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, US military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists…

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls ‘action teams’ in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. ‘Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?’ the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. ‘ founded and we financed ,’ he said. ‘The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And aren’t going Congress about it.’ A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, ‘We’re going riding .’

(38) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(39) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(40) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(41) A 2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as “paramilitary forces, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political ‘undesirables.’” The manual specifically acknowledged that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and “Terrorism” (as well as “transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.”)

(42) The former head of Secret Services and Head of State of Italy (Francesco Cossiga) advised the 2008 minister in charge of the police, on how to deal with protests from teachers and students:

He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior … infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do anything …. And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent, … beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.

(43) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament sawplain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(44) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(45) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests against the swearing in of the Mexican president in 2012 admitted that they were paid 300 pesos each to destroy everything in their path. According to Wikipedia, photos also show the vandals waiting in groups behind police lines prior to the violence.

(46) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(47) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs were transported by army vehicles to participate in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping protests, as wasshown by videos and pictures distributed via social networks.

(48) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

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

(50) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officialsadmit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos. And a Maidan protester admitted that he fired a sniper rifle at police from the Conservatory, and that he was guided by a military veteran within the Maidan resistance.

Maidan Riots

(51) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

(52) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

(53) Similarly, police frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

Newsweek reported in 1999:

Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.

Wikipedia notes:

As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

(As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

(54) A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

(55) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags. Similarly, the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

(audio here).

(56) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the “benefits” of of false flags to justify their political agenda:

Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.
– Adolph Hitler

Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.
– Josef Stalin

Par Manlio Dinucci, 22 décembre 2015

Israel’s military occupation and confiscation of privately owned lands in the West Bank is extremely oppressive, with Palestinians having minimal basic rights of movement and speech to begin with.  Thousands of Palestinian men, women, and children are held in Israeli prisons with physical abuse and torture as a accustomed routine.  Palestinian borders are controlled by Israeli forces. Periodically men, women, and children are strip searched.  women in labour are prevented from reaching hospitals (at times resulting in death), food and medicine are blocked from entering Gaza, producing an inevitable  humanitarian crisis. Israeli forces invade , injure, detain minors, kidnap, and shoot if resistance  is witnessed. Now, one would believe that the sole aim of the Israeli  regime is to annihilate Palestinians (via the channels of ethnic cleansing) and build the country for Jews on the Palestinian land. This belief is crumbled into pieces once the economic-psychological duet analysis of the Israel –Palestine conflict is examined.

Contrary to the popular belief that Israel  wants to execute the Palestinians shatters down once the psychological understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict is analysed. By the end of the article, you would understand  the political psyche with which Israel operates. Throughout the article, I shall engage in the economic profitable strands of the conflict. How Palestinians sustains the economy of Israel? Why Israel needs the Israel-Palestine  conflict to be sustained rather than be terminated at a mutual agreement? How is Israel-Palestine  conflict too profitable to be resolved?

 Hamza Almadani, whose home, while he and his family slept, was hit with an illegal white phosphorus missile fired by Israeli military (Image credit: Dr. Vacy Vlazna)

Israel is drowning in poverty

Israel has the second-highest poverty rate within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),while Mexico leading  the list. More than 1.7 million people living in Israel (22 percent of the population) lives in poverty, the National Insurance Institute said in its annual report(2014). The report, based on data gathered by the Central Bureau of Statistics, found that in 2014  1,709,300 people, including 444,900 families and 776,500 children, lived below the poverty line, representing an increase over the year before. The percentage of families living in poverty rose from 18.6% in 2013 to 18.8% in 2014, while poverty among children increased from 30.8% in 2013 to 31% in 2014.

Israel ranks fourth in child poverty in the developed world, a UNICEF report claims (2014). Child poverty in Israel has increased from 35.1 to 35.6 percent, placing it behind Greece (40.5 percent), Latvia (38.2 percent), and Spain (36.3 percent), which warned that “the longer these children remain trapped in the cycle of poverty, the harder it will be for them to escape.”  Haaretz reported, while fourth in child poverty, Israel had the highest rate of young adults who are not in education, employment or training, with 30.7 percent.

“Even when unemployment or inactivity decreases, that does not mean that young people are finding stable, reasonably paid jobs. The number of 15-to-24-year-olds in part-time work or who are underemployed has tripled on average in countries more exposed to the recession,” the report said.

The economic  crisis in Israel does not end here, rather begins with these figures. Boycott Divestment and Sanction( BDS) , a non-violent movement is gaining its strength  around the world.  This  nonviolent movement for the  justice in Israel/Palestine has grown more momentum than Israel could have imagined. Considering the figures, Israel’s concern over BDS is genuine. Israeli financial newspaper reported ,estimating that BDS could cost Israel’s economy $1.4billlion a year. The estimate included  exports from the West Bank settlements (occupied territories) and with  the EU’s decision to label the occupied territory products by the Israel ( not part of the BDS movement) , The Rand Corporation  estimates that the loss  could be more than three times higher: $47bn over 10 years.

The head of the Israel four leading weapon manufacturing  company  showed major concern stating that the defence industry in Israel is in the midst of a major crisis : military exports have dropped from $7.5 billion in 2012, to $6.5 billion in 2013, and further to $5.5 billion in 2014. This year it is expected to exports to total $4-4.5 billion. A complete boycott of Israel by the European Union would cause the country to lose some 88 billion shekels ($23.3 billion) of exports, a cut of 40.4 billion shekels from gross domestic product and shall cost some 36,500 jobs, the Finance Ministry said in a report obtained by the Marker.( source : electronicintifada.com )

The danger of this economic crisis lays in future where  a sharp devaluation of the shekel and  would be observed. Increased debt levels in the private and public sectors with a reduction in investments and a substantial increase in unemployment is expected. According to a report in Arutz Sheva, Israel’s Finance Ministry is now warning that the country will go bankrupt over the next few decades:

…By 2059 the Haredi population is projected to jump from 11.1% today to a full 26.6% [i.e., more than double in size], while the Arab population is expected to grow from 20.9% to 23.1%. Partially as a result of the shifting populations, the annual gap between government spending and government revenues will reach 0.8 percentage points, equalling roughly 9 billion shekels ($2.3 billion), and as a result Israel’s debt will start to hike. While Israel’s national debt has been shrinking and is now at 67% of the GDP, that trend will reverse around 2030 according to the projection, and by 2059 it will reach 88% – still a far cry from economically floundering states such as Greece, which is at 175%.However, Finance Ministry economist Assaf Geva found that if Israel doesn’t succeed in raising the retirement age of men and women to 69, the 0.8-point gap could actually be as high as 2.4 points equalling 25 billion (almost $6.5 billion) by 2059, raising Israel’s debt-to-GDP up to 135%…

How Israel misuses Palestinians in escaping its crippling economy

As the crisis revolving  around Israel’s economy increases, Palestine becomes a source for escaping or rather a catalyst in stabilising Israel’s deteriorating economy. The aim is to profit from the illegal occupation, and the psychological warfare becomes an passively active ingredient to reach the end. As stated before, one should realise that Contrary to the popular belief, Israel does not want to annihilate the population of Palestine, rather it  wants to use the psychological  warfare techniques like collective punishment, detention of the minor, confiscate the land, raid etc to terminate the resistance (thereby creating a psychological  fear of resisting) and at the same time use the politics of instigation  to ignite the Palestinians via physical and psychological  torture and humiliation to continue the resistance , as it becomes the means to the profitable  end for the Israel government. ( source: Politics of Instigation by Parul Verma )

 Israeli aerial and ground forces used white phosphorus bombs to pound several residential areas across the besieged Gaza Strip.

Palestinians have become the test and trial population( combat proven )

Since 2000, Israel has had military operation lasting a few weeks every few years: Defensive Shield (in the West Bank) in 2002; the Second Lebanon War in 2006; Cast Lead in 2008-09; and Pillar of Defence in 2012, Protective Edge (2014). In almost every case, new military technology or weapons were used – which had a profitable effect on Israel weaponary manufacturing department. In 2002, weaponary exports were worth $2 billion which  grew to $3.4 billion in 2006, and were $6 billion in 2012. In 2013, the three largest defence contractors all showed increases in sales: Elbit had annual revenues of $3 billion; IAI $2.65 billion; and Rafael $2 billion.

Elbit is Israel’s largest publicly traded arms and security company. Based in Haifa, it has  international reach, infact 75% of its market is outside Israel. It’s main manufacturing products are Drones, display and weapons systems for Apache helicopters, rockets and guidance systems, fuel tanks for F-16s, unpiloted boats, systems for civil aviation etc. The company has military contracts with governments in the US, UK and Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. According to the Corporatewatch.org,  85% of drones used by the Israeli military are manufactured by Elbit. Elbit’s armed drones are used by the Israeli army in daily surveillance and attacks in Gaza. In effect, Elbit markets its equipment on the fact that it has been battle tested on the bodies of people in Gaza. For example, the Elbit website advertises that the Hermes 450 drone is the “backbone of Israel’s UAS fleet and is combat proven”.  Iron Dome has been a star sale after the recent offensive Protective Edge operation in 2014 as well in 2012 . It is considered to have a 90 percent success  rate in intercepting rockets being fired from Hamas. Infact Bahrain and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which includes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait are in negotiations to buy the Israeli-developed Iron Dome anti-missile system to defend against “a growing arsenal of Iranian missiles”. The deal would profit Israel worth  billions of dollars. Khalid bin Mohammed al Khalifa, Bahrain’s foreign minister said on the visit to London: “The Israelis have their small Iron Dome. We’ll have a much bigger one in the GCC.”

Let me tell you the ground reality. The Palestinians have become a test and trial population who are being subjected to the testing of heinous weapons  being produced by Israel. The psychological camouflage  that is sustaining this laboratory testing on Palestinians is the “ existential threat card” being played by Israel. To protect their existence from a home made cheap rockets from Hamas, Israel is deploying its Iron Dome testing on Palestinians.

The local defense industries provide jobs (directly and indirectly) for some 150,000 people in Israel. Haaretz reported that the ministry refuses to reveal the overall figures on Israeli arms exports, but some of the data was revealed last year, after a human-rights activist filed a suit(in 2013) . It transpired that $3.83 billion-worth of deals were signed in 2012 with Asian countries; $1.73 billion with European nations; $1.1 billion with Canada and the United States; $604 million with Latin America; and $107 million in Africa. Israel admitted to sales with only five countries – the United States, Spain, Britain, South Korea and Kenya – but Haaretz has found there were deals with at least 33 more countries, including many in the Third World.

Israel is stealing natural gas worth billions from the Gaza Strip and West Bank

The Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem are rich in oil, gas a shale oil resources, al-Haq claims in its 2015 report, Annexing Energy. If these resources were to be developed, Palestine would be economically self-sufficient and would be free from dependence on international community aids. A large concentration of natural gas was found off the Gaza shoreline. According to the estimation of the British Gas group, the natural reservoir of the Gaza shore is estimated at 1.5 trillion cubic meters, at a net worth of around $4 billion US dollars. British Gas group ,according to the agreement with the Palestinian authorities in 1999 were given the right to dig there and sell the gas .The British company had already set up two gas wells called Gaza Marine 1 and Gaza Marine 2.

However, Israeli regime would intercept anything and everything that becomes the catalyst  for economic growth for the Palestinians. Some believe that the various offensive operations that has lead to the massacred of Palestinians have nothing to do with self defence, but is actually all about the natural gas buried beneath the Palestinian land.

Operation Cast Lead began in June 2008, at the exact same time that Israel contacted BG to discuss critical negotiations around Gaza’s natural gas. Israeli Defense minister  Moshe Yaalon mentioned, “Israel needs additional natural gas sources”. But purchasing gas from the Palestinians, he claimed, would be “tantamount to Israel’s bankrolling” .His statement below clearly connects the links between Israel’s military operations and Palestine’s oil and gas reserves:

“British Gas is supposed to be the crown jewel of the Palestinian economy, and provide part of the solution to Israel’s pressing energy needs. The British energy giant, now called the “BG Group,” and its local partners – the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and the private, Palestinian-owned Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC) – are currently involved in advanced negotiations to sell to Israel massive amounts of natural gas – reserves of nearly 1.4 trillion cubic feet – that BG first discovered in 2000 off the Gaza coast. The market value of the gas has been estimated at $4 billion. Therefore, sale of the gas to Israel would mean a billion-dollar windfall for the PA and, potentially, for the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, British assessments, including those of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, that Gaza gas can be a key driver of an economically more viable Palestinian state, are misguided. Proceeds of a Palestinian gas sale to Israel would likely not trickle down to help an impoverished Palestinian public. For Israel, the need for BG’s gas may have already taken a toll. It is possible that the prospect of an Israeli gas purchase may have played a role in influencing the Olmert cabinet to avoid ordering a major IDF ground operation in Gaza …Clearly, Israel needs additional natural gas sources, while the Palestinian people sorely need new sources of revenue. However, with Gaza currently a radical Islamic stronghold, and the West Bank in danger of becoming the next one, Israel’s funneling a billion dollars into local or international bank accounts on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be tantamount to Israel’s bankrolling terror against itself. Therefore, an urgent review is required of the far-reaching security implications of an Israeli decision to purchase Gaza gas.” (Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza Threaten Israel’s National Security?, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 19, 2007) 

The Middle East Monitor reported September 4, 2014 that a Memorandum of Understanding ”is due to be signed between Israel and Jordan in the reservoir of Leviathan to export Israeli natural gas to Jordan during the next 15 years with a total value of $15 billion”. (Jordan to buy $15bn of Israeli gas, Middle East Monitor, September 4, 2014.)

Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian economist, estimated that the amount of gas in Palestine is much more, adding that it could make the future Palestinian state as rich as Kuwait. He further stated, “… from a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.” adding that “the death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian National Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves”.

What is of utmost important here is the reflection of the most obvious agenda of crippling any catalyst that would initiate the economic growth of Palestinian. The existence of the Israel-Palestine conflict is a necessity for Israel to raise the profitable monetary bars, making the Palestinian population the test and trial experimental group, on whom the catastrophic weapons died are tested periodically(physically) and the implementation  of apartheid system shatters the collective identity(psychologically ).

Iraqi military and counter-terrorism units, Kurdish Peshmerga units, local Yazidi units, supported by the Iraqi and US-led coalition air forces are fighting to regain control over the strategically important city of Ramadi from the self-proclaimed Islamic State, a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. 

Iraqi counter-terrorism spokesman  Sabah al-Numani said late tuesday Tuesday that the military units have secured parts of the city and are advancing toward the government complex in the central district of Ramadi. Al-Numani added that fighting was taking place in neighborhoods around the complex, and that the Iraqi Air Force was providing support, along with the U.S.-led coalition.

The city, located about 100 kilometers west of the capital Baghdad was seized by ISIL brigades in May 2015 after ISIL launched a major campaign in 2014, seizing the city of Mosul.

It is worth recalling that a source close to the former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri documented for nsnbc international that the final decision to invade Iraq with ISIL forces fell on the sidelines of the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Turkey in November 2013, and that the European Union (EU), on April 22, 2013, lifted its ban on the import of Syrian oil from “rebel-held territories”.

Ramadi is strategically located near the Iraqi – Syrian border. Recapturing the city is likely to disrupt ISIL’s capability to export smuggled Syrian oil via northern Iraq to Turkey. Analysts do, however, forecast that the recapture of Ramadi is likely to exacerbate tensions between Iraq’s central government and the strongly US / NATO-backed Kurdish administration of Barzani in northern Iraq.

Progress with the recapture of Ramadi is not only obstructed by ISIL’s resistance. The insurgents have placed and are placing mines, improvised explosive devices and Boobie Traps in areas from which they are forced to withdraw.

U.S. military engineers are assisting in the repair of damaged bridges across the Euphrates river and are setting up floating bridges to help troops advance. U.S. Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Baghdad – based spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition said confidently that

“The end is coming. That said, it’s going to be a tough fight”. … Iraqi security forces have much work to do, still have hard fighting, and it’s going to take some time.”

Warren also noted that documents seized from ISIL in Fallujah, a city still controlled by the insurgents, include orders to try to blend in with government forces as the militants retreat, and to attack civilians and mosques, in an effort to discredit the government. The veracity of the statement could not be independently confirmed.

It is noteworthy that non of the pro-Baghdad government Shi´ite militia participate in the campaign against Ramadi, supporting the notion that the recapture of Ramadi is likely to exacerbate both conflicts between Iraqi Kurds and Baghdad as well as the Sunni – Shi´ite tensions in he war-torn country. The United States has currently stationed some 3,500 troops in Iraq.

We’re about to be plunged into a new oil war in the Middle East, this one with a possible nuclear dimension. Wars for control of oil have been instigated for more than a century since the dawn of the petroleum era around the time of the First World War.

This war for control of oil, however, promises to be of a scale that will change world politics in a spectacular and highly destructive manner. It is on one level, a Saudi war to redraw the national borders of the infamous Anglo-French Sykes-Picot carve-up of the bankrupt Ottoman Turkish Empire of 1916. This new war has as its foolish goal bringing the oil fields and pipeline routes of Iraq and Syria, and perhaps more of the region, under direct Saudi control, with Qatar and Erdogan’s Turkey as Riyadh’s partners in crime. Unfortunately, as in all wars, there will be no winners.

The EU will be a major loser as will the present citizens of Iraq and Syria, as well as the Kurdish Turkish and the very different Kurdish Syrian populations for starters. Erdogan’s Turkish “sultanate” will be destroyed at a great cost to lives and peace, as will King Salman’s pre-feudal Kingdom as an influence in world power games. First they will fall into a deadly trap that has been carefully prepared for them by NATO.

It’s necessary to look more closely at the elements and key players preparing this new war, a war which it is likely will not last beyond perhaps the summer of 2016.

A Four-Dimensional Chess Board

The key players in this cesspool of deception and betrayal on almost every side consist of four broad groupings, each with its own divergent goals.

The first group is the ultra-conservative Wahhabite Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under King Salman and his influential, erratic Defense Minister and son, 31-year-old Prince Salman; President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s war-ready Turkish regime, with the key role being played by his MIT intelligence head, Hakan Fidan; DAESH, or the mis-named Islamic State (IS), which is nothing but a thinly disguised extension of Wahhabite Saudi Arabia, financed by Saudi and Qatari money and backed and trained by Fidan’s MIT. They are recently being joined by the newly-announced 34-state Saudi-created “Islamic Coalition Against Terror,” based in Riyadh.

The second group consists of the Bashar al-Assad legitimate Syrian government, and the Syrian Army and other Syrian forces loyal to him; Shi’ite Iran; the 60% Shi’ite Iraq besieged by the same IS. Since September 30 Putin’s Russia has been a surprise added factor with a daring campaign of military backing for Assad. The second group also includes to varying degrees Assad allies Iran and Iraq, including the Teheran-backed Shi’ite Hezbollah, in fighting DAESH and other anti-regime terror groups in Syria. Since Russia’s entry on September 30 at the behest of the legitimate Syrian President Assad, the fortunes of Damascus have dramatically improved on the ground.

There then comes Netanyahu’s Israel, gleefully deceiving everyone, as it moves its own agenda in Syria. Netanyahu has recently made public strategic alliances with both Saudi Arabia’s Salman and with Turkey’s Erdoğan. Add to that Israel’s recent discovery of “huge” oil reserves in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights being illegally claimed by them, discovered we are told by the Israeli affiliate of a little-known spooky New Jersey oil company, Genie Energy, on whose board sits Dick Cheney, Jacob Lord Rothschild and former CIA head James Woolsey.

The fourth group is for the moment playing the most sly, deceptive role of all. It is led by Washington, and using the French, British and German entry into active military actions in Syria. Washington is preparing a devastating trap that will catch the foolish Saudis and their Turkish and other Wahhabite allies in a devastating defeat in Syria and Iraq that will no doubt then be proclaimed as “victory over terrorism” and “victory for the Syrian people.”

Pour it all together, shake vigorously, and you have the ingredients for the most explosive world war cocktail since 1945.

Deceptive Saudi ‘Anti-terror’ Coalition

On December 15, Saudi Arabian Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman announced the formation of what he called an “Islamic Anti-Terror Coalition.” Officially it will be headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Salman, refusing to be concrete as to which “terrorists” he has in mind targeting with military action, declared his coalition would “go after” terrorists in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.

The list of 34 coalition members, besides Saudi Arabia, includes Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Turkey, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Djibouti, Senegal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Gabon, Somalia, Guinea, the Palestinian National Authority, the Union of the Comoros, Cote d ‘Ivoire, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Maldives, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Yemen. Ten other Islamic countries, including Indonesia, have expressed their support.

Saudi’s Prince Salman stated in an official release that the 34 Sunni states will act, “to counteract terrorism, which became a threat to the interests of the Islamic nation, on the basis of the right of peoples for self-defense.” The term Islamic nation might be better translated as Islamic State as in IS.

Notable about this Saudi coalition of her Sunni allied states across the Islamic world is the complete absence of any states of the Shi’ite Islam group including Iran, Iraq and of course, Bashar al Assad’s Syria.

The name of the coalition, the Islamic Anti-Terror Coalition, is also notable. Sounding suspiciously like the terminology of Russia’s quite different war against anti-regime terrorist groups in Syria, the Saudis do not consider DAESH to be terrorists. They are made up of a significant number of Wahhabite Saudi nationals and financed with Saudi money to a major degree, as well as Qatari money, in order to topple the Assad regime and make way for a Saudi-controlled entity ruling Syria, or, at least, a major part of its oil regions. For the Saudis, those who support the “infidel” Assad are the real “terrorists.”

New Sykes-Picot?

The key players in the new Riyadh “anti-terror” coalition are Erdoğan’s Turkey and Prince Salman’s Saudi Arabia. They plan to redraw the 1916 division of the Ottoman Middle East to suit their foolish ambitions to become “respected” world powers. Each is acting for his own motives of money and power, neither having the slightest thing to do with sincere religious belief.

The Saudi’s Sunni Wahhabi Islam variant is what can only be called a pre-feudal Bedouin ideology, much like that of ISIL or DAESH, where extreme Sharia law, including public head and hand chopping, are regular fare; where women are treated as chattel somewhere near or even below the status of cattle or camels in rights and respect. It is a fanatical racist ideology where they merrily destroy historical monuments such as the ISIL demolition of the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, some 3,300 years old.

So, there is little Saudi interest in destroying DAESH, perhaps if anything, fencing it later in to a piece of Syrian desert free of oil, instead, after its usefulness has been depleted. In the meantime the Saudi plan envisions using DAESH for ethnic cleansing of the legitimate Syrian populations in the oil-rich regions and potential natural gas pipeline regions that would flow from Qatar via Saudi across part of now-Syria into Erdogan’s Turkey to service the EU growing gas demand.

Erdoğan-Saudi War Aims

Erdoğan’s Turkish military and most especially his Turkish intelligence, MIT, headed by close crony, Hakan Fidan, is playing a key role in the planned Saudi-Turk-Qatari coalitions move to destroy the regime of Assad and at the same time seize control for them of the rich oil fields of Iraq between Mosul and Kirkuk.

In an October 18, 2015 interview with the Turkish news agency, Anadoly, Fidan stated the open Turkish support for DAESH: “The Islamic Emirate [IS-w.e.] is a reality and we must accept that we cannot eradicate a well-organized and popular institution as the Islamic State is. Therefore, I urge my colleagues in the West to revise their mindset on Islamic political currents, to put aside their cynical mentality and thwart Putin plans to crush the Islamist Syrian revolutionaries.” In other words, for Turkey as for Saudi Arabia, DAESH is not a terrorist organization, nor Al Nusrah Front, rather they are “Islamist Syrian revolutionaries” fighting the “infidel” Assad regime and its Russian ally. Hakan Fidan’s involvement in the illegal downing of the Russian SU-24 in November in Syrian airspace is indication of what will come.

Not only is Erdoğan’s son, Bilal Erdoğan, involved in illegally exporting the stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil. Erdoğan’s son-in-law, Berat Albayrak, was named by the President to be Turkish Energy Minister the day after the Turkish shooting of the SU-24, and it was Turkish Grey Wolves terrorists in Syria who murdered the SU-24 Russian pilot that Erdoğan’s Air Force shot down.

The recent unwanted Turkish military incursion into Iraq’s Mosul region, ostensibly, ostensibly to train fighters linked to Iraqi Kurdistan’s president, Massoud Barzani, shows further that Turkey will be the battering ram of the planned Saudi conquest of Syrian and Iraqi oilfields, wrapped in the banner of Jihad and Allah.

And on December 18 Turkey revealed it is building a military base in Qatar, a key financier of DAESH as well as Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra in Syria. Turkey’s Ambassador stated the Turkish base, which will station some 3,000 Turkish troops on the Persian Gulf base, which will include ground troops, air force and naval personnel, as well as instructors and special forces, will be for the purpose of confronting “common enemies” in the region. “Turkey and Qatar face common problems about developments in the region and uncertain policies of other countries…We confront common enemies,” Turkey’s Doha Ambassador stated. Now could those “common enemies” just possibly be Syria’s Assad who in 2009 refused a Qatar gas pipeline proposal in favor of remaining Russia’s ally in gas? Could they be Iran, whose own giant North Pars gas field is a geophysical extension in Iranian waters of Qatar’s gas in the Persian Gulf?

Whether Pakistani fighters join or those of other less-trained Arab militaries, is secondary at this point.

Deceptive US Peace Offer in UN

Washington at this point appears to have organized a near-perfect deceptive maneuver to set the stage for the imminent Saudi-Turk oil wars and subsequent debacle in Syria and Iraq. Using the efforts of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) whose members are the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States, Washington Secretary of State John Kerry has just secured Russian and Chinese UN Security Council agreement to what sounds on the surface like a positive final process to end the Syrian war in the coming six months.

Meeting in New York on December 18, the UN Security Council, including Russia and China, unanimously adopted Resolution 2254 (2015), “Endorsing Road Map for Peace Process in Syria, Setting Timetable for Talks.” The UNSC resolution 2254 is a devilish document. It calls for an immediate ceasefire beginning January 2016, in Syria by all signatories. That ceasefire excludes Saudi and Turkey-backed DAESH, and the Al Qaeda affiliate, Al Nusra Front. At the same time, it calls for an immediate, simultaneous start of a “political transition” which means completely contradictory things for the United States, Germany, France and the UK as it does for Syria, Iran, and Russia.

The US, France and UK all made clear their interpretation of Resolution 2254 meant Assad must go. In his remarks to the document, US Secretary of State John Kerry declared “President Assad had lost the ability and credibility to unite the country.” Kerry was echoed by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who told the Security Council on voting for 2254, there must be “safeguards that included an exit by the current President,” Bashar al Assad. UK Foreign Minister, Philip Hammond repeated the Western lie that Assad is responsible for a majority of the 250,000 deaths in the Syrian war, and that the agreed political ‘transition’ process now beginning “involve the departure of President Assad.”

For his part, Russia’s Lavrov at the same UN session on 2254 repeated that the UN process agreed to must find, “a mutually acceptable agreement between the Syrian Government and the opposition.” In brief, no mention that Assad must go, rather a form of mutually-agreed power-sharing between the Syrian parties, not a Saudi-approved “opposition” takeover.

The relity is that the agreed UN ceasefire and simultaneous political transition to Washington’s “moderate Syrian opposition” will force Russia, the Assad Syrian government, Hezbollah and Iran military actions to halt, while Saudi-Turkish-Qatari DAESH and Al Qaeda Al Nusra Front and allied terror bands will have free reign to grab the oil riches of Syria and then of northern Iraq.

At that point, the trap will have been set and Washington will no doubt spring it, with Russia, Iran and Assad at that point able to do little to prevent it. Would it not be far better for the future of mankind were the real instigators of the war against Syria—Washington, Paris, London and their Saudi and Turkish and Qatari proxies—to genuinely abandon their war agenda and opt for true peace in Syria and Iraq and beyond? Sadly for world peace and freedom, the present state is what happens when everyone lies to everyone.

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

This is a magnificent universe. It is alive by its very nature. And in your bones, you know that. It is your deepest dream and desire.

Everything is alive and conscious. Children know that. Indigenous people know that. Atoms and particles are alive. Where else would life and consciousness come from? Everything around us has life, from the atomic level on up. You are surrounded by friends and allies. You are not alone.

How is it that we turn our backs on such a glorious reality? Why do we cut ourselves off from such knowledge, learning, communication, and friendship?

The secret life of plants

Westerners often wonder how indigenous people know what plants to use for healing. The simple answer is: the plants tell them. Indigenous people cultivate relationships with the creatures around them. All of us can do that.

In 1966, polygraph expert Clive Backster hooked up his house plant to a lie detector machine to see if it would indicate when it needed watering. Instead, he made very different discoveries. He found that plants have profound awareness, they feel pain, they have a range of emotions, they go into shock when overwhelmed with events or emotions, they exhibit compassion and love, they communicate with each other instantaneously across distance without regard to distance, they telegraph threats to each other, they care about the people who care for them, and they connect with those people across distances. These discoveries, as well as those by other people, are detailed in The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird.

Biophilia is the birthright of every human – real fellowship with all living beings. It is no wonder that many humans, particularly in Western society, feel so lost and alone. This level of relationship is what we’re made for.

Nature is reality and wisdom

Trees, plants, and mycelium are chief examples of the highest species on Earth.

They are integrated into existence, into life. They are rooted and Interact and interface with the very elements which are the foundation of life. Think of that.

Their interaction with the earth includes this essential rootedness to a place and to the Earth. Humans, the most mobile species, are the least connected. Mobility comes at a high cost: connection and belonging. When home and rootedness are removed, with its related earth wisdom, humans are lost — uncertain who they are, unhappy, refugees and aliens in their own land, prey to hucksters, reduced to survival, their moral base gone. Look around.

The wise thing to do is to root and land, to learn from trees and plants, to connect to place, and to spend time outside sitting, listening, and seeing.

Children are most connected to rootedness, and they grow deeper, stronger, calmer, wiser, healthier, more compassionate, and more independent the more time they are in nature and with trees. They are our teachers. The most important thing for communities and our world is to free children to spend their time outside so they can show us how to be connected.

In a healthy society, every child would have a connection to trees, would have their own garden, would have special places outdoors, and would be expert in the nuances, the seasons, the species, the sounds, and the wisdom of those places. Those places would be laboratories of learning and study. Each child would be a teacher of his or her discoveries. Children would be leaders in our communities.

The more connected humans are, the more content and capable they are and the less need for material things, for status, or to be placated or soothed. We become free when we are connected.

Freedom is our birthright. Examples surround us — wolves, horses, prairie dogs, coyotes, snakes, streams and rivers, mountains, trees, and children. These are our teachers and mentors.

Happiness and creating the future

Plants and trees harm no one in order to live. Think of that. This is true of bees and butterflies and other species. They are life-positive. They take what they need to live and harm no one. Their lives are a constant and beautiful gift, full of abundance, and they are essential for the rest of us. The oxygen alone from trees and plants makes our lives possible.

What vast wisdom is in these life-nourishing people that use no violence. To create thriving, diverse, happy, and healthy societies, we begin by sitting at their feet and listening and learning.

Universities of life

Skills permeate every bit of life from the atomic level, as well as

• resources
• insights, knowledge, and wisdom
• community
• values, and
• love

They are intrinsic to life, a part of the “is-ness” of reality. They are in cells, molecules, atoms, particles, and light. They are part of all beings.

The highest education is the most connected to nature, the most rooted and local-based, the most integrated, and the least technological, with only the most porous of walls. The true universities are outdoors and integrated with nature. The best universities would be the forests.

Can you talk with trees and plants? Can you hear nature’s wisdom and messages? Are you rooted and connected to a place? What do you know about your home? These are the most important skills and knowledge.

Places of learning would be typified by diversity and teaching flowing back and forth; all would be students and teachers. No degrees or pieces of paper. One’s life is the only reliable proof of learning and wisdom.

This type of education would be free. No college debt. And no SAT, GRE, or ACT tests required.

Real world skills would include creating new healthy systems of food, water, energy, building, and production, eliminating waste, and recycling. Each person would discover for themselves what is good and valuable and important.

These learning places would be characterized by languages, community, healing arts. They would be everywhere — vibrant, pulsating with honest, open dialogue, with life and happiness, authentic, open, heart-based, and earth-based, for all ages and species. Each would learn many skills.

Trees, plants, mycelium, and other species transmute elements by the “technology” of their own beings. Water responds to spoken or written words. What incredible skill sets to include in any curriculum.

Trees

Trees are very special among Earth’s people. Wise and beautiful, their deep, abiding qualities have been honored throughout time, and many regard them as sacred.

As a long-lived people, they acquire a deep wisdom and perspective. Because they are place-based, they embody and create home. They are protectors, strong, often tall, fragrant hiding places for people large and small, with fruits and flowers available to all, and amazing voices. They offer deep and soul-nourishing friendship to all who wish it.

They are our hope for the future. The Ents of J.R.R. Tolkein’s stories were not a huge stretch of the imagination. Trees are wisdom keepers, mentors, teachers, and friends.

Trees are people. They are not fuel or building material or oxygen factory. They are not extra or unimportant.  They are living, breathing, feeling, tremendously wise and good people. When humans cut down a tree, they murder a person. Protecting trees is of the very highest importance.

Trees can help us be at home, wherever we are on Earth. Their friendship can bring us joy, fulfillment, and peace. Trees are willing to be a part of our lives into the future.

Trees are the master teachers living everywhere who can help us create life and peace, prosperity and health beyond the 7^th generation. They stand ready to be partners in creating communities brimming with life and happiness.

Healing life

The only hope for the world is if we realize the reality and goodness that surrounds us, if we start paying attention to all the people, whether they have leaves, bark, fins, wings, horns, fur, scales, feathers, cilia, many legs, or no legs, and understand, in the midst of all the other benefits, that we belong to a community of extraordinary people.

Our partners wait. The future is possible. The rest is up to us.

Nina Beety is a researcher, writer, and public speaker on foreign policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. Her 2012 report for public officials “Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems: Legislative Solutions” is on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in Monterey, California.

The Russian warplanes destroyed two long convoys of ISIL’s oil tankers in the Homs province. The first convoy with at least 8 oil tankers and some other military vehicles was targeted by the Russian Air Force near the city of Palmyra. Militants accompanying the convoy were also killed in the air raid. The joint squadron of the Russian and Syrian frontline bombers also destroyed 14 oil tankers and their guards near Sukhnah.

According to the reports, the Russian and Syrian Air Forces have been focusing their efforts in the Homs province. The activity is aimed to support the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) military operations and to cut the oil smuggling routes in the area.

The Syrian Air Force carried out sorties against gatherings and movements of the Jaish al-Fateh terrorist alliance in the area of the Khan Sheikhoun town. Several vehicles equipped with machineguns have been reportedly destroyed. The Syrian forces also exercised a special operation in the western side of town. Six terrorists were killed including Khaled al-Bahri, the leader of a terrorist group affiliated to al-Nusra.

Separately, the Syrian Air Force destroyed dens and fortified sites of Jaish al-Fateh terrorists in Kafar Zeta, Mourek and al-Lattamneh towns in the Hama province.

The SAA is conducting military operations to liberate the Jobar district of Damascus from terrorists. According to the reports, about 16 Jaysh al-Islam militants have been killed since yesterday. Meanwhile, the SAA conducted separate offensives in the Marj al-Sultan and al-Nashabiyeh villages near the capital. 14 members of the Jaysh al-Islam terrorist group were killed during the clashes.

On Monday, at least a dozen civilians were reportedly killed in two air raids by US military aircraft in the beleaguered northern Iraqi city of Mosul. The incident came only 3 days after a US airstrike hit the Iraqi army’s 3rd Division 55th Brigade near Fallujah and killed at least 10 Iraqi soldiers.

Global Research calls upon its readers to support South Front

If you like the content and approaches South Front has to offer, please support their project.

Its quality work is not sustainable without your help.

You can donate via PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/

Since April of 2015, the Republic of Burundi has been beset by a violent protest movement organised by NGOs financed by the United States and the European Union. These so-called ‘civil society’ organisations have engaged in mass murder, arson, and sabotage in a concerted attempt to spread anarchy in the country on behalf of neocolonial interests.

Pierre Nkurunziza, the country’s president, is among the most popular leaders in Africa today. The reason for this is quite simple. Since coming to power in 2005, Nkurunziza has built more schools than all the combined rulers since independence. A keen ecologist, Nkurunziza is known to spend weekends working in the fields with peasants. He has initiated a vast tree planting programme to protect the country’s environment. The Burundian government intends to turn the country into a major exporter of fruit and free medical care for pregnant women has been provided in newly constructed healthcare centres throughout the country.

The pretext for escalating the destabilization of the country came when Nkurunziza sought a third term as president.US/EU backed opponents claimed that this was contrary to the constitution. However, the legal authorities of the country judged that it was not contrary to the nation’s constitution. Under international law, each nation state is responsible for the internal affairs of that country. However, when it comes to African countries, this principal is rendered null and void. Brussels and Washington have said Nkurunziza must go and have been fomenting instability in the country since 2006, a process that has accelerated since April of 2015.

Among his many achievements as president of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza has made community work on Saturdays mandatory in order to foster national voluntarism and a sense of civic spirit in a country just recovering from one of the twentieth century’s worse genocides. From 1993 to 2005, up to 4 million people were murdered during the French, Belgian and US-backed military dictatorship of generals Micombero, Bagaza and Boyoya. Nkurunziza’s Community Work Days have helped reconstruct a war-raved nation, creating a sense of self reliance, unity and social hope among his people. The project has already led to the construction of over 5000 schools in the country.

Situated in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, Burundi is of major interest to multi-national corporations due to its rich agricultural land, natural resources and its strategic location near the some of the most mineral-rich lands on earth. Belgian and French neocolonial rule in Burundi involved stoking up ethnic tension between the Tutsi minority, favoured by Belgian colonialism and the majority Hutu population. Although the government has made every effort to reconcile the two communities, ensuring an ethnic balance in the military and state institutions, and notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence of state-sponsored racial discrimination in the country, the Western corporate press have been attempting to create the impression that the Burundian government is threatening to exterminate the Tutsi minority. They do this by twisting almost every statement the government makes calling for calm and unity among all Burundians into incitment to racial hatred and genocide.The spreading of rumours that promote fear is a integral part of imperial destabilization techniques.

The Western powers never wanted Pierre Nkurunziza to take power. They understand that a leader who would be capable of uniting all the ethnicities in a country would inevitably pursue socially orientated policies inimical to Western corporate and geostratigic interests. Nkurunziza has repeatedly declared his intention to wipe out poverty in the country. Although the Burundian president is no Thomas Sankara, his concern for the livelihood of the poor makes him a danger to Western corporate interests.

In 2012, the French Ministry of Defense published a report in their journal Horizons Strategiques which warned about the dangers for French interests posed by a resurgence of the ‘politics of dignity’ in Africa. National sovereignty and panafricanist movements were cite as  presenting a grave danger to French control over African resources. This is why all African nations are being systematically destablised by mercenaries and pseudo ‘civil society’ movements working to effect regime change on behalf of neocolonialist interests. Most of these movements received generous funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy, a US think tank which works closely with the CIA to overthrow governments who threaten US imperial interests.This is precisely what is happening in Burundi.

Amnesty International is now publishing serious accusations against the Burundian government in the corporate press. This is an organization which claims to be independent yet has counted among its board members former US National Security Advisor Zbiigniew Bzrezinski, who stated to French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he couldn’t care less regarding the CIA’s backing of terrorists in Afghanistan, as long as US geopolitical interests were served.

Amnesty International helped spread the racist lies about ‘African mercenaries’ during NATO’s propaganda campaign that preceded the carpet bombing and total destruction of that country in 2011. Amnesty international have been lying and lying  over and over again about Syria since NATO launched its war on the country in 2011, using proxy terrorist gangs. The human rights group have repeatedly blamed the crimes of Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria on the Syrian government.

Now the terrorist human rights organisation is sharpening its knives in preparation for the mutilation of another African nation resisting globalisation, resisting the Pentagon’s Africom, resisting neocolonial enslavement. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are the avant garde of contemporary imperialism. They are, ipso facto, deeply complicit in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

These organisations provide moral justification for devastating wars of aggression that murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, rendering mullions more homeless and destitute. They are nothing less than evil doers and should be tried for their crimes by the Kuala Lumper War Crimes Tribunal, the only credible legal entity in the world today for the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Amnesty’s mendacious report on the ‘crackdown’ on ‘peaceful protesters’ and ‘human rights’ activists in Burundi has now been released in order to provide justification for the invasion and occupation of Burundi by international ‘peace-keeping’ forces under the spurious UN doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect’, which translates as the responsibility of the global corporate polyarchy and its puppet governments to ensure that no nation, no matter how small or insignificant, dares challenge the self-proclaimed authority of their ‘global governance’.

On December 18, 2015 the International Syria support Group, consisting of seventeen concerned countries, most significantly including Russia, the United States, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, met at 9:30AM at the New York Palace Hotel.  As the group was not yet an official United Nations entity, it met in a “private” venue.  Entering the Palace Hotel, at 8:30AM, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that a political resolution of the Syria crisis is imperative, and the only solution, and this political agreement should not permit any retreat  from this decision, only forward action.

Throughout the next four hours, rumors circulated among the many reporters gathered at the hotel, most significantly, and predictably, it was rumored that there was still serious conflict and disagreement among the major countries gathered there, who were still bitterly arguing about the final wording of the resolution they hoped to have adopted at the UN Security Council at the scheduled 3PM meeting. 

One of the more intriguing rumors implied that the US Delegation, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, had attempted, at the conference beginning, to insert a paragraph in the resolution that violated the agreement between Secretary Kerry and President Putin at their Moscow meeting earlier in the week, and that the Russian delegation, led by Sergei Lavrov was hotly contesting the insertion of this unauthorized paragraph in the final resolution. 

If this rumor is accurate, it implies that the US delegation attempted a last minute “double-cross.”  It was impossible  to determine what the new insertion contained, (if, in fact, it actually existed)  beyond wild (or not so wild) conjecture.  Another rumor contended that a resolution would be finally agreed upon, but a resolution that would not address anything of substance, or any of the contentious issues, and would amount to merely a cosmetic device to suggest action,  disguising the fact that the drastic divide between the opposing sides of the Syrian conflict had not been narrowed.  In particular, Saudi Arabia demanded President Assad’s immediate ouster, and  Iran supports the Syrian President.

I had the privilege of a brief discussion with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, one of the world’s great diplomats, and I mentioned to him that the new coalition of Russia, China and Iran in this International Syria Support Group process is a formidable “game changer,” in many respects, and potentially even beyond Syria, which may be alarming to NATO.  And I added that it is significant that the foreign ministers involved, were the best possible choice of diplomats, including Lavrov, himself, Wang Yi and Li Baodong of China, and Javad  Zarif of Iran,  all men of brilliance, and quintessential decency, representative of great civilizations and cultures. 

Lavrov replied, emphatically, that their “ three countries are seeking peace, and an end to terrorism.”  We did not have time to discuss the obstacles presented by the fact that war is profitable, and that there are those who have an interest in obstructing this peace process, which would reduce their profits.  Of course, Lavrov is well aware of this.

After an hour’s delay, the Security Council met at 4PM, at which point there was unanimous consent to adopt Resolution S/RES/2254 (2015) which was, as the earlier rumor implied, too general to have a substantial impact in defusing the crisis in Syria.  The only paragraph which actually addressed the “situation on the ground” is OP 13, which states: 

“Demands that all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects as such, including attacks against medical facilities and personnel, and any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment, welcomes the commitment by the International Syria Support Group to press the parties in this regard, and further demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applicable.”

Significantly, the Resolution “Demanded cessation of  any indiscriminate use of weapons,” but did not specifically mention barrel bombs, use of which the U.S. repeatedly identifies with Syrian government forces.

The Resolution at no point explicitly mentions regime change, nor does it specifically mention President Assad.  It calls for “elections to be held within 18 months,” and it fails to address the possibility that in free and fair elections Bashir Assad might actually be elected president. The catch is “free and fair,” since the manipulation of election results is notorious, both within the USA itself, and through its overt and covert interference in elections or election results historically, including Iran, in 1952, through Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia, 1965, Chile, 1973, through the present instigation of “color revolutions,” most recently in Ukraine in 2014, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected President Yanukovich, replaced by a man more agreeable to Western corporate interests – in plainspeak, a proxy.

Although there was no mention of President Assad in the Resolution, Secretary Kerry, during his speech at the Security Council stated: 

“President Assad, in our judgment – and not everybody shares this- but the majority of the people in the ISSG believe that President Assad has lost the ability, the credibility, to be able to unite the country and to provide the moral credibility to be able to govern it into the future.”

Foreign Minister Lavrov stated: 

“The Vienna format was the only one that brought together all influential players to find a sustainable and fair settlement through talks with the Government and the ‘whole span’ of the opposition.    Only Syrian-led inclusive dialogue can put an end to the untold suffering of the Syrian people.”

Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated: 

“International efforts to find a political solution have been relentless, and the need now is to build on experience and lessons learned to make the process irreversible.  Since there can be no military solution, a political settlement is the only way.  All parties must stop fighting immediately.”

Following the Security Council meeting, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, together with UN Special Envoy Stefan Di Mistura held a press conference at which Kerry tempered his blaming of President Assad for instigating this crisis, and Foreign Minister Lavrov repeated that the international community should have by now learned that the demonization and removal of an individual leader and destruction of his government had not led to “democracy,” but has led to disaster in Iraq and Libya, and it should by now be recognized that the removal of Assad will not only fail to improve the situation in Syria, but will lead to a more deadly outcome in Syria, spreading throughout the region and elsewhere, exacerbating the refugee crisis. 

“The last thing I wanted to say:  We often hear it said that without solving the Assad issue, it is impossible to achieve full-fledged coordination in counterterrorism.  But this logic is very dangerous because it brings to naught all the principles enshrined and endorsed by the Security Council.  These principles say that there is no justification whatsoever for terrorism and in counterterrorism there should be no preconditions.  We should set our priorities straight.  ISIS terrorists are our common threat and our civilizational challenge to the whole humankind, so sacrificing it in the name of political ambitions would be a terrible mistake.”

Particularly disturbing, and revealing at this joint press conference was the heckling of John Kerry for backing off  his earlier call to remove President Assad.  At least two journalists, one representing a Saudi sponsored publication, aggressively berated Kerry for relinquishing his earlier demand for Assad’s immediate removal,  as a precondition, and his earlier identification of Assad as the root cause of Syria’s disastrous war.  The hawkish position of these journalists give voice to those who have an interest in disrupting this peace process, a peace process being elaborated with excruciating difficulty.  After all, profits are at risk if war is averted.

Both Kerry’s  and  Lavrov’s positions are still so diametrically opposed that it will clearly be exorbitantly difficult to reach sufficient common ground to end the crisis in Syria, but it does appear that there is at least some political will to work toward that goal, if only for the sake of appearances.  And it is difficult to ignore the fact that the refugee crisis holds the potential to destabilize Europe, and beyond.  It is impossible to predict what future developments or obstacles may expedite or impede this peace process.

Following the conference, as Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, himself a miracle of sanity in the midst of a decomposing world, left the building a Turkish journalist called out to him:  “Are you happy with the outcome?”  Zarif, with his characteristic contempt for bureaucratic obfuscation replied:  “What outcome?,” and left the building.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s Correspondent at United Nations headquarters, New York

MEMORANDUM FOR: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Sarin Attack at Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013

In a Memorandum of Oct. 1, 2013, we asked each of you to make public the intelligence upon which you based your differing conclusions on who was responsible for the sarin chemical attack at Ghouta, outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. On Dec. 10, 2015, Eren Erdem, a member of parliament in Turkey, citing official documents, blamed Turkey for facilitating the delivery of sarin to rebels in Syria.

Mr. Kerry, you had blamed the Syrian government. Mr. Lavrov, you had described the sarin as “homemade” and suggested anti-government rebels were responsible. Each of you claimed to have persuasive evidence to support your conclusion.

Neither of you responded directly to our appeal to make such evidence available to the public, although, Mr. Lavrov, you came close to doing so. In a speech at the UN on Sept. 26, 2013, you made reference to the views we presented in our VIPS Memorandum, Is Syria a Trap?, sent to President Obama three weeks earlier.

Pointing to strong doubt among chemical weapons experts regarding the evidence adduced to blame the government of Syria for the sarin attack, you also referred to the “open letter sent to President Obama by former operatives of the CIA and the Pentagon,” in which we expressed similar doubt.

Mr. Kerry, on Aug. 30, 2013, you blamed the Syrian government, publicly and repeatedly, for the sarin attack. But you failed to produce the kind of “Intelligence Assessment” customarily used to back up such claims.

We believe that this odd lack of a formal “Intelligence Assessment” is explained by the fact that our former colleagues did not believe the evidence justified your charges and that, accordingly, they resisted pressure to “fix the intelligence around the policy,” as was done to “justify” the attack on Iraq.

Intelligence analysts were telling us privately (and we told the President in our Memorandum of Sept. 6, 2013) that, contrary to what you claimed, “the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21.”

This principled dissent from these analysts apparently led the White House to create a new art form, a “Government Assessment,” to convey claims that the government in Damascus was behind the sarin attack. It was equally odd that the newly minted genre of report offered not one item of verifiable evidence.

(We note that you used this new art form “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” a second time – again apparently to circumvent intelligence analysts’ objections. On July 22, 2014, just five days after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, after the media asked you to come up with evidence supporting the charges you leveled against “pro-Russian separatists” on the July 20 Sunday talk shows, you came up with the second, of only two, “Government Assessment.” Like the one on the chemical attack in Syria, the assessment provided meager fare when it comes to verifiable evidence.)

Claims and Counterclaims

Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2013, President Obama asserted: “It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the [Syrian] regime carried out this attack [at Ghouta].”

Mr. Lavrov, that same day you publicly complained that U.S. officials kept claiming “’the Syrian regime,’ as they call it, is guilty of the use of chemical weapons, without providing comprehensive proof.” Two days later you told the U.N. General Assembly you had given Mr. Kerry “the latest compilation of evidence, which was an analysis of publicly available information.” You also told the Washington Post, “This evidence is not something revolutionary. It’s available on the Internet.”

On the Internet? Mr. Kerry, if your staff avoided calling your attention to Internet reports about Turkish complicity in the sarin attack of Aug. 21, 2013, because they lacked confirmation, we believe you can now consider them largely confirmed.

Documentary Evidence

Addressing fellow members of parliament on Dec. 10, 2015, Turkish MP Eren Erdem from the Republican People’s Party (a reasonably responsible opposition group) confronted the Turkish government on this key issue. Waving a copy of “Criminal Case Number 2013/120,” Erdem referred to official reports and electronic evidence documenting a smuggling operation with Turkish government complicity.

In an interview with RT four days later, Erdem said Turkish authorities had acquired evidence of sarin gas shipments to anti-government rebels in Syria, and did nothing to stop them.

The General Prosecutor in the Turkish city of Adana opened a criminal case, and an indictment stated “chemical weapons components” from Europe “were to be seamlessly shipped via a designated route through Turkey to militant labs in Syria.” Erdem cited evidence implicating the Turkish Minister of Justice and the Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation in the smuggling of sarin.

The Operation

According to Erdem, the 13 suspects arrested in raids carried out against the plotters were released just a week after they were indicted, and the case was closed — shut down by higher authority. Erdem told RT that the sarin attack at Ghouta took place shortly after the criminal case was closed and that the attack probably was carried out by jihadists with sarin gas smuggled through Turkey.

Small wonder President Erdogan has accused Erdem of “treason.” It was not Erdem’s first “offense.” Earlier, he exposed corruption by Erdogan family members, for which a government newspaper branded him an “American puppet, Israeli agent, a supporter of the terrorist PKK and the instigator of a coup.”

In our Sept. 6, 2013 Memorandum for the President, we reported that coordination meetings had taken place just weeks before the sarin attack at a Turkish military garrison in Antakya – just 15 miles from the Syrian border with Syria and 55 miles from its largest city, Aleppo.

In Antakya, senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials were said to be coordinating plans with Western-sponsored rebels, who were told to expect an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development.” This, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria, and rebel commanders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Assad government.

A year before, the New York Times reported that the Antakya area had become a “magnet for foreign jihadis, who are flocking into Turkey to fight holy war in Syria.” The Times quoted a Syrian opposition member based in Antakya, saying the Turkish police were patrolling this border area “with their eyes closed.”

And, Mr. Lavrov, while the account given by Eren Erdem before the Turkish Parliament puts his charges on the official record, a simple Google search including “Antakya” shows that you were correct in stating the Internet contains a wealth of contemporaneous detail supporting Erdem’s disclosures.

Mr. Kerry, while in Moscow on Dec. 15, you said to a Russian interviewer that Syrian President Assad “has gassed his people – I mean, gas hasn’t been used in warfare formally for years – for – and gas is outlawed, but Assad used it.”

Three days later The Washington Post dutifully repeated the charge about Assad’s supposed killing “his own people with chemical weapons.” U.S. media have made this the conventional wisdom. The American people are not fully informed. There has been no mainstream media reporting on Turkish MP Erdem’s disclosures.

Renewed Appeal

We ask you again, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, to set the record straight on this important issue. The two of you have demonstrated an ability to work together on important matters – the Iran nuclear deal, for example – and have acknowledged a shared interest in defeating ISIS, which clearly is not Turkish President Erdogan’s highest priority. Indeed, his aims are at cross-purposes to those wishing to tamp down the violence in Syria.

After the shoot-down of Russia’s bomber on Nov. 24, President Vladimir Putin put Russian forces in position to retaliate the next time, and told top defense officials, “Any targets threatening our [military] group or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed.” We believe that warning should be taken seriously. What matters, though, is what Erdogan believes.

There is a good chance Erdogan will be dismissive of Putin’s warning, as long as the Turkish president believes he can depend on NATO always to react in the supportive way it did after the shoot-down.

One concrete way to disabuse him of the notion that he has carte blanche to create incidents that could put not only Turkey, but also the U.S., on the verge of armed conflict with Russia, would be for the U.S. Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister to coordinate a statement on what we believe was a classic false-flag chemical attack on Aug. 21, 2013, facilitated by the Turks and aimed at mousetrapping President Obama into a major attack on Syria.

One of our colleagues, a seasoned analyst of Turkish affairs, put it this way: “Erdogan is even more dangerous if he thinks that he now has NATO license to bait Russia — as he did with the shoot-down. I don’t think NATO is willing to give him that broader license, but he is a loose cannon.”

FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)

Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Robert David Steele, former CIA Operations Officer

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

This short, incisive article was originally published on Washington’s Blog in 2014. It deals with the “criminality” and “blatant manipulation” of Wall Street and gives us a better idea as to why the global economy is in such a catastrophic state.

Runaway derivatives – especially credit default swaps (CDS) – were one of the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis. Congress never fixed the problem, and actually made it worse.

The big banks have long manipulated derivatives … a $1,200 Trillion Dollar market.

Indeed, many trillions of dollars of derivatives are being manipulated in the exact same same way that interest rates are fixed (see below) … through gamed self-reporting.

Reuters noted last week:

A Manhattan federal judge said on Thursday that investors may pursue a lawsuit accusing 12 major banks of violating antitrust law by fixing prices and restraining competition in the roughly $21 trillion market for credit default swaps.

***

“The complaint provides a chronology of behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence,” [Judge] Cote said.

The defendants include Bank of America Corp, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc , Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG , Goldman Sachs Group Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc , JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG.

Other defendants are the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and Markit Ltd, which provides credit derivative pricing services.

***

U.S. and European regulators have probed potential anticompetitive activity in CDS. In July 2013, the European Commission accused many of the defendants of colluding to block new CDS exchanges from entering the market.

***

“The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged secret meetings and coordinated actions,” the judge wrote. “Nor does it explain why ISDA and Markit simultaneously reversed course.”

In other words, the big banks are continuing to fix prices for CDS in secret meetings … and have torpedoed the more open and transparent CDS exchanges that Congress mandated.

As shown below, Wall Street has manipulated virtually every other market as well – both in the financial sector and the real economy – and broken virtually every law on the books.

Interest Rates Are Manipulated

Bloomberg reported in January:

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc was ordered to pay $50 million by a federal judge in Connecticut over claims that it rigged the London interbank offered rate.

RBS Securities Japan Ltd. in April pleaded guilty to wire frauda s part of a settlement of more than $600 million with U.S and U.K. regulators over Libor manipulation, according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in New Haventoday sentenced the Tokyo-based unit of RBS, Britain’s biggest publicly owned lender, to pay the agreed-upon fine, according to a Justice Department Justice Department.

Global investigations into banks’ attempts to manipulate the benchmarks for profit have led to fines and settlements for lenders including RBS, Barclays Plc, UBS AG and Rabobank Groep.

RBS was among six companies fined a record 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) by the European Union last month for rigging interest rates linked to Libor. The combined fines for manipulating yen Libor and Euribor, the benchmark money-market rate for the euro, are the largest-ever EU cartel penalties.

Global fines for rate-rigging have reached $6 billion since June 2012 as authorities around the world probe whether traders worked together to fix Libor, meant to reflect the interest rate at which banks lend to each other, to benefit their own trading positions.

To put the Libor interest rate scandal in perspective:

• The big banks have conspired for years to rig interest rates … upon which $800 trillion in assets are pegged

• This was the largest insider trading scandal ever … and the largest financial scam in world history

• Local governments got ripped off bigtime by the Libor manipulation

• Even though RBS and a handful of other banks have been fined for interest rate manipulation, Libor is still being manipulated. No wonder … the fines are pocket change – the cost of doing business – for the big banks

Currency Markets Are Rigged

Currency markets are massively rigged. And see this and this.

Energy Prices Manipulated

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says that JP Morgan has massively manipulated energy markets in California and the Midwest, obtaining tens of millions of dollars in overpayments from grid operators between September 2010 and June 2011.

Pulitzer prize-winning reporter David Cay Johnston noted in May that Wall Street is trying to launch Enron 2.0.

Oil Prices Are Manipulated

Oil prices are manipulated as well.

Gold and Silver Are Manipulated

Gold and silver prices are “fixed” in the same way as interest rates and derivatives – in daily conference calls by the powers-that-be.

Bloomberg reports:

It is the participating banks themselves that administer the gold and silver benchmarks.

So are prices being manipulated? Let’s take a look at the evidence. In his book “The Gold Cartel,” commodity analyst Dimitri Speck combines minute-by-minute data from most of 1993 through 2012 to show how gold prices move on an average day (see attached charts). He finds that the spot price of gold tends to drop sharply around the London evening fixing (10 a.m. New York time). A similar, if less pronounced, drop in price occurs around the London morning fixing. The same daily declines can be seen in silver prices from 1998 through 2012.

For both commodities there were, on average, no comparable price changes at any other time of the day. These patterns are consistent with manipulation in both markets.

Commodities Are Manipulated

The big banks and government agencies have been conspiring to manipulate commodities prices for decades.

The big banks are taking over important aspects of the physical economy, including uranium mining, petroleum products, aluminum, ownership and operation of airports, toll roads, ports, and electricity.

And they are using these physical assets to massively manipulate commodities prices … scalping consumers of many billions of dollars each year. More from Matt Taibbi, FDL and Elizabeth Warren.

Everything Can Be Manipulated through High-Frequency Trading

Traders with high-tech computers can manipulate stocks, bonds, options, currencies and commodities. And see this.

Manipulating Numerous Markets In Myriad Ways

The big banks and other giants manipulate numerous markets in myriad ways, for example:

• Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this

• Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here

• Charging “storage fees” to store gold bullion … without even buying or storing any gold . And raiding allocated gold accounts

• Committing massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them (and see this)

• Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this. This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car

• Cheating homeowners by gaming laws meant to protect people from unfair foreclosure

• Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this

• Engaging in unlawful “frontrunning” to manipulate markets. See this, this, this, this, this and this

• Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this

• Otherwise manipulating markets. And see this

• Participating in various Ponzi schemes

• Charging veterans unlawful mortgage fees

• Cooking their books (and see this)

• Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments

The Big Picture

The experts say that big banks will keep manipulating markets unless and until their executives are thrown in jail for fraud.

Why? Because the system is rigged to allow the big banks to commit continuous and massive fraud, and then to pay small fines as the “cost of doing business”. As Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted years ago:

“The system is set so that even if you’re caught, the penalty is just a small number relative to what you walk home with.

The fine is just a cost of doing business. It’s like a parking fine. Sometimes you make a decision to park knowing that you might get a fine because going around the corner to the parking lot takes you too much time.”

Experts also say that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy won’t ever really stabilize.

But the government is doing the exact opposite. Indeed, the Justice Department has announced it will go easy on big banks, and always settles prosecutions for pennies on the dollar (a form of stealth bailout. It is also arguably one of the main causes of the double dip in housing.)

Indeed, the government doesn’t even force the banks to admit any guilt as part of their settlements.

Again Wall Street has manipulated virtually every other market as well – both in the financial sector and the real economy – and broken virtually every law on the books.

And they will keep on doing so until the Department of Justice grows a pair.

The criminality and blatant manipulation will grow and spread and metastasize – taking over and killing off more and more of the economy – until Wall Street executives are finally thrown in jail.

It’s that simple …

Featured image: Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh gestures during a panel discussion on “The Challenges of Reporting About Iraq” at the Associated Press Managing Editors annual conference in San Jose, Calif., Friday, Oct. 28, 2005. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

The latest Seymour Hersh piece alleges that the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) under General Dempsey undermined the official White House policy on Syria. Their impetus to do so came after a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis found in 2012 that there were hardly any “moderate rebels” in Syria but only Islamists fighting against the Syrian state.

Military to Military: US Intelligence Sharing in the Syrian War By Seymour M. Hersh, December 23, 2015

The CIA was at least since early 2012 delivering weapons from Libya to Turkey as well as through other routes. The U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed on September 11 2012 in Benghazi over some issues with the weapon transfers. Once in Turkey those weapons, as well as plane loads of others purchased by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were given to “moderate rebels” who took them into Syria. There they sold off at least part of every weapon and ammunition haul to the Islamists terror gangs which were, and still are, financed by the Wahhabi Gulf states. A new BBCRadio4 report by Peter Oborne explains in detail how that scheme works.

The JCS under Dempsey was quite disturbed that weapons transferred by the CIA were going to exactly those people they had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan just a few years ago. They decided, according to Hersh’s source, to undermine the White House’s and CIA’s regime-change program. They provided intelligence to Syria via Germany, Russia and Israel. They also convinced the CIA that it was preferable to give away very old weapons that could be sourced in Turkey instead of newer but more difficult to transport weapons from Libya. As Hersh writes:

‘Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,’ the former JCS adviser said. ‘The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It’s the “anybody else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s policy.’ The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success’. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.

And Hersh on the weapon dealing:

By the late summer of 2013, the DIA’s assessment had been circulated widely, but although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming, presenting a continuing problem for Assad’s army. Gaddafi’s stockpile had created an international arms bazaar, though prices were high. ‘There was no way to stop the arms shipments that had been authorised by the president,’ the JCS adviser said. ‘The solution involved an appeal to the pocketbook. The CIA was approached by a representative from the Joint Chiefs with a suggestion: there were far less costly weapons available in Turkish arsenals that could reach the Syrian rebels within days, and without a boat ride.’ But it wasn’t only the CIA that benefited. ‘We worked with Turks we trusted who were not loyal to Erdoğan,’ the adviser said, ‘and got them to ship the jihadists in Syria all the obsolete weapons in the arsenal, including M1 carbines that hadn’t been seen since the Korean War and lots of Soviet arms. It was a message Assad could understand: “We have the power to diminish a presidential policy in its tracks.”’

The JCS, according to Hersh, was undermining its Commander in Chief. That is, arguably, treason but U.S. history is full of examples where the military chiefs were pushing into a very different direction than their civil commanders. Trueman versus Douglas MacArthur is just one example. Think of the closing of the Guantanamo prison which the military is actively preventing for seven years now despite Obama’s promise, demand and orders to shut Gitmo down.

Max Fisher, a critic of Hersh not known for factual quality journalism, claims that the Hersh account must be false because Dempsey was not against weaponizing the insurgents but even publicly asked to give them weapons:

Hersh alleges that the mastermind of this entire conspiracy was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey, whom Hersh says was horrified by Obama’s plan to arm Syrian rebels and sought to aid Assad. This claim is difficult to believe: While in office, Dempsey famously and publicly clashed with Obama over Syria because Dempsey wanted to do moreto arm Syrian rebels. Contemporaneous accounts of arguments within the White House support this, with Dempsey arguing the US should more robustly arm Syrian rebels, and Obama arguing for less.Yet Hersh claims, with no evidence, that Dempsey was so opposed to arming Syrian rebels that he would commit an apparent act of treason to subvert those plans. Hersh makes no effort to reconcile this seemingly fatal contradiction, and indeed it is not clear Hersh is even aware that Dempsey is known for supporting rather than opposing efforts to arm the Syrian rebels.

Hersh is of course perfectly aware what Dempsey said and thought in early 2013. The one not aware is the critic.

Dempsey argued in early 2013 that the Pentagon should give weapons to a few carefully vetted rebels:

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta acknowledged that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, had supported a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels.
…
[D]id the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?”“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.

“You did support that,” Mr. McCain said.

“We did,” General Dempsey added.

The Pentagon plan was killed by the White House in favor of the ongoing CIA operation. This exchange then does not contradict but even supports the Hersh reporting. Let me explain the context.

By early 2013 Dempsey knew perfectly well that the CIA was supplying -directly or indirectly- everyone in Syria who asked for arms and ammunition. These weapons were going to the Jihadis who were simply the best financed groups. Because the CIA program was secret Dempsey of course could not say so in a public Congress hearing. But Dempsey wanted to give arms to “carefully vetted Syrian rebels” to replace the CIA program with a Pentagon program under his command. He would then have been able to direct the weapon flow and to prevent a further arming of the Islamist terrorists. Dempsey supported a Pentagon program arming the rebels so he could control the arming of the rebels that was already happening under a CIA program but was creating long term trouble.

When the hostile takeover of the CIA arming program failed, Dempsey and the JCS tried to sabotage it by providing old Turkish weapons to the CIA.

Only much later was the Pentagon allowed to run its own training program and to arm its own groups of Syrian rebels. But that program was running in parallel to the ongoing CIA program and was thereby useless for the purpose Dempsey had originally intended. It did not replace the dangerous CIA program. The Pentagon then sabotaged its own program by training only a few rebels and sending them into a Jihadi infested area where they promptly gave their arms up to Jabhat al-Nusra. This publicly proved Dempsey’s main critic point of the long running CIA program: any arms going into Syria ended up in the hands of long term U.S. enemies.

I understand that Hersh’s sourcing is rather weak. His main and sole direct source for the JCS story is a “former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs”. That could be a military or a civilian source. Colonel Pat Lang, one of Hersh’s named sources for other points in the piece, thinks the main source is real and the story true. Lang, who sometimes still consults the military, surely has enough insider connections to have a quite clear picture of this issue.

It is fine to criticize Hersh. His reporting often relies on anonymous sources. But throughout his career Hersh’s reporting was proven right more often than his critics criticism of it. Here the criticism of Hersh relies on a small tunnel vision of what Dempsey claimed he wanted in a public hearing without regard of the context of Dempsey’s claim. Dempsey wanted to replace the then still secret CIA arming program that the DIA and other parts of the military had rightly found to be on a very dangerous path.

The Pentagon under Dempsey, fearing the CIA was repeating old errors, was turf fighting against the CIA under neocon Petraeus and later under the great friend of Saudi Arabia John Brennan. Unfortunately the White House backed the CIA and thereby, more or less willfully, allied with the Islamic State and the other assorted Jihadi organizations (pdf) in Syria.

Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.

First published in August 2015

In the context of the 14th anniversary of 9/11, it’s important to remind people that we still don’t know what happened that day.

What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.

1. An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the
   Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
2. The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that itcould find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
3. One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
4. Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
5. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documents from the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them..
6. The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda).
7. Military exercises being conducted on the day of 9/11 mimicked the attacks as they were occurring and obstructed the response to the attacks. NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart sponsored those exercises, failed to do his job that day, and later lied to Congress about it (if the 9/11 Commission account is true).
8. A third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
9. News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened. One BBC reporter announced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Years later, after claiming that it had lost the tapes and then found them again, BBC’s answer to this astonishing report was that everything was just “confusing and chaotic” that day. Of course, one problem with this is that the news agencies predicted the exact building, of the many damaged in the area, that would collapse. Another big problem is that no one could have possibly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 given the unprecedented and unbelievable official account for how that happened.
10. Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.
11. Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.
12. AMEC, the company that just finished rebuilding the exact spot where Flight 77 was said to hit, was put in charge of cleanup at the WTC and the Pentagon. The man who ran the company, Peter Janson, was a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld.
13. The response of the U.S. Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the presidentfrom the obvious danger posed by terrorists.
14. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.

There are, of course, many more incredible facts about 9/11 that continue to be ignored by the authorities and much of the media.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

El pasado 16 de diciembre, la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) dio lectura al fallo entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua relacionado a dos demandas (a las que nos referimos en una  nota  anterior publicada en estas mismas páginas de Research): una demanda presentada por Costa Rica contra Nicaragua en noviembre del 2010 debido a los efectos negativos del dragado y a la ocupación ilegal del territorio de Costa Rica; y una demanda presentada por Nicaragua contra Costa Rica en diciembre del 2011 por la construcción de una ruta de 160 kilómetros bordeando la frontera fluvial y un sector de la frontera terrestre. Como se recordará, las audiencias orales, que constituyeron la última etapa procesal entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua antes de la lectura del fallo, se celebraron entre el 14 de abril y el 1ero de mayo del 2015 (ver nota al respecto publicada en el sitio de la Maestría en Derecho Ambiental de la Facultad de Derecho de la UCR con un juego de mapas).

Con relación a la primera demanda, las pretensiones finales de Costa Rica se pueden encontrar en las páginas 64 y subsiguientes de esta  acta  del 28/04/2015, mientras que las de Nicaragua se encuentran en las páginas 59 y subsiguientes de esta  acta  de las audiencias orales celebradas el 29/04/2015. Con relación a la segunda demanda, las pretensiones finales Nicaragua figuran en las páginas 64 y siguientes del  acta  del 30/04/2915 y las de Costa Rica figuran en páginas 47 y subsiguientes del  acta  de la audiencia celebrada el 1/05/2015.

Si contabilizamos los puntos solicitados a la CIJ en sus conclusiones finales en ambas demandas, fueron un total de 31 peticiones hechas al juez internacional por parte de Costa Rica, y fueron 9 las presentadas por parte de Nicaragua.

Si hacemos memoria, el 13 de julio del 2009, ambos Estados vivieron una jornada muy similar con respecto al fallo de la CIJ sobre los derechos de navegación y derechos conexos en el San Juan, como resultado de una demanda interpuesta por Costa Rica contra Nicaragua en el 2005. Se trata de una decisión de la CIJ sobre la cual existen pocos análisis: uno de ellos afirma que se trata de la peor sentencia jamás redactada por la CIJ en toda su historia (Nota 1). En aquella oportunidad, de 9 puntos solicitados, la CIJ le concedió 7 puntos a Costa Rica, reconociendo derechos de navegación para sus embarcaciones turísticas, derechos de pesca  de subsistencia y otros derechos conexos, y negándole a Costa Rica el derecho de vigilar con sus policías su territorio desde el Río San Juan: un derecho reconocido en el tratado de 1858 a ambos ribereños bajo el término de competencias en materia de “guarda” y de “protección” del San Juan (Nota 2). Desde aquella fecha, Costa Rica quedó impedida de navegar con policías en el río San Juan, fueran estos armados, o desarmados, o en simples tareas de abastecimiento de puestos fronterizos. Un año más tarde, en el 2010, la ocupación ilegal en Isla Portillos revelaría las enormes dificultades de Costa Rica para vigilar su frontera fluvial (y lo que ocurre en su extremidad Noreste), dando lugar a un fuego cruzado (de intensidad no tan moderada) entre los dos responsables de la seguridad pública en Costa Rica durante la administración (2006-2010) (Nota 3).

En su decisión dictaminada el pasado 16 de diciembre, cada uno de los distintos requerimientos hechos por ambos Estados en sus conclusiones finales encontró algún tipo de respuesta por parte de la CIJ (a menos que esta no los considero pertinentes por alguna razón, debiendo el juez explicar porque los descartó).

A diferencia de los tribunales nacionales de algunos países, la CIJ pone a disposición del público el texto completo de sus sentencias casi en tiempo real. El texto del fallo está disponible desde el 16 de diciembre en los dos únicos idiomas oficiales de la CIJ, en  francés  y en  inglés . No existe versión en otro idioma y se recomienda la mayor cautela con traducciones de algunas partes del texto, en la medida en que cada término usado por la CIJ es el resultado de meses de un laborioso trabajo de redacción, fruto de una larga reflexión colegial entre sus integrantes realizada en la tranquilidad y la majestuosidad del Peace Palace en La Haya. La lenta reflexión de la CIJ durante la “fabrication” de un fallo fue descrita por el juez argelino Mohamed Bedjaoui (ex Presidente de la CIJ) en un artículo publicado en 1991, y que sigue siendo, en nuestra modesta opinión,  un verdadero referente en esa materia (Nota 4). Se puede también referir al lector al comunicado de prensa oficial elaborado por el servicio de prensa de la CIJ (en  inglés  y en  francés ) divulgado al concluir la lectura del fallo por parte del Presidente de la CIJ: su comparación con los comunicados oficiales elaborados de cada lado del San Juan permite evidenciar algunas (discretas) omisiones.

Contenido del fallo de la CIJ

Si bien algunos análisis, notas de prensa, cables de agencias de noticias y hasta artículos de opinión publicados en días recientes en ambos lados del San Juan tomaron como base los comunicados de prensa de la CIJ, muchos se basaron directamente en los comunicados emitidos en las primeras horas por cada uno de los dos aparatos diplomáticos. Es una opción informativa que evidentemente se arriesga a cierta parcialidad, y difícilmente permite ofrecer un análisis integral del texto de la sentencia. La puesta a disposición del texto completo de la sentencia de la CIJ (casi en tiempo real) en ambos idiomas oficiales por parte del servicio informático de la CIJ, constituye una moderna herramienta que debe ser mejor aprovechada: ello en aras de ofrecer una lectura más balanceada con relación al alcance del texto elaborado por los jueces en La Haya.

Con relación a la primera demanda:

En su sentencia,  la CIJ atribuyo a Costa Rica la “zona en disputa” (declarada como tal en marzo del 2011 por ella misma), tal y como se consignaba en los mapas oficiales cartográficos de ambos Estados desde el año 1900 (año en que se adoptaron las actas de una comisión binacional de demarcación que inició sus labores en 1897). La plena coincidencia de los mapas oficiales  entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua sobre la frontera terrestre, y ello desde 1900, descartaba (al menos en buena teoría) cualquier duda con relación a la soberanía ejercida por Costa Rica en el sector de Isla Portillos. A este respecto vale la pena recordar que en octubre del 2010, Nicaragua procedió a retirar sus mapas en formato digital y a editarlos con un cambio en Isla Portillos al iniciar el mes de febrero del 2011. Mientras tanto, a partir de octubre del 2010,  los encargados del dragado del río San Juan refirieron insistentemente a un mapa de Google Earth para justificar su localización en Isla Portillos: la empresa Google Earth reconoció de forma inmediata el error contenido en sus mapas, haciendo no obstante ver que nunca recibió una solicitud formal de parte de Costa Rica antes del 2010 para proceder a rectificarlo. Este  artículo  de prensa publicado en España contiene, a la izquierda, el mapa usado que contiene un error y a la derecha, el mapa rectificado por Google Earth a inicios de noviembre del 2010 (ver también al respecto esta nota de prensa).

Este 16 de diciembre, en su fallo el juez internacional ordenó a Nicaragua compensar a Costa Rica por los daños causados en Isla Portillos (tanto en el 2010 con el caño “Google” o caño “Pastora” como en el 2013 con dos nuevos “caños” detectados gracias a las imágenes satelitales proporcionadas por  un satélite de Colombia a Costa Rica), y fijó un plazo de 12 meses para que ambos Estados acuerden el monto indemnizatorio de forma conjunta (párrafo 142 de la sentencia).

Con relación a esta primera demanda presentada por Costa Rica contra Nicaragua en noviembre del 2010, varias de las peticiones hechas por Costa Rica no fueron aceptadas por parte del juez internacional.

Es el caso de la petición tendiente a obtener que la CIJ declarara que Nicaragua había violado las obligaciones del Artículo IX del tratado Cañas-Jerez de 1858 que se lee así. “Por ningún motivo, ni en caso y estado de guerra, en que por desgracia llegasen á encontrarse las Repúblicas de Nicaragua y Costa Rica, les será permitido ejercer ningún acto de hostilidad entre ellas en el puerto de San Juan del Norte, ni en el río de este nombre y Lago de Nicaragua de no usar el río ejercer ningún acto de hostilidad entre ellas para realizar hostilidades”. El rechazo a esta petición obedece, según la CIJ, a la ausencia de elementos probatorios demostrando que el Río San Juan fuera escenario de algún tipo de hostilidades (párrafo 96 de la sentencia de la CIJ). Una petición similar de Costa Rica a la CIJ, esta vez con relación a la prohibición del uso de la fuerza plasmada en el Artículo 2, párrafo 4 la Carta de Naciones Unidas, y a la prohibición de ocupar un territorio militarmente – aunque sea de manera temporal – consagrada en el Artículo 21 de la Carta de la OEA, también fueron rechazadas por la CIJ (párrafos 96-99).

Otras peticiones hechas por Costa Rica tendientes a acreditar la idea que el dragado realizado por Nicaragua conlleva el riesgo de provocar un daño transfronterizo al río Colorado y  a otros cuerpos de agua situados en Costa Rica fueron rechazadas por la CIJ. En el párrafo 105 se lee que. “Après examen des éléments de preuve versés au dossier, y compris les rapports et exposés des experts que les deux Parties ont fait entendre, la Cour conclut que le programme de dragage envisagé en 2006 n’était pas de nature à créer un risque de dommage transfrontière important, que ce soit à l’égard du débit du fleuve Colorado ou de la zone humide du Costa Rica. En l’absence de risque de dommage transfrontière important, le Nicaragua n’avait pas l’obligation d’effectuer une évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement ». Esta conclusión permitió a la CIJ descartar el examen de una eventual obligación de notificación y de consulta basada en el tratado de 1858,  solicitada por Costa Rica. El juez internacional lo hizo en los siguientes términos en el párrafo 108  de su fallo: « La Cour observe que le fait que le traité de 1858 énonce, en matière de notification et de consultation, des obligations limitées visant certaines situations précises n’a pas pour effet d’écarter d’autres obligations de nature procédurale relatives aux dommages transfrontières, qui pourraient exister en droit international conventionnel ou coutumier. En tout état de cause, la Cour estime que, puisque le droit international n’imposait au Nicaragua aucune obligation d’effectuer une évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement en l’absence de risque de dommage transfrontière important (voir paragraphe 105 ci-dessus), il n’était pas tenu d’informer ou de consulter le Costa Rica ».  De igual forma, se rechazó una violación a lo dispuesto en materia de notificación y consulta que derivaría de la Convención Ramsar (párrafos  109 y 110).

Con relación a otras obligaciones relacionadas con la protección del ambiente, la CIJ rechazó varios puntos formulados por Costa Rica en sus conclusiones finales para que se declarara que Nicaragua violó obligaciones procedimentales  de carácter convencional o consuetudinario (párrafo 112).  En el párrafo 120, la CIJ declaró que Nicaragua no ha violado ninguna obligación al proceder al dragado del San Juan en su curso inferior. En cambio, dictaminó que Nicaragua violó las obligaciones impuestas en las ordenanzas del 2011 al proceder a construir dos nuevos “caños” detectados en setiembre del 2013 (párrafo 129): notemos que dicha detección se dio gracias a tomas satelitales proporcionadas por Colombia a Costa Rica.

En el párrafo 136 de su sentencia, el juez internacional estimó que los derechos de navegación de Costa Rica que resultan del tratado de 1858 fueron violados en dos incidentes (de cinco reportados por Costa Rica), y se abstuvo de examinar la conformidad del reglamento 079-2009 adoptado por Nicaragua en octubre del 2009 para regular la navegación en el San Juan (párrafo 134). Recordemos que Costa Rica había solicitado a la CIJ abrogar el decreto 079-2009, por considerar que limitaba los derechos de navegación de Costa Rica en el San Juan,  provocando una pregunta un tanto airada del juez marroquí Mohamed Bennouna durante las últimas audiencias orales celebradas en abril del 2015 (Nota 5): esta petición fue denegada por la CIJ en su fallo dado a conocer el 16 de diciembre (párrafo 138).

En el párrafo 144, el juez internacional consideró que  “sería inapropiada” aceptar una petición de Costa Rica para que Nicaragua cubriera los gastos en los que incurrió Costa Rica relativos a la etapa que inició con la detección de dos nuevos caños en septiembre del 2013 y culminó con la adopción en noviembre del 2013 de una ordenanza de la CIJ. Se trata de un interesante intento realizado por Costa Rica tendiente a obtener algo similar a la figura (que existe en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense y en otros sistemas jurídicos) de una condenatoria en costas con relación a este preciso episodio del 2013. El juez internacional  la rechaza al considerar que una condenatoria de este tipo  “sería inapropiada”,  sin dar mayores explicaciones al respecto.

Con relación a la segunda demanda:

La CIJ condenó a Costa Rica por no proceder a realizar una Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) al ordenar la construcción de la “Ruta 1856”. En el párrafo 162, leemos que esta obligación deriva del derecho internacional general. Al igual que en el caso anterior, la CIJ procede luego a rechazar varias peticiones hechas por Nicaragua al juez internacional.

La primera, tendiente a ordenar que Costa Rica violó obligaciones de tipo convencional  que también exigen la realización de un evaluación de impacto ambiental, y derivadas de la Convención sobre la Biodiversidad (párrafo  164); la segunda, derivada del tratado de 1858 que, según Nicaragua, obligaba a Costa Rica a notificarle y consultarle sobre los trabajos realizados con la construcción de la ruta 1856: en este caso, la CIJ consideró que la constatación de una violación de Costa Rica a la obligación derivada del derecho internacional general de proceder a una EIA la eximió de analizar la primera petición (párrafo  169) y que no existe, según ella,  obligación de notificación que se pueda establecer  enel tratado de 1858 para una ruta paralela al San Juan (párrafo 171).

En sus conclusiones finales, Nicaragua solicitaba a la CIJ una indemnización por daños al Río San Juan: para la CIJ, Nicaragua no logro aportar datos que demuestren un impacto significativo con relación a la carga sedimentaria adicional causada y sus efectos en la morfología del San Juan (párrafos 196, 207), como tampoco a los ecosistemas y a la calidad del agua (párrafo 213), o con impactos en materia de la salud y de turismo (párrafo 216).

Como se puede apreciar, la CIJ,  fiel a su tradición, se mostró particularmente balanceada en el texto que dio a conocer el pasado 16 de diciembre, permitiendo a ambos Estados hacer ver ante sus respectivas opiniones públicas que sus peticiones fueron aceptadas, mientras que las del adversario fueron rechazadas. Es usual que en esos casos, el primer comunicado de prensa elaborado por cada uno de los dos Estados ponga el acento en lo que mejor imagen le proporcione  (pasando por alto las peticiones que le fueron rechazadas y las peticiones del contrincante que si fueron aceptadas por la CIJ). Este ejercicio es inevitable, y responde a una clara intención del juez internacional, que posee una particularidad con relación a otros jueces: la de buscar siempre una formulación equilibrada en sus sentencias que permita ser positivamente recibidas por ambos contendores, contribuyendo así a apaciguar  los ánimos usualmente enardecidos,  en particular cuando se trata de Estados vecinos.

La necesidad de trabajar de forma conjunta

En varias partes de la sentencia, la CIJ llamó a ambos Estados a cooperar de manera conjunta en asuntos que se relacionen con el Río San Juan, tal y como por ejemplo en el párrafo 228 que se lee así: “Elle tient par ailleurs à rappeler l’importance d’une coopération continue entre les Parties dans l’exécution des obligations qui leur incombent respectivement en ce qui concerne le fleuve San Juan». Este llamado a cooperar en asuntos técnicos relacionados con aspectos ligados a la gestión ambiental de una cuenca compartida como la del San Juan nos recuerda el llamado en un sentido similar hecho desde la primera ordenanza dictaminada en marzo del 2011 con relación a la demanda relacionada a Isla Portillos, y que fue desaprovechada por uno de los contrincantes con base en información a la fecha no revelada (Nota 6).

Con relación a actividades futuras de Costa Rica en la zona aledaña al Río San Juan, la CIJ indicó que Costa Rica deberá consultar a Nicaragua cuando los trabajos relacionados con la ruta 1856 supongan un riesgo de daño transfronterizo importante.  Lo hizo en los siguientes términos que procedemos a reproducir, del párrafo 173: “En conclusion, la Cour constate que le Costa Rica a manqué à son obligation d’évaluer l’impact environnemental de la construction de la route. Il demeure tenu de procéder à une évaluation appropriée relativement à tous nouveaux travaux qu’il envisagerait d’exécuter sur la route ou dans la zone adjacente au fleuve San Juan et qui présenteraient un risque de dommage transfrontière important. Le Costa Rica admet lui-même être tenu à pareille obligation. Il n’y a pas lieu de supposer que, lorsqu’il entreprendra de nouveaux travaux dans ce secteur, notamment dans le cadre de la construction de la route, il ne tiendra pas compte des motifs et des conclusions énoncés dans le présent arrêt. La Cour relève par ailleurs que le Nicaragua s’est, à l’audience, engagé à coopérer avec le Costa Rica pour l’évaluation de l’impact de tels travaux sur le fleuve. Elle considère à cet égard que, si les circonstances l’exigent, le Costa Rica devra consulter de bonne foi le Nicaragua, qui a souveraineté sur le fleuve San Juan, en vue de définir les mesures propres à prévenir la survenance de dommages transfrontières importants ou à en réduire le risque ». En el párrafo 227 precisa nuevamente lo señalado en el párrafo 173, haciendo énfasis en  que la obligación de Costa Rica de proceder a una EIA aplica únicamente para actividades que supongan un riesgo de daño transfronterizo importante : « Comme elle l’a dit au paragraphe 173 ci-dessus, l’obligation du Costa Rica d’effectuer une évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement ne vaut que pour les activités comportant un risque de dommage transfrontière important, et il n’y a pas lieu de supposer que le Costa Rica ne se conformera pas aux obligations lui incombant en vertu du droit international, telles qu’énoncées dans le présent arrêt, dans le cadre des activités qu’il pourrait mener à l’avenir dans la région, y compris de nouveaux travaux routiers ».

Con relación a las futuras operaciones de dragado a ser emprendidas por Nicaragua, en el párrafo 122 de la sentencia leemos que la CIJ “tomó nota” de aseveraciones hechas por Nicaragua durante su defensa con relación a cualquier ampliación de sus operaciones de dragado futuras y el compromiso de proceder a un nuevo estudio de impacto ambiental: “Elle prend acte de l’engagement du Nicaragua, formulé au cours de la procédure orale, de procéder à une nouvelle étude de l’impact sur l’environnement avant toute expansion d’ampleur de son programme de dragage actuel. Elle remarque par ailleurs que le Nicaragua a déclaré qu’il veillerait à ce que pareille étude comporte une analyse des risques de dommage transfrontière et ferait en sorte d’informer et de consulter le Costa Rica dans le cadre de ce processus ».

Para llegar a estas y muchas otras conclusiones, el debate interno en la CIJ parece haber sido álgido, en la medida en que 10 jueces titulares de los 15 externaron algún desacuerdo con alguna parte del texto acordado por la CIJ: ver sobre este aspecto el  listado  y el acceso al texto de cada una de las declaraciones individuales y conjuntas. A estas últimas hay que añadir la disonancia tradicional que externan usualmente los dos jueces ad hoc designados por cada parte: en este caso la opinión individual de 16 páginas (ver texto   en inglés) del juez  John Dugard (sudafricano, juez ad hoc de Costa Rica) y la declaración de ocho páginas del juez Gilbert Guillaume (francés, juez ad hoc de Nicaragua) (ver texto en francés).

Breves observaciones con relación a la Ruta 1856 o “trocha fronteriza”:

Como bien se sabe, se trata de lo que la CIJ denomina como una ruta paralela al río,  y que ha sido presentada por las autoridades de Costa Rica durante la administración (2010-2014) como una “obra prioritara” de 160 kilómetros que bordea el río San Juan y  parte de la frontera terrestre entre Puesto Delta y Los Chiles, iniciada en diciembre del 2010. De manera a apreciar la relación existente entre esos 160 kilómetros y la ubicación geográfica de Isla Portillos, remitimos al lector al tercer mapa de esta modesta  nota  publicada por el Observatoire pour l´Amérique Latine et les Caraïbes (OPALC) en mayo del 2015.

En Costa Rica, es más conocida popularmente como la  “trocha fronteriza”, que analizamos desde la perspectiva internacional en una publicación de la UCR (Nota 7). Fue también denominada por el ingeniero René Castro Salazar (Canciller y luego Ministro de Ambiente de Costa Rica) como un “camino rústico” en un artículo publicado en enero del 2012 (ver artículo). “Ruta”, “camino rústico”, “trocha” son términos distintos, pero refieren a la misma iniciativa. Esta “obra” fue objeto de un interesante  informe  en junio del 2012 por parte de un ente que puede ayudar a entender mejor la diferencia entre estos términos, el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica (CFIA). Dejamos al lector revisar las conclusiones del CFIA. Al finalizar el 2012, la antes mencionada “obra” fue calificada como el escándalo del año (ver  nota  de CRHoy). Las comillas usadas por el autor en las dos frases precedentes se deben al hecho que una obra presupone un diseño y estudios previos: tenemos sobre este punto preciso la firme convicción que las obras, como entidades, también merecen respeto.

Sobre este último punto cabe señalar que los responsables de sugerir tan peculiar iniciativa se han mostrado extremadamente evasivos (ver   nota  del Semanario Universidad de abril del 2013 titulada “Todos alabaron la trocha, pero nadie asumió la paternidad”). En agosto del 2012, un reportaje de La Nación dio píe para una acción penal por presunta difamación contra una periodista por parte de dos figuras públicas de Costa Rica al ver su nombre aparecer en un reportaje sobre la trocha fronteriza, acción finalmente desestimada por los tribunales de justicia en enero del 2013 (ver  nota  de prensa titulada “Tribunal vio innecesario juicio contra periodista”). En declaraciones ante diputados se oyó que se “trato de coordinación de esfuerzos de órganos diversos /…/ en aras de afrontar la emergencia que se vivía” (escuchar parte de audio de declaraciones del Ex Ministro de Seguridad José María Tijerino Pacheco). En agosto del 2012, declaraciones ante una Comisión Parlamentaria arrojó algunos nombres, sin que se tenga claridad de cómo operó la cadena de mando que permita remontar a lo que podríamos denominar el “punto de ignición” (ver  nota  de CRHoy). Se indicó sobre una de estas comparecencias en Cuesta de Mora (sede de la Asamblea Legislativa) que hubo intentos de acallar a los comparecientes por parte de algunas bancadas parlamentarias (ver  nota   del Semanario Universidad de junio del 2012 titulada “CONAVI paga a contratistas de trocha mientras se investiga corrupción”): “Sería muy lamentable que con esas bravuconadas pretendan acallar gente o sepultar el trabajo de esta comisión, solo por las críticas que se lancen a la cuestionada vía”, dijo el diputado socialcristiano Luis Fishman, quien con su compañero de bancada Walter Céspedes y Manrique Oviedo, del Partido Acción Ciudadana, ofrecieron disculpas al representante del CFIA”. En febrero del 2013 se leyó  en el Semanario Universidad (ver  nota  titulada “Comisión legislativa sobre trocha llamará a los actores políticos”) que para José María Tijerino Pacheco, ex Ministro de Seguridad de Costa Rica: “es una idea tan buena, que no quiero ser inmodesto y arrogarme la paternidad de ella”. En un artículo anterior publicado en La Nación al finalizar enero del 2013 el mismo funcionario había hecho ver dos graves imprecisiones con relación a una cadena de mando publicada dos días antes en La Nación sobre la construcción de una vía paralela al San Juan (ver  artículo   titulado “Dos graves inexactitudes”): se lee que “La primera de ellas es la de que la presidenta de la República, Laura Chinchilla, delegó en mí la tarea de construir dicha carretera, aseveración errónea puesto que la construcción de caminos o carreteras no es atribución del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública”. También se lee que  “La segunda inexactitud consiste en que se me vincula con dicha ruta en setiembre de 2011, mes en el que yo ya tenía cinco meses de haber cesado en el cargo de ministro de Seguridad Pública y ya estaba nombrado como embajador ante el Gobierno de la República Oriental del Uruguay”.

En marzo del 2013, diputados de oposición, quiénes sí benefician de inmunidad – a diferencia de una periodista – insistieron nuevamente sobre el tema (ver  nota  de prensa titulada “Diputados insisten en participación de Adrián Chinchilla y Carlos Espinach en decisiones sobre trocha”). Las diversas comparecencias ante una comisión legislativa no lograron identificar con precisión a los responsables de sugerir la construcción de la hoy famosa trocha fronteriza costarricense.

A la fecha, la trocha fronteriza es objeto de 31 informes relativos a “posibles anomalías” (según  nota  reciente de La Nación del 18/12/2015). Las “posibles anomalías”  deben ahora ser dilucidadas de manera a explicar el destino exacto de una cifra de cientos de millones de dólares: el Fiscal Adjunto Anti Corrupción recientemente, en declaraciones a la radio,  dio el dato de unos 16.000 millones de colones (unos 300 millones de US$), reportados también por la prensa en marzo del año en curso (ver nota de CRHoy): si bien la suma avanzada ya es cuantiosa,  refiere únicamente a los fondos recibidos por una sola institución, el Consejo Nacional de Vialidad (CONAVI). En la nota precitada del Semanario Universidad, se indica que: “Entre las cosas que los diputados buscan aclarar,  a cuánto asciende lo gastado en la trocha; lo que no está claro, ya que el CONAVI había dicho que el gasto era de ¢19.500 millones, y la CNE reportó a la Contraloría General de la República un presupuesto de ¢9.000 y otro de ¢10.000 millones en fondos destinados a la trocha, lo que sumaría más de ¢38.000 millones. Pero el ejecutivo había autorizado además gastos por miles de millones de colones del Ministerio de Seguridad, MOPT, MINAET, y no se ha aclarado cuánto del dinero se ha gastado”.

Más allá de los números y de los intentos de unos y otros de maquillar o minimizar el monto (o emprenderla contra expertos) para evitar saber cuál es la magnitud exacta del daño causado al erario público costarricense, es de recordar que esta trocha fronteriza siempre se justificó oficialmente como una “respuesta” a la “invasión” y a la “agresión” sufridas por Costa Rica en Isla Portillos.  Las comillas usadas nuevamente por el autor en la frase anterior obedecen al hecho que lo ocurrido en Isla Portillos nunca calificó, desde la perspectiva del derecho internacional, como una “invasión” o una “agresión”, sino como una incursión y ocupación ilegal del territorio costarricense. Sobre este preciso punto (de carácter estrictamente semántico para algunos, y como tal de relevancia relativa), un funcionario de la cancillería de Costa Rica admitió en una de las primeras preguntas realizadas por la periodista Natalia Rodríguez Mata la diferencia existente entre estos diversos términos  y reconoció que desde el punto de vista jurídico “agresión “ e “invasión “ no aplicaban  a la situación acaecida en Isla Portillos (ver el  video  disponible en You Tube del programa Sobre la Mesa de agosto 2013, Canal 15 UCR). El funcionario justificó no obstante ante las cámaras del canal universitario el uso de la palabra “invasión”, según sus propios términos “para que la gente entienda” (Minuto 7:23).

En una de las pocas  notas de prensa  (titulada “Asesor jurídico tico admite que lo ocurrido en Portillos no es invasión ni agresión”) sobre esta interesante aseveración hecha pública tan sólo en el mes de agosto del 2013, se leyó que: “existió un engaño para el pueblo” y que: “sin proponérselo, viene ahora a revelar la existencia de una conducta cínica e irresponsable del gobierno de Costa Rica, que exagera y deforma los hechos con fines patrioteros y demagógicos“. En recientes declaraciones, el Fiscal Adjunto Anti Corrupción acotó precisamente, en el marco de la investigación realizada por la Fiscalía, que parte del “ardid” – según sus propios términos – consistió “en  aumentar la situación de emergencia para distraer el uso de los fondos públicos” (ver segundo audio en esta  nota  del programa Radial Amelia Rueda del 17/12/2015).

Un detalle en el fallo de la CIJ pasado casi desapercibido

Notemos que en junio del 2012, la Sala Constitucional de Costa Rica rechazó “ad portas” un recurso de inconstitucionalidad contra el Decreto de emergencia  (ver  texto  del voto 8420-2012) que consagró jurídicamente una situación de “emergencia” en Costa Rica. La CIJ en su fallo llegó a una conclusión totalmente opuesta sobre este punto. En efecto, en el párrafo 158 de la sentencia leída en La Haya el pasado 16 de diciembre del 2015, se lee que para la CIJ:. “.. la Cour estime que, dans les circonstances de l’espèce, le Costa Rica n’a pas démontré l’existence d’une urgence justifiant de construire la route sans entreprendre d’évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement. En effet, l’exécution des travaux était prévue dès le départ pour durer plusieurs années, ce qui s’est confirmé par la suite. De plus, lorsque le Costa Rica a entrepris la construction de la route, la situation dont le territoire litigieux était le théâtre avait déjà été portée devant la Cour, laquelle a, peu de temps après, indiqué des mesures conservatoires. Si le Costa Rica soutient que la route était destinée à faciliter l’évacuation de la portion de territoire costa-ricien adjacente au fleuve San Juan, la Cour constate que la route ne donne accès qu’à une partie de cette région et ne pouvait donc constituer une réponse à l’urgence alléguée que dans une mesure limitée. Par ailleurs, le Costa Rica n’a pas démontré l’existence d’une menace imminente d’affrontement militaire dans les régions traversées par la route. Enfin, il est rappelé que le décret proclamant l’état d’urgence a été pris par le Costa Rica le 21 février 2011, soit après le début des travaux routiers “.  En caso de alguna duda de nuestros lectores, reproducimos la versión en inglés del mismo extracto del párrafo 158 de la sentencia de la CIJ leída el pasado 16 de diciembre del 2015:  “the Court considers that, in the circumstances of this case, Costa Rica has not shown the existence of an emergency that justified constructing the road without undertaking an environmental impact assessment. In fact, completion of the project was going to take, and is indeed taking, several years. In addition, when Costa Rica embarked upon the construction of the road, the situation in the disputed territory was before the Court, which shortly thereafter issued provisional measures. Although Costa Rica maintains that the construction of the road was meant to facilitate the evacuation of the area of Costa Rican territory adjoining the San Juan River, the Court notes that the road provides access to only part of that area and thus could constitute a response to the alleged emergency only to a limited extent. Moreover, Costa Rica has not shown an imminent threat of military confrontation in the regions crossed by the road. Finally, the Court notes that the Executive Decree proclaiming an emergency was issued by Costa Rica on 21 February 2011, after the works on the road had begun”.

Estamos por lo tanto en presencia de un fallo de la CIJ que contradice lo dispuesto en una decisión de la Sala Constitucional de Costa Rica: sobre esta última, compuesta por siete integrantes, cabe señalar que su Presidenta en aquel momento Ana Virginia Calzada Miranda y el Magistrado Fernando Cruz Castro salvaron ambos su voto, optando por admitir el recurso de inconstitucionalidad presentado contra el decreto de emergencia, en junio del 2012. No se ha tenido acceso a las razones expuestas por ambos magistrados para separarse de la posición de sus colegas en la Sala Constitucional, y sería tal vez de gran interés conocerlas.

Independientemente del debate interno en el seno del máximo órgano de la justicia constitucional de Costa Rica sobre lo qué se debe entender por una “emergencia nacional” (que dicho sea de paso no provocó ruptura alguna de las relaciones diplomáticas ni comerciales entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua), los medios de prensa, los analistas y observadores, así como los órganos de control y fiscalización del Estado costarricense tienen ante sí un interesante desafío que ahora se abre posterior al fallo de la CIJ:  en efecto, sin proponérselo,  los jueces de La Haya han puesto en entredicho gran parte de la retórica discursiva usada por parte de las autoridades  de Costa Rica para justificar la denominada “trocha fronteriza” entre el 2010 y el 2012. Parte de esta retórica, que refiere a la “urgencia” y a la “emergencia” para justificarla, se dejó nuevamente entrever durante un debate reciente que tuvimos, previo a la lectura del fallo de la CIJ, con el periodista Carlos Roverssi Rojas (quien durante la administración (2010-2014) fuera en un primer momento designado como Vice Canciller en el período mayo 2010- junio 2013 y a partir de junio del 2013 Ministro de Comunicación): el debate matutino fue realizado en el programa RTNoticias, 24 horas antes de leerse el fallo de la CIJ (ver  video  en You Tube de emisión matutina realizada el 15/12/2015). Al insistir sobre el punto de saber quién sugirió la trocha, y pedir, por parte de la periodista Denise Mora López que se confirmara si se puede considerar al Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte (MOPT) como responsable de la trocha, se oyó por parte de nuestro distinguido contrincante  que “No, los responsables de la trocha somos todos, y Costa Rica en general” (Minuto 24:18).

Dado a conocer el fallo de la CIJ, el jurista Alvaro Sagot Rodríguez, renombrado especialista en derecho ambiental en Costa Rica, quien interpuso el recurso ante la Sala contra la “emergencia” decretada como tal el 7 de marzo del 2011 hizo ver que ahora la Sala Constitucional debería también explicarse: ver al respecto  nota con audio  del 17/12/2015 en el Programa radial Nuestra Voz, de Amelia Rueda titulada “Abogado ambientalista: Quienes criticamos daños por trocha no somos “malos costarricenses”.  En ese mismo programa radial oído 24 horas después del fallo de la CIJ, el Fiscal Adjunto Anti Corrupción  precisó que el fallo de la CIJ “nos viene a dar la razón en una de las hipótesis que nosotros tenemos planteadas”  (ver el segundo audio disponible en la  nota  del programa Nuestra Voz de Amelia Rueda titulado “Llegan a 44 los imputados por peculado en construcción de trocha fronteriza, confirma Fiscalía” ). La diferencia entre los “buenos” y los “malos” costarricenses a los que alude el profesor Alvaro Sagot Rodriguez proviene de declaraciones (a nuestro modesto entender sumamente cuestionables)  de la Presidenta Laura Chinchilla Miranda contra los ciudadanos costarricenses que se opusieron desde un inicio a la construcción de la trocha sin ningún estudio sobre su posible impacto ambiental (ver  nota  de CRHoy titulada “Decreto de emergencia por trocha violenta principios de la Sala IV”).   Es menester recordar que fue un puñado de pequeñas organizaciones sociales en Costa Rica las que en diciembre del 2011 externaron su oposición a la ausencia de  una EIA para construir la vía paralela al San Juan y  que señalaron de manera categórica que: “7. Solicitamos que se investigue de manera exhaustiva la existencia de daños ambientales causados por la construcción de la carretera y se aclare de una vez por todas si existen estudios previos de impacto ambiental para su construcción. 8. Solicitamos al Poder Ejecutivo de la República de Costa Rica que proceda a corregir, con la mayor brevedad posible, con el afán de proteger nuestro ambiente, por el bien de las comunidades fronterizas y por el correcto uso de los fondos públicos de todas y todos los costarricenses, las omisiones que en materia de protección ambiental y legal existan en relación con esa carretera. 9. Solicitamos al Poder Ejecutivo costarricense que de manera transparente se aplique la vía ordinaria (no de emergencia) para contratar y planificar la mejor carretera que podamos tener los costarricenses, con apego irrestricto a la legislación en materia ambiental y de construcción de obra pública”. Se trata de las siguientes entidades, que merecen ser mencionadas y conocidas: Arte por la Paz, Asociación Ambiental del Norte de San Rafael de Heredia (Conceverde), Asociación Conservacionista Yiski, Comité Bandera Azul Ecológica de San Miguel de Santo Domingo, Comité Cívico de Cañas, Confraternidad Guanacasteca, Movimiento Patriótico Juanito Mora, Palabra Cero y la Unión Norte por la Vida (UNOVIDA) (ver texto de comunicado conjunto publicado en Tribuna Democrática).

La dureza de los términos usados por la Presidenta Chinchilla sobre los “malos” y los “buenos” costarricenses recuerda un discurso pronunciado en octubre del 2010 por la misma Presidenta Laura Chinchilla en San Carlos ante la Cámara de Ganaderos, llamando al auditorio a ayudarla a “levantar la voz contra algunos grupos radicales … que quieren convertir a Costa Rica en un museo de historia natural” (escuchar  audio ).

En la precitada nota de CRHoy se lee que para la Defensora de los Habitantes de la época (Ombdusman), una duda se debió de imponer desde un inicio al tratarse de una extensa línea de 160 kilómetros en la geografía norteña Costa Rica: “Va a haber una frontera de 166 kilómetros abierta, lo que era fango y selva quedó abierta. ¿Está Costa Rica en la capacidad de vigilar 166 km de frontera abierta? Esta es una pregunta interesante”.

Conclusión

Si bien de ambos lados del Río San Juan, se oyeron mañaneros cantos de sirena este 16 de diciembre, consecuencia casi “natural” de los fallos de la CIJ, las sirenas se hicieron un poco más insistentes de este lado del Río San Juan, debido a la soberanía recobrada por Costa Rica en Isla Portillos: ello es entendible en la medida en que se trata de un ámbito en el que la opinión pública y los decisores políticos se muestran siempre mucho más sensibles. No obstante, y conforme a su práctica, el fallo de la CIJ equilibra de manera muy sutil las obligaciones de ambos Estados con relación a proyectos susceptibles de generar un daño transfronterizo, invita en varias partes del texto a ambos Estados a coordinar esfuerzos y a retomar iniciativas conjuntas; y, como era previsible, recrimina a los dos Estados por justificar y defender dos proyectos verdaderamente originales:

1-     Una operación de dragado en el delta del San Juan ubicada de manera equivocada a partir de un mapa de Google Earth erróneo, y liderada por el popularmente conocido “Comandate 0”, llevando este último a ubicarse en un territorio considerado como costarricense desde el acta de demarcación conjunta adoptada en 1900 por Costa Rica y Nicaragua, y;

2-     la “respuesta” (también original, y, a diferencia de la anterior, sin paternidad asumida a la fecha) larga de 160 kilómetros que bordea el río San Juan y parte de la frontera terrestre. Si bien se denomina popularmente “trocha”, el ancho en algunos de sus segmentos (ver foto usada para ilustrar el  número  especial de la Revista Ambientico) indica que tampoco entra en la definición dada de este término por la Real Academia Española.  Ni es una obra, ni tampoco una trocha: obtener la identidad de sus escurridizos autores intelectuales permitirá, estamos seguros, conocer  qué es lo que tenían en mente desde un inicio.

Conforme vayan perdiendo intensidad los cantos de victoria, es posible asistamos a un acercamiento entre ambos ribereños del San Juan, siempre y cuando ambos aparatos diplomáticos deseen aprovechar esta ocasión que les brinda la justicia internacional. Este espacio de tiempo para intentar relanzar una relación bilateral venida a menos responde precisamente a la intención del juez internacional, que siempre se deja entrever en sus decisiones. Ello podría explicar (al menos en parte) la mesura externada en las primeras declaraciones del mandatario Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera y de la vocera del Gobierno de Nicaragua, Rosario Murillo Zambrana horas después de oído el fallo de la CIJ.

Las comunidades fronterizas en ambos Estados son las más afectadas por estas repetitivas, recurrentes y largas justas en sede judicial internacional, así como la comunidad nicaragüense en Costa Rica y la comunidad costarricense en Nicaragua: estas, y muchas familias con miembros pertenecientes a ambos Estados, esperan ansiosas desde muchos años que sus respectivas capitales inviertan su valioso tiempo y sus escasos recursos en iniciativas conjuntas que permitan mejorar sustancialmente las relaciones entre ambos Estados, y por ende, relanzar la agenda binacional y la cooperación entre las regiones fronterizas.

Desde el punto de vista internacional, el fallo leído viene a resolver dos de las tres demandas pendientes de resolución en La Haya. Como se recordará el período (2010-2014) fue el escenario de una recurrencia nunca vista en la historia mundial de la diplomacia: Costa Rica y Nicaragua acumularon  tres demandas distintas en tres año y medio, habiendo Costa Rica presentado la última en febrero del 2014 sobre la delimitación en ambos océanos, la cual constituye un ejercicio sumamente riesgoso para Costa Rica (Nota 8). A diferencia de un acuerdo mutuo para someter de manera conjunta una controversia a la CIJ, estas tres demandas fueron presentadas de forma unilateral: bien se sabe que la demanda unilateral siempre es percibida por el demandado como un gesto poco amistoso. Según las palabras del ex juez de la CIJ (1987-2003) y ex Presidente de la misma (2000-2003), el jurista francés Gilbert Guillaume (y que nos permitimos citar en razón de su larga experiencia como juez): “C´est que là le recours unilatéral à la justice internationale est trop souvent vécu par les Etats comme une détérioration de leurs relations. Il est fréquemment ressenti comme un ultime appel ou comme un atout supplémentaire dans une négociation parallèle difficile. Dans l´une ou l´autre perspective, il est une nécessité difficilement acceptée plus qu´une solution aisément consentie » (Nota 9).

Del lado de Costa Rica, conforme los cantos de sirenas embriagantes y sus ecos en algunas repetidoras locales se vayan dispersando, es posible que muchas dudas empiecen a aflorar y que se retomen muchas investigaciones en curso, las cuales, en su mayoría, fueron “suspendidas” en aras de evitar que pudieran ser usadas por Nicaragua contra Costa Rica en La Haya. El retomar sin excusa ni reserva estas líneas de investigación constituye, a nuestro modesto entender, una consecuencia que deriva del fallo de la CIJ. Ello en aras de explicar al país cómo fue que una ocupación ilegal en un territorio de 2,8 kilómetros cuadrados denominado Isla Portillos en el extremo Noreste de la frontera sirviera de base para crear una atmósfera de “emergencia nacional”, de “país invadido”,  de “amenaza inminente”, dando pié para algo calificado por uno de los funcionarios de la época a cargo de su ejecución, como un verdadero “proyecto de guerra”  (Nota 10).

Nicolas Boeglin 

Nicolas Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica, (UCR)

Notas

Nota 1: El Profesor Philippe Weckel (Francia), a cargo durante muchos años de la sección “Jurisprudence Internationale” en la prestigiosa Revue Générale de Droit International Public (RGDIP) calificó esta decisión del 13 de julio de la CIJ como una verdadera “tarea de vacaciones mal hecha »  (traducción de« devoir de vacances bâclé »). Sin mayor complacencia por esta tarea encomendada por Costa Rica al juez de La Haya en el 2005, escribió:  « on n’a jamais vu décision aussi mal rédigée ! Le constat est totalement inattendu et, à vrai dire, proprement incroyable. A la lecture des motifs on découvre que certaines conclusions ne sont même pas étayées ou alors qu’elles le sont d’une manière si sommaire ou elliptique qu’elles apparaissent fausses ». El profesor Weckel continua con una pregunta a la que el mismo contesta: « Que penser, que dire de ce devoir de vacances bâclé ? L’arrêt du 13 juillet 2009 ne mérite pas un commentaire » (Véase WECKEL Ph., Note, Sentinelle, SFDI, Bulletin Numéro 196 (Juillet 2009). Disponible  aquí . En un comentario crítico sobre esta decisión, también publicado en Francia, la autora advertía en el 2010 que, debido a la falta de motivación en varias partes del texto,  era poco probable que esta decisión de la CIJ resolviera definitivamente el tema de la navegación en el río San Juan entre sus dos ribereños. Véase CASSELLA S., « Rééquilibrer les effets inéquitables d’une délimitation territoriale : l’arrêt de la Cour internationale de Justice du 13 juillet 2009 dans l’affaire du Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) », Volume 55 AFDI (2009), pp. 253-277, p. 254 y conclusiones en p. 277. Artículo disponible aquí.

Nota 2: Cabe recordar que en 1998 Costa Rica y Nicaragua intentaron resolver mediante negociaciones diplomáticas el delicado tema de la portación de armas de policías de Costa Rica en tareas de operaciones de vigilancia y de abastecimiento de puestos fronterizos en las aguas del río San Juan. Costa Rica basaba este uso en las disposiciones del tratado de 1858 que refieren a competencias en materia de “guarda” del San Juan (artículo IV), mientras que Nicaragua, si bien no objetaba el ejercicio de este derecho como tal, se mostraba indispuesta con el uso de armas de cierto calibre para estas tareas y cuestionaba que los policías de Costa Rica pudieran navegar con estas sin pedir autorización alguna. El acuerdo alcanzado conocido como el acuerdo Cuadra-Lizano suscrito en julio de 1998, en tan solo cuatro artículos (ver texto del acuerdo), logró plasmar una solución técnica a un problema técnico, en lo que pareciera ser el último ejercicio de negociación bilateral exitoso entre ambos Estados. Lamentablemente, Nicaragua desconocería días después este acuerdo debido a cuestionamientos en Nicaragua (ver nota de La Nación de agosto de 1998). Leemos en esta misma nota un detalle de cierto interés, redactado por quién hoy es Ministro de Comunicación en Costa Rica: “ /…/ el director de la Policía de Fronteras, coronel Max Cayetano Vega, circuló una nota entre los guardias civiles donde les notifica que podrán transitar el río siempre y cuando informen a los soldados nicaragüenses. La nota advirtió a los policías que “deberán observar una conducta adecuada, sin hacer alardes de prepotencia o exhibicionismo” /…/”. La denuncia posterior del acuerdo Cuadra-Lizano por parte de Nicaragua iniciaría una fase de incertidumbre y de turbulencia entre ambos Estados. Posteriormente, las buenas relaciones personales entre los mandatarios de ambos Estados llevarían a negociar un acuerdo para que Costa Rica no presentara demanda alguna durante 3 años (acuerdo Tovar-Caldera suscrito el 26 de septiembre del 2002). Vencido el plazo establecido, y sin que hayan trascendido datos sobre reuniones o negociaciones entre ambos, Costa Rica anunció que acudiría a la CIJ en el 2005 (ver nota de La Nación) para defender este y otros derechos de navegación. Pese a que se presentó como favorable para Costa Rica dado que la CIJ ordenó a Nicaragua no exigir visados para embarcaciones turísticas de Costa Rica, obtuvo un fallo adverso sobre el uso de las aguas del San Juan por parte de sus policías (ver texto de la sentencia del 13 de julio del 2009 de la CIJ, y en particular el párrafo 156 inciso h, adoptado por unanimidad por los jueces de la CIJ): se trata de un interesante ejercicio ante la CIJ en el que un derecho de un Estado estipulado en un tratado de 1858 (cuyo ejercicio es aceptado de manera reticente por el otro Estado más no ignorado) finaliza ante los jueces de La Haya (a solicitud de su titular) con su negación.

Nota 3 : En un artículo de opinión (ver texto) publicado en febrero del 2011, la Ministra de Seguridad de Costa Rica a partir del 14 de abril  2008 hasta abril del 2010  explicó que  el desmantelamiento de la Policía de Fronteras, cuerpo especializado de la Policía de Costa Rica, se debió a una decisión de la Oficina de Planificación del 2008 y que (advertimos al lector que se trata de una sola frase que no lleva un solo punto): “Miente quien diga que durante mi gestión se “eliminó la Policía de Fronteras” y que hubo un “error estratégico”, afirmaciones de tipo mediático y propagandístico, sin asidero operativo ni legal, pues antes de que asumiera como ministra, ya la Oficina de Planificación, ante un dictamen de la Asesoría Jurídica del Ministerio, había concluido que no se podía conformar una Dirección de Policía de Fronteras dejando de lado la vigilancia aérea de esta zona, que ya existía el Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas para el resguardo de las fronteras marítimas, de las aguas marítimas jurisdiccionales e interiores, y que al existir organizacionalmente una Dirección de Vigilancia Aérea, esta no podía estar contenida dentro de la Policía de Fronteras” (sic). En enero del 2011, el Ministro de Seguridad de Costa Rica entre mayo del 2006 y su “no renuncia” el 30 de marzo del 2008 (ver  nota  de Aldia) afirmó en esta mismo espacio de opinión que (ver artículo) que: “En materia de seguridad nacional y seguridad ciudadana, se cometió el gran error, entre muchos otros, de eliminar la Policía de Fronteras, en el segundo semestre del 2008. Un error estratégico y geopolítico, cuyas consecuencias negativas llegan hasta los hechos de la isla Calero y la ocupación sandinista”. De este intercambio cruzado de recriminaciones, no queda claro cuáles fueron las decisiones que se tomaron en Costa Rica posterior al fallo del 13 de julio del 2009 de la CIJ para reforzar la vigilancia de la frontera fluvial  y superar la limitante que le significó la prohibición hecha a Costa Rica de usar el San Juan para fines policiales: se trata de un interrogante que, a la hora de redactar estas líneas, se mantiene como tal.

Nota 4: Sobre el lento proceso de « fabricación » de un fallo de la CIJ, remitimos a unos de los mejores textos jamás escritos sobre el particular, obra del juez argelino Mohamed Bedjaoui : BEDJAOUI M., “La “fabrication” des arrêts de la Cour Internationale de Justice“, in Mélanges Michel Virally, Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du développement, Paris, Pedone, 1991, pp. 86-107.

Nota 5: Al terminar las audiencias del día 15 de abril, (ver acta disponible  aquí ), se lee que el juez marroquí Mohamed Bennouna hizo la siguiente pregunta a la delegación de Costa Rica: “Ma question est la suivante : est-ce que le Costa Rica attend de la Cour qu’elle se prononce sur la compatibilité avec l’arrêt de la Cour de 2009 sur le droit de navigation des réglementations édictées par le Nicaragua pour la mise en œuvre de cet arrêt ? Et si c’était le cas, le Costa Rica peut-il préciser le lien de cette question avec l’objet du différend ? Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président” (p. 45).

Nota 6:  En aquella ocasión de marzo del 2011, la oportunidad brindada por el juez internacional fue desaprovechada por Costa Rica: a pocas horas de dictaminada la ordenanza de la CIJ del 8 de marzo del 2011, el Ministro de Seguridad  de Costa Rica refirió a “informes de inteligencia” (a la fecha no divulgados) sobre un posible minado en Isla Portillos por parte de Nicaragua (ver  nota  de prensa). Los analistas y observadores descubrirían días después que el 7 de marzo del 2011 (es decir, 24 horas antes de leerse la ordenanza por parte de la CIJ) se había publicado en el Alcance de la Gaceta Oficial de Costa Rica el “Decreto de Emergencia”, base legal para lo que se denominaría con posterioridad la “trocha fronteriza”. 

Nota 7: Véase BOEGLIN N., “La denominada “trocha fronteriza” desde la perspectiva del derecho internacional”,  Revista Estudios UCR, 2013, Ver texto disponible   aquí  .

Nota 8: Esta demanda no es exenta de riesgos para Costa Rica: en un fallo del 2007 entre Nicaragua y Honduras, la CIJ rechazo la pretensión hondureña de una línea horizontal para delimitar el Océano Atlántico, mientras que en el Pacífico, a diferencia de Costa Rica (que gracias a la isla del Coco, beneficia de una de las mayores Zonas Económicas Exclusivas (ZEE) en América Latina), Nicaragua no cuenta con ninguna isla.  La CIJ se ha inclinado en algunos fallos a favorecer a un Estado geográficamente desventajado. Sobre el particular, remitimos al lector a nuestra breve  nota  publicada en su momento, en la que señalamos que: “En razón de la configuración distinta en ambas costas, ambos Estados recurren a criterios un tanto disímiles: mientras que en el Caribe Nicaragua pareciera proceder a una delimitación de tipo horizontal, como la intentada recientemente por Chile contra Perú ante la CIJ, la misma Nicaragua recurre a la dirección del último trayecto de la línea fronteriza terrestre para delimitar las aguas en el Océano Pacífico. Recordemos que en el Pacífico se da un fenómeno único muy importante para la pesca, de forma permanente o casi, el “domo térmico”. Estos criterios de delimitación son muy distintos al de la dirección general de la frontera terrestre usado por la CIJ para fijar las dos fronteras marítimas de Nicaragua con Honduras en ambos mares. Este último criterio aplicado a la frontera marítima entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua en el Caribe podría dar lugar a una línea más inclinada hacia el sur que la línea horizontal que pareciera querer respetar Nicaragua. Ese mismo criterio técnico daría un resultado más favorable a Costa Rica en el Pacífico que la línea actualmente trazada por Nicaragua. Cada costa siendo distinta desde el punto de vista de su configuración geográfica, y desde el punto de vista de los recursos pesqueros y los identificados en su subsuelo, los argumentos deberán necesariamente variar en función de cada costa. Ello coloca a ambos Estados, en particular a la parte demandante, en una delicada posición desde el punto de vista de la solidez de la consistencia jurídica que deberá defender ante el juez internacional”.

Nota 9: Véase GUILLAUME G.,  La Cour International de Justice à l´aube du XXI ème siècle. Le regard d´un juge, Paris Pedone, 2003, p. 7.

Nota 10: Referimos al lector a la  nota  de prensa publicada en La Nación en diciembre del 2012 titulada “Carlos Acosta: ‘Este (la trocha) fue un proyecto de guerra’.

“Reason with this: Who is carrying out senseless killings in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon? They are the same people carrying out attacks here, and we know them. We cannot be cowed” – Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky

According to the Nigerian Government forces, a traffic infringement justifies the massacre of over 1000 Muslims who were performing the religious ceremony of ushering in the new month of Maulud, honouring  the birth of the Prophet Mohammed of Islam [pbuh].

In a statement on Sunday the army said: “The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the rights of any group of persons and Sheikh El Zakzaky’s followers to hold a peaceful march or procession unhindered, but it also guarantees other people’s rights of way on public highways.”

Claims of an attempted assassination of the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai or even of the alleged attacks by the Islamic sect on the military convoy are rendered questionable by the sheer lack of reported casualties on the military side and the shockingly disproportionate loss of life and bloodshed among the Islamic Sect supporters and leaders.

If indeed, this were a simple fracas over “right of way on a public highway” which resulted in the shooting of unarmed Muslims, why then did the same Nigerian government armed forces attack Hussainiyah, the sect’s headquarters later the same evening, hours after the initial clashes?   Why did they deliberately target high ranking members of the Shi’ite Islamic movement and execute Hamad Zakaky, son of the movement leader Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky.  Why did they attack and wound the Sheikh’s wife, Zeenat?  Why did they shoot the Sheikh himself, four times in his hands, publicly humiliate and arrest him? Why, if this was not a premediated act of aggression and suppression, had the Army ensured the presence of camera teams at both attacks and why were women and children not spared the murderous hail of bullets?

These are all questions that the mainstream media should be asking, yet this massacre has been swept under the carpet of indifference by Western media.

Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky is a man of peace, unity and vision. These qualities alone represent a threat to the hegemony and neo-colonialist strategy of the Axis of Empire in Africa and would justify the repeated attempts to suppress and inhibit the growth of his Shia Muslim movement and his popular, unifying influence that transcended the borders of Nigeria and was taking root in many countries on the continent.

To more fully understand this violent targeting of the Sheikh and the Islamic Movement, we must take into consideration, both the historical and more recent influences upon Nigeria.

China has been an evolving partnership in Nigeria, investing heavily in the development of infrastructure and fixed assets, refineries and factories.  In a role diametrically opposed to the traditional plundering partnerships of the US and other neo-colonialists with sovereign nations, China contrarily seems to have a genuinely vested interest in the stability of Nigeria to support a mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship reliant upon the growth and profitability of Nigeria itself.

This concept adopted by China of a symbiotic expansion & growth, is an anathema to the US neo-colonialism in the region, and particularly in Nigeria.  The presence of China in a country so abundant in oil, uranium, diamond, mineral & timber resources is an acute thorn in the side of the US carpetbaggers who have perceived the Continent’s largest economy & oil producer to be their bread basket and theirs alone.

It is logical, rational and reasonable to speculate that Boko Haram is effectively another terrorist trade name, brought into existence, to destabilize a region that is daring to jailbreak from US colonialism and to explore alternative bi-lateral trade pathways that deviate from the US regional “road maps”.

Boko Haram’s presence, has a threefold purpose:

1. It successfully elevates the Nigerian army to defender of the “meek” against the “terror” threat and provides cover for any violent opposition suppression.
2. It gives the US justification for “boots on the ground”, military support for anti Boko Haram aka pro US factions,  and the ubiquitous drone strikes against the alleged “terror” strongholds,  a devastating strategy already observed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to name a few.
3. It ensures the fragmentation, sectarian division, and fracturing of unity and a state of perpetual chaos which will seismically derail China’s investment in Nigeria’s physical and economic infrastructure essential to their US exclusive growth.

Sheikh Zakzaky had alluded to this very terror “patent” in his reaction to the suicide bomb attack on the Shia Arba’een procession in Kano on the 27th November 2015.  Over 24 died and many were injured in further violent targeting of the minority Shia community in Nigeria.

“We know the names of the contractors and those contracted to commit the massacre, their identity is not hidden from us. Therefore we cannot be cowed by an imaginary Boko Haram tale, let them tell it to the fools and ignorant. They should know that they are dealing with those with foresight, wisdom and intelligence, and above all with the real religion”.

This statement struck at the very heart of the US/NATO, Israeli and GCC strategy in Nigeria and threatened to undermine their architecture of “terror” foundations.  The Sheikh made it clear that Boko Haram were none other than gangs of mercenaries, hired contractual killers, being unleashed to foment sectarian violence and an atmosphere of fear and division where only US appointed, backed and controlled “saviours” would emerge victorious.

When we consider the sheer numbers of gangs and rival gangs, extremist factions and sects emerging inorganically and globally, we can begin to connect the dots. All have as their purpose, the sowing and reaping of rapacious violence, the construct of division, the provocation of turmoil, the incitement of hatred and fear. All are posing as the enemies of Imperialism whilst serving Imperialist agendas.  All fulfil roles of humanity- averse abomination and simultaneous US alliance proxy forces percolating from one target region to the next.

Grey Wolves, FSA, ISIS, DAESH, Al Qaeda, Khorasan, AQAP, Jabhat al Nusra and Boko Haram [to name a few], are they all nothing more than trade names, successfully managed brand images, logos and IDs all emanating from the US/NATO, Israel and Gulf State holders of the patent on terror and their associated marketing agents and concept creators?

Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky also challenges another malevolent bastion of Nigeria’s landscape, the powerful pro- Israel lobby whose growth and expansion in Nigeria had been hugely facilitated by former President and Christian Zionist, Goodluck Johnathan.  Nigeria is now home to Africa’s largest Israeli Jewish community [15, 000 in 2014].

The Sheikh is a steadfast and vociferous opponent of the illegal state of Israel and an uncompromising defender of freedom for Palestine, and the right to return for Palestinians living in Diaspora since the 1948 Nakba. His son Hamad, who was reportedly murdered during the 12/12 attacks had been with us at the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine 3rd Annual Conference being held in Beirut and had only left us on the 11th December, one day before he was to be targeted by the pro-Israel Government forces.

Hamad’s final recorded speech before his untimely death had been one that supported and celebrated the Al Quds Day rallies and protests particularly in Nigeria and Pakistan where lives have been routinely lost in the battle to honour and protect the core identity of the Palestinian struggle, Al Quds. Hamad had, himself, lost his three brothers, Ahmed, Hamid and Mahmood during one such rally in 2014 when hundreds of the Islamic Movement supporters were also mown down during another Nigerian army attack on unarmed solidarity demonstrators for the Palestinian cause.

“I would like to give a message to Pakistan’s brave nation, especially to those families who have sacrificed the lives of their loved ones and to those whose loved ones were martyred in Quetta during Al-Quds’ rally. I am proud that my brothers were martyred in Al-Quds’ rally and they gave their lives for supporting Palestinians”.

These were Hamad’s last words to the world before the 12/12 bloodbath in Nigeria stripped one more son from the family of Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky, Hamad gave his young life in the service of peace & freedom.  A life that was unrecognised by Western or even Palestinian media on the day he died.

Paul Larudee of Free Palestine had this to say about a young man who impressed all who met him at the Beirut conference with his quiet humility and unassuming humanity:

“Such a sweet and intelligent young man, very quiet and unassuming.  Made me want to know him better.

According to him Boko Haram is just another group of terrorist thugs, thriving like ISIS through infusions of money and arms from both outside and inside Nigeria.  Our tax dollars at work.  Why does the greatest evil always seem to rise to the top of our societies, while the poor and the meek are always ready to help others?  Is evil the only way to rise to a position of strength?”

Into this maelstrom of lawless and Machiavellian meddling in Nigeria we can add one final component without which the neo-colonialist frontlines would not be complete: the Saudi Wahhabi agents of Islamic “change” who are the subterranean source of Muslim extremism and religious fanaticism;  the funders and suppliers of the brand name proxy forces, deployed to whip up the “terror” frenzy wherever it is required to destabilize or unhinge unity that may jeopardize Empire’s intent.

With ultimate irony, it is Riyadh that is self- appointed to combat the terrorism created in its image, by forming a coalition of 34 predominantly Muslim nations, Nigeria included, with the predictable exclusion of Iran, Syria and Iraq all of whom are involved in battling the Saudi NATO sourced terror hordes on the ground.

In direct contrast with this deliberate policy of divide and conquer,  Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky is a man of religious respect and tolerance, he embraces Christians, Sunnis and Sufis alike despite his Shia centric movement and its ties with Tehran, which naturally represents an additional and perceived monumental threat to US/NATO and Saudi/Israeli regional hegemony.

The Islamic Movement is also renowned for its reformist policies, prioritizing education and establishing Islamic schools incorporating secular subjects in addition to Quranic teaching.  Hospitals and health clinics have been set up where care is free for those without the means to pay for it.  The Sheikh has deterred his supporters from shedding their own blood to commemorate the shedding of Imam Hussein’s blood and redirected them to donate this blood to local hospitals, thus saving lives in memory of their beloved Imam Hussein.

The Western media silence over the Zaria massacre is indicative of their collusion in this mass killing of innocents and proof of the role they play in exacerbating global sectarian division at the behest of their Washington, Tel Aviv and Saudi donors and backers.

The initial silence of the Palestinian community, the media, the NGOs, the solidarity organisations is less expected and more worrying given the Islamic Movement’s steadfast support of the Palestinian cause and opposition to the illegal State of Israel.

This is a missed opportunity for the unity of peoples suffering from the same symptoms of neo colonialism, regardless of creed, sect or religion.  Al Quds represents the identity, not only of Palestinians but of the entire Arab world. Those who defend it from Israeli occupation are those who are enduring their own form of occupation by the patented terror armies: Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. As these nations unite behind Palestine to prise loose Israel’s jaws from the third most sacred site for the Muslim Ummah, Palestine is needed to unite behind those who give their lives for Palestine and thus for Humanity.  It is this unity that will resolve the ancient theological disputes that are permitting the externally induced sectarian fault lines to widen and deepen.

We live in a world where those who are honoured are the sowers of discord and the reapers of mayhem, the state sponsored agents of chaos.  We no longer honour the true heroes, we honour an illusion called power and greed.  The state media apparatuses serve only to keep historic Fitna (sedition) wounds festering and the “NGO complex” pied piper plays the tune of stake-holding in human suffering, created in advance by the Empire’s composers of death.

Leaders, visionaries,  like Sheikh Ebrahim Zakzaky show us the way to a new world, one that is driven by justice and progress, dependent upon compassion, communication and unification. They show us that courage, universal respect & humility is needed to evade the dystopian future that is being forced upon us by the ruling elite. It is these men of integrity who resist corruption and maintain their morals and fundamental principles despite their own personal suffering and loss, that we should honour and aspire to emulate.

Notes:

Dan Glazebrook:  https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323656-deadliest-terror-boko-haram/

WSWS:  http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/30/nige-j12.html

21st Century Wire:  http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/12/14/gladio-global-gangs-and-counter-gangs-in-europe-ireland-iraq-and-now-in-syria/

Plfpakistan:  http://www.plfpakistan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47167:hammad-zakzakys-message-to-pakistani-nation-a-day-before-his-martyrdom&catid=4:general

Elbinawi.wordpress.com:  https://elbinawi.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/why-they-targeted-sheikh-zakzaky/

Vanessa Beeley is a photographer, writer, peace activist and volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine.  She lived in Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defence and again in 2013.  In 2014 she established the Gaza Smile Project to raise funds for children in Gaza. Since 2011, Vanessa has spent most of her time in the Middle East .  She was recently invited to be on the steering committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement.

The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) of today has matured a great deal since the warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy were parceled out amongst the victors, scrapped or sunk at the end of World War II. Long decades of pacifist defense policy coupled with non-interventionist foreign policy helped maintain peace in a quite hostile neck of the woods. Imperial Japan wrought destruction, brutal occupation and various crimes against humanity upon many of its neighbors prior to and during the war. This legacy has not been forgotten.

The security agreement between Japan and the United States has changed greatly under the Shinzo Abe and Barak Obama administrations, with Japan being seen as a peer in the overall, shared defensive strategy of the two nations in the region. Japan has been called upon to increasingly modernize its fleet, fully integrate its communications, fire control and tracking systems, and weapons systems with those of the U.S. Navy. Prime Minister Abe has altered the defense posture of the island nation, to the chagrin of a majority of its citizens, to allow for the offensive deployment of the JDF in various U.S.-led “Multinational” enterprises.

These developments have not escaped the notice of Japan’s neighbors, most notably China. Japan’s modernization of its fleet and the increase in the potency of both defensive and offensive platforms has largely occurred in response to a modernizing and more capable Chinese naval presence in the region. The further integration of the Japanese and the U.S. naval forces, the total compatibility of their systems, and their joint strategic planning are forcing China to recalculate and fine-tune their more assertive foreign policy in both the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Brief Overview:

The Imperial Japanese Navy of World War II was one of the most powerful navies in modern history. Japan had a surface fleet of battleships, heavy cruisers, cruisers and destroyers that was on par or superior to any navy of the era. Her naval aviation arm was far more advanced than any other nation at the time, with only the United States being able to rival her to any degree of parity.

With the defeat of Imperial Japan at the conclusion of World War II, Japan was forced to surrender unconditionally, and forfeit what remained of the Imperial Navy. Many powerful assets remained and were either divided amongst the victors or scrapped. After all repatriation of Japanese military forces had been completed, all vessel of destroyer tonnage or below were divided up amongst the U.S.S.R, China, the UK and the U.S. Vessels above this tonnage were either scrapped or sunk in deep ocean waters. An empire with a long and proud naval history was rendered impotent.

A great deal has changed since the end of World War II, the implementation of the Potsdam Declaration, and the acceptance of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan in 1947. The acceptance of Article 9 presaged the age of official Japanese pacifism, or more accurately an era of a posture of non-interventionist self-defense. It is a credit to the people of Japan, regardless of their brutal militarism of the mid-twentieth century that this state of affairs has lasted as long as it has.

Japan has maintained a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force of very capable organization and function over at least the past five decades; however, the updated security agreement between Japan and the United States that has come into being under the Obama administration holds Japan to be a peer with the United States in establishing a viable offensive and defensive naval, aviation and Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) capability in providing for the defense of Japan as well as the overall naval strategy of the United States in the Pacific.

A resurgent Chinese power in the region has lead the Japanese government to reevaluate its pacifist Constitution, realign itself with past foes and take a much more robust defensive posture. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy has been modernizing at a rapid rate and China has more assertively staked its claim to a number of disputed areas both in the South China and East China Seas. The Japanese government moved to solidify its legal claim to the Senkaku (Daioyu) Islands, by buying three of them from the private Japanese owner in the Spring of 2012. This only further enflamed the situation and both powers have been sending Coast Guard vessels and aircraft to the islands in an ever increasing rattling of sabers. China responded by establishing a new air-defense identification zone over the islands in 2013.

Further, Japan carried out naval drills with the United States in the South China Sea for the first time in the summer of 2015. This was a show of solidarity and cooperation with the U.S. at a time when the U.S. has been mounting sorties with warships and military aircraft within twelve miles of the artificial islands that China has constructed in the Spratly Islands. Japan has also pledged to donate older patrol boats to the Philippine Navy in an attempt to bolster that nations rival claims in the region. The “South China Sea Crisis” will continue to evolve in complexity as the man-made islands become operational and China challenges the centuries old established precedents of international maritime law.

Current Organization and Deployment

The JMSDF is commanded by the Maritime Chief of Staff. The Self Defense Fleet consists of the following components:

• Fleet Escort Force
  • Escort Flotilla 1 (Yokosuka)
    • Escort Squadron 1
    • Escort Squadron 5
  • Escort Flotilla 2 (Sasebo)
    • Escort Squadron 2
    • Escort Squadron 6
  • Escort Flotilla 3 (Maizuru)
    • Escort Squadron 3
    • Escort Squadron 7
  • Escort Flotilla 4 (Kure)
    • Escort Squadron 4
    • Escort Squadron 8
  • Fleet Training Command
  • 1st Replenishment Squadron
  • 1st Transportation Squadron
• Fleet Air Force
  • Fleet Air Wing 1 (Fixed wing patrol aircraft and Helicopters)
  • Fleet Air Wing 2 (Fixed wing patrol aircraft and Helicopters)
  • Fleet Air Wing 4 (Fixed wing patrol aircraft and Helicopters)
  • Fleet Air Wing 5 (Fixed wing patrol aircraft and Helicopters)
  • Fleet Air Wing 21 (Helicopters)
  • Fleet Air Wing 22 (Helicopters)
  • Fleet Air Wing 31 (Fixed wing patrol, ASW, intelligence, liason and support aircraft)
  • Fleet Squadron 51 (Fixed wing patrol aircraft and Helicopters)
  • Fleet Squadron 6 (Fixed wing transport aircraft)
  • Fleet Squadron 1 ( Medium and Heavy Lift Helicopters)
• Fleet Submarine Force
  • Submarine Flotilla 1
    • Submarine Squadron 1
    • Submarine Squadron 3
    • Submarine Squadron 5
  • Submarine Flotilla 2
    • Submarine Squadron 2
    • Submarine Squadron 4
  • Submarine Training Command
• Mine Warfare Force
• Fleet Research & Development Command
• Fleet Intelligence Command
• Oceanographic Command
• Air Training Command
  • Shimofusa Air Training Group
  • Tokushima Air Training Group
  • Ozuki Air Training Group
• Maritime Material Command
• Vessel and Aviation Supply Depots
• Training units and schools
• Communications command

JMSDF Districts

The JMSDF is responsible for guarding the waters of five military districts. Each district has a regional escort fleet element and shore-side support element or major naval base. Regional escort fleets are comprised of Destroyer Escorts (DDE), patrol craft, minesweepers and ancillary craft. Four of the districts are Home Port for the four Escort Fleet Flotillas. Each flotilla is comprised of one Helicopter Destroyer (DDH) as the command platform, and 7 DDGs/AWDs in escort.

Fleet Vessels

The JMSDF is comprised of over 130 combatant, mine countermeasures, support, training and ancillary vessels as follows:

• Helicopter Destroyers (DDH): 4 (One vessel to be replaced in 2016)
• Landing Ship Tank (LST): 3
• Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG): 12
• Destroyers (DD): 25
• Destroyer Escorts (DE): 6
• Minesweepers (MS): 27
• Patrol Boats (PB): 6
• Attack Submarines Diesel Electric (SSK): 17 (with 5 more planned)
• Replenishment Ships: 5

Most Powerful Vessels

The four Escort Fleet Flotillas of the JMSDF are comprised each of one DDH acting as a command ship and 7 DDGs/DDs. The DDH vessels of the JMSDF are very modern and flexible Anti-Submarine (ASW) and power projection vessels. As a nation comprising of over 6,852 islands, with most of the landmass constituting the 4 main islands, rapidly deployable naval and amphibious forces are essential to defense strategy. Each Escort Fleet Flotilla has the power to defend one of the 5 naval districts from attack from guided missiles, aircraft, surface vessels and submarines, and have the inherent ability to land troops via helicopter, landing craft or hovercraft.

Izumo Class DDA

While carrying the designation of Helicopter Destroyer, many military analysts have studied the design of the JS Izumo DDH-183 and surmised that she is very capable of carrying a number of VSTOL aircraft in addition to her compliment of ASW/MCM and troop carrying helicopters or tilt-rotor aircraft such as the V-22 Osprey. As Japan is slated to take delivery of the F-35A from the US, if and when this aircraft ever becomes operational in light of its many development setbacks and problems, it is not a stretch to imagine Japan taking delivery of the F-35B VSTOL version for future use on the JS Izumo and her soon to be completed sister vessel JS Kaga DDH-184. The JS Izumo was commissioned in late March of 2015 and is soon to be followed by the JS Kaga in Late March of 2017.

Izumo Class vessels in service:

• JS Izumo DDH-183

Specifications:

Displacement (Loaded): 27,000 tons

L.O.A.:  248 meters (814 ft.)

Beam:   38 meters (185 ft.)

Draft:    7.5 meters (25 ft.)

Deck Area: Approx. 8,000sq. meters

Speed: 30+ knots

Range: Not disclosed

Complement: 370 crew and 400 troop landing force

Weapons Systems: 2 x Phalanx CWIS, 2 x SeaRAM CWIS

Aircraft: 7 to 28 ASW/MCM or troop carrying helicopters. Can accommodate medium or heavy helicopters.

It is notable that the Izumo Class DDHs do not have a well deck and thus do not have the capability of delivering troops and equipment in an amphibious fashion. They were designed to provide a long range ASW/MCM capability, command and control and limited air assault and HADR capability. With a large internal hangar deck, and a large aircraft elevator, the vessels are more than capable of carrying a sizeable number of F-35B VSTOL aircraft if this were to be so desired at some future date. This number would most likely not exceed 10 to 12 fixed wing VSTOL aircraft due to the amount of space required for fuel, maintenance and armaments. Accommodation of the aircrews and maintenance crews for the aircraft would be possible if substituted for that originally designed for the air assault troops.

Hyuga Class, Helicopter Destroyers DDH

The Hyuga Class vessels’ keels were laid and they were commissioned between 2006 and 2011. JS Hyuga DDH-181, and JS Ise DDH-182 are extremely capable, long range ASW/MCM platforms. In many ways they can be seen as smaller versions on the Izumo Class, but with a number of differences.

The Hyuga Class DDHs are beautiful examples of a modern ASW warship designed to achieve localized naval dominance in the seaways of Japan, denying any enemy submarine force from threatening maritime or naval traffic within the territorial waters of Japan. When coupled with the advanced DDGs and DDs of the JMSDF with their anti-missile and anti-aircraft capabilities and added ASW/MCM capabilities, an Escort Fleet Flotilla is able to control and deny access to the territorial waters of Japan.

Like the larger Izumo class, these vessels lack a well deck and do not have the capacity to launch amphibious forces via landing craft or amphibious vehicles. The JS Hyuga and the JS Ise have already demonstrated their usefulness in HADR operations, with both vessels having participated in humanitarian support and evacuation operations in response to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami (JS Hyuga and Ise) and the 2013 typhoon Haiyan which struck the Philippines (JS Ise).

Hyuga Class vessels in service:

• JS Hyuga DDH-181
• JS Ise DDH-182

Specifications:

Displacement (Loaded): 19,000 tons

L.O.A.:  197 meters (646 ft.)

Beam:   33 meters (108 ft.)

Draft:    7 meters (23 f.)

Deck Area: Approx. 6,500sq. meters

Speed: 30+ knots

Range: Not disclosed.

Complement: 360 – 371 crew

Weapons Systems: 2 x Phalanx CWIS, 16 cell Mk1 VLS (16 Sea Sparrow, 12 RUM-139 VL ASROC),

2 x triple 324mm torpedo tubes, 12.7mm machine guns

Aircraft: 4 to 18 ASW/MCM or troop carrying helicopters. Can accommodate medium or heavy helicopters.

Landing Ship Tank (LST)

The JMSDF has three Osumi Class LSTs; however, their design is more appropriately described as a Dock Landing Ship (LSD), as they have no bow doors and ramp for forward beaching of the vessel to discharge amphibious forces. This is facilitated by a well deck and stern door where a complement of 2 LCAC hovercraft are launched. The vessels have a complement of 330 troops for amphibious of helicopter landing, but sufficient space is available for up to 1,000 troops in an emergency situation or for a short duration. The vessels have sufficient space for 10 x Type 10 MBTs. The vessels carry a complement of 8 helicopters and carry 2 x 20mm Phalanx CWIS for close in air defense. Money has been allocated to research the refitting of all the vessels of the Osumi Class to field V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft instead of traditional helicopters, as well AAV7s for amphibious troops transport.

Osumi Class vessels in service:

• JS Osumi LST 4001
• JS Shimokita LST 4002
• JS Kunisaki LST 4003

Guided Missile Destroyers

The JMSDF operates three different classes of DDG, from the Hatakaze Class of the 1980s, to the most recently commissioned Atago Class. All of these vessel are very capable warships and are joined in their duties by smaller yet equally capable DDs. The Atago Class DDGS are easily one of the most powerful surface warfare platforms in the world.

Atago Class DDG

There are currently two commissioned Atago class DDGs in the JMSDF. These vessels are often seen as larger and more capable versions of the 4 Kongo Class DDGs that immediately preceded them into active service. The Atago’s chief advances over the Kongo are the greater guided missile capacity of the larger vessels, the larger bridge (command and control center of the vessel) and the full aft hanger that can accommodate one SH-60K helicopter. This makes the vessels more flexible and capable of a variety of duties, and give them a longer range ASW capability.

Most importantly, the two Atago Class vessels have been updated with the most recent AEGIS software as well as the capability of carrying the SM-3 Block 1A Standard missile. The SM-3 coupled with the AEGIS BMD 3.0 upgrades makes the Atago a more powerful Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) platform. It is theorized that just two such vessels will be able to fully cover the Japanese home islands from ballistic missile threats. With 6 DDGs in the JMSDF equipped in such a fashion (2 Atago, 4 Kongo), 2 vessels would be constantly deployed while 2 could be in port or conducting training while a further 2 could be in dry-dock for maintenance. It has also been suggested that Japan may look to build two additional Atago Class vessels; however, in light of Japan’s poor economic outlook the funds for such an acquisition are in question.

Atago Class vessels in service:

• JS Atago DDG-177
• JS Ashigara DDG-178

Specifications:

Displacement: 10,000 tons full load

L.O.A.:  165 meters (541 ft.)

Beam:   21 meters (68.9 ft.)

Draft: 6.2 meters (20.3 ft.)

Speed: 30+ knots

Complement: 300 crew

Sensors/Processing Systems: AN/SPY-1D(V) passive electronically scanned phased array radar. AEGIS.

Weapons Systems:

• 96 cell MK-41 VLS (64 cells forward, 32 aft) equipped with SM2-MR or SM-3 ABM and RUM-139 ASROC.
• 2 x missile canisters for 8 Type 90 (SSM-1B) missiles.
• 2 x Type 68 triple torpedo tubes (Mk 46 or Type 93 torpedoes)
• 2 x 20mm Phalanx CWIS
• 1 x 127mm (5 in.) Mk 45 Mod 4 deck gun

Aircraft: Hangar for 1 x SH-60K helicopter assigned.

Kongo Class DDG

The four Kongo Class DDGs were commissioned by Japan between the years 1993 – 1998. They are very similar in design and function to the U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke Class DDGs, with the added requirement of being capable of acting as fleet command vessels. It had originally been planned to build six of these vessels; however, the decision was made to opt for the Atago design after the first four vessels had been completed. It is surmised that this was the result of an added BMD threat from North Korea and the fielding of the advanced Type 052D DDGs by the Chinese PLAN. The Atago is a more capable vessel than the Chinese Type 052D in terms of sensors and processing systems; however the Chinese vessels (3 in class) have a larger offensive missile capability.

The Kongo has been fitted with the later AEGIS systems and BMD 3.0 software coupled with the SM-3 Block 1A missile. Kongo class vessels have fired the SM-3 in successful anti-ballistic missile tests starting in 2007. The four Kongo Class DDGs will serve with the two Atago Class DDGs to make up the naval component of the Japanese BMD system.

Kongo Class vessels in service:

• JS Kongo DDG-173
• JS Kirishima DDG-174
• JS Myoko DDG-175
• JS Chokai DDG-176

Specifications:

Displacement:    9,500 tons fully loaded.

L.O.A.:  161 meters (528.2 ft.)

Beam:   21 meters (68.9 ft.)

Draft:    6.2 meters (20.3 ft.)

Speed:   30+ knots

Range: 5,200 nautical mi.

Complement:     300 crew

Sensors/Processing Systems: AN/SPY-1D(V) passive electronically scanned phased array radar. AEGIS.

Weapons Systems:

• 90 cell MK-41 VLS (29 cells forward, 61 aft) equipped with SM2-MR or SM-3 ABM and RUM-139 ASROC.
• RGM-84 Harpoon SSM or Type 90 SSM
• 2 x Type 68 triple torpedo tubes (Mk 46 or Type 93 torpedoes)
• 2 x 20mm Phalanx CWIS
• 1 x 127mm (5 in.) Oto-Breda compact deck gun.

Aircraft: Deck landing area for 1 x SH60K helicopter.

Destroyers (DD)

The JMSDF fields a wide range of destroyers. The most advanced of these small warships are the new Akizuki Class. The Akizuki Class DDs are the newest commissioned vessels of the Japanese navy. Weighing in at 6,800 tons fully loaded, they are 2,700 tons lighter than the Kongo Class DDGs; however, they are meant to escort these vessels and the DDHs of an Escort Fleet Flotilla and protect them from aerial and submarine threats.

Considering their small displacement, these vessels are bristling with weaponry and the most advanced indigenous sensor package available in the ATECS (Advanced Technology Command System) battle management system. Often referred to as the Japanese AEGIS, ATECS is fully compatible with the U.S. system and its weapons components. These DDs are also equipped with an advanced AAW system as well as the OQQ-22 ASW system. The vessel makes use of a stealthy upper hull/conning tower design. There is an aft hangar on the vessel as well as a landing area, which allows for the assignment of an SH-60K helicopter full time as well as the ability to operate two helicopters if the need arises.

Akizuki Class vessels in service:

• JS Akizuki DD-115
• JS Teruzuki DD-116
• JS Suzutsuki DD-117
• JS Fuyuzuki DD-118

Specifications:

Displacement:    6,800 tons fully loaded.

L.O.A.:  150.5 meters (493.7 ft.)

Beam:   18.3 meters (60 ft.)

Draft:    5.3 meters (17.4 ft.)

Speed: 30+ knots

Complement:     200 crew

Sensors/Processing Systems:      ATECS Advanced Technology Command System

Weapons Systems:

• 32 cell MK-41 VLS equipped with RIMM-162 ESSM (SAM), RUM-139 ASROC or Type 07 ASROC.
• 8 Type 90 SSMs
• 2 x HOS 303 triple torpedo tubes (Mk 46 or Type 93 torpedoes)
• 2 x 20mm Phalanx Block 1B CWIS
• 1 x 127mm (5 in.) deck gun

Aircraft: Hangar for 1 x SH-60K helicopter equipped.

Guided Missile Submarine (SSK), Diesel Electric

The JMSDF operates two different classes of diesel electric attack submarines. The Oyashio Class of 11 boats built in a ten year period between 1998 and 2008, and the Soryu Class of which 6 of 12 planned boats have been built starting in 2009. Submarine design and capabilities are a well-kept secret amongst all navies of the world and thus the capabilities of all modern submarines are hard to verify. Any capabilities are hard to confirm, but it is widely accepted that the Soryu Class submarines are perhaps the most advanced diesel electric attack submarines in the world.

As stated earlier, Japan is a nation of islands and thus a capable submarine force is essential to securing the sea lane supply lines that keep the nation alive. Controlling these maritime arteries in a time of war is essential to Japan’s survival, and thus denying an enemy access to these areas with either surface warfare assets or submarines is essential. Given the small geographical area of the home islands of Japan, the long endurance of nuclear powered submarines is not necessary, and Japan has wisely opted for a diesel electric submarine fleet. Modern diesel electric submarines are extremely quiet, an essential survival characteristic in modern submarine warfare, and modern battery technology provides for efficient operation and long endurance. Coupled with high tech sonar, radar and communications systems and state of the art weapons systems, the Soryu is a most effective and deadly submarine warfare platform.

Soryu Class vessels in service:

• JS Soryu SS-501
• JS Unryu SS-502
• JS Hakuryu SS-503
• JS Kenryu SS-504
• JS Zuiryu SS-505
• JS Kokuryu SS-506

Specifications:

Displacement:    2,900 tons surfaced/4,200 tons submerged

L.O.A.:  84 meters (275.5 ft.)

Beam:   9.1 meters (29.8 ft.)

Speed:   13 knots surfaced/ 20knots submerged

Range:  6,100 nautical miles

Complement:     65 crew

Weapon Systems:    6 x HU 606 533mm torpedo tubes for 30 loads of a mixture of Type 89 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles.

Patrol Boat Guided Missile (PG)

Although not a key component of JMSDF naval strategy, the newest PGs fielded by the Japanese are quite interesting in their design and capabilities. The Hayabusa Class PGs are fast, have good endurance and are heavily armed for their size. They also have a stealthy hull and superstructure design. These craft are able to respond to naval threats in shallow and confined waters, especially in and around the many small islands that are scattered about the four larger home islands. They could also police the outlying islands, such as the Ryukyu and Senkakus. Japan and China currently both claim ownership of the Senkakus and the dispute has been a cause of tension between the two nations in recent years. These PGs could react rapidly to any hostile incursion by warships, or respond to acts of piracy in the more remote island chains of Japan.

Hayabusa Class vessels in service:

• JS Hayabusa PG-824
• JS Wakataka PG-825
• JS Otaka PG-826
• JS Kumataka PG-827
• JS Umitaka PG-828
• Shiritaka PG-829

Specifications:

Displacement:    240 tons fully loaded

L.O.A.:  50.1 meters (164 ft.)

Beam:   8.4 meters (28 ft.)

Speed:   42- 46 knots

Complement:     21 crew

Weapon Systems:    2 x aft mounted twin launchers for SSM1-B or Type 90 SSM, 1 x 76mm Oto-Breda deck gun, 2 x 12.7mm M2 machine guns

Aviation

The naval aviation component of the JMSDF is made up of maritime patrol, surveillance, and ASW/MCM fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. The newest maritime patrol aircraft in the JMSDF inventory is the Kawasaki P-1. The P-1 will eventually take the place of all of the aging P-3 Orions in the JMSDF inventory. It has greater speed and range than the P-3, and has more technologically advanced ASW/MCM and surveillance capabilities. It can carry a weapons load of 18,000 lbs., including anti-ship missiles such as the Type 91, as well as torpedoes.

The Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) does provide many powerful assets in supporting the JMSDF. These include the F-2 advanced fighter aircraft which is an indigenous version of the U.S. F-16 produced by Mitsubishi, with notable improvements over the original design. The F-2 is equipped with an AESA (Active Electronically Scanning Array Radar). The payload was increased and an additional 4 hard points for ordinance were added. Although primarily utilized as an air superiority fighter, it is equally suited to anti-ship duties. The F-2 can carry 4 Type 88 anti-ship missiles and is a frightening prospect for any enemy surface vessels when so equipped.

Another U.S. fighter that has been widely used in the JASDF is the F-15, or F-15J as it is known in Japanese service. It is planned to replace the F-15Js with F-35As when and if these aircraft become available. As a future recipient of the F-35A, it is widely theorized that Japan could order a small number of F-35B VSTOL aircraft if deemed necessary to equip the Izumo Class DDHs at some point in the future dependent upon changing contingencies and threats in the region.

Conclusion

Japan faces great geo-political challenges of both global and regional scope. While it is refreshing to see Japan take a more independent and robust role in its own defense, it is at the same time troubling to see her further entrench herself in the overall military strategy of the United States in the region. No one should demand that Japan abandon a robust BMD capability in the face of a number of potential adversaries in the region that both possess nuclear weapons and the means to effectively deliver them via modern, long range ballistic missiles.; however, integrating this BMD system with the greater BMD umbrella of the United States sends a counter-productive message to these same neighbors.

A strong and increasingly militarily independent Japan could couple strength with friendly diplomacy and trade with an ever stronger China as well as Vietnam, South Korea and the Philippines. Having no direct stake in the South China Sea territorial dispute, other that freedom of navigation and trade, Japan could be a potential peace maker and moderator. This positive role in dispute resolution would most likely reap positive rewards in its independent dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands. An official government apology to China for their horrible treatment at the hands of Imperial Japan from the Invasion of 1931 through the years of World War II, is long overdue and would carry a great deal of diplomatic weight in future relations.

Japan will be hard pressed to win a naval arms race with the Chinese in the long run, as their economy has been stagnant for decades with a debt to GDP ratio of 230% as of 2014. China has the time and the resources to close the technology gap with Japan in the long run. The newest Type 052D DDGs of the PLAN are evidence of this closing gap, not to mention the PLAN’s conventional aircraft carrier program that is successfully advancing at a strong pace.

Japan undoubtedly has the most powerful and flexible navy in the Asia Pacific region. Its vessels either rival or surpass those fielded by the U.S. Navy, let alone the navies of its neighbors and potential adversaries. Their most advanced vessels are a mixture of high-tech battle management systems, sensors and powerful armaments, married to stealthy and efficient hull designs. The organization of the Fleet Escort Flotillas provides for a rapidly deployable and flexible defensive naval arm while also providing a viable outer ring of BMD capability. The only question is how Japan will decide to utilize their naval power in the coming decades. Will it be used in the pursuit of ensuring their independence and peaceful relations with their regional partners, or in the self-destructive pursuit of U.S. hegemony in the region?

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years. He currently resides and works in the Caribbean.