Global Research

Spectacular violence has again made its reaping appearance, a brutal but sure sign that the distinction between militia and civilian has ceased having any value in the US context.  The militarisation of the society has become the most vigorous of diseases, whose greatest symptom is not so much gun ownership as the culture behind access and use.

Even as the blood of Paris seemed to be making its gruesome presence across US television screens, the fear that an ISIS-like attack might eventuate on local soil did circulated through the networks last month.  Such violence did manifest itself, and, like so many ideological appropriations, it seemed inane.  It was yet another addition to this annus horribilis of mass shootings – 353 in all.[1]

Fourteen people were massacred in San Bernardino’s Inland Regional Centre on December 2 by another military-styled operation that seemed chillingly reminiscent to the attacks that took place in Paris in January on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters. There were also 21 injured.  The scale was roughly equivalent; the individuals had worn masks and body armour. It was the deadliest since the Sandy Hook bloodbath of 2012.

As information trickles through, suggestions are that the couple suspected as being involved in the shootings, Tashfeen Malik and husband Syed Rizwan Farook, were “ISIS supporters,” which is hardly the same as a direct, solid link.  (Not even ISIS has claimed membership for the two.)  As the assailants were killed in the subsequent police chase, much of this is academic.

US investigators have tentatively suggested that one of the suspects had professed loyalty to the organisation, a morsel that terrorist experts are bound to digest with ravenous enthusiasm.  Facebook, as ever, has provided the lead, with Malik posting his public declaration to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi prior to the rampage.

There is little doubt that the organisation and its various affiliates were having a gloat at the home-soil misery inflicted at San Bernardino, a point made from its Iraq-based station, al-Bayan Radio, which prayed “to God to accept them as martyrs”.  At this point, ISIS is pleased to vicariously reap any reward it can get.  But suggestions that radical Islam is about to unleash itself in the suburbs are, at best, fanciful.

Even retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Rick Francona, who was being happily milked for all he was worth on CNN, suggested that, “What they’re calling these two are supporters, which is kind of a lesser level.”[2] The White House has also suggested that there was “no indication that the killers were part of an organized group or broader terrorist cell.”

The violence of guns has become its own pious affirmation of a lifestyle.  It is the ultimate expression of grievance and affirmation. Forget the social worker – the gun will vocalise grievance.  In the San Bernardino killings, Farook’s co-workers for the environmental health department in the town were the victims.

Even as the US leads the remote bombing charge on the forces of Islamic State, it is waging a failing battle at home on the containment of a contagion that is proving antediluvian in nature.  The militia mentality presumes that someone is going to nick your land, your spouse, and your belongings at any given moment.  Any breach of security must therefore be countered by an exaggerated display of force, or at the very least the means to use it.

Pro-gun advocates have decided to excoriate the White House for stealing a march on the National Rifle Association.  A feverishly indignant Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, observed that, “President Obama used it not as a moment to inform or calm the American people; rather, he exploited it to push his gun control agenda.” His point: California had already embraced the gun control list he had demanded: universal background checks, weapon registration, waiting periods, gun and magazine bans and broader gun categories.[3]

What then, to do? Cox sounds sensible on pointing out that Obama’s foreign policy might well have made the US less safe, but the angle taken here is more slanted. “Unlike the president, regular citizens are not surrounded by armed secret service agents wherever they go.”

Cox’s own suggestion is typical of the self-contained logic of gun ownership in the US.  Gun ecology is an ecosystem: If you perish because of it, it is probably because you were not adequately armed. If a school gets shot up, arm it. If a centre holding a function gets riddled with bullets, then maybe those in attendance should have had their guns handy.  “The responsibility is ours and ours alone.”  Battleground USA has its own supreme, if impenetrable reasoning.

Such a train of thought is encouraged by the extravagant availability of high grade military weapons, including the legally acquired .223 calibre assault rifles, with the near 1,400 rounds of ammunition, along with semiautomatic handguns found on the two assailants.  In the true nature of gun ownership ideology, even those on terrorist watch lists can purchase guns.  From 2004 to 2014, the Government Accountability Office noted that over 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s own terrorism watch list were successful in their gun purchases, a success rate hovering around 90 percent.[4]

The culprit behind limiting such access?  The NRA, who was also instrumental in making sure Congress got clay feet in renewing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  In the sobering words of the GAO, “membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms under current federal law.”

In the pseudo-pioneer rhetoric of the NRA, sanctity of person is not assured by any central government but by private, and sometimes murderous, enterprise. The Indians are still circulating the wagon trains.  People must be ready.

The problem with this assumption is that it also takes away from the state another sacred monopoly – that of using violence. Fittingly, Obama may direct the US armed forces to target positions in a distant country in an adventurist enterprise he falsely claims he is winning; he is incapable of directing his own citizens to restrain themselves in resolving disputes in a mass murderous fashion at home.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/2015-the-year-in-mass-shootings-20151203

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

[3] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/03/no-mr-president-nra-not-blame-san-bernardino-column/76748608/

[4] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-guns-from-the-san-bernardino-shooting-were-legal-thanks-to-the-nra-20151203

Last Wednesday, the Russian MoD delivered a lengthy presentation which contained compelling visual evidence of a connection between Islamic State’s illegal and highly profitable trade in stolen Iraqi and Syrian crude and Turkey. Here are some highlights:

After loading up with oil, a truck convoy in east Syria heads toward Turkey in direction Al-Qamishli:

October 18: in the Drer-ez-zor region a satellite imagte reveals 1772 oil trucks:

November 14: in the Tavan and Zaho regions, in the zone where coalition forces are active, one can see a gathering of oil trucks:

November 28: in the region Kara-Choh on the territory of an oil refinery one can see 50 oil trucks:

The routes of alleged oil smuggling from Syria and Iraq to Turkey:

A substantial part from east Syria enter a refinery in Batman, Turkey (100km from the Syria border):

The slide show, hosted by Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov, featured photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes and maps detailing the trafficking of stolen oil. It was the latest PR snafu for Erdogan who is struggling to convince Turkey’s allies that The Kremlin’s accusations are unfounded and that Ankara isn’t set to put NATO in an awkward position by effectively instigating a shooting war with Russia.

Washington came to Erdogan’s defense in the aftermath of Moscow’s claims as State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the US is confident that Ankara “is not complicit in Islamic State oil smuggling.” Russia seemed to take that denial in stride, but after US special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, Amos Hochstein, said on Friday that the amount of oil smuggled into Turkey from Syria is “of no significance from a volume perspective”, Moscow appears to have had enough.

On Saturday, Russia accused the US of participating in a cover-up.

“Our colleagues from the State Department and the Pentagon have confirmed that the photo-proof, which we presented at a briefing [on December 2], of the origin and destination of the stolen oil, coming from the areas controlled by the terrorists, is authentic. However, the US claim that they ‘don’t see the border crossings with tanker trucks crossing the border,’ raises a smile, if only, because the photos are still images,”

Major General Igor Konashenkov, a Defense Ministry spokesman said.

“We advise the American side to have a look at how the tanker trucks not only drive through checkpoints at the Turkish border, but pass through them without even stopping.”

As RT notes, an unnamed US State Department official confirmed to Reuters on Friday that the Russian photos of thousands of oil tanker trucks in Syria were authentic [but] stressed that he hasn’t seen “the imagery of the border crossing with trucks crossing the border, and that’s because [the US doesn’t] believe it exists.”

Well, here it is:

“The declarations of the Pentagon and the State Department seem like a theatre of the absurd,” the MoD added, before noting that Washington should “watch the videos taken by its (own) drones which have recently been three times as numerous over the Turkey-Syria border and above the oil zones”. That, by the way, is an attempt to mock Washington for increasing the number of drones monitoring the situation while failing to actually conduct strikes. Earlier this week, Russia said that despite Washington’s claims, the US and its partners are actually not bombing ISIS oil infrastructure or convoys.

In case the above isn’t clear enough, here’s more from the Russian MoD’s Facebook: “When US officials say they don’t see how the terrorists’ oil is smuggled to Turkey… it smells badly of a desire to cover up these acts.”

We have on any number of occasions suggested that Washington has avoided striking ISIS oil convoys in an effort to ensure that the group retains the funding it needs to continue to destabilize Syria and the Assad government (see here for instance) and in order to preserve amicable relations with Ankara which appears to benefit from the trafficking of illegal crude both from Kurdistan and Islamic State.

And so, Russia once again turns the screws on the West in an effort to expose what at this point looks to be a coordinated effort to facilitate the funding of international terrorism via the establishment and maintenance of smuggling routes for some 50,000 b/d of oil looted from fields in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. If the US is indeed complicit in this, it might be time to cut ties with Erdogan because Moscow is on the PR warpath and it’s just a matter of time before the smoking gun emerges.

Damascus – President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to The Sunday Times in which he said Britain and France have neither the will nor the vision on how to defeat terrorism and their airstrikes against ISIS will yield no results, but will rather be illegal and harmful in that they will help in spreading terrorism.

The following is the full text of the interview:

 Question 1:  Thank you for seeing us Mr President.  As you know, the British government today will be voting on whether it will join the coalition airstrikes against ISIS. Is Britain right to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? And do you welcome its involvement; and will it make things worse or not make a change?

President Assad:  If I want to let’s say, evaluate a book, I cannot take or single out a phrase from that book to evaluate the whole book.  I have to look at the headlines, then the titles of the chapters and then we can discuss the rest of the book.  So, what we are talking about is only an isolated phrase.  If we want to go back to the headline, it is “the will to fight terrorism.”  We know from the very beginning that Britain and France were the spearheads in supporting the terrorists in Syria, from the very beginning of the conflict.  We know that they don’t have that will, even if we want to go back to the chapter on military participation with the coalition, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be from the air, from the ground, to have cooperation with the troops on the ground, the national troops for the interference or participation to be legal.  It is legal only when the participation is in cooperation with the legitimate government in Syria.  So, I would say they don’t have the will and they don’t have the vision on how to defeat terrorism.

And if you want to evaluate, let’s evaluate from the facts.  Let’s go back to the reality on the ground.  Since that coalition started its operation a year or so, what was the result? ISIS and al-Nusra and other like-minded organizations or groups, were expanding, expanding freely.  What was the situation after the Russians participated in fighting terrorism directly?  ISIS and al-Nusra started shrinking.  So I would say, first they will not give any results.  Second, it will be harmful and illegal, and it will support terrorism as what happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so, because this is like a cancer.  You cannot cut the cancer.  You have to extract it.  This kind of operation is like cutting the cancer that will make it spread in the body faster.

Question 2:  Are you saying, just to clarify two things, are you saying that the British, if the British join the intervention, that includes also the other coalition, with that intervention you see that is illegitimate from an international-law perspective?

President Assad:  Definitely, definitely, we are a sovereign country.  Look at the Russians, when they wanted to make this alliance against terrorism, the first thing they did was they started discussions with the Syrian government before anyone else.  Then they started discussing the same issue with other governments.  Then they came.  So, this is the legal way to combat any terrorist around the world.

Britain and France helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region

Question 3:  You say that France and Britain are responsible for the rise of terrorism here. But they were not responsible for the rise of ISIS, for example, is not that a little bit a harsh accusation?

President Assad: Let’s start from what Blair said.  He said that invading Iraq led to the rise of ISIS.  And we know that ISIS started publically, announcing itself as a state in Iraq in 2006, and the leader was Abu Mosaab al-Zerqawi.  He was killed by American strikes; and they announced that they killed him.  So, they know he existed and they know that IS in Iraq at that time had existed; and that it moved to Syria after the beginning of conflict in Syria because of the chaos that happened.  So, they confess.  British officials confessed, mainly Blair; and the reality is telling, that they helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region.

Question 4:  In your view, does al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, pose an equal or a greater long-term threat to the West than ISIS? And as such, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Cameron, going after the wrong enemy? I.e. he is going after ISIS instead of going after al-Nusra.

President Assad: The whole question is about the structure, and the problem is not about the structure of the organization.  It is about their ideology.  They do not base their actions on the structure, they base them on their dark, Wahhabi deviated ideology.  So, if we want to evaluate these two, the difference between the two, there is no difference because they have the same ideology.  This is one aspect.  The other aspect, if we want to talk about their grassroots, their followers, their members, you cannot have this distinction, because they move from one organization or one group to another.  And that is why sometimes they fight with each other, for their vested interests, on a local and small scale.  But in reality they are cooperating with each other on every level.  So, you cannot tell which is more dangerous because this is one mentality.  It is like if you say the first one is al-Qaida and the second one is al-Qaida.  The difference is the label, and maybe some other trivial things.

Question 5:  Last week, a key part of Cameron’s argument for extending UK airstrikes to Syria was a number that he used – 70 thousand moderate rebels – that he mentioned “don’t belong to extremist groups”, but are already on the ground, who the west can use to help them in the fight of ISIS. As far as you know, which groups are included in the 70 thousand? Are you aware of 70 thousand moderate rebels in Syria?

President Assad: Let me be frank and blunt about this.  This is a new episode in a long series of David Cameron’s classical farce, to be very frank.  This is not acceptable.  Where are they?  Where are the 70 thousand moderates that he is talking about?  That is what they always talk about: moderate groups in Syria.  This is a farce based on offering the public factoids instead of facts.

The Russians have been asking, since the beginning of their participation two months ago.  They have said: where are those moderates?  No one gave them an answer.  Actually, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were no moderate militants in Syria.  All of them were extremists.  And in order not to say I am just giving excuses and so on, go back to the internet, go back to the social networking sites.  They uploaded their atrocities’ videos and pictures, with their faces and their rhetoric.  They use swords, they do beheadings; they ate the heart of a dismembered innocent person and so on.

And you know, the confession of a criminal is the incontrovertible fact.  So, those are the 70 thousand moderates he is taking about.  It is like if we describe the terrorists who committed the attack in Paris recently, and before that in Charlie Hebdo, and before that in the UK nearly ten years ago, and in Spain before that, and the 11^th of September in New York, to describe them as moderate opposition.  That is not accepted anywhere in this world; and there is no 70 thousand, there is no 7 thousand, he does not have, maybe now ten of those.

Question 6:  Not even the Kurds and the FSA for example, the free Syrian army?

President Assad: The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas.

Question 7:  But they are also being supported and armed and trained and backed by the Americans to also launch, to fight …

President Assad:  Mainly by the Syrian army, and we have the documents.  We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian citizens, and they want to fight terrorism.  We do the same with many other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of Syria.  So, it is not only the Kurds.  Many other Syrians are doing the same.

Question 8: U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry said last Friday that the Syrian government could cooperate with the opposition forces against the ISIS even if president Assad is still in office, but he said that this would be so difficult if the opposition fighters, who have been fighting the Syrian president, don’t have a faith that the Syrian president will eventually leave power.

Kerry also said that concerning the timing of leaving office, the answer is it is not obvious whether he will have to leave.

Meanwhile, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Progres Newspaper on Saturday that he no longer believes that President Assad’s departure is essential to any political transition in Syria, adding that the political transition does not mean that President Assad should step down before it but there should be future insurances.

My question: Do you intend to complete your presidential term until 2021 or do you expect a referendum or presidential elections prior to that date? And if so, when can these elections be held? And what can make you decide to hold them? And if they are held, is it certain that you will be running for election? What can influence your decision?

President Assad: The answer depends on the context of the question. If it is related to a settlement in Syria, then early elections have nothing to do with ending the conflict. This can only happen by fighting terrorists and ceasing Western and regional support for terrorists…Early elections will only be held as part of a comprehensive dialogue about future by the political powers and the civil society groups in Syria.

Thus, it is not about the will of the President, but rather the will of the Syrian people…It is about a political process. If this process is agreed on, then I have the right to run for elections like any other Syrian citizen…My decision in this case will be based on my ability to deliver on my commitments…and on whether I have the support of the Syrian people or not….Anyway, It is early to talk about this, because as you know, this process was not agreed upon yet.

Question 9:   Do you think ISIS can be defeated by airstrikes alone?

You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone without cooperation with forces on the ground

President Assad:  Did the coalition defeat them by airstrikes during the last year or so?  It didn’t.  Did the Americans achieve anything from the airstrikes in Afghanistan?  They achieved nothing.  Did they achieve anything in Iraq since the invasion in 2003?  Nothing.  You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone, without cooperation with forces on the ground.  You cannot defeat them if you do not have buy-in from the general public and the government.  They cannot defeat ISIS by airstrikes; they are going to fail again.  The reality is telling.

Question 10:     If the international coalition refuses, as it has so far, to coordinate with the Syrian Army, or with the local troops on the ground, what is your next plan?  I mean do you have a plan B beyond what is going on?  How do you plan to end this war?

President Assad:  This coalition is illusive, it’s virtual, because it has not made any achievements in fighting terrorism on the ground in Syria.  Since an illusion doesn’t exist, let’s not waste time with the ‘before and after.’  From the very beginning we started fighting terrorism irrespective of any global or world powers.  Whoever wants to join us is welcome, and whether they join us or not, we are going to continue.  This is our plan. It is the only plan we have and we will not change it.

Question 11:  Are you calling on them to ask the Syrian government to coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian army and the Syrian air force in the fight against terrorists?

President Assad:  We are very realistic.  We know that they are not going to do so and that they don’t have the will.  This is more about international law than anything else.  Is it possible that western governments, or regimes, don’t know the basics of international law, that they don’t understand the meaning of a sovereign state or that they haven’t read the UN Charter?  They have no respect for international law and we didn’t ask for their cooperation.

Question 12:  But would you like them to?

President Assad:  If they are ready – serious and genuine – to fight terrorism, we welcome any country or government, any political effort.  In that regard we are not radical, we are pragmatic.  Ultimately, we want to resolve the situation in Syria and prevent further bloodshed.  That is our mission.  So, it’s not about love or hate, accepting or not, it is about reality.  Are they truly ready to help us fight terrorism, to stop terrorists coming into Syria through their surrogate governments in our region, or not?  That is the real question.  If they are ready, we will welcome them.  This is not personal.

Question 13:  Do you think it is possible for you, in Syria, and for your allies – Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other allies – to defeat ISIS militarily; and if so, how long do you think it might take?

President Assad:  The answer is based on two factors: our capabilities on the one hand, and the support the terrorists receive on the other.  From our perspective, if you were to remove the support these groups get from various countries in our region and the West in general, it will take a matter of months to achieve our mission.  It is not very complicated, the solution is very clear to us.  However, these groups have unlimited support from these countries, which makes the situation drag on, makes it more complicated and harder to resolve.  This means our mission will be achieved at a much higher price, which will ultimately be paid by Syrians.

Question 14:  But there has already been a high price: over 200,000 people have been killed.

President Assad:  You are right, and that is a consequence of the support I referred to.

Question 15:  But a lot of it is also blamed on the Syrian government and the Syrian use of force, sometimes indiscriminate or unnecessary force in certain areas that has brought about a large number of people killed.  How do you respond to that?

President Assad:  First, all wars are bad.  There is no such thing as a good war.  In every war there are always too many innocent casualties.  These are only avoidable by bringing that war to an end.  So it is self-evident that wars anywhere in the world will result in loss of life.  But the rhetoric that has been repeated in the West for a long time ignores the fact that from day one terrorists were killing innocent people, it also ignores that fact that many of the people killed were supporters of the government and not vice versa.  As a government, our only countermeasure against terrorists is to fight them.  There is no other choice.  We cannot stop fighting the terrorists who kill civilians for fear of being accused by the West of using force.

Question 16: Let us talk about the role of Russia.  How important has the role of Russia been?  Was Syria about to fall had Russia not intervened when it did at the time?

Russia and Iran’s support played important part in Syria’s steadfastness against terrorism

President Assad: The Russian role is very important.  It has had a significant impact on both the military and political arena in Syria.  But to say that without this role, the government or the state would have collapsed, is hypothetical.  Since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were bets on the collapse of the government.  First it was a few weeks, then it was a few months and then a few years.  Every time it was the same wishful thinking.  What is definite is that the Russian support to the Syrian people and government from the very beginning, along with the strong and staunch support of Iran, has played a very important part in the steadfastness of the Syrian state in the fight against terrorism.

Question 17: You mean the previous one, or the recent military intervention?

President Assad:  No, the whole support; it is not only about their participation.  Their support from the very beginning in all aspects: political, military and economic.

Question 18: How and why did Russian involvement come about now?  And can you give us some details of the discussions between you and President Putin that brought it about?  Who took the first step?  Did you ask, or did they offer?

The Russians want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe

President Assad:  You will have to ask the Russians why they got involved.  But from our perspective, since the Western coalition started in Syria, ISIS has expanded, al-Nusra has expanded and every other extremist and terrorist group has expanded and captured new territory in Syria and Iraq.  The Russians clearly saw how this posed a threat to Syria, Iraq and the region in general, as well as to Russia and the rest of the world.  We can see this as a reality in Europe today.  If you read and analyse what happened in Paris recently and at Charlie Hebdo, rather than view them as separate incidences, you will realize something very important.  How many extremists cells now exist in Europe?  How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria?  This is where the danger lies.  The danger is in the incubator.  The Russians can see this very clearly.  They want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe.  I am not exaggerating by saying they are protecting Europe today.

Question 19: So, did they come to you and say we would like to be involved? Or did you ask them: could you help us?

President Assad:  It was an accumulative decision; it didn’t happen by me having this idea or them having another.  As you know, our relationship with the Russians goes back more than five decades, and they have always had military staff in Syria: call them experts or by any other name.  This cooperation accelerated and increased during the crisis.  Their teams are here and can see the situation real-time with us.  This kind of decision doesn’t start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.  There is a daily political and military discussion between our two countries.  When it reached a presidential level, it was mature enough and ready for the decision to be made quickly.

Question 20: But there must have been a point when they said: we think, or with your agreement, we think that we should actually now physically get involved.

President Assad: Again, this was started at the lower levels.  These officials jointly agreed that it was necessary to get involved and each party discussed it with their leaders.  When it reached the stage of discussion between us, I mean between President Putin and I, we focused our discussions on the how.  Of course this did not happen directly as we had not yet met and it’s impossible to discuss these issues on the phone.   It was mediated through senior officials from both sides.  That is what happened.  In terms of procedure, I sent a letter to President Putin which included an invitation for their forces to participate.

Question 21:  So you asked president Putin having been advised by your officials.

President Assad:  Exactly, after we reached that point I sent President Putin a formal letter and we released a statement announcing that we had invited them to join our efforts.  Let’s not forget that President Putin had already taken the step when he said he was willing to create a coalition.  My response to this was that we are ready if you want to bring your forces to participate.

Question 22:  So, what forces have been deployed? I am talking about Russian forces. There have been reports, for example, of a thousand ground troops plus Special Forces, is this correct? Is there anytime when you think that the Russians will be involved in Syria, not just by air but with ground troops as well?

President Assad:  No, so far there is no such thing.  There are no ground troops except for the personnel that they send with their military staff and airplanes to guard the airbase, and that is natural.  They don’t have any ground troops fighting with Syrian forces at all.

Question 23:  And there is no plan for that?

President Assad:  We have not discussed that yet, and I don’t think we need it now, because things are moving in the right direction.  The Russians may consider it with time or under different circumstances, but for the moment, this has not been discussed.

Question 24: There was a report, or a hint, that Syria might be receiving S-300 from the Russians, and the S-300 will allow Syria to protect its airspace. Is this something, for example, that Syria will use against the US-led coalition’s air force, even if Britain was involved, since their warplanes are in Syrian skies, as you said earlier, without official or sovereign permission. As Syria will receive S-300, then will it use this to impose, if you want, protection of its skies and impose a way to tell the coalition that you have to actually directly deal with us, or coordinate with us on the ground?

We will use any means available to us to protect our airspace

President Assad:  That is our right and it is only to be expected that we prevent any airplane from violating our airspace.  That is completely legal.  We are going to use any means available to us to protect our airspace.  It is not about that armament in particular.  Any air defense we have is for that reason.

Question 25:  Do you have that defense at the moment?

President Assad:  No. So far we don’t have it.

Question 26:  If you get that defense?

President Assad:  Any defense systems we are going to have are for that purpose.  If we are not going to protect our airspace, then why buy such armaments in the first place?  That is self-evident.

Question 27:  And if you get it …

President Assad: Not at the moment; it is not our priority now.  Our priority is fighting the terrorists on the ground.  This is the most important danger now.  Of course we are keen to protect our airspace and prevent foreign interference in our internal affairs, militarily or other.  But the priority now is to defeat the terrorists.  By defeating the terrorists, some of whom are Syrians, we can move further in protecting the whole country from foreigners.  It is a matter of priorities.

Question 28:  But I meant about the actual coalition airplanes that are actually flying over Syria. So, that is not a priority either at the moment?

President Assad:  No, not at the moment.  At the moment the priority is fighting terrorism.

Question 29:  If Saudi Arabia were to invite you for serious discussions on the future of Syria, would you accept such an invitation? Or have relations between Syria and Saudi Arabia been severely severed that you would never consider that?

President Assad:  No, there is nothing impossible in politics.  It is not about whether I accept or not, but rather about the policies of each government.  What are their policies towards Syria? Are they going to keep supporting the terrorists or not? Are they going to continue playing their dangerous games in Syria, Yemen and other places?  If they are ready and willing to change their policies, especially with regard to Syria, we don’t have a problem meeting with them.  So it is not about the meeting or whether we go or not, the issue is their approach to what is happening in Syria.

Question 30:  Do you expect any results from the talks in Vienna?  And what would be the shape of any possible deal that you see coming out of Vienna?

President Assad:  The most important clause in the Vienna communique is that the Syrians should come together to discuss the future of Syria.  Everything else is an accessory.  If you don’t have that main part, the accessories are of no use.  So, the only solution is for us to come together as Syrians.  Vienna itself is a meeting to announce intentions; it is not the actual process of siting down and discussing the future.  So, the question is not what results from Vienna, but rather what we Syrians are able to achieve when we sit down together.

Question 31:  But do you realize that some of the opposition’s leaders, and I’m talking about opposition figures who have been against taking up arms and what have you, but are also afraid of coming to Syria, because the moment they land in Syria, they will be arrested by the security officers and put in prison. And it has happened to others.

President Assad:  No, it has never happened.  There is an opposition in Syria, and they are free to do whatever they want.

Question 32:  No, I mean the external opposition. For example, somebody like Haitham Mannaa, cannot come back.

President Assad:  We have clearly stated that when there is a gathering in Syria, which they want to attend, we guarantee that they will not be arrested or held.  We have said this many times.  We don’t have any problems in this regard.

Question 33:  Now, Saudi Arabia invited 65 figures, including opposition leaders, even rebel commanders, businessmen, religious figures for a meeting in Saudi Arabia to present a united front in preparation for the January Vienna talks. Yet, the Syrian government, which is the other major element in this whole thing for the future of Syria, has not been seen to be involved with the opposition. Are you conducting any talks with the opposition? Have you reached any consensus with them?

President Assad:  We have direct channels with some opposition groups; but others cannot communicate with us because they are not allowed to do so by the governments that control them.  From our perspective, we are open for discussions with every peaceful opposition party.  We don’t have any problems.  With regards to the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s have been supporting terrorism directly, publically and explicitly.  That meeting will not change anything on the ground.  Before the meeting and after the meeting Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists and will continue to do so.  It is not a benchmark or a critical juncture to discuss.  It will not change anything.

Question 34:  Do you see that anytime, in the future, that in order to protect Syria, or in order to save Syria, or to get the Syria process moving, that you might see yourself sitting with certain groups, one group, or certain groups, that perhaps now you deem terrorist, but in the future, it might be feasible that you would agree to negotiate with them because it would do well for the future?

President Assad:  We already have; since the very beginning one of the pillars of our policy, was to start a dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, whether they were in Syria or not.  We negotiated with many terrorist groups, not organizations – to be very precise, who wanted to give up their armaments, and return to normal life.  These negotiations led to many amnesties being issued and has proven to be very successful in several areas.  Furthermore, some of these fighters have joined the Syrian Army and are now fighting with our forces.  So yes, we are sitting down with those who committed illegal acts in Syria, whether political or military, to negotiate settlements on the condition that they give up their arms and return to normal life.  This doesn’t mean that we negotiate with terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Nusra and others. This is what I meant by groups, those who want out of the fight, regret their choices and want to have their lives back.

Question 35:  The rebels call them barrel bombs. You refuse to refer to them as barrel bombs. Irrespective of the name, these were indiscriminate. Do you accept that Syria used indiscriminate bombs in some areas, which resulted in the death of many civilians?

President Assad:  Let us suppose that this part of the propaganda is true, which it isn’t.  But for the sake of argument, let us ask the same question regarding the different attacks committed by the Americans and the British with their state-of-the-art airplanes and missiles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not only after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but also during the first Gulf war in 1990.  How many civilians and innocent people were killed by those airstrikes with these very high precision missiles?  They killed more civilians than terrorists.  So, the issue is not these so-called barrel bombs and this evil president killing the good people who are fighting for freedom.  This romantic image is not the case.  It is about how you use your armaments, rather than the difference between so called barrel bombs and high precision missiles.  It is about how you use these weapons, what kind of information you have and your intention.  Do we have the will to kill innocent people?  How is that possible when the state is defending them?  By doing so, we are pushing them towards the terrorists.  If we want to kill people, for any reason, innocent people or civilians, that will play directly into the hands of the terrorists.  And this is against our interests.  Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? That is not realistic and not logical.  This propaganda cannot be sold anymore.

Question 36: Mr President, the final question. As president of the country, and you always lead the military and everything. Do you, even if by default, not bear responsibility for some of the things that happened in Syria?

President Assad: I’ve been asked this question many times especially by western media and journalists.  The aim of the question is to corner me between two answers: if I were to say I was responsible, they would say look the President bears responsibility for everything that happened, if I were to say I am not responsible, they would say this is not true, you are the president, how can you not be responsible.

Question 37:  Because you are the head, like in a family …

President Assad:  Let me continue, that was only an introduction to my answer.  It is very simple.  Since the very beginning, we built our policy around two pillars, engaging in dialogue with everyone, and fighting terrorism everywhere in Syria.  Now, if you want to talk about the responsibility, you have to discuss many aspects of the conflict, and the reason why we are here today in this difficult and dire situation in Syria.  If I am to claim responsibility, do I also claim responsibility for asking the Qataris to pay the terrorists money?  Or for the Saudis to fund their activities?  Or for western governments allowing their terrorists to come to Syria?  Do I claim responsibility for asking western governments to offer a political umbrella to those terrorists and label them as moderates?  Or for the western embargos on the Syrian people?  This is how we have to discuss it.  We cannot simply say, that he takes responsibility or not.  We have to talk about every part; we have to differentiate between the policy decisions and the practices, between the strategy and the tactics.  So, it is very complicated to evaluate it.  Additionally, if you want to evaluate who bears responsibility in Syria, it could happen at the end of the war, when you can investigate the whole story before, during and after.

Interviewer:  Mr President, thank you very much.

Praise for the speech delivered by Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary of the opposition Labour Party at the recent Parliamentary debate on whether to commence air strikes targeted at Islamic State insurgents in Syria, was quick to come through the media.

The Spectator magazine referred to it as an “extraordinary speech,” while Sky News intoned that it had been a “truly historic speech”. For the Daily Telegraph, the speech was the speech of a “true leader”. Many sources were prone to describing it as having been “electrifying” while others spoke of it as “politically elevating” him and being the “speech of a generation.”

And truth be told, it appeared to be an impressive oratorical combination of emotion and elocution backed by reasoned out arguments.

His speech was replete with intellectual justifications predicated on the inherent internationalism of the ideology of socialism and of taking the fight to the avowed enemy of fascism.

He presented legal justifications first through United Nations Resolution 2249, paragraph 5 which calls upon member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria, and secondly, on the grounds of national self-defence via Article 51 of the UN Charter which enable nation states to engage in self-defence, including collective self-defence, against armed attack.

Hilary Benn Syria speech

There were also emotive references to the brutal executions that have become the trademark of Islamic State, as well as to the sexual bondage into which the group has placed many Yazidi females.

The group had declared war on the Western world and was guided by an immutably draconian ideology with values antithetical to those which the British parliament and the citizens it serves have long cherished and have defended by resort to force of arms against the likes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Benn retreated from the despatch box with cheers echoing around the chamber.

It was a triumphal moment. But whether he made a substantive case for British intervention is extremely doubtful. There were missing facts and there was a profound disconnect from the overriding context of the promulgation of the Syrian conflict and the means by which it has been sustained. There was no outlining of a clear strategy towards achieving both victory and a lasting peace.

Furthermore, the situation regarding the internal affairs of Benn’s party and the use of the debate as an opportunity for those to the right of the party to assert themselves and destabilise the leadership of the recently elected leader Jeremy Corbyn cannot be left out.

The calling for the debate was of course controversial in itself given the fact that Prime Minister David Cameron had two years earlier failed to secure enough votes to get the go ahead to bomb Syria.

That particular vote had been prompted by a chemical attack on Ghouta which the Western powers and its allies in the Middle East had sought to blame on the forces of President Bashar al Assad. Cameron’s recalibrated cross hairs prompted the charge of rank opportunism; of picking a changing enemy as it suited him.

The object of a proposed bombing campaign in 2013, in fulfillment of US President Barack Obama’s earlier declared “red line” would have been to “degrade” the capability of Assad’s military infrastructure.

Had Parliament consented and the US congress given the go ahead to its president, the result would have led to a sustained campaign by NATO conducted along the lines as it had done in Libya with the objective being to overthrow the legitimate government of a country which has taken a foreign policy stance that is independent of that of Washington’s.

And as was the case in Libya, Syria would have fallen into the hands of Islamist groups, the most prominent of which at the time was the al Qaeda-affiliated al Nusra Front. In other words, without any discernibly united, preferably secular and democratic opposition party or coalition of such parties, Syria would most likely be in the chaotic condition that Libya is in today: a lawless cesspit of warring militias, some of who now bear allegiance to Islamic State.

Benn’s rationale about focussing on the threat provided by the Islamic State as a group of “fascists” is flawed. He is seriously ill-informed if he is not aware that the 70,000 or so rebels mislabeled as ‘moderate’, including the aforementioned al Nusra Front, are guided by the same form of ideology. He surely must have heard of the admission by a senior US general about the “four or five” US-trained moderate rebels who represent the sum total of a 500 million dollar programme.

The credibility of Benn’s case is flawed in one fundamental aspect: its failure to take into account the role of Turkey in this conflict. His calculations cannot be taken seriously if on the one hand he (correctly) mentions the porous border between Syria and Iraq, but at the same time fails to ponder the state of affairs in existence on the border between Turkey and Syria.

The Islamic State cannot be defeated if Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is allowed to continue allowing Islamic State insurgents to traverse its border at will. The border is used to transport illicitly acquired Syrian and Iraqi oil to Turkey where it is then traded at knock down prices for arms and ammunition.

It will not be defeated if political figures within NATO member states such as Benn fail to acknowledge and probe the admissions of US army generals such as Wesley Clarke, the former supreme allied commander of the alliance and Michael Flynn, the recently retired director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, that the Islamic State was created by US intelligence in combination with other intelligence agencies to enable Sunni extremists to overthrow Arab secular regimes as well as to fight Hezbollah and destabilize Iran.

For Clarke speaking to CNN in February 2015, Islamic State was started by the funding provided from “friends and allies” of the United States who needed Sunni jihadist recruits as the only highly motivated force that would be capable of taking on Hezbollah. Marginalising Hezbollah and by extension, Iran, could only be achieved by the destruction of the Baathist government headed by Assad. Flynn, for his part stated that US policy makers made a “willful decision” to enable the rise of Islamic State.

Benn spoke about “extending” the US-led bombing campaign in Iraq to Syria in order to counter the Islamic State, but failed to assess its level of impact on the strength and capacities of the Islamic State. It has not nearly had the effect on the re-conquest of Islamic State taken territory as has the co-ordinated efforts of Russian air strikes and ground action by the Syrian Arab army.

The coalition of US and Arab air forces operating in Iraq cannot hope to significantly debilitate Islamic State in that theatre of operations when the number of sorties taken are far lower than NATO’s intensive bombardment of Serbia back in the 1990s. A commentary in the Wall Street Journal in October 2014 noted that that while NATO strike sorties averaged 138 per day, the figure amounted to seven against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It was the columnists concluded an “unserious air war.”

The Russian action, backed up by statistical evidence referring to total sorties undertaken as well as of re-taken Syrian territory, has clearly exposed the US effort as not seriously aiming for the defeat of Islamic State. At most, it had an objective of containment; this in keeping with a Freedom of Information Act-released Pentagon document circulated in 2012 which specified the desirability of the creation of a Sunni Islamic state in Eastern Syria.

Benn was also flawed in his confident assertions relating to the legality of British military force on Syrian territory that is held by Islamic State insurgents. The considered opinion of international law experts, Dapo Akande and Marko Milanovic is that the unprecedented provision of paragraph 5 of Resolution 2249 falls short of being a stand-alone authorization for using force against Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq.

The reason for this is that both assess that most Security Council resolutions which authorise the use of force have certain recurring features. First, they have a preambular paragraph which specifically invokes Chapter VII, that is, the powers the Council has to maintain peace. Secondly, they use the words “decides” as the active verb in the paragraph that authorises force, and thirdly, they use the term “all necessary means” or “all necessary measures” as the jargon for authorising force.

Paragraph 5 does not contain the first two features but has third –“all necessary measures.” The conclusion by Akande and Milanovic is that that the paragraph does not intend to serve as the stand-alone authorisation for the use of force against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

The vote was of course arranged under the cloud of a speech given behind closed doors to the Conservative Party’s 1922 Committee by David Cameron who asserted that Jeremy Corbyn and anyone supporting a stance of non-intervention were “terrorist sympathisers”.

It was an unfortunate comment which perhaps was in keeping with Cameron’s propensity to resort to name-calling and bullying when he is confronted by compelling counter-arguments and is threatened with not getting his own way.

It is Cameron who after all suggested that those whom he termed as “non-violent extremists” including persons who question and contradict official government narratives on events such as 9/11 should be designated as threats to society every bit as dangerous as threat posed by members of Islamic State.

While Benn did begin his speech by stating that the leader of his party “is not a terrorist sympathiser” and called on Cameron to apologise, his critique of the British prime minister fell far short of what could reasonably be mustered when Cameron is in fact on record as having given aid to terrorist militias in order to achieve certain objectives.

Cameron, by virtue of his active support for NATO intervention in Libya, not only succeeded in reducing the nation with the African continent’s highest standard of living to the wretched state of lawlessness and deprivation that it is today; causing in the process a third of its population to seek refuge in neighbouring Tunisia, he has also created the conditions for Libya to become a terrorist enclave and a repository for battle experienced jihadists who were transferred to Syria via Turkey for a further endeavour aimed at overthrowing a another secular Arab government.

It was Cameron who in 2011 ordered the Special Air Service (SAS), a British Special Forces unit, to support the al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) towards the end of achieving the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Cameron’s choice of words are also ironic given that fact that an Old Bailey case involving an accusation of “participating in terrorist activities in Syria” in the middle of 2015 against one Bherlin Gildon, collapsed because a trial would have revealed embarrassing information about British security and intelligence service support for so-called rebel groups including the supply of weapons and ammunition.

Given that rebel groups other than Islamic State have murdered civilians in Syria and that Islamist militias have done the same in Libya, the case for ascribing Cameron with a counter-label and even a legally accurate designation as an accessory to the commission of acts of terrorism would not be an inaccurate one.

The plot to overthrow Assad under the pretext of the Arab Spring predated Cameron’s coming to power and was apparently heavy with British involvement. The revelation by the former French foreign minister, Roland Dumas,that he invited to join such a plot by British officials is something Benn and others within the British political establishment have failed to acknowledge.

Benn’s insistence on legal propriety, as evidenced by his reference to Resolution 2249 and Article 51 of the Charter, while no doubt predicated on the memory that he voted in support of the illegal war that toppled Saddam Hussein, is nonetheless compromised by his silence and therefore acquiescence to his country’s complicity in an illegal enterprise to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign state.

The “major airlift” of arms from Zagreb in Croatia to Syrian rebels as reported by the Daily Telegraph in March of 2013 was a transaction paid for by Saudi Arabia at the behest of the United States. The shipment also included arms which were either “British-supplied or British procured.” It was carried out in contravention of an embargo on arms sales by the European Union. It is against the norms of international law to supply weapons to terror groups in an endeavour to overthrow the legitimate government of another nation state.

Even at this stage of the conflict, it was clearly the case that such weapons were getting into the hands of Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and not to purportedly nationalist and secular-minded groups promoted as the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’.

It is also clear that at this time, British military officers were among a contingent of NATO military personnel stationed in countries bordering Syria and offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian Army officers.

Benn’s reference to the Vienna peace talks as being the best hope of achieving a ceasefire “that would bring an end to Assad’s bombing” and lead to transitional government and elections gives a clue as to his tacit understanding of the deceit behind longstanding British policy towards the government of Assad.

What interest, after all, does Britain have in securing the overthrow of an admittedly dictatorial government? Hillary Benn can hardly be ignorant of the fact that the secular make up of Syria guaranteed the protection and integration of the country’s long-standing Christian population and other minorities. An earlier removal of its Baathist government would have precipitated its fall into the hands of Islamists and the removal of the Assad government now would lead to the same result.

Christian Roland Dumas offered the following explanation:

It is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance. Consequently, everything that moves in the region- and I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me that “we’ll try to get on with our neighbours but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed.”

At the heart of Western policy toward the Middle East one which is geared towards ensuring the survival and protection of the state of Israel. This is a central plank notwithstanding the overlap of issues such as the interests of the Saudis and the Sunni Gulf States in establishing Sunni supremacy in Syria and Turkish ‘neo-Ottoman’ initiatives that seek to achieve the same sectarian objective.

And while the Syrian conflict may also have been stoked by the preference of the Assad government for an Iranian natural gas pipeline route to Europe to an alternative one proposed by Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council, the overarching policy aimed at breaking up the Syrian nation state is one which has been stage-managed by the United States.

It has for long been Israeli geo-strategic policy to balkanise the Arab nations particularly those such as Iraq and Syria which were led by strong military governments with nationalist ideologies in order to maintain its regional hegemony. It is also the policy of the United States to achieve a reorganising of national borders as part of a strategy for securing the energy resources of the region.

It is clear that NATO powers such as France and Britain, sensing the possible pacification of Syria by a concerted effort by the Russian Federation along with the Syrian government have taken the opportunity to involve themselves more directly in Syria in an attempt to place themselves into a position where they may be able to effect the goal of removing Assad and effecting the desired geo-political objective of Israel and the United States: the division of Syria.

But a concomitant of this policy has been the fomenting of sectarian divisions during an envisaged ‘long war’ during which the United States strategy has been to aid Sunni Islamist groups against the forces of the Shia world. This state of affairs was clearly set out in a United States Army-funded report by the RAND Corporation in 2008 entitled Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects and Implications for the U.S. Army.

Britain has played an integral part in the germination of the state of affairs. The point is that prior to British involvement in NATO’s overthrow first of Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq and then of Gaddafi in Libya followed by Britain’s connivance in fomenting a largely imported Sunni Islamist insurrection against the government of Bashar al Assad in Syria, there was no al Qaeda or al Nusra or Islamic State causing mayhem in those countries or attempting export terror to the streets of Britain.

Benn’s argument for supporting airstrikes is fundamentally flawed for the reason that it is embarking on a battle which the defence minister, Michael Fallon admits will be a long and protracted one without any coherent plan. It risks plunging Britain into a quagmire of the sort that involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq did.

It also risks serving as a rallying point for further recruitment to Islamist militias. Even Tony Blair has forced to admit that the germination of the Islamic State is a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

By asking whether “we can really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility”, Benn clearly indicated that he subscribes to David Cameron’s position that Britain cannot “sub-contract” its security to other nations. The retort to this by Peter Ford, a former British ambassador to Syria is Britain should not make itself the “hostage to others.”

Putting British planes into action in the overcrowded Syrian skies leaves the possibility of unfortunate incidents in future operations in terms not only of the unintended deaths of civilian populations on the ground, but also of a clash with the Russian military who claim that they have the overriding legal justification for intervention given that the Syrian government requested Russian support.

Benn emoted over socialist and other political Left support for the lost cause of the Spanish Republican coalition against General Franco’s military rebellion comprised of a coalition of nationalists. He fails to grasp that action against Islamic State will prove futile given the present circumstances dictated by the United States.

Simply put, the Islamic State insurgents are but the latest in a line of Islamist assets used in the service of promoting a range of geo-political agendas of its ally, the United States. These have included foreign adventures in Soviet-era Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya.

While Benn has impressed many with his recourse to emotion, it would be useful to remember a wise saying that while emotion may serve as an excellent petrol it is, after all things are considered, a rather poor engine.

It will only get you so far.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

It is important not to overlook the very real economic war being waged by the U.S. and its allies in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.

This morning I saw the sun rise over Venezuela from 30,000 feet, my flight descending to Caracas in the early dawn light. As the darkness retreated, a rugged, majestic coastline came into view: the small waves lapping against the rocky shore, perceptible only by a thin streak of white foam set against the dark brown of rock, and deep green of the lush hillside just above it.

This was my first glimpse of Venezuela, a country I have been following since the early days of my political development, when a man named Hugo Chavez was elected and shook the very foundations of Latin America, challenging the hegemony of the U.S. Empire in its own “backyard.” Soon I was in the airport, sipping strong coffee from a small plastic cup with a few members of my delegation from the U.S. and Canada. We all came to the Bolivarian Republic to bear witness to the all-important elections scheduled to take place Sunday, as well as the violence and destabilization that is likely to follow if the U.S.-backed opposition loses.

From the back seat of the car taking us from the airport to the center of Caracas, I gazed out the window, drinking in the landscape, the people, the juxtaposition of modern public housing high rises and small, dilapidated homes lining the hillsides. But as I observed the surroundings, there was one pair of eyes that seemed to be gazing back: El Comandante.

Chavez is larger than life in Venezuela, a country where “Chavismo” is both a movement and an ideology, one rooted in the legacy of this hero and leader, even in death. His face adorns billboards. His signature is plastered on the sides of buildings. His eyes have literally come to be the symbol of the PSUV, the Venezuelan socialist party that he built into a political force in the Bolivarian Republic (also a Chavez creation) and throughout Latin America.

But one cannot help but be struck by the difficulties the country now faces. Many basic necessities of life such as deodorant, sunscreen, and toilet paper are either missing from store shelves, or are in such short supply that lines wrapping around the block are a common sight at busy drug stores in the city. Inflation has wreaked havoc on daily life for ordinary Venezuelans who have been forced to wait for hours at the ATM just to withdraw Bolivars whose official exchange rate is 6.5 to 1 U.S. dollar, while the unofficial rate is hovering around 800 to 1. Even the cafes and restaurants that line the major avenues of Caracas are often out of basic foods such as beans, pork, and more. For someone with visions of hot, steaming arepas (Venezuela’s signature food) filled with juicy pernil (shredded pork) dancing in my head in the days leading up to my trip, the lack of such staples was a major realization of just how dire the economic situation has become.

While many in North America and Europe argue that these harsh realities are the result of mismanagement and corruption by the government or, worse still, endemic to socialism, such reductionist analysis overlooks the very real economic war being waged by the U.S. and its allies in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. As economist and former Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations Julio Escalona carefully explained to us over dinner and drinks:

The majority of Venezuela’s imports and distribution networks are in the hands of the elite, the same elite who once also controlled the government until 1999 and Chavez’s ascendance. Many of the goods needed for Venezuelan consumption are diverted to Brazil and Colombia. We are experiencing manufactured scarcity, a crisis deliberately induced as a means of destabilization against the government. For example, we have a huge company that processes chicken, the majority of chicken for the country in fact. That chicken company closed but continues to pay employees to do nothing, deliberately reducing the supply of chicken in the country in order to deprive the people of this critical staple food. This is psychological war waged against the people of Venezuela in an attempt to intimidate them into abandoning the government and the socialist project entirely.

Of course it is difficult to convince a mother with three children and no chicken for dinner that she should consider the political, economic, and psychological dimensions of the issue. Just as it is easy to understand the frustration even of government supporters as they wait on line just to get cash whose value diminishes by the day. But these aspects of the situation are critical to understanding the broader context within which Venezuela is now operating, the new reality that has been thrust upon it.

Interview: Venezuelan Elections Matter for Global Resistance

I have heard stories of foreigners coming to Venezuela in recent months and changing a small amount of dollars or euros or yuan for a mountain of bolivares. While artificial scarcity is one element in the larger strategy to destroy Venezuela, an equally important component is the manipulation of currency in an attempt to instigate hyper-inflation. I can already see the emails from people lecturing me about the finer points of economics, chastising me for “apologia” on behalf of President Maduro and the government, absolving them of their ‘sins’ of economic mismanagement and corruption. The truth is though that the government cannot, and does not, control the economy to the point of being able to stop speculation which continues to drive the currency through the floor.

Here again Julio Escalona succinctly stated the all-important truth, “Our currency is not being devalued by speculation, but by hyper-speculation.” This sort of economic warfare can be understood by looking at the statistics, but it can also be felt on the streets. The people, millions of whom will still vote for leftist pro-government parties on Sunday, are struggling, their standard of living has decreased almost as fast as the price of oil has collapsed. And the correlation between those phenomena is not merely incidental.

Listening to the corporate media, one would think that Venezuela was a barbarous place where men, women and children are gunned down in the streets for seemingly no reason. One could be forgiven for envisioning a city where murals of Che and Chavez are exceeded only by the chalk outlines of dead bodies on every street corner. However, the truth is that the violence and crime – both very real phenomena – are symptoms of the larger affliction: economic and psychological war.

The enemies of Venezuela, both in the country and in the U.S., foment just this sort of crime and violence in order to manipulate the collective consciousness of the people in an attempt to coerce them into abandoning the Bolivarian Revolution in favor of a right-wing, pro-U.S., pro-IMF, neoliberal ruling class that will theoretically restore order and guarantee safety.

Ultimately, that’s what this Sunday’s election is really about: courage in the face of intimidation.

Venezuela is not always as beautiful as it appears from an airplane window. It is a country fighting for survival against the Empire, such fights are rarely pretty. But in doing so, Venezuela is also fighting on behalf of all countries targeted by the U.S. And that is truly something beautiful.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the editor of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio. You can reach him at ericdraitser(at)gmail.com.

This article takes a closer look at the arguments from both parties, and reveals two strikingly different processes that led to these conflicting assessments. In short, the WHO process was transparent, stuck to conventional scientific methodology and looked at glyphosate-containing herbicides (as glyphosate is never used alone in the real world), whereas EFSA’s route was based on a ‘peer review’ by anonymous EFSA and national public officials relying on undisclosed industry-sponsored studies that looked at glyphosate alone. The European Commission, which will have the last say on whether or not glyphosate will be re-authorized in the EU, and under which conditions, must now decide what to make of this interesting piece of ‘science’.

On 12 November 2015, following a long saga (see our previous article), unnamed officials from EFSA and experts from EU Member States published the outcome of their joint re-assessment of the toxicity of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world. More commonly known as ‘Roundup’, which is the original Monsanto trade name, it is applied to more than 150 food and non-food crops 1 and is used by millions of home-owners, businesses and public authorities to keep lawns, gardens, buildings and other land free of weeds. Glyphosate is also a cornerstone of GM crop cultivation. According to GMproponents, 57 per cent of all genetically modified crops grown commercially around the world in 2013 were herbicide tolerant, and the vast majority of these were engineered to tolerate glyphosate-based herbicides. This simplifies their cultivation in large-scale, socially and environmentally harmful monocultureplantations, also known as ‘green deserts‘.2

Following a peer review of available data, these anonymous officials issued several conclusions about the toxicity of glyphosate. Two of the most important outcomes were:

– Glyphosate was deemed “unlikely” to cause cancer in humans;

– It was suggested that the legally permissible exposure levels of EU consumers to glyphosate be increased by 66 per cent.3 4

The first conclusion was anxiously anticipated in the pesticides world, and was met with relief by industry. “Science wins!!” exulted Monsanto’s Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley. With this assessment, EFSA had reached a verdict opposite to that of the panel of scientists convened by the WHO’s International Agency for Research against Cancer (IARC). These expertsdetermined in March 2015 that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”5 after having found “limited evidence” of cancer in people and “sufficient evidence” in experimental animals. The complete Monograph waspublished by the IARC in July 2015.

This conclusion was not in itself a death sentence for glyphosate: the IARC’s conclusion is a hazard characterisation, most studies documenting harm were based on high doses and in the EU it is up to the European Commission to regulate glyphosate6. However, the EU pesticides legislation foresees that pesticides that are linked to “presumed human carcinogenicity” based on “sufficient evidence” in animals must be banned7. Since what the IARC found was precisely such sufficient evidence, industry reacted with fury to the threat. The business model of Monsanto, in particular, is still heavily dependent on sales of glyphosate-based Roundup and crops genetically engineered to resist this weed killer. The company publicly demanded the retraction of what they termed “junk science” and lobbied WHO director Margaret Chan to “rectify” the conclusions of the report.

Interpretations

The WHO organized a task force over the summer of 2015 to compare IARC’sfindings with those of another WHO body that had come to opposite conclusions in 2004 and 2011. This body, the Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues, was asked by the task force to perform a “full re-evaluation of glyphosate” and to review its “internal guidelines to consolidate the criteria for data inclusion/exclusion with respect to published and/or proprietary data sources”. IARC conclusions were left untouched.

Subsequently, Germany’s national risk assessment agency (BfR), the lead agency in the EU assessment process, scrutinized8 the published IARC Monograph in considerable detail and agreed9 that the IARC classification of the available data as “limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate” was adequate.

But BfR adopted a “more cautious view” than IARC in the interpretation of the human evidence, arguing that the IARC review had found “no consistent positive association” documenting human exposure to glyphosate, and that it was not possible to “differentiate between the effects of glyphosate and the co-formulants” in most of the studies at stake.

When it came to the animal evidence, BfR squarely dismissed IARC’s interpretation: “The weight of evidence suggests that there is no carcinogenic risk related to the intended herbicidal uses and, in addition no hazard classification for carcinogenicity is warranted for glyphosate according to the CLP [EU] criteria.”

Differences in interpretation are the daily bread of scientists, but one Member State in particular was caught off guard by BfR’s agreeing with IARC’s classification but coming to such a different overall conclusion. An anonymous Swedish official noted in his country’s official comments10 that “the IARC conclusion is admittedly precautionary but still feasible” as far as evidence in humans was concerned. He also defended the IARC’s choice of statistical tests for measuring the evidence in animals as “more sensitive”, and criticized the use of historical data to balance the control groups in the experiments: “We don’t believe that reference to historical control data can abrogate the positive results from the trend tests.”

But within the EU, Sweden was more or less alone on this one. Although Norway also voiced strong criticism of BfR’s statistical treatment of animal evidence, it is not an EU country. All other Member States followed the BfR judgment, with Belgium agreeing11 with Germany’s (reported) description of the IARC classification choices as “merely driven by the precautionary principle”. France was also in complete agreement with BfR, and surprisingly concise in its reaction12, praising the “huge work provided by Germany on the IARC conclusions”. Denmark, the UK and Spain were also unified in their acquiescence. Ireland asked why the two statistical approaches yielded such different results but did not oppose BfR’s.

EFSA took note of the quasi-unanimity around Germany and, while acknowledging the consensus on the appropriateness of the IARC classification, embraced the general opinion on the statistical flaws in IARC’s data on animal carcinogenicity. IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate “probably” caused cancer in humans thus became an “unlikely” in the EU review’s final conclusions (although Sweden and Norway insisted on their dissenting minority opinion). Both terms refer to a probability, but from an opposite viewpoint. How could the perspectives of IARC scientists and EFSA and EU Member States officials have come to differ so widely?

As EFSA was requested by the European Commission to include the IARC findings in its review, the EFSA officials who published the peer review provided some explanation.

‘Pure’ glyphosate vs. real-world formulations

First of all, EFSA officials explained that the two reviews used different sets of data. As glyphosate is almost never used alone in the real world but in hundreds of different combinations, IARC scientists had reviewed several studies assessing glyphosate formulations.13 These studies of real-world exposures – to agricultural and forestry workers, and to community residents – were obviously essential in their assessment although IARC also reached its conclusions based on laboratory studies of pure glyphosate alone, concluding “sufficient” evidence of cancer in animals and “strong” evidence of genotoxicity.

EFSA and national officials, on the other hand, had a narrower mandate. They were confined to EU pesticide legislation, in which only the declared “active substance” of the pesticide is considered, whereas the assessment of the toxicity of formulations is left to Member States. So EFSA and Member States barely acknowledged IARC’s real-world exposure studies as the products at stake were not pure glyphosate.

This separate assessment in the EU regulation of the different compounds in pesticides is reductionist, and is a fundamental problem. In fact, the final product combines these different compounds to obtain a synergistic effect (greater than the sum of its parts), and as a consequence the health impact of commercial formulations escape assessment at the EU level. For example, Germany had earlier banned a common Roundup adjuvant known as POEA,explaining: “There is convincing evidence that the measured toxicity of some glyphosate containing herbicides is the result of the co-formulants in the plant protection products (e.g., tallowamines used as surfactants)” and concluding14that “Member States are encouraged to consider the substitution of alkylamine ethoxylates (POEA) in plant protection products with less toxic surfactants.” However, no other Member State has yet followed suit: EFSA was mandated by the Commission to look at POEA, but called for more research to be done before it could issue any recommendation.

To their credit, our anonymous experts “recognized that the issue of toxicity of the formulations should be considered further as some published genotoxicity studies15 … on formulations presented positive results in vitro and in vivo.” In particular, they noted16 that “other endpoints should be clarified, such as long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity and endocrine disrupting potential of formulations.”

Acknowledging such an enormous data gap means that the safety of existing glyphosate formulations used in Europe is in doubt. Indirectly, it is also a damning indication that existing EU regulations are not fit for purpose, and that Member States are not doing their jobs.

Secret data

The second reason provided by the public officials to defend the superiority of their conclusion over that of IARC’s scientists was that their assessment included more data. Indeed, IARC had no access to confidential industry studies, but rather only to summaries that were missing important information. And in particular, they were not privy to five mouse studies carried out by industry.17

This is very unfortunate, because José Tarazona, head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit, called these studies “key” and “pivotal” during the agency’s press briefing on the matter. Kathryn Guyton, the Senior Toxicologist at the IARC Monographs Programme who followed the file at IARC, said that what was particularly interesting about the two mouse studies IARC looked at was that they showed a statistically significant correlation between exposure to glyphosate and the occurrence of a very rare type of tumour.18 Apparently, a correlation with rare tumours also appeared in the three studies that only EFSA had been able to review in detail. As these studies were not however available for independent scientific review, Guyton could not explain how EFSA had reached a conclusion so divergent from that of IARC after having looked at them. In its comments, Belgium insisted19 that “it was unfortunate that IARC did not take into account 3 guideline studies in both mice and rats, since this could have put the overall conclusions in another perspective”. This sentiment was echoed by Ireland: “IARC’s failure [sic] to evaluate the 3 other studies is not helpful.”

This is in fact a second, fundamental problem with the EU’s pesticides regulation (and practically all regulated economic sectors in the EU): the studies used by EFSA and Member States to assess the risk of regulated products such as pesticides’ active substances are paid for and provided by their producers. But most are only accessible to regulators, and not to the scientific community or the public, because according to industry they contain trade secrets and could be used by competitors to obtain market authorization elsewhere.20

There are some non-industry-sponsored studies on common active substances such as glyphosate that allow EU and national regulators to double-check the information (or absence thereof) submitted by producers.21 However, there are very few independent studies on existing formulations, such as those used by IARC, in the public scientific literature. The ability of Member States to systematically assess the formulations used in the EU is therefore limited, as they would need to finance studies assessing each commercial formulation independently of its producers. This simply does not happen.

As a result, information about the toxicity of glyphosate formulations used in the real world is not available to the public. Industry probably knows more than anyone else, but rarely publishes detrimental findings.

Anonymous authors vs. reproducible process

Other factors, in this case unreported by EFSA, might also have played a role. Throughout the process, whether at BfR or EFSA, the risk assessment process has been anonymous. Bfr did not disclose the authors of its original report, although there are pesticide (including glyphosate) producers on its panel. Furthermore, the agency revealed that the number of studies sent to them by glyphosate producers was so huge that they simply used summaries provided by the producers, adding comments where appropriate.

Similarly, EFSA did not give the work to its pesticides scientific panel, which consists of external scientists who contribute to the agency’s work, but to officials in its Pesticides Unit. The same anonymizing treatment was applied to all officials representing EU Member States who participated in the peer review. This was justified as follows22: “As an EU organization, EFSA has an obligation to protect the personal data of its employees, [and] also to avoid undue influence”. This secrecy is understandable during the process, but less so once the study has been published – many comparable regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, in charge of pesticides evaluation in the USA, do publish such names. Nonetheless, EFSA refused to disclose the names of its officials and those from the Member States (the name of one national expert appears by mistake in the document).

In contrast with EFSA’s ‘peer review’ process of relying on anonymous officials based on undisclosed studies for key decisions, IARC’s process is completely transparent and reproducible. “We only use publicly available data,” explained Guyton. “This is the cornerstone of the Monographs scientific procedures.” This open process makes it possible to access and review all of the original scientific studies, thus ensuring post-publication review that the evidence and conclusions are scientifically valid. In addition, IARC’s panel was composed of “world leading experts” according to Guyton, carefully screened for possible conflicts of interest by IARC staff, with declarations of interest disclosed two months ahead of the meetings for public scrutiny.

“We take our independence very seriously,” said Guyton. “Everybody can know who was in the room all along the process. Under no circumstances could scientists with any perceived conflicts of interest draft Monograph text.” For example, one scientist attending the group’s meetings, C. Portier, could not be appointed on the panel due to his part-time employment by the US NGO Environmental Defense Fund. Nonetheless, as his expertise was deemed important to the assessment, he attended as an ‘Invited Specialist’. This is a category created by IARC to enable scientists with interests conflicting with those of the agency to participate in meetings but not to write monographs or contribute to evaluation decisions.23

“What we did was very rigorous,” Guyton continued, adding that this strict independence policy combined with the use of solely publicly available evidence guaranteed the agency’s reputation. “All scientists can replicate our results.” Questioned about the lobbying they had to face from industry, Guyton said: “The pesticides industry is very concentrated, and on this file we were dealing with one manufacturer in particular that has an history of getting involved in scientific processes. However, they could follow the entire process as observers so they always knew what was happening.”24

And now?

What can we make of these two divergent processes? Which body’s assessment of the safety of glyphosate is correct? One obvious way to progress would be to publish the three famous confidential studies and agree on their statistical treatment, but this looks far from straightforward.

EFSA confirmed that they would not publish the raw data of these studies, asserting that what they have already published is comparable to the “amount of information contained within articles published in the open scientific literature”. However, accessing the raw data would be the only way to double-check how these studies’ findings were obtained; the expert NGO Pesticides Action Network Europe has been fighting in courts for years trying to obtain this very data on glyphosate and so far companies have always refused to disclose it and let independent scrutiny on their data take place.

Regarding the statistical methodology, IARC scientists have strongly critiqued the peer review carried out by EFSA and Member States, saying25 they are “astonished” by BfR’s treatment of IARC’s statistical interpretation of animal data. Greenpeace Europe and PAN Europe accused the EU and national public officials of using flawed historical control data to dismiss the significant evidence observed by IARC (and later by BfR itself). EFSA has defended its use of historical control data, asserting that it was selected according to valid guidelines. Which, in turn, is strongly contested by IARC scientists.

[30 NOVEMBER UPDATE] An open letter signed by 96 scientists including nine of the IARC authors, all specialised in relevant disciplines (cancer research, epidemiology, toxicology, occupational health…) was sent on November 30 2015 to the European Commission and EFSA urging them to consider the differences in IARC and BfR conclusions. The scientists, presenting themselves as having “dedicated [their] professional lives to understanding the role of environmental hazards on cancer risks and human health”, argue that “the BfR decision is not credible because it is not supported by the evidence and it was not reached in an open and transparent manner” and call the European Commission to “disregard the flawed EFSA finding on glyphosate in your formulation of glyphosate health and environmental policy for Europe and to call for a transparent, open and credible review of the scientific literature.” The tone of the letter is very angry and they list several reasons to complain about the EFSA/BfR process:

– “the arguments promoted by the BfR to negate the human, animal
and mechanistic evidence are fundamentally and scientifically flawed and should be rejected.”

– “We strongly object to the almost non-existent weight given to studies from the literature by the BfR and the strong reliance on non-publicly available data in a limited set of assays that define the minimum data necessary for the approval of a pesticide.” [/30 NOVEMBER UPDATE]

A story of two processes

A hopefully swift resolution of this dispute is pending, but is it really about science in the end? It is striking that the argument revolves so much around the interpretation of legal texts (OECD guidelines etc) for the inclusion/exclusion of data and so little about the real-world dimension of the problem and the actual experiments. In any case, comparing the integrity of the two processes is sobering. IARC strictly adhered to conventional scientific methodology (with reproducible results), while our European anonymous public officials did not. From that perspective, the Monsanto’s Chief Technology Officer’s exclamation that “science wins” means that the company’s position did indeed prevail in this battle, but it really does not say much about the quality of the science at stake.

The obvious conclusion is that the EU’s pesticides risk assessment system sorely needs reform. While glyphosate is the most frequently used herbicide in Europe, “there is little information available on occupational or community exposure to glyphosate,” according to IARC. Asked whether IARC had taken into account a small study commissioned by the NGO Friends of the Earth Europe on the presence of glyphosate in people’s urine across Europe, Guyton commented: “that study was half the data we had! We don’t know the levels, we don’t know the frequency. … Basically, we don’t have any information.” Ultimately, this means that the largest economic entity on the planet, the European Union, does not monitor its own population’s exposure to the top herbicide used in its territory.

Glyphosate has been a commercial blockbuster since its entry on the market. This is because it combines formidable efficacy with toxicity levels that are, as far as known, comparatively lower than those of other broad spectrum herbicides. However, the monoculture agronomic model facilitated by glyphosate is disastrous for the preservation of biodiversity and soils. Also entrenched in this industrialized, large-scale model is the destruction of rural communities.26

In conclusion, we offer one remark and two questions. Germany’s recommendation to increase EU consumers’ legal exposure levels by 66 per cent – supported by EFSA – has hardly been discussed (not just in this article, but anywhere). This is surprising, and EFSA has already announced that it is going to revise approved residue levels in 2016. Secondly, the never-asked question that lurks in the shadows of this process: can the EU really execute its own pesticide policy and ban glyphosate if the law demands so; or is TTIP throwing a spanner in the works again, since glyphosate is of too great strategic importance to US interests (ie GM crop exports)? Finally, if the EU doesn’t want to implement a ban, can it afford to acknowledge that IARC might be right?

At any rate, having independent scientists whose work and background can be checked rather than anonymous officials and confidential references in charge of this evaluation would have increased trust in the outcome of the entire exercise.

Picture: “Herbicide Path“, by Angus Wilson (Creative Commons – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Notes

1. The producers asked for the following uses: “herbicide on emerged annual, perennial and biennial weeds in all crops [crops including but not restricted to root and tuber vegetables, bulb vegetables, stem vegetables, field vegetables (fruiting vegetables, brassica vegetables, leaf vegetables and fresh herbs, legume vegetables), pulses, oil seeds, potatoes, cereals, and sugar- and fodder beet; orchard crops and vine, before planting fruit crops, ornamentals, trees, nursery plants etc.] and foliar spraying for desiccation in cereals and oilseeds (pre-harvest).”
2. The glyphosate tolerance genes inserted in these plants have now spread to a large number of weeds, making the use of glyphosate less and sometimes not at all effective. To fight this, the biotech industry is now selling (or planning to sell) GM crops tolerating several herbicides at the same time. However, these herbicides, which include glufosinate, 2,4 D, and dicamba, are more toxic to humans than glyphosate.
3. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) was increased from 0.3 to 0.5mg/kg of body weight.
4. This has been proposed by Germany’s national agency BfR. (The EU’s Pesticides Regulation foresees that Member State do the first examination of a pesticide and that EFSA then does a peer review of this opinion together with all other Member States).
5. The second category (2A) in IARC classification, seehttp://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/
6. CEO is currently supporting an EU-wide petition to the European Commission demanding that glyphosate is banned, seehttps://act.wemove.eu/campaigns/stop-glyphosate
7. Specifically, the regulation says: “classification in Category 1A and 1B is based on strength of evidence […] [which] may be derived from human studies that establish a causal relationship between human exposure to a substance and the development of cancer (known human carcinogen); or animal experiments for which there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate animal carcinogenicity (presumed human carcinogen). In addition, on a case-by-case basis, scientific judgement may warrant a decision of presumed human carcinogenicity derived from studies showing limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans together with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Regulations (EC) No 1107/2009 on Pesticides and (EC) No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP), p. 104.
8. Addendum 1 to the RAR Assessment of IARC Monographs, Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report (public version), Risk assessment provided by the rapporteur Member State Germany and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the active substance GLYPHOSATE according to the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a second group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1141/2010, October 2015, p. 4156.
9. Ibid, p. 4244
10. Comments of Sweden on the addendum of September 2015 for glyphosate, European Food Safety Authority, Peer Review Report on Glyphosate, October 2015, p.887
11. Peer review report, p.870
12. The country banned glyphosate from garden centers and could have been expected to defend interpretations supporting this decision
13. With adjuvants (substances that change/increase the effect of glyphosate).
14. Glyphosate Addendum 1 to RAR Part Ecotoxicology, Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report (public version), Risk assessment provided by the rapporteur Member State Germany and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the active substance GLYPHOSATE according to the procedure for the renewal of the inclusion of a second group of active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1141/2010, October 2015, p. 4316.
15. “(Not according to GLP or to OECD guidelines)”
16. EFSA, 2015. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal 2015;13(11):4302, 107 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302, p. 11.
17. Two were however included in their evaluation because public, final peer reviews of the data by the US government and the World Health Organization was available.
18. Phone interview with CEO, 19 November 2015.
19. Peer review report, p. 870
20. This problem exists in all regions of the world, and the very high entry cost on the market created by this situation protects large companies against competition: the market is concentrating rapidly, with the 10 largest pesticide producers controlling 94.5 per cent of the global market.
21. Provided of course they actually try to find it: EFSA has to include all available independent information in its work but often fails to do so.
22. Email correspondence with CEO, 17 November 2015
23. In our 2013 “Unhappy Meal” report documenting large numbers of conflicts of interests among EFSA experts, CEO actually recommended that EFSA adopt this approach in order to improve the agency’s independence without cutting it off from the expertise it needs. For more details on IARC’s “Invited Specialist” status, seehttp://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currenta5participants0706.php
24. Among the observers to IARC meetings were T. Sorahan, a Monsanto employee, and C. Strupp, an employee of the pesticides manufacturer Adama representing the EU pesticides lobby ECPA, seehttp://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8.pdf
25. Correspondence between CEO and C. Portier, 24 November 2015
26. This is starting to be acknowledged: in the Ecotoxicology section of its review of the IARC findings, BfR re-stated that such broad-spectrum herbicides cause considerable disruption in entire ecosystems: “In addition to the evaluation of the information from the IARC monograph, [Germany] reiterates in this addendum the knowledge regarding the effects of glyphosate and other broad spectrum herbicides on the populations of non-target species (especially insects and farmland birds), caused by an alteration of the food web.”

The current economic, political, and social situation in Venezuela is very complicated, which makes it somewhat difficult for outsiders to make sense of. On the one hand there are many people who defend the Bolivarian revolution, pointing to the successes it has had in reducing poverty and inequality and in increasing citizen participation and self-governance. On the other hand, there is a chorus of critics, not just from the usual suspects on the political right, but often from the left, who criticize the Maduro government’s economic management of the country, corruption, the high inflation rate and shortages, and the trial of a high profile opposition politician, who the government accuses of fomenting violence. How did Venezuela get here? What happened since Hugo Chavez’s death? Did the project derail, get stuck, hit a speed bump, or crash altogether? In order to answer this question, I will first analyze the origins of the current economic situation.

The Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela is no doubt undergoing one if its toughest periods at this time. With inflation reaching an unprecedented 160-200 per cent for 2015, nearly constant long lines at subsidized supermarkets, and sporadic shortages of many consumer goods, the entire population – whether Chavista, opposition sympathizers, or “ni-ni” (neither one side nor the other) – is frustrated with the situation. While the Maduro government says that the problems are the result of an economic war that is being waged against the government, the opposition argues that it is government economic mismanagement that is to blame. The truth, as usual, is more complicated.

Banner: “I don’t feel like living in fear.”

Struggle for Economic Power

The roots of today’s economic problems can be found in Chavez’s efforts already in 2001, to fundamentally reorganize Venezuela’s economy and polity. That is, back then Chavez proved to the country’s old elite that he would not be their pawn and do their bidding as so many presidents before Chavez had done. Instead, in late 2001 he introduced land reform and oil industry reform legislation that touched on the elite’s two most important sources of economic power. In reaction to this move, the opposition launched the April 2002 coup attempt and the December 2002 oil industry shutdown. These efforts at political and economic destabilization provoked a massive bout of capital flight in early 2003. At first, the government tried to counter the capital flight by intervening in the currency market, using its dollars to purchase the bolivar, in order to keep its price stable. However, this caused the central government to lose dollar currency reserves precipitously and so it abruptly changed gears and introduced a fixed exchange rate in March of 2003.

Ever since then, the currency has been fixed and adjusted very rarely. Only those who meet government conditions to buy dollars with bolivars are allowed to do so. The conditions for gaining access to the official exchange rate include international travel, supporting a son or daughter with their studies abroad, or – most importantly – importing essential goods into Venezuela, among several other types of uses. Of course, almost immediately a black market for dollars sprung up, with an exchange rate that was very different from the official one. At first the official exchange rate was 2.15 bolivars per dollar, while the black market rate quickly reached double or triple that rate.

For a long time, from 2004 to 2008, the Venezuelan economy did quite well, growing at a very rapid rate of, on average, 10 per cent per year. This was in part possible because the price of oil was quite high (and climbing), which meant that the government could accommodate most requests for dollars at the official exchange rate. Also, the government’s policies of capturing a far larger proportion of the dollars that the country earned and then reinvesting that money in social programs, education, and in efforts to diversify the economy also made a difference.

However, in mid-2008 the global financial crisis struck and drove the price of oil down from $140 (U.S.) per barrel in mid 2008, to less than $40 (U.S.) per barrel in early 2009. Suddenly the government could no longer cover all of the imports with its oil industry earnings and so in June 2010 the government introduced a new exchange mechanism, SITME, which sold dollar-denominated bonds that could be bought in bolivars at an exchange rate that was double that of the previous rate. The combination of SITME and the borrowing to cover the budget deficit meant that total foreign debt increased rapidly in the period from 2006 to 2014, from 10% of GDP to 25% of GDP. Nominal external debt (private and public) went from $41.8-billion (U.S.) in 2006 to $134.5-billion (U.S.) in 2014, a 320 per cent increase in eight years. The percentage of GDP is indicated on the basis of GDP PPP. The debt to GDP ratio is fairly low compared to the rest of Latin America.

Another measure that the government took during this time was to restrict access to dollars at the official exchange rate. That is, the conditions under which Venezuelans could access dollars were significantly tightened. Fewer dollars were available for travel, for study abroad, and for a more restricted list of imports. The consequence of this action was that the black market exchange rate shot up during this period, going from about 8 bolivars per dollar in 2011, and to 16 in 2012.

Also, since fewer goods could be imported at the official exchange rate, more and more importers began to use the black market to import goods, thus driving up inflation. Even if they used the official exchange rate, rather than undercutting importers who had to pay for goods at the black market rate, people knew that they could make a killing by pricing goods at the far higher black market rate and thus did so. In short, inflation began to heat up too, going from a fairly moderate (for Venezuela) 13.7 per cent in 2006, to 31.4 per cent in 2008 and holding at 20-21 per cent, on average, between 2010 and 2012.

Borrowing in order to pay for the low official exchange rate had another side effect, which is that it increased the volume of bolivars in circulation, relative to the country’s foreign reserves. The M2 money supply figure (which includes circulating cash and bank savings) increased by a factor of 28 (2,800 per cent) between the end of 2006 and the end of 2014, while foreign reserves dropped by more than 50 per cent during the same time, from around $30-billion to $15-billion (U.S.), according to the Venezuelan Central Bank. Although there is some debate among economists about the importance of this ratio for the exchange rate, it is undeniable that in a context of high inflation, where many ordinary Venezuelans and most businesses seek to buy dollars in order to protect their savings from devaluing, a low demand for bolivars and a low supply of dollars will mean a declining black market exchange rate between dollars and bolivars.

Post Chavez Elections

All of these trends became accentuated when President Chavez died of cancer on March 5, 2013 and new elections were held a little later, in April, resulting in Nicolas Maduro’s election by a 1.5 per cent point margin of victory. The wave of violence following the election, which opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonsky encouraged when he called on people to demonstrate “with all of their rage,” in which 14 people died, only made the perception of political and economic instability worse [Ed.: for example, see Bullet No. 986]. Further destabilization attempts, the violent street blockades known as “guarimbas,” between March and June 2014, and which resulted in another 43 dead and over 100 wounded, further exacerbated the economic problems.

That is, the destabilization created further pressure on the black market exchange rate, which, in turn, meant that there was a growing gap between the official and the black market exchange rates that could be exploited for massive profit-making. Anyone who had the opportunity to take advantage of this gap faced enormous temptations to do so.

While the official exchange rate was fixed at 6.3 bolivars per dollar since early 2013, the black market rate had reached three times that, at 18 per dollar. In other words, someone who traveled to the U.S., for example, could buy up to $4,000 (U.S.) at the official rate (paying 25,200 bolivars). If they did not use this cash up or if they purchased equivalent goods abroad, they could trade that at the black market back into bolivars for a 300 per cent profit, earning 75,000 bolivars.

A vicious cycle thus began in early 2014, where an ever-widening gap between the official and unofficial exchange rates created ever-greater incentives to profit from that gap, thereby further widening that same gap. The black market exchange rate thus began to increase exponentially in the course of 2014 and 2015, reaching 100 bolivars per dollar in late 2014 and 800 bolivars per dollar by late 2015, creating a 125:1 ratio between the black market and the official exchange rates. Massive profits of up to 12,500 per cent were thus possible.

As a result, more and more people became involved in efforts to acquire dollars at the official rate, mostly by purchasing subsidized goods in Venezuela and (re-)exporting them across the border for an enormous profit (people known as bachaqueros). Of course, major companies are involved in this process too, claiming that they need to import essential goods, and then either not importing these or re-exporting them to acquire dollars. In mid-2014 president Maduro estimated that up to 40 per cent of all goods imported into Venezuela (at the official exchange rate) were smuggled right back out again.

A logical consequence of all of this was that more and more goods became scarce at the price-controlled prices and in massive inflation for unregulated goods. That is, already early in Chavez’s second term in office, in 2006, the government had begun to introduce price controls for most essential goods, in order to counter the retailers’ tendency to price things based on the black market exchange rate instead of the official rate. Over the years, the government gradually expanded the number of goods that the price controls covered, which, if adhered to, also meant that more and more products were priced far below what these could be sold for in neighboring countries, thereby adding these products to those that could generate massive profits by re-exporting them.

Solutions?

The big question that everyone asks – both within Venezuela and outside – is, if the low fixed exchange rate is leading to so many economic problems, why has the government not raised the rate? There are two main explanations for this. First, raising the official exchange rate so that it is more in tune with the black market exchange rate and with the prices in neighboring countries would mean raising prices for products imported at the official exchange rate, thereby further stoking an inflation rate that is already far too high. And unless wages are raised correspondingly, changing the exchange rate would also mean a corresponding decrease in incomes and thus an increase in the poverty rate.

Second, changing the official exchange rate would represent an admission of defeat in the context of what the government is calling an economic war against Venezuela. While an exchange rate adjustment or devaluation will probably have to happen sooner or later, it is out of the question that such a move (and the implied concession) would be made before the December 6 National Assembly elections. Note, there is some debate within Venezuela as to whether it makes more sense to call a change in the exchange rate an “adjustment” (the government’s preferred term) or a “devaluation.” I prefer to call it an adjustment because technically the currency has already lost a tremendous amount of its value due to inflation, so, in effect, a lowering of the exchange rate is more of adjustment to the reality that inflation has already devalued the currency – this is especially true if you consider that very few people have access to the official exchange rates, thus making the black market rate more real for most people than the official ones.

In other words, the current situation in Venezuela is a result, first, of the exchange rate control that was meant to defend the currency against the destabilization attempts of 2002, which themselves were the result of the Chávez’s government’s attack on capitalist class interests. Second, an already relatively fragile exchange rate control became worse in the wake of the oil price declines of 2008 and again in 2014, which made it increasingly difficult for the government to meet the demand for dollars without going further into debt. Third, the opposition’s new destabilization efforts against the Maduro government the day after Maduro’s election in April 2013 and again in early 2014, turned the existing economic volatility into a vicious cycle of inflation, shortages, black market devaluation, and renewed inflation. The situation is thus quite difficult for the government and very frustrating for the population.

Key Factors in Venezuela as Elections Approach

Despite the extremely difficult economic situation in the lead-up to the Dec. 6 National Assembly elections in Venezuela, the Maduro government and the Bolivarian revolution currently do have a few things that make the situation not quite as bleak as one might otherwise think. I will present this domestic context, first, in terms of the government’s most recent actions and policies, second, in terms of the progressive social movements in Venezuela and, third, in terms of the opposition’s situation and actions.

There is little doubt that the economic and social situation in Venezuela is very difficult at the moment, with the highest inflation rate since the time Hugo Chavez was elected president on December 6, 1998, constant shortages of (price-controlled) basic food goods, and a high crime rate. Recognizing this difficult situation, which the government says is the result of an “economic war” against the government, President Nicolas Maduro has been instituting a number of policies designed to address the problem areas of his administration.

Perhaps the most intensive effort in this regard has been devoted to the “Great Housing Mission,” which since its launch in 2011 constructed nearly 850,000 homes by November 2015 and is supposed to reach one million by the end of 2015. Already this means that the government has managed to construct an average of about 200,000 new homes per year since the mission’s launch, which represents a more than three-fold increase over the 2000-2011 annual average of public homes constructed. Given that the average Venezuelan household has five members, this means that more or less five million Venezuelans will benefit from the housing program by the end of the year – a not insignificant number if you consider that this represents one sixth of Venezuela’s total population of 30 million.

The second major effort to counter the difficult circumstances was a new series of policies to control inflation, which he presented in October of this year. In the course of his two-and-a-half-year presidency, President Maduro already introduced a variety of changes to his economic policy in order to get inflation and shortages under control. Back in February, for example, Maduro announced a series of measures that were supposed to make one of the higher official exchange rates more accessible to the general public and that would make the black market currency exchange more legal. However, neither of these policies had much of an impact on the problems of inflation and shortages.

As a result, the government announced in October that a maximum legal profit would be introduced. One of the great problems of the current economic situation is that some vendors manage to make exorbitant profits by either purchasing goods at an extremely low price-controlled price and then re-sell them for many times that cost. Or, they import goods using one of the lower official exchange rate mechanisms, which makes the import extremely cheap for them, but then sell the goods anyway at a price that reflects a price calculated by the black market exchange rate, thereby also making an exorbitant profit. The new economic measures thus examine the real prices of practically everything sold in Venezuela, and set a profit limit at 30 per cent of the original cost.

Although these new measures were accompanied by steep penalties for violators of the new profit maximums, so far it seems that the measure is not being adhered to. Inflation is still far above tolerable levels (of over 160 to 200 per cent for 2015) and, if some anecdotal reports are generalizable, vendors are resorting to black markets even more, depriving supermarkets of even more products. One likely reason that these new measures have not had much of an effect (yet?) is that overseeing the prices and profits of all products and vendors in Venezuela is a task that is impossible for the Venezuelan government to fulfill. In short, this second policy area is still not having a positive impact on the economic situation.

The third major policy effort for 2015 has been in the area of crime fighting, with a new program named, “Operation Liberation and Protection of the People” (OLP), which was launched in July of this year. In some ways this program represents a militarization of crime fighting, as it involves large-scale raids on high crime neighborhoods, using not only the police force, but also the National Guard. The government clearly felt such a military tactic was becoming necessary, not only because of the influx of Colombian paramilitary organized crime, but also because the crime rate more generally has increased in the past year (partly because of the Colombian paramilitary presence). Given the high crime rate and that previous measures to lower it did not work, most Venezuelans seem to approve of the OLP program. Whether it will make inroads into lowering the crime rate, though, is still too early to tell.

Aside from these three main areas of housing, economic policy, and crime fighting, the government is also continuing – at the same level as before – all of the Chavez government’s social programs, known as missions, such as in the areas of education, subsidized food, community health care, and the expansion of social security benefits, among other programs. It is no doubt the combination of all of these programs that has maintained much of the government’s popularity despite the severe economic crisis that the country is currently going through.

Popular Movements and Organizations

One of the greatest strengths of the Bolivarian revolution is the involvement of popular movements and organizations. Although Venezuela never had particularly strong mass movements, relative to other countries in Latin America, such as Bolivia, the Chavez government did emerge out of progressive movements (see George Ciccariello-Maher’s excellent social history of Venezuela: We Created Chavez). These movements, by and large, are still supporting the government, despite the many criticisms that they have of the government as a result of the current difficult economic situation.

During Chavez’s presidency these movements were strengthened as a result of the government’s policies to broaden and open spaces for their participation in government social programs, community media, and via the communal councils and the communes (which are groupings of communal councils). Certainly, there has been some degree of interference by the government, but these have resisted such efforts, leading to a fair amount of tension and mutual suspicion between the government and community groups. Still, despite these tensions, both sides are very clear that they need each other’s support and that undermining or breaking ranks at this time would only contribute to an opposition victory, which would be bad for both sides.

An innovative new campaign has recently sprung up, known as “Every Heartbeat Counts,” which is in some ways typical of the government-social movement relationship. It represents a coming together of over 20 anti-capitalist community groups, many of them cultural. On the one hand the campaign is clearly a campaign to support the pro-government candidates running for National Assembly, but it is nonetheless independent of the government and seeks to push it further to the left by supporting the strengthening of communal councils and communes in Venezuela. It is difficult to say whether this campaign will make a difference in this election, but the critical support that they give to the government could make a difference in electoral circuits that are very tight. But more than that, the campaign is also an example of the creativity and energy that still exists just below the surface of Venezuelan politics, in the communities and the social movements, despite the frustration and even anger that many people have for the government.

The Opposition

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political divide, the opposition seems to be as internally divided and weaker than ever, despite their surge in the polls. In some ways this is a strange situation, given that the government is without a doubt at its second-weakest point of the entire 17 years of the Bolivarian revolution (Chavez was first elected on December 6, 1998 – exactly 17 years prior to the December 6 National Assembly election of 2015) – the weakest point was the period of the coup attempt and the oil industry shutdown in 2002. One would think that such an opportunity for the opposition would serve to rally it and unify it in the effort to overthrow a government that they have hated for so long.

However, the opposition remains deeply divided between those who are convinced that the only way to get back into power is via an overthrow of the government by any means necessary versus those who would prefer a more constitutional path to regaining power. Also, the lack of a clear opposition program makes them look like the only thing they want is to depose the Bolivarian revolution, but have no idea what they want beyond that. Part of the problem here is that during his presidency Chavez succeeded in completely discrediting the neoliberal discourse to such an extent that practically no one in the opposition dares to bring neoliberalism up as an opposition program (unlike Argentina, where Macri was able to run and win on a neoliberal platform). It is the combination of a lack of political program and internal divisions over strategy that has made it almost impossible for the opposition to profit from the government’s current vulnerability to the extent that it otherwise might.

Looking Toward 6D

As usual, given the vast majority of the media coverage on Venezuela, there is a concerted effort to make it look like the December 6 election will be marred by fraud. This is an image that the Venezuelan opposition is actively promoting with the unabashed help from international media, the U.S. government, and the Organization of American States (its bureaucracy in Washington DC, not most of its member states). However, anyone who has bothered to take a close look at the Venezuelan electoral system, can quickly see that it is perhaps one of the (if not the) most fraud-proof electoral systems in the world. It is thus no surprise that President Carter once said, “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

The danger inherent in the December 6 election is thus not fraud, but the opposition’s reaction to the result. If it is a result that they do not like, they will almost certainly claim that there was fraud and launch into another violent destabilization campaign, just as they did following the April 2013 presidential election, which left 11 dead, and during the February-May 2014 street blockades known as “Guarimbas,” which killed 43 people and wounded hundreds of others.

The actual National Assembly result is very difficult to predict because it all depends on how well individual candidates do on the level of their electoral districts, of which there are 87 throughout the country. The governing PSUV had held an effective primary election to nominate the candidates last June, many of which are quite young and about half of whom are women. Also, the recent policies in the areas of housing and crime fighting have created plusses for the government among the population. Finally, the fact that most social movements are sticking with the government helps too.

On the other hand, the severe economic situation of inflation and shortages has also created an enormous amount of frustration amongst the chavista base, nearly outweighing the elements in favor of the government. The fact that there is an international campaign against the government, which the United States is leading and which the governments of Argentina and Colombia support, along with OAS Secretary General Almagro, probably won’t have much of an impact on the election itself, but will on the aftermath and the efforts to delegitimize the election, should the opposition not get the result it is hoping for. •

Gregory Wilpert is a long-time activist and organizer, mostly around Latin America solidarity, and a co-founder of venezuelanalysis.com. This article first appeared on the teleSUR English website.

(This posting is a select chapter from Andrew Korybko’s second book that will focus on the geopolitical application of Hybrid Wars.) 

Southern Expansionism

During the final years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the US reached a verbal agreement whereby Moscow would allow for the reunification of Germany in exchange for the US agreeing to never expand NATO further East. As history attests, the US shamelessly reneged on its guarantee the moment the Soviet Union collapsed and was powerless to effectively stop it, swallowing up almost the entirety of Eastern Europe (save for Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine) and all the Baltic States by 2004. What’s less studied by observers is NATO’s “Drang Nach Suden” (Drive to the South), which represents one of the last fronts of continental NATO expansionism and has been in the works ever since the end of the Cold War.

Theoretically speaking, this corner of Europe didn’t fall under the Soviets’ purvey when they made their verbal agreement with the US. Moscow didn’t have any forces stationed in Yugoslavia or Albania that would soon be withdrawn, thus making these countries’ prospective membership into NATO a moot point for Moscow to even discuss because it had no power or influence one way or another to even decide on it. Faced with its own internal problems and its forthcoming theater-wide withdraw from Central and Eastern Europe, it’s likely that the Soviet Union didn’t even consider the then-unthinkable scenario that a series of American-engineered proto-Hybrid Wars would soon lead to the dissolution of Yugoslavia along federative lines and one day see two of its formerly unified members plus Albania under the NATO nuclear umbrella.

Alas, that’s exactly what happened, and it can be suggested that one of the US’ partial motivations for dismembering Yugoslavia was to create a chain of weakened nation-states that would be much easier to absorb into the bloc than the formerly unified and strong federal entity. It was earlier discussed at the beginning of the book’s Balkan research that Slovenia was the most gung-ho pro-Western state out of the entire former Yugoslavia, being the first to join both the EU and NATO. To remind the reader of what was written at that earlier point, Slovenia was largely insulated from the chaos of the Yugoslav Wars owing to its advantageous geography, and its small population was disproportionately well endowed with a legacy of Yugoslav investment that allowed it to rapidly achieve the highest GDP per capita of all the former communist countries in Europe.

Consequently, it joined NATO and the EU in 2004, making it the first Balkan state with membership in both organizations. This was designed to serve as an example-setting precedent for other similarly pro-Western regional elite who wanted to emulate the “Slovenian success story”, leading them to believe that it was Ljubljana’s impassioned desire to join Western-dominated institutions that explained its success and not its inimitable geographic, historic, and economic factors. Be that as it was, the deceptive ploy prevailed in convincing the Croatian elite of their own self-delusions and consequently in furthering their informational investments in misleading the rest of the population into supporting their predetermined decision to join both blocs. Zagreb would later enter into NATO in 2009 and join the EU in 2013, thus following the Slovenian scenario and dispensing of the tiny Balkan country’s strategic purpose to either organization (hence the institutional neglect that it’s received from both since then).

The situation was a bit different with Albania, as it wasn’t influenced by Slovenia’s example at all. It joined NATO the same year that Croatia did for the complementary reasons of supporting the US’ Lead From Behind grand strategy in the Western Balkans and in placing itself in a more ‘regionally intimidating’ position for promoting Greater Albania sometime again in the future (most likely against Macedonia). Also, it can’t be discounted that Tirana’s elites were motived to a large degree by their conception of ‘triumphalism’ in formally allying with the bloc that bombarded Serbia and led to the temporary severing of its Province of Kosovo. Taking into account the Albanian understanding of ‘pride’ and how the Ottoman-era culture of completely disrespecting one’s enemy are still influential factors that impact on the Albanian psyche, it’s very likely that one of the country’s driving interests in joining NATO was simply to spite Serbia.

Waiting In The Wings?

Looking at the rest of the Balkans, every country has some form or another of institutional relations with NATO.

Serbia:

To begin with, Serbia agreed to an Individual Partnership Action Plan in January 2015, in an event that bizarrely received barely any publicity in the country’s media. One would have been led to believe that Serbia’s closer relations with the same military bloc that bombed it into submission 16 years prior would garner intense outcry among the country’s opinion leaders and institutions, but the fact that it didn’t speaks loudly about the strong entrenchment of influential pro-Western figures inside the country’s establishment.

Cooperation with NATO is generally rejected by the majority of Serbs, who survived NATO bombings in 1999.

This political predicament is inherently untenable and cannot progress for much longer without the country being thrown into domestic destabilization. Pragmatic approaches towards multiple geopolitical directions are welcome for any country, but when radical moves such as deepening the relationship with NATO are made, it indicates a decisive power play on behalf of the pro-Western forces. Couple that early-2015 announcement with the news at the end of the year in December that Belgrade is formally in accession talks with Brussels, and 2015 becomes the ‘Year of the West’ for Serbia. This can’t help but result in opposition from the pragmatic voices represented by Nikolic (who is reflective of the majority of society), which must feel their influence waning amidst Vucic’s pro-Western advancements.Also, it’s notable that this decision was undertaken under the Vucic’s Premiership, which has gone to great lengths to please the West. This stands in stark contrast to the contemporaneous Nikolic Presidency, which has worked hard to make pragmatic strides in Serbia’s relations with Russia. The glaring discrepancy between the foreign policy priorities of the Prime Minister and the President doesn’t seem to be an elaborate ‘balancing’ ruse between the West and Russia, but rather a clumsy and disjointed struggle to hash out compromise between the respective Serbian elites that each figurehead represents.

The governmental split that’s being produced by Vucic’s unwavering pro-Western institutional course (continued despite his visit to Moscow and appeal for Russian weaponry) will inevitably result in an intensification of the ongoing power struggle between the two factions of the Serbian elite, the pro-Westernizers and the political pragmatists, unless Vucic tempers his approach. Failure to do so will force the country into the same manipulated “civilizational choice” that the West imposed on Ukraine in November 2013, which would ultimately work out to the US’ grand strategic benefit at the expense of every Serbian. Provocatively speaking, it might follow the Ukrainian scenario so closely that a Color Revolution breaks out in Belgrade, albeit with diametrically different geopolitical consequences than the pro-Western one that succeeded in Kiev.

Bosnia:

Moving along, Bosnia and the other two remaining Balkan countries that will be discussed have agreed to Membership Action Plans with NATO, which means that they have officially committed their governments to a path that’s supposed to end with NATO membership some time or another. It’s practically impossible for this scheme to succeed in Bosnia without a renewal of civil warfare between Republika Srpska and the Croat-Muslim entity, but more than likely, that’s the point of Sarajevo pursuing such a farfetched plan. The Serbs would never accept joining NATO because that would lead to the extinguishment of their autonomous republic, but reversely, if the autonomy of Republika Srpska could be revoked (the scenarios of which Sarajevo and its Western patrons are subtly exploring), then NATO membership would be institutionally uncontested and incapable of being stopped. As has been discussed extensively already, Bosnia is a giant geopolitical time bomb that’s waiting to be detonated by the West, and Sarajevo’s determined and timed movement towards NATO could be the spark that lights the next Balkan fuse.

Macedonia:

The surface conviction among many is that Skopje has committed itself to an irreversible pro-Western trajectory regardless of leadership, and judging by official statements on the matter, that does indeed seem to be the case. Digging deeper, however, and unraveling the changing domestic and international contexts surrounding Macedonia, the argument can convincingly be made that there’s more than meets the eye when it comes to Skopje’s pro-Western institutional associations. December 2014 forever changed the calculations of the Macedonian leadership because of the Russia and China’s dual announcements of the Balkan Stream and Balkan Silk Road megaprojects, respectively, both of which are envisioned to crucially transit through the country’s territory.

Of course, neither Great Power would have made such ambitious plans without having first consulted with the Macedonian government, and Skopje was more than willing to agree after taking stock of the enormous economic windfall that it would receive from either project’s successful completion. Also, neither Moscow nor Beijing likely made any ultimatums to Skopje for its cooperation (such as saying that it mustn’t join NATO and/or the EU), but that it was probably strongly implied that substantially moving forward with either of these ‘formal’ institutional goals could endanger the projects, and thus, the geostrategic and economically profitable benefits that Macedonia stood to incur.

After discreetly acquiring Macedonia’s advance approval for their initiatives, Russia and China went public with their regional visions, but this triggered the US to initiate its back-up regime change plans for the country in order to keep it firmly in its orbit and pressure it to cancel the multipolar megaprojects. The US was probably tipped off to its geopolitical rivals’ plans well in advance and had begun tinkering with a destabilization scenario in Macedonia long ago, using it and its allies’ spy agencies to surreptitiously wiretap government and private citizens for use in a forthcoming political blackmail campaign. In the months preceding the monumental multipolar announcements relating to Macedonia, the US ordered its regime change proxy, ‘opposition’ leader Zoran Zaev, to selectively release suggestive snippets from the Western intelligence agency-doctored ‘recordings’ in order to test the waters and gauge the public’s reaction.

After recognizing that the ‘wiretap’ scenario had the potential to stir a critical mass of manipulated public unrest (with the hand-in-hand support of Soros-affiliated organizations and media outlets), the US knew that it had a powerful tool with which to pressure the government. Prime Minister Gruevski didn’t fold to Washington’s implied regime change demands, however, and he instead stood proudly defiant in the face of the externally imposed coup attempt being pursued against him. At around this time in early 2015, he probably started getting second doubts about his ‘Western partners’ (if he hadn’t had them already by this point) and questioning the strategic wisdom of continuing his country’s established pro-Western course.

At the same time, being the leader of a super-strategic but comparatively small country, Gruevski keenly understood his limits of action and came to the conclusion that forcefully rejecting the West would be contrary to his and his country’s physical security. This explains why his formal statements are in support of the unipolar EU and NATO, while his multipolar actions in cooperating with the Balkan Silk Road and Balkan Stream megaprojects speak more sincerely to the strategic direction that he truly plans on taking his country. Gruevski’s prudence in taking this approach was vindicated after the US attempted an unsuccessful Hybrid War push against him in May 2015 (Zaev’s failed Color Revolution intermingled with the Albanian terrorist plots in Kumanovo), showing the desperate lengths that they were willing to go in getting him removed and stopping the multipolar megaprojects.

Despite this obvious regime change attempt and the subsequently more subtle methods being employed to try and oust him (the EU-mediated ‘negotiations’ with the ‘opposition’ and the forthcoming early elections), Gruevski is still aware that if he succumbs to the emotional temptation to publicly disown the EU and NATO in response, then he might fall victim to an assassination attempt (which is what the plane scare over Switzerland in late-May 2015 was meant to convey to him). For these reasons, the Macedonian Premier must continue his clever game of telling the West what they want to hear while doing the opposite in practice, although it’s unclear whether he can continue doing so indefinitely without being forced by the US into making a resolute choice one way or another.

For the time being, however, although Macedonia is formally pursuing integration into Western institutions, its policies in practice are purposely ambiguous, and in light of the changed domestic and international circumstances that were just explained, one should hold off on rendering full judgement about Gruevski’s officially declared commitments until after he gains more freedom of political maneuverability following the early elections in April.

Fighting Back

The final Balkan country that has yet to be discussed is Montenegro, which just received its official invitation to join NATO during the bloc’s early-December meeting in Brussels. Even before the announcement was ever formally made, Prime Minister Djukanovic (the country’s ruler in one form or another for almost the past thirty years) declared that his country would unreservedly accept NATO membership, prompting an unprecedented display of public unrest. The majority of the 600,000 or so Montenegrin citizens are against their country joining the same military bloc that bombed it 16 years ago when it was still part of rump Yugoslavia, and the political opposition has called for the issue to be put before a referendum. The government refused to accede to their suggestion and instead responded with disproportionate force that suppressed the protests and produced an ever stronger reaction of anti-NATO sentiment.

Anti-NATO protests in Montenegro were brutally supressed by local police.

The result was that the violent crackdown predictably intimidated some of the population and led to a noticeable decline in their outward protest activity. This government interpreted this according its preordained expectations and assumed that this meant that the anti-NATO movement was finished. That wasn’t the case, however, since the form of resistance had simply adapted to the repressive conditions in the country and moved away from large manifestations in the capital in favor of smaller gatherings in the towns and villages. On the one hand, this was a tactical necessity in order to preserve the protesters’ safety, but on the other, it created the deceptive illusion that the population had been forced into complacency and may have unintentionally contributed to NATO going forward with the membership offering, as opposed to withholding it out of fear that extending the invitation would push the country over the edge and result in the overthrow of their long-cherished proxy.

As it stands, it’s expected to take between one to two years for Montenegro for complete the NATO accession process, meaning that there’s a critical last-minute window of opportunity for the protesters to make history and be the first to carry their country away from the organization after it’s already agreed to join. Theoretically speaking, it’s entirely possible for Montenegro to set a new precedent in this regard, but it’s clear that the only way to do this is by overthrowing the government or pressuring it to the extent that it acquiesces to a referendum. Granted, even a public vote might not be enough to stop the NATO machine, since it’s unsure at this time whether it would be just as crooked of a motion as the previous ballots held under Djukanovic’s rule. More than likely, given the donkey-like obstinacy that Djukanovic and his Mafioso clique have, plus their propensity to resort to extreme violence amidst pressure, it’s probable that the only way to reverse the NATO decision is to replace Djukanovic with a sincere opposition figure that will pull Montenegro out of the initiation process before it’s fully completed.

Montenegro’s strategic importance to NATO is disproportionate to its tiny size, and its membership in the bloc is an important step in bringing Serbia more firmly under Atlantic control. Assuming the most negative scenario where Montenegrins are unable to save their country from occupation, then NATO would have succeeded in tightening its noose of encirclement around Serbia and would then feel more confident in making bolder moves against it and Republika Srpska in the future. Keep in mind that Montenegrins are closely related to Serbs and that many Serbs still live in the country. Officially, the government lists them as being 28% of the population, but given Djukanovic’s history of statistical manipulations (be it in the 2006 independence referendum or every election in which he’s ran), the real percentage is likely higher. This is all very important for NATO since they know that they can thus exploit Montenegro as a ‘social laboratory’ for perfecting informational and other strategies for use against the larger Serbian demographics in Republika Srpska and Serbia, thereby giving their campaign in the tiny Adriatic country a heightened strategic importance that is usually lost on most observers.

Concluding Thoughts

With all that being said, the anti-NATO and anti-government resistance movements in Montenegro (which are morphing into a unified force at the moment) are indispensably important in pushing back against NATO’s “Drang Nach Suden”. Their success would provide the Central Balkans with strategic breathing space and stunningly put a sudden halt to the strategic plan that the US had taken for granted up until that point. Looked at from the opposite perspective, NATO sees the incorporation of Montenegro as one of the final pieces in completing its geo-military encirclement of Serbia. It also tangentially expects to receive valuable social feedback from this experience that it can then weaponize against Republika Srpska and Serbia, and the critical momentum that Montenegro’s accession would create could turn into a psychological battering ram for diminishing the population’s resistance in these two states and the Republic of Macedonia. Due to the high stakes involved for all sides, it’s doubtful that Djukanovic and his allies would leave in peace if confronted with a renewed opposition movement against them, thus raising the disturbing specter that the country might descend into civil war if its people try to free themselves from impending NATO domination.

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

“They have now announced that they’re going to put this in front of a grand jury…If you say ‘I’m going to put it in front of a grand jury’, that’s code language for ‘we’re going to use the grand jury to give ourselves political cover for not bringing charges against these cops.’  In a hundred and fifty years, not one single police officer in the State of Minnesota has been indicted  by a grand jury for harming a member of  the community.”

-Michelle Gross, Communities United Against Police Brutality

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:08)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

February 26, 2012. Sanford, Florida. Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17 year old African-American high school student was fatally shot in the gated community in which he lived, by an armed neighbourhood watch coordinator named George Zimmerman. Zimmerman had profiled and pursued Martin. On Saturday July 13, 2013, Zimmerman was found not guilty of Second Degree Murder and acquitted of the charge of manslaughter.

August 9, 2014. Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown, an unarmed 18 year old African-American was shot up to 8 times by white police officer Darren Wilson. Some witness testimony claimed Brown had his hands up in surrender (leading to the familiar protest slogan “Hands up! Don’t Shoot!”) Brown’s killer was cleared of all charges that he had violated Brown’s civil liberties.

November 22, 2014. Cleveland, Ohio. A twelve year old African-American Tamir Rice, armed with a non-functioning replica of a pistol, was shot to death by two police officers within seconds of them arriving on the scene. The officers did not administer First Aid immediately after Rice was shot, and he succumbed to his injuries the following day.

 July 17, 2014. Staten Island, New York. A 43 year old father of six, Eric Garner, died after being placed in a choke hold by arresting officer Daniel Pantaleo. Video of the arrest showed Garner saying “I can’t breathe!” The Garner family received a $5.9 million settlement from the city of New York for damages related to his death which was ruled a homicide, yet a local grand jury declined to bring charges against the officer responsible.

November 15, 2015. Minneapolis, Minnesota. A 24 year old African-American man Jamar Clark was shot by two police officers. Eyewitnesses claimed Clark was restrained, unarmed and not resisting at the time he was shot. The incident inspired activists to set up a protest encampment outside the city’s fourth police precinct, which was removed by police on December 3^rd.

These are just a few of the more spectacular incidents of African American deaths which have sparked outrage among anti-racist activists all across the United States. The pattern suggests a tendency among law enforcement to persecute Blacks more often than Caucasians. This perception was partially confirmed in March of 2015 when a Department of Justice report determined that the Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of its Black residents.

Anti-racism demonstrations have flared up in recent weeks. The social media hashtag #BlackLivesMatter has served as the cyber-backdrop for a movement aimed at confronting a highly unequal racialized justice system,

How have these events come to pass in 21^st Century America? This is the subject of this week’s Global Research News Hour program.

Following a rundown of the Global Research website’s more popular articles, we hear from Michelle Gross of the Minneapolis-based watchdog Communities United Against Police Brutality. She outlines some of the history of persecution of people of Colour in Minneapolis, the futility of relying on Grand Jury indictments, the involvement of White Supremicist groups in the city, and an interesting strategy proposed to restrain officers from further violations of the rights of vulnerable citizens.

Then we speak with outspoken essayist, columnist and editor of Pan African Newswire, Abayomi Azikiwe. He explores the history of Black repression by US Law enforcement more generally, the successes and failures of past Black Liberation movements, and what it will ultimately take to root out the blight of racist violence by State authorities.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:08)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

Sheikh Raed Salah warns that outlawing of Islamic Movement is a prelude to wider assault on Palestinian rights 

In the tangle of back streets in the city of Umm al-Fahm, the three-storey building that until recently housed the headquarters of the northern Islamic Movement stands dark and empty, its front-door padlocked shut.

The movement’s leader, Sheikh Raed Salah, has been forced to decamp to a large covered market on the outskirts of the city that has been hurriedly converted into an unlikely hub of political activity for Israel’s Palestinian minority.

Tens of thousands of visitors have come to this protest tent in the past three weeks, since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked emergency laws – bequeathed by the British Mandate authorities in Palestine 70 years ago – to declare the movement an “illegal organisation”.

Salah told Middle East Eye that the move was “a declaration of war not just against our movement but against Islam and against the whole Palestinian community [in Israel]. Everyone feels targeted.”

Despite this, Salah, a charismatic figure who for many years served as the mayor of Umm al-Fahm, in Israel’s north, does not appear to have been diminished by his eviction onto the streets.

Warnings from Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence service that outlawing the movement would rally Israel’s 1.6 million Palestinian citizens to Salah’s side may be being realised even sooner than expected.

Technically, anyone supporting the Islamic Movement, a political and religious movement that boasts more than 10,000 members, now risks being arrested and jailed. But it is still unclear how the ban will be enforced in practice.

Ofer Zalzberg, an Israeli analyst with the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution think-tank based in Washington and Brussels, said the Shin Bet appeared still to be weighing whether to implement the measure with a light or heavy touch.

“There is a concern about the wider effect on the Palestinian minority and the danger of radicalising its membership,” he said.

‘We will fight’

Polls conducted before the ban showed that more than half of the Palestinian minority believed Salah’s movement represented them, including many Palestinian Christians.

At a protest march in the city last weekend, leaders from across the political spectrum paid tribute to Salah and denounced the ban as a declaration of war on the entire Palestinian community, a fifth of Israel’s population.

The positions of Salah’s movement, the Israeli branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, may sound extreme to Israeli Jews. He refuses to engage with Israel as a Jewish state, does not participate in its national elections, and accuses Israel’s leaders of engineering a takeover of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

But the sheikh does not advocate violence, and distances himself publicly from the struggle of Hamas, the movement’s ideological twin ruling Gaza. Last year he told MEE: “Their struggle is different. They live under occupation.”

In a sign of the current mood – as well as a widespread fear that Israel’s Palestinian political parties in the parliament are now in Netanyahu’s sights – marchers last weekend called out: “We will not be silenced. We are all with the Islamic Movement.”

Salah reflects that mood of defiance. Seated in the protest tent, he told MEE: “I am head of the northern Islamic Movement and will continue to be so, whatever Netanyahu declares. We will fight for this movement.”

Authorities have also taken aim at Salah personally, with an Israeli court in October sentencing him to 11 months in jail for inciting violence. He has appealed the verdict but says he could be imprisoned within days.

Waiting for evidence

Immediately after Netanyahu’s declaration on 17 November, Salah was invited to a four-hour interview with police in the city of Haifa, at which he was accused of providing support to terrorist organisations.

Although such claims have been repeated by the Israeli prime minister, Salah is still waiting to see the evidence. His lawyers point out that, if evidence of material support exists, Salah should have been charged at the meeting and be awaiting trial.

The sheikh dismissed the accusations as “a campaign of baseless propaganda”, just as he did Netanyahu’s comparison between his movement and Islamic State.

“This is simply incitement against the Islamic Movement. What Netanyahu has made clear in recent months is that he is a factory of incitement and of terror. He should be the last one to speak of incitement,” he said.

A 30-day window to appeal the decision expires in just over a week. Salah said his lawyers are still considering whether to turn to the Israeli supreme court.

Their hesitation appears to be prompted by concerns about the make-up of the court, which has moved to the right in recent years. Should the judges reject Salah’s appeal, Netanyahu’s decision, which currently smells of a purely political manoeuvre, will be given the stamp of judicial authority.

The movement is taking steps both locally and internationally, the sheikh said. Protest tents and demonstrations across the country will continue. His advisers are also getting support from international human rights groups. “They have made it clear that they stand with us,” he said.

Another option being considered is an appeal to UN bodies.

Thousands losing aid

Equally pressing for Salah is the practical matter of how to ringfence dozens of religious institutions, charities and welfare services assisted by the Islamic Movement, including health clinics and educational projects.

Some of the associations provide food, pay electricity bills, and run children’s activities for tens of thousands of poor families.

In Jaffa, a city next to Tel Aviv, hundreds of needy families have been left without financial help after the Jaffa Charitable Association’s staff were locked out of their office and their bank account frozen.

More generally, said Salah, the closures will affect half a million Palestinian citizens.

The Islamic Movement, observers note, has stepped in to fill in the stark social and economic gaps left by decades of discrimination towards Israel’s Palestinian minority.

Netanyahu appears to want to sever these connections to weaken the movement’s popularity. But equally the move may rebound on him, unless he is prepared to make up the funding shortfall – an unlikely prospect.

Salah said most of the associations, though helped by the Islamic Movement, are not politically aligned with it.

“They are independent from us, but still their work is being interfered with,” he told MEE. “And remember while Netanyahu is closing down health clinics and kindergartens here, his government is funding 19 settler groups, including those organising terrorist attacks on Palestinians.”

According to Salah, Netanyahu has tried to take aim not just at his movement, but at the entire Palestinian population. More specifically he believes the measures aim to disrupt the movement’s strong presence at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, the Haram al-Sharif, in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Salah has been leading a campaign under the slogan “Al-Aqsa is in danger” for nearly 20 years. He argues that Israeli leaders are asserting ever greater control over the site, where they believe the ruins of two ancient Jewish temples are located.

The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly accused Salah of incitement over al-Aqsa and blamed him for the unrest that has periodically erupted in Jerusalem since last summer.

‘Goal to create vacuum’

“Netanyahu thinks that by banning us he can create a vacuum at al-Aqsa,” the sheikh said. “He hopes that will give him the chance to increase the raids by the occupation forces [to remove Muslim activists from the compound].”

“His ultimate goal is to impose a division at al-Aqsa,” he added, referring to fears that Israel wishes to break with traditional, if waning, rabbinical prohibitions against prayer at the site.

At some point Israel will try to enforce a separate prayer space and prayer times for Jews, echoing what it did at the Ibrahimi mosque 20 years ago, Salah warned.

But Netanyahu will fail, he concluded. “The ban serves only to make our role even more important. Now the entire Palestinian public understands that they must make efforts to defend al-Aqsa, not just the Islamic Movement. The ban has recruited everyone to this cause.”

He points to the fact that the buses the movement regularly runs from Palestinian communities in Israel to Jerusalem have increased by 50 percent since the movement was outlawed. Salah considers the buses a vital weapon to bolster Muslim presence at the mosque, as Israel imposes ever tighter restrictions on worship.

“Could there be a stronger proof that this ban will not scare people and that it is counter-productive?” Salah said.

Collusion by Arab states

The timing of the ban, he added, appeared opportunistic, exploiting anti-Muslim sentiment in the west following Islamic State’s attacks in Paris, in which 130 people were killed.

But he also accuses neighbouring Arab countries of colluding in the decision.

“The origins of this ban date to the renewal of relations between Israel and Egypt after [President Abdel Fattah] Sisi came to power,” he said. Sisi ousted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2013 in a coup and quickly declared it an illegal organisation.

Netanyahu was taking advantage of the Muslim Brotherhood’s beleaguered status in the region, the sheikh said.

More intriguingly, Salah also points the finger at another Arab state.

He believes the crackdown on the Islamic Movement was engineered at a meeting in late October between Netanyahu and US secretary of state John Kerry. The talks were ostensibly designed to calm mounting tensions in Jerusalem over al-Aqsa.

Afterwards, Kerry, Netanyahu and King Abdullah of Jordan, who is formally responsible for al-Aqsa through an Islamic body known as the Waqf, agreed to set up cameras at the site to monitor events there.

Salah says that, according to his sources, a senior US official told his counterpart from an Arab country – which Salah declines to identify – that the agreement was also designed to “clear the path to banning the Islamic Movement, to get us out of the way”.

Jordan has been expressing increasing concern to the US about the role of the Islamic Movement at al-Aqsa, according to a diplomatic source.

Amman is worried that Salah is undermining its authority there, and prefers that the spotlight be removed from the mosque compound in the current Palestinian unrest, said the source.

Parties under attack

With the pressure on Salah and his movement ramping up there are also fears that Israel may now target other Palestinian political movements.

“This is just a prelude. There is already talk among officials about banning the Balad party,” Salah said, referring to a democratic nationalist party with three members in the Israeli parliament.

Balad leaders have outraged the Israeli right by denying that Israel can be both Jewish and democratic, and by demanding equal citizenship.

Salah highlights examples of the Israeli leadership’s current mood of open hostility towards Palestinian leaders in Israel.

Only a court ruling prevented Balad MP, Haneen Zoabi, from being banned from standing in the March general election.

A former MP, Said Nafa, was jailed for a year in September for visiting Syria.

Other figures, such as Raja Aghbaria, leader of Abnaa al-Balad, which campaigns for a single democratic state in the region, are under investigation, noted Salah.

The Shin Bet intelligence service, he observed, advised against the ban, fearing that it would radicalise the Palestinian minority.

“In any normal country, there is a duty on the politicians to listen to their intelligence services. But Netanyahu simply ignored their advice, and that indicates the level of craziness that has been reached here,” Salah said.

After Paris, we issued a statement condemning the attacks. But Netanyahu wants to libel Islam as a violent, extreme, inciteful religion. It is Netanyahu who is leading the region to a religious war.

Under sharp questioning by reporters at a daily press briefing on March 10, 2015 – one day after Barack Obama’s Executive Order against Venezuela – U.S. Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki declared, “The goal of these sanctions is to persuade the Government of Venezuela to change their behavior.”[1] Is the only concern the Government of Venezuela’s behavior?

Since December 1998, when Commander Hugo Chávez won the presidential elections, and now under the leadership of President Nicolás Maduro, the main characteristic of this behavior has been to develop new experiments in participatory democracy. This means the political power of the people exercised in daily concrete actions and political thinking. The fresh projects of participatory democracy displace representative democracy, whose main feature is to restrain people at the base so that they rely on elected representatives. Participatory democracy has been progressively resulting in the fusion of elected representatives at all levels, including government leaders, into the daily political, social and economic life of the people. It is now increasingly difficult to distinguish leadership from the grass roots.

Thus, the primary concern of the Obama administration is that the Bolivarian Revolution is a real revolution in which the main protagonists are the people themselves. Concentrating on the behavior of the Government of Venezuela is, in fact, just a smokescreen to cover up the fact that the revolution being developed is not from the top down.

This revolution has succeeded where others have failed, that is, it promotes a dialectical relationship between the top down and the bottom up. The Bolivarian Revolution represents a revolution in political culture: its main feature is that people are their own liberators, and this can only be realized if exercised on a daily basis; there is no easy way out. The Venezuelan people are increasingly aware of this. This is Obama’s real concern with regard to the conduct of the government: the U.S. is not facing merely a government, but a revolution that becomes stronger and more mature as it defends itself.

This is not to say that setbacks cannot and will not take place. This is bound to happen as Venezuela is evolving in a very complicated situation whereby the U.S. government and the international media are targeting Venezuela. However, the Bolivarian Revolution has become a material force that can be detected, as I have noticed during my visits to Caracas. I am convinced that it cannot be destroyed.

Its vibrancy, as exhibited now in the heat of the battle, serves as an example to other countries, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean. In this region, the most dynamic in the world today, alternative media such as Telesur and the use of social media allow the people in the area to follow events and reach their own conclusions for their respective countries. Therefore, one cannot underestimate the potential positive impact of the Venezuelan experiment on other countries. This is the first of Obama’s real concerns regarding Venezuelan behavior, thus the attempt to drive a wedge between the government and the people.

What is the second concern?

In 2011, Obama stated that “even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can’t escape the fact that we only control 2 percent of the world’s oil, but we consume over a quarter of the world’s oil.”[2] Today, Venezuela has the biggest certified oil reserves in the world. The problem is that the U.S. cannot at this time extend its control of its own relatively limited domestic reserves to those of Venezuela.

This second real concern is intimately related to the first one, the new political culture of people’s power. Right from the initial mandate of Hugo Chávez, for the first time in the history of that country, the benefits of petroleum have been used for vastly improving all facets of Venezuelan life: economic, social, health, education, culture and sports. The concern of Obama is that the people at the base are generally aware of this, because they are involved in working out and applying the deviation of this source of income to their own benefit. The grass roots are very conscious of the source of the improvements to their daily life and see themselves as partners along with the leadership in executing the new programs. Thus both of Obama’s concerns are intimately linked.

Notes

[1] Jen Psaki, U.S. Department of State Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, March 10, 2015, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/03/238718.htm.

[2] Barack Obama, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, March 11, 2011, News Conference by the President, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/11/news-conference-president.

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.

Turkey is taking advantage of neighbors’ crises to loot resources from them, and the government’s ‘neo-Ottomanism’ policy has led to the brink of civil war, geopolitical analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya told Sputnik.

The Turkish government’s links with Daesh, and looting of oil from Syria and Iraq has been an open secret in the Middle East for years, voiced by Turkish citizens living on the border, the Turkish opposition, and even some US politicians, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, sociologist and geopolitical analyst, told Sputnik.

Turkish opposition parties and Turkish citizens living on the border have already spoken out about the government’s involvement in stealing oil from Syria, and collaborating with terrorists.

“In Kobani, a Syrian Kurdish town on the border, the Turkish military, even the US air force, were basically helping ISIL (Daesh) against the Syrian Kurds.”

“There are cases where humanitarian trucks crossing from Turkey into Syria have been spotted by Turkish citizens taking weapons. In fact, one Lebanese American journalist who was on this story, was killed.”

Nazemroaya pointed out that the illegal transportation of oil stolen by terrorists does not stop at Turkey’s borders, and involves other members of the western alliance.

“The entire western military alliance is involved in this. The oil, for example going from Iraq, it’s not just going to Turkey, it’s going to Britain, British companies are involved in this.”

“This is a large-scale thing, a criminal enterprise that involves the US, Britain, and other key Turkish allies.”

“The US is well aware of this. In regards to where Turkey stands on any anti-ISIL coalition … remember, this is not a coalition to fight terrorism. This is a coalition of the guilty, a coalition of the ones who helped create this problem in the Middle East, from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq.”

“They’re the ones who incubated, if not engineered the rise of ISIL.”

Turkey’s current political difficulties, and bad relations with neighbors such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Russia, and the European Union is a consequence of its failed policy of “neo-Ottomanism,” which aimed to dominate Arab neighbors, parts of North Africa and southwest Asia, but is now “blowing up in its own face,” and could even lead to inner conflict and civil war, said Nazemroaya.

“They’ve hurt themselves business-wise, the country’s become destabilized, a Turkish civil war in the future, some kind of inner conflict, is not something that is outlandish.”

“Civil war has essentially started again, with the Kurds in southeastern Turkey.”

For more articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya about the history of Turkey’s involvement in Syria please click the following links:

Turkey and Iran: The Ties That Bind – 23 January 2014

Wiping Out the Christians of Syria and Iraq to Remap the Middle East: Prerequisite to a Clash of Civilizations? – 30 July 2014

The War in Western Kurdistan and Northern Syria: The Role of the US and Turkey in the Battle of Kobani – 11 November 2014

The War in Syrian Kurdistan: The Fall of Kobani is a Prerequisite for the Invasion of Syria – 17 November 2014

The recent developments show significant changes in the strategy of the Western countries involved in the Syrian conflict. The US has sent ground forces, including special operations units, into the region. French Air Force has sharply increased the number of sorties, and France’s rapid-reaction troops and naval units are being moved closer to Syria.

On behalf of Matterhorn Asset Management, Lars Schall talked with one of the prime researchers when it comes to the People’s Republic of China gold policy; Dutch analyst Koos Jansen. They discuss the many tricky details that have to be taken into account; since the Chinese gold buying is pretty much a covert operation.

Lars Schall: My first question would be, during this year, the Chinese Central Bank announced its new gold position. How much does China possess now and do you think those numbers are accurate?

Koos Jansen: Well, they state they have about 1,700 tons right now. I do not think those numbers are accurate. I think the numbers they disclose now every month since June, they are increasing their reserves a little bit, just like Russia does, and I think this is a strategy maybe communicated between Russia and China even to slowly push for a new monetary system, international monetary system. So, if they would’ve disclosed they have 3,000 tons or 4,000, whatever they have or see fit to disclose, they would really rock the boat in the international sphere.

So, they are very careful in playing this game and they also want to be included into the SDR to internationalize the Renminbi.

Scroll down for  complete Transcript on the InterviewVideo podcast: 31 mins

TRANSCRIPT 

Lars Schall: My first question would be, during this year, the Chinese Central Bank announced its new gold position. How much does China possess now and do you think those numbers are accurate?

Koos Jansen: Well, they state they have about 1,700 tons right now. I do not think those numbers are accurate. I think the numbers they disclose now every month since June, they are increasing their reserves a little bit, just like Russia does, and I think this is a strategy maybe communicated between Russia and China even to slowly push for a new monetary system, international monetary system. So, if they would’ve disclosed they have 3,000 tons or 4,000, whatever they have or see fit to disclose, they would really rock the boat in the international sphere. So, they are very careful in playing this game and they also want to be included into the SDR to internationalize the Renminbi.

That is of great importance for them, so they are finding ways to internationalize and the Renminbi being included into the SDR is one of them, to be a reserve currency, and so they don’t want to make too many enemies. So, they’re playing it really careful. They stated in, I believe it was June or July, they increased official gold reserves by 600 tons from 1,054 to about 1,700 and they’re increasing reserves now by, you know, 15 tons a month more or less. I think it’s a strategy to slowly push for a new international monetary system in which the Renminbi will have a much greater role. So, I don’t believe the 1,700 number. I think they have a little bit more, between 2,000 or 4,000 tons.

I did a study once about this but it’s kind of difficult because it’s really one of the best kept secrets on earth, but my study indicated that they do buy about 500 tons a year. There was a small segment in the paper from Deutsche Bank that said the PBOC is buying 500 tons a year. I stumbled upon a study from a guy from the China Gold Association who had written a report in 2011 and he advised the People’s Bank of China to increase its official gold reserves by 500 tons a year, so that would be about 3,500, 4,000 tons right now. Of course, this gentleman from the China Gold Association is not a policymaker but I collected a lot of hints from various places that the People’s Bank of China is buying about 500 tons a year. Now, we can’t prove it but it sure suggests they have more than 1,700 tons and then indirectly it suggests that the 1,700 tons they state they have is just strategy.

LS: Yeah, but the Chinese can buy gold covertly. I mean, your company, for example, has done a study that a huge amount of gold went off the radar in London. How can that be?

KJ: Yes, that’s correct. That started with an investigation from Ronan Manly from BullionStar and Nick Laird from Sharelynx, and Bron Sucheki and I also helped a little bit. In the first instance, it was a study about the London bullion market and how much gold was left in London. Now, they found that in 2011, there were 9,000 tons in London in the LBMA system, let’s say, within the London Ring way so that includes LBMA vaults, it includes the vault of the Bank of England, foreign central bank it’s called, and then in 2015, that number dropped from 9,000 to 6,250. So, it means that 2,750 tons were removed or had left London since 2011.

Now, official foreign trade statistics indicate that the UK over this period only net exported about 1,000 tons, so that means that 1,750 tons is missing from London, let’s say. So, that can be possible because what we see in international merchandise trade statistics, I should say that’s the official name for goods and services crossing the border, only non-monetary gold is disclosed. So, what I do and a few colleagues of mine is we track all merchandise trade statistics from the UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong, all the gold trading hubs, also some mining nations such as Russia or nations in Africa. But all of those numbers only include non-monetary gold because the rules are that non-monetary gold must be disclosed in these reports but monetary gold is exempt from being disclosed in foreign trade statistics.

So, in this way, for example, the People’s Bank of China can buy gold in London, non-monetary gold from whatever seller and they can monetize it in London and then covertly ship it home without it having to be declared at the customs department. They can do this all around the world. They can do it in Africa, they can do it in Switzerland, and they can do it in Hong Kong. Just to illustrate, Hong Kong net imported 600 tons of gold in 2013. That’s a lot of gold but I think it’s possible that the People’s Bank of China bought a part of that gold in Hong Kong once it was imported as non-monetary gold in Hong Kong. Probably a part of it was monetized in Hong Kong and then shipped to the mainland for the official gold reserves of the People’s Bank of China.

LS: Yes, but when it comes to gold buying as a covert operation, so to say, does the PBOC buy gold directly or is this buying through proxies?

KJ: I think they buy through proxies because what they buy is kind of a good kept secret, and they are very secretive about it. So, to avoid any risk of leaking, I think they buy through proxies. In any case, they buy through SAFE and maybe through CIC which are sovereign wealth funds, but even maybe through Chinese commercial banks, I don’t know, but I assume they buy through other proxies.

LS: And does this buying take place via the Shanghai Gold Exchange?

KJ: No. This is the whole thing. This is what I like to talk about because a lot of analysts look at China and they count how much China is mining every year and they count how much non-monetary gold imports into China is every year. China doesn’t disclose how much they import in non-monetary gold but from looking at other nations, for example, Hong Kong and Switzerland and the UK, we know how much they export to China so we can more or less figure out what they import. But that is all non-monetary gold and all the non-monetary gold which is imported into China is required to be sold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange. So, the question then is, does the People’s Bank of China buy gold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

Now, I don’t think they do. There are a number of reasons. One reason, for example, is that I think the People’s Bank of China likes to buy London Good Delivery Bars, which are 400 ounce or 12.5kg in the metric system, because the gold in those bars is cheaper. If you buy a ton of gold in coins, it’s more expensive than in London Good Delivery Bars. So, I think they buy London Good Delivery Bars but these bars are not being sold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

They can be sold but if I look at all the trade data from the Shanghai Gold Exchange, only I think, if I recall correctly, three tons have been sold in London Good Delivery Bars in 12.5kg bars through the Shanghai Gold Exchange in recent years. So, that will mean that either the People’s Bank of China is not buying London Good Delivery Bars or they are not buying through the Shanghai Gold Exchange. For example, all gold on the Shanghai Gold Exchange is denominated in Renminbi and I think the People’s Bank of China wants to diversify its foreign exchange reserves, which are predominantly in US dollars for gold. So, they want to sell their US dollars and buy gold.

That is not done through the Shanghai Gold Exchange. So, I made a whole list, I wrote an article about this once, about all the reasons why the People’s Bank of China may or may not buy gold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange and it’s kind of obvious they would not buy gold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange, aLSo because it would be done in clear sight. If they buy a few tons every week in the Shanghai Gold Exchange, everybody would see it, you know, and again, they would then buy all these 1kg bars. So, I think given the fact they are so secretive about it and all the reasons I think they will never buy gold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange. I do think they are able to intervene in the Chinese domestic gold market but as a main hypothesis, I’d say the People’s Bank of China would not buy gold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange and from there, I try to analyze.

LS: Okay, but where do the Chinese try to sell their dollars and get gold in return?

KJ: Well, London is an example. Most gold across the world is paid for in US dollars so they can buy it anywhere. Also, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, maybe they have some deals with mining companies in Africa or Australia that they covertly ship some to China mainland but it’s not difficult of course to sell your dollars and buy gold in the international market.

LS: Yeah, and talking about gold mining projects, well the ‘One road, One belt’ project in Eurasia driven by the Chinese is connected already to gold. Can you talk a little bit about how this is connected to gold?

KJ: On the Eurasian continent, there are a lot of clubs cooperating at the moment and that is kind of interesting. Maybe the biggest club is the ‘Silk Road Economic Project’ also called the ‘One Belt, One Road’ project initiated by the Chinese President – I believe it was in 2012 but in the last year, it gathered steam. There are about 60 countries along this Silk Road and his intention is to have more cooperation on the political and economic fields now. The Silk Road is a big project and there’s also a Silk Road fund but underneath this Silk Road project, we have the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which has 57 founding members among which a lot of western countries, a lot of European countries.

There is also the Eurasian Economic Union which consists of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. That is not officially a part of the Silk Road project yet but these are clubs that are all gaining ground on the Eurasian continent. You then have the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and all these clubs are also starting to cooperate a little bit.

There’s also President Putin who said already that his Eurasian Economic Union will cooperate with the Silk Road Economic Project so that is one. And now this year, the Chinese have disclosed that there also will be a Silk Road Gold Fund which is led by the SGE and is meant for more cooperation on the Eurasian continent obviously in mining exploration, gold trading, and things like that. So, that is a really significant development and the SGE also said that it will facilitate gold buying for foreign central banks. So, I can imagine countries like Kazakhstan, for example, buying gold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange, Shanghai International Gold Exchange, I should say, in the future.

So, this is the intention of the Silk Road Gold Fund. We also saw some little signs of cooperation earlier this year. Russia’s biggest mining company, Polyus Group, started a cooperation with China’s biggest mining company, China National Gold Group. I just wrote an article about this, Polyus sells most of its gold so it outputs through VTB Bank which is a Russian bank and VTB Bank also became a member of the Shanghai Gold Exchange last week. So, likely more gold from Polyus will be sold through VTB Bank on the Shanghai Gold Exchange. The volume of the Shanghai International Gold Exchange is still very low and the Shanghai International Gold Exchange is really meant for the world to sell its gold in Renminbi to other countries. The volume is very low at the moment so we can say it has failed up until now but who knows what the future will hold.

LS: Isn’t it interesting, you’ve mentioned the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which was launched in the summer of 2001 that many of the members are buying gold actively, that many of the countries that are intended to be members of the SCO one day that they are also buying gold, for example, Turkey, and that many of those countries, they have the majority of all the gold that is in the ground, in the soil still to produce?

KJ: Well, first I’d like to say that Turkey is not buying gold. Turkey has a special system in which commercial banks offer Turkish citizens to deposit their gold. The Indian system, which has been launched now is kind of based on the Turkish system. So, in Turkey, people can go to a bank and they can deposit their gold and get an interest on their gold. Of course, they risk losing their gold, but this gold is being collected by commercial banks can be used by commercial banks as reserve requirements at the central bank. So, they use this gold from the citizens as a reserve requirement at the central bank. The central bank counts this gold as their official gold reserves, so the Turkish Central Bank is not buying any gold. They just double count the gold from the citizens.

LS: Thank you for underlining this.

KJ: Yes, I should write a new article about this because I think the system is exactly the same now or being launched now in India. The Indian Central Bank also has said that the Indian commercial banks can use the gold in deposit from the citizens as a reserve requirement. So, I don’t know if they’re going to count that gold also as official gold reserves but it’s very worth watching. So, the next question was about the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, yeah. Of course, those nations are buying gold and I see a lot of gold in the wider Silk Road region.

If we look at Asia and Europe, for example, a lot of countries in Asia are buying gold and then we have, for example, in India, the people are buying a lot of gold, about 900-1,000 tons a year. In other Asian countries, the central banks are buying gold which is very significant because that is like, you know, we are diversifying away from the US dollar. I don’t need to tell our listeners this; a lot of buying is happening on the Asian continent. On the European continent, these central banks already have a lot of gold but what they’re doing is they’re repatriating their gold from the UK, from the Bank of England, and from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the US. So, I think both continents, Europe and Asia are focused on gold and slowly moving away from the US dollar, albeit that the Europeans are not yet buying. They’re repatriating because they have already significant amounts of gold. The Asians are buying.

LS: Recently, Peter Mooslechner, an official of the Central Bank of Austria said that the Asians are more active in the gold market now and that they use their gold to influence the price or actually he said to intervene in the market. Do you have something to say on those statements that he made?

KJ: Yeah. Well, actually I found his interview very interesting. I don’t really know what he meant by intervening because he also said that, you know, we gold analysts immediately think about gold price manipulation. I don’t know if all those countries he mentioned are manipulating gold price because he also mentioned the euro system and the ECB are intervening into the gold markets, just like the Asian countries. I’m not sure what he meant by that.

LS: Yes, but you know that I’ve asked him some specific questions.

KJ: Yes, I know.

LS: It’s their policy not to provide answers to any questions that relate to their strategy with gold or other central banks strategy with gold.

KJ: Yes, of course, if you ask a central banker about gold, he will never answer you. I’ve found that all across the world which is a signal in itself we can think, but I didn’t really focus on the comments of Mooslechner on the intervening parts which he said. I found more interesting what he said about repatriating gold and about Europe maybe even buying gold if the Chinese economy is going down.

The world is entering a recession again. I found that very interesting and also because at one point he said that European countries, more and more European countries are repatriating because of economic nationalism which is a contradiction to what he said a minute before and that was that the Austrian Central Bank was repatriating because of a concentration risk at the Bank of England. So, clearly this contradiction indicates that he is not repatriating because of a concentration risk at the Bank of England but because of other reasons. Now, also this year, the General Court of Auditors in Austria, they released a report in which they disclosed that the Austrian auditors were not allowed to audit their gold in England in the past years in between 2009 and 2013. That is of course one of the real reasons why Austria is repatriating is because the gold is not safe at the Bank of England or, you know, for other countries like the Netherlands. The gold is not safe in New York. That’s why they are repatriating and so that was my takeaway from the interview with Mooslechner.

LS: Yes, and is it your perception related to the German case that the Bundesbank is following a policy of economic nationalism. Don’t you think that it is very reluctant and that it does what it does only because there was public pressure?

KJ: That’s a good question. Of course, it also has to do with public pressure but I don’t think the Bundesbank is only repatriating because of public pressure. I think they do it because of their own interests, bearing in mind, I believe it was in 2001, the Bundesbank repatriated about 1,000 tons from the Bank of England in secret. Nobody knew about it so there was no public pressure at the time and they repatriated the gold even still from the Bank of England. The same goes for the Netherlands. They repatriated.

The Dutch Central Bank repatriated not really because of public pressure. I mean, there was some, you know, I submitted a freedom of information act (FOIA) request once and there were some talks in politics. Of course, that happened after the economic crisis, you know, chatter about gold was started but I don’t think it was public pressure in the Netherlands or in Germany that led them to repatriate the gold. I think it’s their own interest. The second question of course is, so why do they take so long and why don’t they repatriate all the gold. Now, just like I said previously about Asia, I think they do this so slowly because it’s such a sensitive subject. Maybe the gold indeed is not all there anymore so that’s why they have to do it very gently. We can also imagine that if, for example, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany were to repatriate all their gold all at once then it would of course lead to instant shock in financial systems. So, I think it’s on purpose that they do it slowly but it’s speculation.

LS: However, the Germans intend to leave roughly half their gold position in New York and London. This is now the official position of the Bundesbank that they want to leave it there so they are able to react to a real currency crisis if that happens. Do you have to have the gold in London and in New York for such a purpose?

KJ: I would say no. I mean, if there would be a currency crisis, people would rush to gold and your gold would become more valuable and you would like to have it at home, not in England or New York. Only if there was a crisis and you want to sell gold, you would like to have gold in London, but how I look at it, I think it’s better with economic turmoil up ahead to have your gold at home than in England.

LS: Yes, and the IMF says that gold, monetary gold, physical bullion gold is the only financial asset with no counterpart risk.

KJ: Yes, with no counterparty risk. This was stated in the balance payments manual number six. Yeah, yeah. I think those things are really significant and, you know.

LS: Yes, but in order to be such a financial asset, you really have it in your own possession, on your own soil, right?

KJ: Right, right. Oh, sorry, you were referring to the previous question. – You’re absolutely right. If you talk about gold and gold is the only asset with no counterparty risk, you’d need it at home and of course it does have a counterparty risk if it’s in London or in New York. It’s as simple as that. Yeah, you’re right.

LS: Now, another question would be that China is a big producer of gold but the production doesn’t leave the country. Where does it go to?

KJ: I think to the private sector in China. Before 2002 when the Shanghai Gold Exchange was launched, the People’s Bank of China had the monopoly in the Chinese domestic gold market. So, all the domestic mining output was sold to the People’s Bank of China and then it was distributed to a few designated jewelry shops or to maybe the coffers of the PBOC. So, before 2002, all the gold that was mined in China flowed through the People’s Bank of China but since the Shanghai Gold Exchange was launched in 2002, most of the gold, I would say 99% of the gold mined in China is being sold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and then what I just spoke about in one of my previous answers is that I think the private sector are the buyers on the Shanghai Gold Exchange in China. So, it does not really go to the People’s Bank of China, maybe still a little bit is going to the People’s Bank of China because maybe they still have some covert mines operating in China but actually most of the conventional output is being sold through the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

LS: Koos, thank you very much for this interesting conversation.

KJ: Okay, thank you very much, Lars.

Koos Jansen started his financial blog “In Gold We Trust” (ingoldwetrust.ch/) in 2013. His curiosity about the gold market made him gather an incredible amount of information in a relatively short period of time in particular about the Chinese gold market and he gained much insight into the role of gold in international financial markets. He now shares his information and experiences vividly with a larger audience via his blog at Bullion Star – see here: https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/koos-jansen/

David Cameron has announced that at least one billion pounds from UK taxpayers will go to fund the ‘reconstruction’ of Syria after it has been pummeled by British bombs. The lunacy of pledging to rob the public purse to repair the damage Cameron is so hell-bent on creating is breathtaking. That is until you examine who the plan makes sense for: Cameron’s much loved British companies.

On 26 November, Cameron made a statement on his proposals for bombing Syria to the House of Commons. In his statement he addressed the following:

The House is rightly also asking more questions about whether there will be a proper post conflict reconstruction effort to support a new Syrian government when it emerges, and Britain’s answer to that qusetion is absolutely yes. I can tell the House that Britain will be prepared to contribute at least another billion pounds for this task.

This is, of course, a direct insult to the British population, who have been forced to endure a crippling amount of cuts to public services in the name of ‘essential’ austerity. However, it is glaringly obvious by now that the Tory party’s austerity program is nothing more than an ideological instrument to re-order society.

Part of this ideology resides in bringing about a British business boom, and Cameron is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that happens. It is why corporation tax has been consistently lowered by his government – leading to companies loving these little isles as they pay next to nothing to trade here.

It’s also why Cameron sees opportunity in the tragedy of Syria. For all his fire and brimstone talk of destroying jihadi “monsters”, he is counting on benefits for the British contractors carrying out the extensive work necessary to rebuild Syria after RAF bombers, and those of numerous other countries, have decimated it.

There is a precedent for this: the Iraq war. Multiple companies profited from the illegal invasion of Iraq, many of them British. An article in Business Pundit details the most vicious of these profiteers, here’s a selection of the UK’s beneficiaries:

Aegis

A security and risk management company who landed a £250 million contract to coordinate all of Iraq’s private security operations, which led to them being rejected for membership of trade organisation International Peace Operations Association.

The bank bought a 70% controlling stake in Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, which had gathered $91 million worth of assets by 2008. Daesh (ISIS) is already known to have seized control of banks in the areas they maintain, which would open up a lucrative opportunity for western banks should they be defeated.

Erinys

A London-based private security company who landed a $90 million contract to secure Iraq’s oil fields. Daesh has huge reserves of oil that power it financially, and which would need protecting once wrestled from its control.

Armor Holdings

Not a UK-based company, but it was acquired by BAE Systems in 2007 – a subsidiary of BAE Systems plc, based in the UK. Armor Holdings provided military and personnel safety equipment for the Iraq war, and saw its profits increase by over 2,000% between 2001 and 2008.

Aside from the businesses set to reap the benefits of a Syria in ashes, there are those who will benefit from creating those ashes – namely defence companies. BAE Systems  is one of the military manufacturers that will see a rise in profits from any decision to continue along the western warpath. In fact, BAE announced this year that its profits were up £500 million in 2013, having gained contracts worth over £10bn from the US and UK governments for three consecutive years, according to the BBC.

That corporate behemoths like BAE Systems benefit from the ‘war on terror’ is no accident, and it’s a result Cameron is banking on. As investigative reporter James Risen lays out so well in his book Pay Any Price, many have recognised the opportunities this never-ending war has created, both in the battles abroad, and the enhanced security measures we find on our own doorsteps:

As trillions of dollars have poured into the nation’s new homeland security-industrial complex, the corporate leaders at its vanguard can rightly be considered the true winners of the war on terror.

The first step in tackling this, is to recognise it. If we face the true motivation of our government’s actions, we are able to challenge it.

Cameron’s claims about why he wants to bomb Syria have already been widely debunked, even by members of his own party. His position on who he is doing it for should also be challenged. It is not the Syrian people. They will undoubtedly suffer from further bombing. It is not UK citizens, who will see the threat of terrorism at home further increase. Is it these giant industries, with their lobbyists and political donations, that Cameron actually holds closest to his heart?

President Abadi said the deployment, including tanks and artillery, is a ‘serious violation’ of Iraqi sovereignty 

Iraq has called on Turkey to “immediately” withdraw forces, including tanks and artillery, it has deployed in the country’s north without Baghdad’s consent, the premier’s office said on Saturday. 

“The Iraqi authorities call on Turkey to… immediately withdraw from Iraqi territory,” the statement said.

“We have confirmation that Turkish forces, numbering about one armoured regiment with a number of tanks and artillery, entered Iraqi territory… allegedly to train Iraqi groups, without a request or authorisation from Iraqi federal authorities,” it said.

The deployment “is considered a serious violation of Iraqi sovereignty,” it added.

Turkey, however, later denied that it has expanded its military activities in northern Iraq after it deployed troops close to an area controlled by the Islamic State group.

“The camp in Bashiqa, 30 kilometres north east of Mosul, is a training facility established to support local volunteer forces’ fight against terrorism,” Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a televised speech, denying reports that the deployment was in preparation for a ground operation against IS.

Turkish media reported that around 150 Turkish soldiers backed by 20 to 25 tanks had been sent by road to the Bashiqa area near Mosul, the Islamic State group’s main hub in Iraq.

Peshmerga forces from Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region are deployed in the area, and Turkey’s Anatolia news agency said the troops were there to train them.

IS overran swathes of territory north and west of Baghdad last year, and Iraqi forces backed by US-led air strikes are battling to drive the militants back.

The peshmerga are one of the most effective Iraqi forces in the anti-IS fight, but coordination between them and the federal government in Baghdad has generally been poor.

Multiple reports claim that Israel is the top purchaser of smuggled ISIS oil

ISIS oil is transported to Israel via Turkey, according to reports

Citing multiple sources, the Israeli business press are now reporting that Israel is the main recipient of ISIS oil:

Kurdish and Turkish smugglers are transporting oil from ISIS controlled territory in Syria and Iraq and selling it to Israel, according to several reports in the Arab and Russian media. An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit for the terrorist organization.

The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.

In August, the “Financial Times” reported that Israel obtained 75% of its oil supplies from Iraqi Kurdistan. More than a third of such exports go through the port of Ceyhan, which the FT describe as a “potential gateway for ISIS-smuggled crude.”

It’s been well-established that Turkey is a major transportation hub for ISIS oil smuggling operations. But where is the oil sent? Someone has to buy it. The answer, apparently, is: Israel.

Al-Araby published an extensive investigation which lays out in detail how oil is transported from ISIS-controlled wells to Israel via Turkey.

US experts are reconstructing and equipping a desolate airport special to carrying agricultural products in the region controlled by the Kurdish forces in Hasaka region, Northeastern Syria, to turn it into a military base.

The Lebanese al-Akhbar newspaper reported on Saturday that a number of US experts have entered the region since 50 days ago to develop and prepare the runways with 2,500m length and 250m width to be used by fighter jets.

Abu Hajar airport which has not been used since 2010 is located in Tal al-Hajar region in the Eastern countryside of Hasaka which is controlled by the Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG).

The US has not received or even asked for a permission from Damascus for reconstructing the airbase. The United States does not have a UN mandate for interventing in the Syria war.

The airport will help enable Washington to add an additional safe place to land its forces, commando units for instance, and bring in military support to its allies who are working to finalize control over Southern Hasaka countryside, al-Akhbar said.

The report came over a week after the Kurdish region said that the US and Kurdish forces were working together to construct a 10 hectare military airbase South of the town of Rimelan in the village of Rimelan al-Basha.

“American experts are directly supervising the airbase with a Kurdish workforce,” the reports claimed, saying that US unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) had been flown from the facility to test it.

The report also said that two helicopter had flown over the town of Rimelan on November 24 and landed eight US military specialists at the airport.

Interestingly, the Kurdish YPG issued a statement saying that “two unknown helicopters” had flown over Rimelan on the same day.

The following day, the Kurdish media said that residents in the nearby village of Cil Axa had heard helicopters overhead, although they claimed they were Turkish.

President Obama has displayed a stunning lack of sympathy for the Russian civilians killed in an ISIS plane bombing in Egypt and for two Russian military men slain as victims of U.S. weapons systems in Syria, putting insults toward President Putin ahead of human decency, writes Robert Parry.

Normally, when a country is hit by an act of terrorism, there is universal sympathy even if the country has engaged in actions that may have made it a target of the terrorists. After 9/11, for instance, any discussion of whether U.S. violent meddling in the Middle East may have precipitated the attack was ruled out of the public debate.

Similarly, the 7/7 attacks against London’s Underground in 2005 were not excused because the United Kingdom had joined in President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq. The same with the more recent terror strikes in Paris. No respectable politician or pundit gloated about the French getting what they deserved for their long history of imperialism in the Muslim world.

President Barack Obama accepting Nobel Peace in  2009. (White House photo)

President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)

But a different set of rules apply to Russia. Along with other prominent Americans, President Barack Obama and New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman have expressed smug satisfaction over the murder of 224 people aboard a Russian charter flight blown up over the Sinai and in the slaying of a Russian pilot who had been shot down by a Turkish warplane and the killing of a Russian marine on a rescue mission.

Apparently, the political imperative to display disdain for Russian President Vladimir Putin trumps any normal sense of humanity. Both Obama on Tuesday and Friedman on Wednesday treated those Russian deaths at the hands of the Islamic State or other jihadists as Putin’s comeuppance for intervening against terrorist/jihadist gains in Syria.

At a news conference in Paris, Obama expressed his lack of sympathy as part of a bizarre comment in which he faulted Putin for somehow not turning around the Syrian conflict during the past month – when Obama and his allies have been floundering in their “war” against the Islamic State and its parent, Al Qaeda, for years, if not decades.

“The Russians now have been there for several weeks, over a month, and I think fair-minded reporters who looked at the situation would say that the situation hasn’t changed significantly,” Obama said. “

In the interim, Russia has lost a commercial passenger jet.  You’ve seen another jet shot down. There have been losses in terms of Russian personnel.  And I think Mr. Putin understands that, with Afghanistan fresh in the memory, for him to simply get bogged down in a inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict is not the outcome that he’s looking for.”

In examining that one paragraph, a “fair-minded” reporter could find a great deal to dispute. Indeed, the comments suggest that President Obama has crossed some line into either believing his own propaganda or thinking that everyone who listens to him is an idiot and will believe whatever he says.

But what was perhaps most disturbing was Obama’s graceless manner of discussing the tragedy of the Sinai bombing, followed by his seeming pleasure over Turkey shooting down a Russian SU-24 last week, leading to the killing of two Russian military men, one the pilot who was targeted while parachuting to the ground and the other a marine after his search-and-rescue helicopter was downed by a TOW missile.

Even more troubling, the key weapon systems used – the Turkish F-16 fighter jet and the TOW missile – were U.S.-manufactured and apparently U.S. supplied, in the case of the TOW missile either directly or indirectly to Sunni jihadists deemed “moderate” by the Obama administration.

The Ever-Smug Friedman

Columnist Friedman was equally unfeeling about the Russian deaths. In a column entitled “Putin’s Great Syrian Adventure,” Friedman offered a mocking assessment of Russia’s intervention against Sunni jihadists and terrorists seeking to take control of Syria.

While ridiculing anyone who praised Putin’s initiative or who just thought the Russian president was “crazy like a fox,” Friedman wrote: “Some of us thought he was just crazy.

Well, two months later, let’s do the math: So far, Putin’s Syrian adventure has resulted in a Russian civilian airliner carrying 224 people being blown up, apparently by pro-ISIS militants in Sinai. Turkey shot down a Russian bomber after it strayed into Turkish territory. And then Syrian rebels killed one of the pilots as he parachuted to earth and one of the Russian marines sent to rescue him.

Ha-ha, very funny! And, by the way, it has not been established that the Russian SU-24 did stray into Turkish air space but if it did, according to the Turkish account, it passed over a sliver of Turkish territory for all of 17 seconds.

The evidence is quite clear that the SU-24 was ambushed in a reckless act by Turkey’s autocratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who has been collaborating with Syrian and foreign jihadists for the past four years to overthrow Syria’s secular government. And the murder of the pilot after he bailed out of the plane is not some reason to smirk; it is a war crime.

Even uglier is the lack of any sympathy or outrage over the terrorist bombing that killed 224 innocent people, mostly tourists, aboard a Russian charter flight in Egypt. If the victims had been American and a similar callous reaction had come from President Putin and a columnist for a major Russian newspaper, one can only imagine the outrage. However, in Official Washington, any recognition of a common humanity with Russians makes you a “Moscow stooge.”

The other wacky part of both Obama’s comments and Friedman’s echoes of the same themes is this quick assessment that the Russian intervention in support of the Syrian government has been some abject failure – as if the U.S.-led coalition has been doing so wonderfully.

First, as a “fair-minded” reporter, I would say that it appears the Russian-backed Syrian offensive has at least stopped the advances of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and its jihadist allies, including Ahrar al-Sham (which technically separates itself from Al Qaeda and thus qualifies for U.S.-supplied weaponry even though it fights side-by-side with Nusra in the Saudi-backed Army of Conquest).

The Afghan Memories

Obama’s reference to Afghanistan was also startling. He was suggesting that Putin should have learned a lesson from Moscow’s intervention in the 1980s in support of a secular, pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, which came under attack by CIA-organized-and-armed Islamic jihadists known then as mujahedeen.

Wielding sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and benefiting from $1 billion a year in Saudi-U.S.-supplied weapons, the Afghan fundamentalist mujahedeen and their allies, including Saudi Osama bin Laden, eventually drove Soviet troops out in 1989 and – several years later behind the Taliban – completed the reversion of Afghanistan back to the Seventh Century. Women in Kabul went from dressing any way they liked in public, including wearing mini-skirts, to being covered in chadors and kept at home.

Obama’s bringing up Afghanistan in the Syrian context and Putin’s supposed one-month Syrian failure was ironic in another way. After Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden and has been bogged down in a quagmire there for 14 years, including nearly seven years under Obama.

So, Obama may not be on the firmest ground when he suggests that Putin recall Moscow’s experience in Afghanistan a few decades ago. After all, Obama has many more recent memories.

Further, what is different about Putin’s Syrian strategy – compared with Obama’s – is that the Russians are targeting all the terrorists and jihadists, not just the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). While U.S. propaganda tries to present the non-ISIS jihadists as “moderates” (somehow pretending that Al Qaeda is no longer a terrorist organization), there is, in reality, very little distinction between ISIS and the alliance of Nusra/Ahrar al-Sham.

And, as for Official Washington’s new “group think” about the Syrian government’s lack of progress in the war, there is the discordant news that the last of rebel forces have agreed to abandon the central city of Homs, which had been dubbed the “capital of the revolution.” The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that “thousands of insurgents will leave the last opposition-held neighborhood in” Homs, with the withdrawal beginning next week.

Al-Jazeera added the additional fact that the remaining 4,000 insurgents are “from al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham and the Free Syrian Army.” In other words, the “moderate” Free Syrian Army was operating in collusion with Al Qaeda’s affiliate and its major jihadist partner.

While it’s hard to get reliable up-to-date information from inside Syria, one intelligence source familiar with the military situation told me that the Syrian government offensive, backed by Iranian troops and Russian air power, had been surprisingly successful in putting the jihadists, including ISIS and Nusra, on the defensive, with additional gains around the key city of Aleppo.

The Belated Oil Bombings

Also, in the past week, Putin shamed Obama into joining in a bombing operation to destroy hundreds of trucks carrying ISIS oil to Turkey. Why that valuable business was allowed to continue during the U.S.-led war on ISIS since summer 2014 has not been adequately explained. It apparently was being protected by Turkish President Erdogan.

Another irony of Obama’s (and Friedman’s) critical assessment of Putin’s one-month military campaign came in Obama’s recounting of his meeting during the Paris climate summit with Erdogan. Obama said he was still appealing to Erdogan to close the Turkish-Syrian border although radical jihadists have been crossing it since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011.

“With respect to Turkey, I have had repeated conversations with President Erdogan about the need to close the border between Turkey and Syria,” Obama said. “We’ve seen some serious progress on that front, but there are still some gaps.  In particular, there’s about 98 kilometers that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters, ISIL shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities.”

In other words, all these years into the conflict – and about 1½ years since Obama specifically targeted ISIS – Turkey has not closed its borders to prevent ISIS from reinforcing itself with foreign fighters and trafficking in illicit oil sales to fund its terror operations. One might suspect that Erdogan has no intention of really stopping the Sunni jihadists from ravaging Syria.

Erdogan still seems set on violent “regime change” in Syria after allowing his intelligence services to provide extensive help to ISIS, Al Qaeda’s Nusra and other extremists. The Russians claim that politically well-connected Turkish businessmen also have been profiting off the ISIS oil sales.

But Obama’s acknowledgement that he has not even been able to get NATO “ally” Turkey to seal its border and that ISIS still remains a potent fighting force makes a mockery of his mocking Putin for not “significantly” changing the situation on the ground in Syria in one month.

Obama also slid into propaganda speak when he blamed Assad for all the deaths that have occurred during the Syrian conflict. “I consider somebody who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people illegitimate,” Obama said.

But again Obama is applying double standards. For instance, he would not blame President George W. Bush for the hundreds of thousands (possibly more than a million) dead Iraqis, yet Bush was arguably more responsible for those deaths by launching an unprovoked invasion of Iraq than Assad was in battling a jihadist-led insurgency.

Plus, the death toll of Syrians, estimated to exceed a quarter million, includes many soldiers and police as well as armed jihadists. That does not excuse Assad or his regime for excessively heavy-handed tactics that have inflicted civilian casualties, but Obama and his predecessor both have plenty of innocent blood on their hands, too.

After watching Obama’s news conference, one perhaps can hope that he is just speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth as he is wont to do. Maybe, he’s playing his usual game of “above-the-table/below-the-table,” praising Erdogan above the table while chastising him below the table and disparaging Putin in public while cooperating with the Russian president in private.

Or maybe President Obama has simply lost touch with reality – and with common human decency.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includesAmerica’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

So what exactly have they been bombing?

Just over a month ago on Friday 23rd October 2015, The Express reported the following obliteration of an ‘ISIS held’ oil field by a Russian and American attack:

The terrorists’ oil field in eastern Syria – part of a half a billion dollar crude industry for the group – was obliterated in a day of bombing conducted by both Russia and the US-led coalition.

US operations officer Major Michael Filanowski told reporters in Baghdad the Omar oil field was blitzed, heavily damaging the lucrative funding source for ISIS.

He said: “There were strikes last night that struck Daesh-controlled oil refineries, command and control centres and transportation nodes.

“There were 26 targets and all 26 were struck.”

Watch a video of this report here: 

Now, The Express is reporting that the commencing British airstrike action has “destroyed” the same oil field:

Four Tornados took off from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus just an hour after MPs voted in favour of launching airstrikes in the war-torn country. The jets struck targets in the Omar oil field in Eastern Syria, dealing a “real blow” to the death cult, also known as Daesh.

One wonders… how it might be possible to deal a ‘real blow’ to a target which had already been ‘obliterated’ over one month ago?

Of course, it is possible that excessive hyperbole was used in the original reporting, but it is interesting that this was the first target that the British report hitting.

‘OIL BOOM’: Business is booming. (Photo Credit: Andy Dunaway)

Just over two weeks ago, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was insisting that the internationally recognised and legal government headed by President of Syria Bashar al-Assad“has to go“, but that “We [the UK] are not seeking to destroy the institutions of government in Syria” – surely this is one of the greatest examples of double speak we’ve seen yet.

If Britain’s airstrikes are not hitting actual live ISIS targets, perhaps they are already working on their true end game of trying to oust Assad. To do so, they will have to avoid hitting terrorist fighters because they will need to work with them in order to achieve their primary objective which is regime change. Still, they will have to deal with the increasing Russia presence seeking to secure the sovereignty of Syria.

As 21WIRE first reported last year, on the first day of the US-led Coalition ‘Anti-ISIL Airstrikes’ last fall in 2014, the US hit a series of empty targets, where ISIS fighter were actually given advanced warning and vacated the building in advance of bombing raids.

It should come as no surprise if Cameron is actually dropping bombs on already ‘obliterated’ targets. Those weapons have to be paid for, which will make the British government’s friends inthe military industrial complex incredibly happy indeed.

The polls show it and commentators of all political stripes often cite the figures: Killer drone attacks by the U.S. military and the CIA in the Greater Middle East and Africa have strong U.S. public support.

According to the Pew Research Center’s most recent poll in May, 58 percent — up slightly from 56 percent in February 2013 — approve of “missile strikes from drones to target extremists in such countries as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”

The numbers of Americans disapproving of drone attacks actually increased from 26 percent to 35 percent over that two-year period — a hopeful sign, but still very much a minority view.

But how well informed can U.S. citizens be on this subject when the major news media time and again ignore or under-report drone-strike stories — as we have discussed here and here in recent weeks? Stories — such as The Intercept’s October series based on a trove of classified materials provided by a national security whistleblower — that would likely raise serious questions about the drone program in many more Americans’ minds if they were actually given the information?

Drone whistleblowers from left: Cian Westmoreland, Michael Haas, Brandon Bryant and Stephen Lewis. Photograph: Simon Leigh for the Guardian

And now, in the latest example of journalistic negligence, The New York Times,Washington Post and other mainstream news organizations in late November continued their apparent policy of no-bad-news-reporting-about-drones.

This time, the major media chose to ignore four former Air Force drone-war personnel who went public with an open letter to President Obama. The letter urged the President to reconsider a program that killed “innocent civilians,” and which “only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruiting tool [for extremists] similar to Guantanamo Bay.”

In strong, dramatic language, the four men — in the letter and subsequent press appearances — challenged the official Obama White House/Pentagon/CIA public view that civilians are rarely killed by drones, and that drones make Americans safer and are helping defeat terrorists. Rather, they said that the U.S. drone war plays right into the hands of ISIS and other extremist groups by terrorizing local populations and killing innocent civilians, resulting in heightened anti-U.S. feeling and more recruits for ISIS.

Now it’s not every day that four former drone operators go public with their anguish-filled stories of the drone program killing innocent people and creating blowback against the United States.

In fact, there has not been any day like that. Until now, that has never happened. You would think that this would meet some textbook definition of news — something new, uncommon, dramatic and consequential. When President Obama or a proven liar about the drone program, CIA Director John Brennan, propagandize about drones and how wonderful and precise and well-nigh infallible they are in crushing extremists, not killing civilians and making us safe — that is what the mainstream media dutifully reports as news. But when four drone whistleblowers — who sat at the very heart of the system guiding Hellfire missiles from Predator drones to human targets in Afghanistan and Iraq — come forward to undermine that tidy little story, those same news outlets turn their collective back.

Voicing such sharp criticism of a top-secret program with which they were all involved is an especially risky move given that the Obama administration has shown itself to be the most anti-whistleblower administration ever. Obama’s Justice Department has prosecuted more than twice as many whistleblowers under the Espionage Act as all previous presidents combined since the passage of the law in 1917.

The letter to Obama, also addressed to Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and CIA Director Brennan, said that the Bush and Obama administrations “have built a drone program that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.” They expressed guilt, and are experiencing PTSD, as a result of “our roles in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life.”

In a pointed reference to the Obama administration’s statements in support of the drone program, the letter stated: “We witnessed gross waste, mismanagement, abuses of power, and our country’s leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone program.”

And, drawing a link between the recent Paris attacks and drone killings creating more terrorists and blowback, the whistleblowers added: “We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone program has overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution.”

These former Air Force personnel — three former Predator sensor operators (Staff Sergeant Brandon Bryant, Senior Airman Stephen Lewis and Senior Airman Michael Haas), and one former drone program infrastructure technician (Senior Airman Cian Westmoreland) — had a combined 20-plus years of remotely operating drone strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq from Creech Air Force Base, Nevada. All had Afghanistan drone experience, and all but Westmoreland also had Iraq experience. This gave them special, first-hand insight into a program whose operators, in Haas’s words, viewed targeted human beings as “ants…just black blobs on a screen” and considered children who came into view on their screens as “fun-sized terrorists.”

Haas and other whistleblowers expanded on the points in their letter in an interview with Guardian reporters, which resulted in two eye-opening articles by Ed Pilkington and Ewen MacAskill. This was followed by a lengthy appearance onDemocracy Now! and a news conference in connection with the premiere in New York of a new documentary, “Drone,” in which two of the whistleblowers (Bryant and Haas) make appearances. Agence France-Presse (AFP), Reuters andNewsweek all carried stories, as did The Intercept, Shadowproof and other online news sites.

Did you read about any of that whistleblower criticism in The New York Times orThe Washington Post, or see a segment about it on television news? No, you did not. If you know about it at all, it’s probably because of The Guardian, Democracy Now!, and online political and progressive blogs and websites.

This marked the second time in just the last two months that mainstream news outlets have given a thumbs-down to a significant drone story. In October, The Washington Post ignored it and The New York Times ran two paragraphs at the end of a 25-paragraph piece about a series of significant drone articles posted inThe Intercept. The articles were derived from documents, referred to as the “Drone Papers,” that were provided to The Intercept by an anonymous intelligence whistleblower. (We wrote about that here.)

As ExposeFacts has previously noted, mainstream news organizations make only occasional forays once or twice a year into reporting that is critical of the drone program (for example, this New York Times article from 2012 and one earlier this year).

What many Americans see or hear most of the time from the self-censoring mainstream media is superficial reporting on the latest drone strike that killed a certain number of what are almost always described in sketchy news stories as militants of one type or another. They also get frequent doses of propaganda and soothing assurances from the President and other Obama administration officials that the program of drones and other aerial bombardments is precise, takes special precaution not to kill civilians, but most importantly is making America safer by killing militants while keeping U.S. troops out of harm’s way.

Typical was Obama’s speech in May 2013 at the National Defense University, where he said this: “And before any [drone] strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.” He said civilian deaths constituted “a risk that exists in all wars.” But as Commander-in-Chief, he went on, “I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places – like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold.”

And who, if they were paying attention at the time, can ever forget major-league truth abuser John Brennan, when he was Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, saying in June 2011 that for almost a year, “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” In reporting that whopper, The New York Times in August 2011 further reported this: “Other officials say that [Brennan’s] extraordinary claim still holds: since May 2010, C.I.A. officers believe, the drones have killed more than 600 militants – including at least 20 in a strike reported Wednesday – and not a single noncombatant.”

Given the Obama administration’s control of the drone narrative and the paucity of mainstream press coverage, the 35 percent opposition figure shown in the Pew Research Center’s poll in May is a bit surprising for being as high as it is. Especially given that so many Americans buy into the notion that the nation is in a war against terrorism, that drones make us safe, and that killing remotely by drones is preferable to sending U.S. soldiers into combat areas and risking their lives.

Curiously, that same Pew Research Center poll, in addition to showing 35 percent opposition, found that 48 percent said “they are very concerned that U.S. drone strikes endanger the lives of innocent civilians.” This higher figure suggests that even some Americans currently favoring drone attacks have doubts about how well civilians are protected — and thus might be open to opposing drone use if the mainstream media would let them know what the four whistleblowers said.

Or if the mainstream press would let them know what was contained in The Intercept’s “Drone Papers” articles — such as the revelation that during one five-month period of Operation Haymaker in northeastern Afghanistan, “nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.”

It’s worth noting that The Guardian, AFP and Reuters — outlets that did cover the four drone whistleblowers — are all headquartered outside the United States and are not part of the inside-the-Beltway media crowd that influence what is and isn’t news at the national and U.S. governmental level.

Also, because those news outlets all have high levels of newspaper and Internet-based circulation in numerous countries, what they report can make citizens of other countries better informed than Americans about certain aspects of U.S. life. This meant, for example, that Singapore readers of The Straits Times and the Dublin, Ireland readers of TheJournal.ie got to read about the four whistleblowers via an AFP article online. Meanwhile, sadly and ironically, readers of The New York Times and Washington Post were left in the dark.

Across the waters in the drone-deploying United Kingdom, public opinion on drone use appears to be the direct opposite of the United States. A Pew Research Center poll in July 2014 found that the U.K. public opposed the use of drones by a 59-33 percent margin.

With The Guardian and others providing more critical coverage of drones than U.S. mainstream media, and with the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism regularly pumping out information that challenges U.S. government claims about limited civilian drone-strike deaths, it’s a good bet that U.K. citizens are more exposed to criticisms of the drone programs than are their U.S. counterparts.

Additionally, many members of Parliament are much more critical of Britain’s drone policies than are members of Congress critical of U.S. policies, and they are often in the news with their criticisms and concerns. Not so in the United States where, with no serious congressional oversight or debate about drones, there is seldom any anti-drone news generated in the House or Senate — which means citizens hear nothing from the legislative branch to counter the White House views.

As long as major U.S. news organizations continue to ignore, downplay or under-report drone stories, much of the American public will remain under-informed or ill-informed about what our drone strikes are doing to the citizens of many other countries, while at the same time turning ever more people against the United States.

(Disclosure: The four drone whistleblowers are represented by attorney Jesselyn Radack, who is national security and human rights director of the ExposeFacts WHISPeR program.)

John Hanrahan, currently on the editorial board of ExposeFacts, is a former executive director of The Fund for Investigative Journalism and reporter for  The Washington Post,  The Washington Star, UPI and other news organizations. He also has extensive experience as a legal investigator. Hanrahan is the author of  Government by Contract  and co-author ofLost Frontier: The Marketing of Alaska. He wrote extensively for NiemanWatchdog.org, a project of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence is offering an analysis of the assets and capabilities of the The Royal Australian Navy. Australia is a key ally in the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia” which is a term for the strategy aimed to seal off the PLA Navy in South China Sea and prevent its moving in operations space and encircle China by land. In this order, the U.S. holds old and sets up new alliances with nations in Indo-Asia-Pacific region. Thus, it’s important to get a better idea of how Australian have been utilizing their naval assets.

Additional noteworthy news is the decision to give the Philippines two older U.S. naval vessels in an attempt to bolster their defense against China in the South China sea and to aid them in their own claims to disputed territories there. It is important to note that a U.S. shipyard is already supplying 4 small, fast patrol boats to the Philippine Coast Guard, and the Australian Navy is donating 2 landing craft to the Philippine Navy this coming year.

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence. 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.

Introduction

The Royal Australian Navy has its roots in the Royal Navy of Great Britain, and has grown out of that shared tradition greatly from lessons learned in both World War I and World War II, to become a potent and streamlined regional naval fighting force. World War I harkened the birth of a true modern navy for Australia, while World War II saw its growth from one of the smallest Navies in the British Commonwealth to the 5th largest in the world by the end of the war in 1945.

Brief Overview

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) maintained a sizable fleet of combatant and support vessels throughout the Cold War, supporting UN operations in the Korean War and early in the Vietnam peace keeping operations that gradually became the U.S. prosecuted Vietnam War. Throughout this period, the RAN operated a number of small aircraft carriers in addition to other surface vessels; however, Australia greatly scaled back their power projection capabilities when the force went through a major structural transition in the late 1970s and 1980s.

In its current form, the RAN operates as the naval/maritime arm of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). Emphasis has been placed on border protection, humanitarian relief capability, and control of the territorial waters and EEZ of the nation through both waterborne and aerial patrol and surveillance. Australia has operated a much more streamlined naval force in the past three decades; however, this has not stopped them from participating in many joint operations with the U.S. Navy and other international coalitions. Australia committed naval assets to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and continues supporting the NATO operations in Afghanistan under Operation Highroad. The government of Australia has justified participation of the ADF in these operations far from Australia’s shores under the auspices of the mutual defense clauses of the ANZUS Treaty and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 which established the NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Current Organization and Deployment

The RAN has two commands under the Chief of the Navy, Navy Strategic Command and Fleet Command. Navy Strategic command has authority over all strategic planning, personnel management, resources, engineering, certification and safety. Fleet Command has command of all fleet components. These are broken down into the following sub-commands:

Surface Force

Mine Warfare, Hydrographic and Patrol Force

Submarine Force

Fleet Air Arm

Shore Force

The RAN operates out of two main naval bases, Fleet Base East (HMAS Kuttabul located in Sydney) and Fleet Base West (HMAS Stirling located in Perth). Since 1987 the RAN has operated a “Two Ocean” naval plan which allows the RAN to cover both the Pacific and Indian Oceans on a continuous and committed basis. There are a number of other bases and support facilities.

RAN Facilities

Click to see the full-size high resolution map

Fleet Base East/HMAS Kuttabul: Main Fleet Base located in Perth.

Fleet Base West/HMAS Stirling: Main Fleet Base located in Sydney.

HMAS Albatross: The RAN’s only Naval Air Station that operates three squadrons of aircraft.

723 Squadron with AS350 Squirrel helicopters

816 Squadron with S-70B Seahawk helicopters

NUSQN 808 with MRH-90 helicopters

*It must be noted here that the RAAF operates maritime patrol aircraft within the ADF structure. This includes a number of AP-3C Orion aircraft and six E-7A Wedgetail EWC aircraft. The AP-3C Orions will be replaced by the new PA-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft and a number of MQ-4C Triton (Global Hawk) UAVs starting by 2017.

HMAS Cairns: Located in Cairns on the SE Coast of Australia. This base is homeport for 14 RAN vessels.

Armidale Class Patrol Boats

• HMAS Bundaberg 91
• HMAS Wollongong 92
• HMAS Childers 93
• HMAS Launceston 94

Balikpapan Class Landing Craft Heavy (LCH)

• HMAS Brunei L127
• HMAS Labuan L128
• HMAS Tarakan L129
• HMAS Wewak L130

Leeuwin Class Hydrographic Survey Ships (HS)

• HMAS Leeuwin A245
• HMAS Melville A246

Paluma Class Survey Motor Launches (SML)

• HMAS Paluma A01
• HMAS Mermaid A02
• HMAS Shepparton A03
• HMAS Benalla A04

HMAS Cerberus: Base dedicated to naval personnel training located just south of Melbourne, at Crib Point on Western Port Bay.

HMAS Coonawarra: Located in Darwin in Northern Australia. It is the center of “Border Integrity Operations and also operates patrol craft repair facilities.

HMAS Creswell: Located in Jervis Bay south of Sydney on the East Coast of Australia. A major training facility. Home of the RAN College and training facilities that focus on ship safety and survivability, damage control, nuclear, biological and chemical defense, and naval gunnery and anti-aircraft gunnery ranges.

HMAS Harman: Located in Canberra, the base services various administrative and communications functions for the RAN.

HMAS Penguin: Located in Sydney, the base is home to the RAN Diving School, Hydrographic School and Medical School.

HMAS Waterhen: Home of the RAN Mine Countermeasures Force and homeport to 6 RAN vessels.

Huon Class Mine Hunter Coastal Vessels:

• HMAS Diamantina M86
• HMAS Huon M85
• HMAS Hawkesbury M83
• HMAS Norman M82
• HMAS Gascoyne M84
• HMAS Yarra M87

Dive Tender (DTV):

• HMAS Seal DVT1001

Torpedo Recovery Vessel (TRV):

• HMAS Trevally TRV802

Mine Sweeper Auxiliaries (MSA):

• HMAS Bandicoot Y298
• HMAS Wallaro Y299

HMAS Watson: Located at Sydney’s South Head, the base is host to the RAN’s premiere naval warfare school.

NHQ South Australia: Naval Headquarters located in Adelaide in Southern Australia.

NHQ Queensland: Naval Headquarters located in Brisbane, South Queensland in Eastern Australia.

NHQ Tasmania: Naval Headquarters support office located on the Island of Tasmania.

Fleet Vessels

The RAN has a combined fleet of 43 surface warfare vessels and a host of support and ancillary vessels. It’s most potent vessels are the 8 Helicopter Frigates (FFH), 3 Guided Missile Frigates (FFG) and the recently commissioned HMAS Canberra Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD), or Amphibious Assault Ship. An additional Canberra Class LHD and 3 Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) are in the process of being built.

LHDs or Aircraft Carriers?

The HMAS Canberra is the first of two planned LHDs in this class and is the first of 5 vessels being built as part of the RAN “Next Generation Navy” five year program to modernize and streamline the surface combatant force, and the service as a whole. The two LHDs are being built in Spain by the Navantia shipbuilding company, and finishing of the vessels advanced communications and combat systems is being conducted in Australia by the BAE Systems shipyard at Williamstown in Melbourne.

The Navantia LHD design was chosen as the template for the Canberra, and is approximately 4,000 tons larger in displacement than the already built Juan Carlos I that was supplied to the Spanish Navy. It is interesting to note that the skip ramp of the original design was retained, allowing the vessel to launch fixed wing VSTOL aircraft. The Spanish vessel has a complement of Harrier aircraft, but no such VSTOL fixed wing aircraft exist in the RAN or Royal Australian Airforce (RAA). It has been surmised that with the RAA taking delivery of 72 F-35A aircraft in the near future to replace all of its current inventory of F/A-18 A/B Hornet and F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, (if the F-35 ever reaches production status in light of all of its glairing short-comings) that the decision could be made later on to purchase a small number of F-35B VSTOL aircraft for the new LHDs. This is a controversial issue both in military and political terms.

Making provision for a wing of VSTOL aircraft on board the LHDs would take valuable space away from the helicopter and amphibious assault elements, and would thus detract from the vessel’s role as a platform to deliver and support amphibious forces by helicopter or small landing craft. Its current design allows for the accommodation of approximately 110 light vehicles, on two light vehicle decks and one heavy vehicle deck. A number of Abrams MBTs can be accommodated in the heavy vehicle deck. There is enough space, and deck strength to stow 196 TEUs of containerized cargo on the heavy vehicle deck if so desired. A marine landing force of 1,600 men is to be accommodated, with helicopter capacity to deploy 220 men at a time and landing craft capacity of 4 Light Landing Craft (LLC). Such a configuration allows for the deployment of a full Battalion of marines, or a mixed force of marines and a sizeable load of relief supplies for disaster relief operations.

A decision to equip the LHDs with a wing of fixed wing VSTOL aircraft would greatly detract from their traditional role. There is not enough space to accommodate many fixed wing aircraft, as the Juan Carlos I currently can only carry 10 to 12 Harriers if one of the light vehicle decks is set aside for these aircraft. It is arguable that the striking power of 10 to 12 F-35Bs is not significant enough in a major conventional naval conflict with an adversary of significant capability such as China or India; however, it is doubtful that the RAN would ever conduct major operations on its own without the full support of the U.S. Navy.

The greatest asset of these new vessels is their flexibility. Any potential adversary must make contingencies dependent upon a variety of uses for these vessels. Theoretically, the Canberra Class LHD is flexible enough to be a good asymmetric warfare platform, being able to support Special Forces troops delivered via helicopter or small watercraft, VSTOL aircraft, modern naval drones such as the Northrop Grumman X-47B, or a combination of all of the above.

Canberra Class LHD Particulars:

• Length Overall 230.82m
• Molded Beam 32.00m
• Beam Waterline 29.50m
• Flight Deck height 27.50m
• Draft at Full Load Displacement 7.08m
• Full Load Displacement 27,500 tons

Defensive Weapons Systems:

• Anti-Torpedo Towed Defense System (Nixie)
• Four 20 mm automated guns
• 6 x 12.7 mm machine guns
• Active missile decoy system – Nulka

Aircraft Accommodation:

• 6 Blackhawks, or 4 CH-47 Chinooks on the Flight Deck
• Hangar can accommodate 8 medium helicopters
• Light Vehicle Deck can be configured to accommodate 18 medium helicopters
• 10 to 12 F-35B VSTOL aircraft in theory, if so configured

Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers

The new Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) are similar in design and function to the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. They are equipped with the Aegis combat system, which couples the AN/SPY 1D(V) phased array radar with the SM2 missile giving it an effective engagement range of 150 kilometers. Although three vessels are planned in the initial new building program, the number may be expanded to a total of 11 vessels in this class.

The Hobart Class AWD vessels will provide the RAN with a good counter to the ever increasing missile capabilities being fielded by the PLA Navy and the large number of attack aircraft fielded by the PLA Navy and Airforce. They also provide air warfare defense against long range land based missiles employed by the PLA Second Artillery Force. These vessels could be a great asset to a U.S. Aircraft Carrier Battle Group in providing added Air Warfare capability.

Hobart Class AWD Particulars:

Vessels in Class

• HMAS Hobart (III)
• HMAS Brisbane (III)
• HMAS Sydney (V)

Characteristics

• Length 146.7 meters
• Beam: 18.6 meters
• Draft: 7.2 meters
• Full Load Displacement: 7,000 tons

Performance

• Top Speed: 28+ knots
• Range: 5,000+ nautical miles at 18+ knots

Crew

• Approx. 180

Accommodation

• 234

Combat System

• Aegis Weapon System Baseline 7.1
• AN/SPY-1D(V) Phased Array Radar
• Horizon Search Radar
• Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (48 VLS Cells)
• Mk 45 5” 62 Caliber Gun
• Advanced HARPOON Weapon Control System: 2 quad launchers
• EW Suite
• Very Short Range Air and Surface Defense
• NULKA Active Missile Decoy system
• Integrated Sonar System incorporating a Hull Mounted and towed array sonar
• Communications Suite

Aviation

• Hangars: 1

Frigate Helicopter (FFH)

The RAN currently has 8 Anzac Class vessels in service. These vessels are long range escort vessels based on the German Meko 200 Frigate design. They can carry out a range of duties including air defense, anti-submarine, reconnaissance and interdiction. They have a top speed of 27 knots and a range of 6,000 nautical miles. They are very capable vessels and are equipped with the Mk 41 vertical launch system for the Sea Sparrow point defense missile, Harpoon Block II anti-ship missile, a 127mm deck gun and ship launched torpedoes.

Anzac Vessels in Service:

• HMAS Anzac FFH 150
• HMAS Arunta FFH151
• HMAS Ballarat FFH 155
• HMAS Parramatta FFH 154
• HMAS Perth FFH 157
• HMAS Stuart FFH 153
• HMAS Toowoomba FFH 156
• HMAS Warramunga FFH 152

Guided Missile Destroyers (FFG)

The RAN operates 3 Adelaide Class FFGs (based on the U.S.Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG) of an original compliment of 6 vessels in this class. The first four vessels were built in the United States and refitted in Australia, with the final two vessels being completely built in Australia. Although these vessels were built between the years 1984 and 1993, they are still quite capable vessels in modern surface warfare terms. The vessels utilize gas turbine propulsion and are highly maneuverable, with a top speed of 29 knots and a range of 4,500 nautical miles. The FFGs primary weapon systems are the SM2 anti-aircraft missile and Harpoon anti-ship missile. A 76mm deck gun is also fitted, along with one 20mm phalanx close range anti-aircraft defense weapon. Anti-submarine capabilities are provided by two Mk32 triple torpedo tubes for close range defense and an aft hangar houses two S-70 B2 Seahawk helicopters for long range anti-submarine operations.

Adelaide Class Vessels in Service:

• HMAS Darwin FFG04
• HMAS Melbourne FFG05
• HMAS Newcastle FFG06

Guided Missile Submarine (SSG) Diesel Electric

The RAN operates 6 Collins Class diesel electric submarines. These vessels are of Swedish design, with all six vessels being commissioned between the years 1996 and 2003. They are equipped with 6 torpedo tubes for firing Mk 48 Mod 7 torpedoes, UGM-84C Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles, or Stonefish Mk 3 mines. All six vessels are based at HMAS Fleet Base West.

It has been reported that the RAN has struggled to train and maintain capable crews for all six of their SSGs. Operating a modern submarine service is quite possibly one of the most challenging achievements amongst the more capable navies of the world. A high level of training and competency is required and developing a strong tradition of submarine warfare in any navy takes many years to develop. Some ambitious planners in the RAN and members of the Australian government have been advocating a two ocean fleet of 12 advanced SSGs, but it is unclear where the funds and resources will come for this program.

Collins Class SSGS in Service:

• HMAS Collins SSG 73
• HMAS Farncomb SSG 74
• HMAS Waller SSG 75
• HMAS Dechaineux SSG 76
• HMAS Sheean SSG77
• HMAS Rankin SSG78

Patrol Boats (PB)

The RAN operates 13 Armidale Class Patrol Boats (PB). These vessels are tasked with a variety of roles, but most often are utilized in the border patrol and maritime intercept and interdiction roles. The Armidale Class PBs are armed with a 25mm M282 automatic cannon and 2 x 12.7mm machine guns. They have a top speed of 25 knots and a range of 3,000 nautical miles. All PBs are based at either HMAS Cairns or HMAS Coonawarra.

Armidale Class PBs in Service:

• HMAS Albany PB86
• HMAS Ararat PB89
• HMAS Armidale PB83
• HMAS Bathurste PB85
• HMAS Broome PB90
• HMAS Childers PB93
• HMAS Glenelg PB96
• HMAS Larrakia PB84
• HMAS Launceston PB94
• HMAS Maitland PB88
• HMAS Maryborough PB95
• HMAS Pirie PB87
• HMAS Wollongong PB92

Conclusions

The Royal Australian Navy is an extremely capable force in its current form, with over 16,000 well trained and dedicated personnel and a modern fleet of over 50 commissioned vessels. The fleet decommissioned the last of its aircraft carriers, HMAS Melbourne in 1982 and the focus was put on developing a streamlined navy that could both defend the island continent and respond quickly to incursions and natural disasters in its outlying territories.

The Australian government moved to militarily aid the United States in its forays into Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 21st century, sighting the ANZUS Treaty and UN Resolution 1386 as the justification. The RAN continues to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan and anti-piracy and anti-terrorism efforts off the horn of Africa in Operation Manitou, Australia’s contribution to the US-led Combined Maritime Forces (CMF).

The RAN is currently undergoing a rapid modernization program that is altering the capabilities and posture of the RAN from a navy of defense and border control to a navy of limited power projection capability. The addition of two brand new LHDs that have the capacity to transport and support small expeditionary forces as well as theoretically carry a small contingent of fixed wing VSTOL aircraft, and three state of the art AWDs equipped with the Aegis combat system, greatly increases the power projection capabilities of the RAN.

This new capability is most assuredly making China’s military planners take notice. At a time where China is asserting its sovereignty over disputed islands in the South China Sea, most notably the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands, this acquisition of power projection capability by Australia may add fuel to an already heated situation. PLA Navy strategic planners do not like the thought of two modern Canberra Class LHDs being able to transport a total of 3,200 marines, their complement of heavy weapons and Abrams tanks, while covered from air threats by three equally capable Hobart Class AWDs anywhere in the South China Sea. It must be acknowledged that the RAN will almost always be supported by the U.S. Navy in any confrontation. The RAN will not go to battle alone.

It is additionally important to note that the Japanese Defense Force Navy has already added one of two planned vessels of the designation “Helicopter Destroyer” (DDH) to its fleet. The JS Izumo DDH-183, and the soon to be launched JS Kaga DDH-184 bear a new classification, but most military analysts agree that they have the inherent capability to be used as small aircraft carriers. Japan also has territorial disputes with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. China is faced with another neighbor acquiring a limited power projection capability where one had previously not existed (since the end of World War II).

At a time when the United States continues to up the ante in the ongoing dispute over sovereignty of islands in the South China Sea and the issue of freedom of navigation in international waters, a more potent RAN is not a comforting thought. Australia has made a huge financial commitment to building a more powerful and farther reaching navy in recent years, and will continue to add new, more powerful vessels to the fleet. It remains to be seen how China and other neighbors in the region will respond.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), one of the 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) that affect human and animal fertility;

• 2,4,5 T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), a dioxin-containing component of the defoliant, Agent Orange, which was used by the US Army during the Vietnam War and continues to cause birth defects and cancer;

• Lasso, an herbicide that is now banned in Europe;

• and RoundUp, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the source of the greatest health and environmental scandal in modern history. This toxic herbicide, designated a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is used in combination with genetically modified (GM) RoundUp Ready seeds in large-scale monocultures, primarily to produce soybeans, maize and rapeseed for animal feed and biofuels.

Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.

The announcement was made at a press conference held in conjunction with the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, November 30 – December 11, in Paris.

Speaking at the press conference, Ronnie Cummins, international director of the OCA (US) and Via Organica (Mexico), and member of the RI Steering Committee, said:

“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. We are in Paris this month to address the most serious threat that humans have ever faced in our 100-200,000 year evolution—global warming and climate disruption. Why is there so much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere and not enough carbon organic matter in the soil? Corporate agribusiness, industrial forestry, the garbage and sewage industry and agricultural biotechnology have literally killed the climate-stabilizing, carbon-sink capacity of the Earth’s living soil.”

Andre Leu, president of IFOAM and a member of the RI Steering Committee, said:

“Monsanto is able to ignore the human and environmental damage caused by its products, and maintain its devastating activities through a strategy of systemic concealment: by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media. Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet.”

Marie-Monique Robin, journalist and author of the best-selling documentary (and book by the same name),

“The World According Monsanto,” said: “This International Citizens’ Tribunal is necessary because the defense of the safety of the planet and the conditions of life on Earth is everyone’s concern. Only through a collective resurgence of all living forces will we stop the engine of destruction. That’s why today I am calling on all citizens of the world to participate in this exemplary tribunal.”

Also speaking at the conference were Valerie Cabanes, lawyer and spokesperson for End Ecocide on Earth; Hans Rudolf Herren, president and CEO of the Millennium Institute, president and founder of Biovision, and member of the RI Steering Committee; Arnaud Apoteker, creator of the anti-GMO campaign in France, which became one of the priority campaigns of Greenpeace France, and author of “Fish in Our Strawberries: Our Manipulated Food;” and Olivier De Schutter, co-chair of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPESFood) and former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

Full list of founding organizations (so far) here.

Full list of Monsanto Tribunal Foundation organizing members here.

More information will be available at www.monsanto-tribunal.org/, after 2:30 p.m. EU time on December 3, 2015.

As more and more Chinese enterprises expand into Africa, there has been increasing interest in China’s economic activities in the continent. As well as positive feedback, there have also been some negative comments, with China having been accused of neo-colonialism, of grabbing resources and dumping low-quality products.

Such criticism is the opposite of how most African people see it. Massive investment in Africa has not only led to economic benefits for Chinese enterprises; it has also provided growth momentum for African countries. It is a win-win situation for the development of China and Africa, and for the Sino-African relationship.

As investment from Chinese enterprises has grown more sophisticated, relevant experience can be shared for future endeavors.

First, Chinese enterprises can increase their benefits by adapting to the economic situation in Africa. China and Africa are complementary in industry because China, as the world’s top manufacturer, funds a large portion of manufacturing in Africa. Also, Chinese enterprises generally have cost advantages over Western multinational corporations, which can help Chinese enterprises expand their local market share. In addition, Chinese enterprises run their businesses pragmatically, and do not attempt to intervene in host governments’ politics.

Second, the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises have developed a unique model for development in Africa. The Chinese government has provided the momentum for its enterprises to undertake business operations in Africa as China sincerely wants to see Africa prosper. Without support and encouragement from the Chinese government, Chinese enterprises wouldn’t have been so active in investing in Africa. The Chinese government has aided African countries through investing in infrastructure projects, and through enhancing the quality of local labor force  via assisting education, job training and improving medical facility. Subsequently, Chinese enterprises could become involved in such projects to seek better development opportunities. In fact, African nations welcome such development because it is beneficial for them to enhance local infrastructure. Also, if somehow Chinese enterprises has violated local policies, the Chinese government will properly regulated such enterprises’ behavior, especially State-owned ones.

Third, investment in Africa by Chinese firms is supported by China’s finance sector. Domestic financial institutions have enhanced financing channels and expanded financial support for Chinese enterprises’ investment in Africa. Meanwhile, a variety of forms of finance in China – such as policy-based finance, development finance, commercial finance and concessional loans – all have their own polices to support such investment.

Following the establishment of the China-Africa Development Fund, the China Investment Corporation (CIC), a wholly State-owned company founded in 2007, has also established a subsidiary called CIC Capital Corporation in January 2015 to actively encourage Chinese enterprises to enter Africa through means of equity investment and debt financing.

Despite all the positive steps forward, there is still room for improvement in Chinese investment in Africa, and certain strategies should be considered.

The first is to develop a win-win mindset. Chinese enterprises should strengthen communication among themselves, create synergies for investment opportunities and avoid unhealthy competition. In addition, Chinese enterprises should try to carry out third-party cooperation in Africa with multinational corporations of other countries in order to become a community of shared interests and diversify risks.

Second, Chinese enterprises could improve their local business operation. If possible, Chinese companies could provide training for more local employees and hire more people from the local labor force, so that the investment model could cover the full industrial chain locally and drive local economic growth.

Third, Chinese companies should increase awareness about protecting the local environment. In this regard, they must strictly abide by local laws and regulations, avoid disorderly development of resources, and spare no effort in promoting green development.

And last, Chinese enterprises should strengthen their social responsibility in handling relations with other stakeholders including local media organizations, communities and unions, industry associations, and non-government organizations. Chinese enterprises could also participate in programs like poverty relief and education.

The author is the deputy director of the Center for American Studies, Fudan University. [email protected]

After being Chancellor for more than 10 years, Mrs. Merkel has finally achieved what she must have always dreamt of. 

In 2002 she was one of the staunchest supporters of a US war in Iraq. In 2003 she penned an article for the pro-war Washington Post titled „Schröder Doesn’t Speak for All Germans “ where she advocated the intervention: 

“The danger from Iraq is not fictitious, but real, … pressure must be maintained on Saddam Hussein … this means using military force if necessary”

At the time, she was denied this “marvelous” opportunity by the Germans who had elected her into opposition. 

Her re-election in 2017 being far from certain, she seems hell bent on getting “her“ war now. She wants it so badly that she doesn’t need any international law or UN mandate or for that matter consent of the German people to justify the upcoming intervention in Syria.

What will the German members of parliament vote for or against on Friday this week?

• Deployment of Tornado jets providing intelligence for the anti-ISIS coalition
• Deployment of a frigate in the Mediterranean, supposedly, escorting the French carrier Charles de Gaulle (WTF? Is Turkey supplying ISIS with submarines which could attack a French carrier?)
• Deployment of A310 tankers

This will require the deployment of around 1200 servicemen.

Apart from being illegal from an international point of view, this act of war also infringes on the following articles of the German Constitution: 26(1) , 115a  and 87a

Despite the illegality of this mission, only 14 MPs of the ruling Grand Coalition are likely to vote against it on Friday, as reported by DER SPIEGEL.

Merkel’s war in Syria is a fait accompli.

The Chancellor could at least have given it a touch of legality by stating that the Tornado jets would also supply the Russian Air Force with intelligence. But this of course is not going to happen!

After Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001 the German people will be dragged into yet another illegal conflict by their government.

Because all we want for Christmas is WAR!

In the run up to the UK House of Commons vote on air strikes against ISIS in Syria, there has been much hype in the media about ‘precision strikes’. In particular a new British missile, the Brimstone, has been lauded by the press and politicians with Defence Secretary Michael Fallon going so far as to suggest that it “eliminates civilian casualties.”

The perception of ‘precision’ also underlies much of the support for drones targeted killing, with the phrase ‘pinpoint accuracy’ being deployed by the media almost as often as the weapons themselves.  However the details and claims of such ‘precision’ deserve scrutiny.  It is important to ask whether we are not in fact being misguided about ‘precision’. Not only in terms of the actual impact on the ground, but also in the permissiveness it engenders for further war.

What is a precision strike?

While most people would understand ‘precision’ to mean ‘accuracy’, it is very important to be aware that when the military use the term ‘precision strike’ they are not referring overall to the accuracy of a strike. Rather, they are pointing to the fact that a wide system of assets have been brought to bear to enable the strike to take place. According to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff for example, precision engagement refers to

“the ability of joint forces to locate, survey, discern, and track objectives or targets; select, organize, and use the correct systems; generate desired effects; assess results; and re-engage with decisive speed and overwhelming operational tempo as required, throughout the full range of military operations.”

Lt. Colonel Jill Long of the USAF writes “the term ‘precision’ does not imply, as one might assume, accuracy. Instead, the word precision exclusively pertains to a discriminate targeting process”.  She goes on, “By using a word that has such specific meaning in the mind of most civilians, it is easy to see how a gap in understanding and expectations has been fostered.”  Indeed. When military spokespeople describe an aircraft or drone as undertaking a ‘precision strike’ it tends to get reinterpreted both in the media and in the minds of the public as being an ‘accurate’ strike, a misunderstanding that the military seem to have little interest in correcting.

Precision-Guided Munitions

While airstrikes using precision-guided (sometimes called ‘smart’) munitions are undoubtedly much more accurate than ‘dumb’ or unguided weapons, the idea that such weapons hit their target accurately every time unless there is a human induced error is merely the stuff of Hollywood.

At a basic level, precision-guided munitions (PGM) have the ability to alter direction after launch in order to hit a designated target.  There are two basic types of PGM; one relies on the Global Positing System (GPS) to find its target, while the other follows (or seeks) the centre point of a laser that is ‘painting’ a target.  While both have the potential to be accurate, in reality both have inherent problems which can and do impact on their accuracy.

GPS munitions, for example, are vulnerable to electronic jamming and ‘spoofing’ through electronic warfare, while laser-guided munitions can be disrupted by weather conditions as well as smoke and dust (often present in areas of bombing due to other explosions). In addition, and very importantly, both rely on the actual information and intelligence about a target being accurate and up-to-date in the first place.  Infamously, US GPS-guided bombs mistakenly hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war in 1999 due to the wrong co-ordinates being programmed into the missile. More recently human rights organisation Reprieve has argued that flawed intelligence has led to the deaths of more than a thousand people in the drone targeted killing of 41 named individuals in Pakistan.

Laser-guided

The vast majority of weapons launched from US and UK drones have been Hellfire missiles which use, like other laser-guided munitions, semi-active radar homing.  An invisible laser beam which is pulsing at a specific rate of  microseconds is aimed at a target.  The laser can come either from the drone itself or from someone operating on the ground. The laser beam scatters off the target in many directions, pulsing at a pre-set specific rate.  Once launched, the missile seeks out the beam pulsing at the specific rate it is set to find, and then steers itself towards the centre of that signal, thereby homing in on the target.

AGM-114 Hellfire missile

However, numerous technical reports and articles detail how dust, smoke and water (in the form of rain or vapour) impacts both on the laser beam itself and the ability of the missile seeker in such weapons to detect that laser beam.  Captain Adam Lange, for example, writes in his article “Hellfire: Getting the Most from a Lethal Missile System’  that dust and water vapour particles “absorb or diffract laser energy along the way to the intended target … [and] may result in severe attenuation and cause the seeker not to detect… the target.”  He also details how the laser beam can simply be reflected back off smoke or dust in between the target and the missile and “consequently a missile may lock on to a smoke or dust cloud between the target and the designator.”

Much more recently, the authors of the authoritative ‘Introduction to UAV Systems’ detail how water in the atmosphere will impact on laser energy.  They document how rain scatters the energy while water vapour in the form of haze and humidity will absorb the laser energy and thereby impact on the weapon’s ability to seek the target.

Circular Error Probability

Weapons accuracy is generally measured using the term ‘Circular Error Probability’ or CEP. In tests, a number of weapons are launched at a target and then an imaginary circle is draw around the 50% of strikes closest to the aim point (see diagram).  The radius of that circle becomes the CEP (or accuracy) of that weapon. Rather unbelievably, the 50% of the strikes that fall outside this circle are simply ignored (I have yet to find an explanation for this). Importantly then, official statements about the accuracy of particular weapons are not based on any empirical surveys of actual use in warfare, but instead based on manufacturers’ claims about performance under test conditions.

Although publicly available data on the actual accuracy of precision weapons in use on the battlefield is almost non-existent (such details are routinely refused by the military) some indications can be found. An Australian military study published in 2003 found that 45.5% of laser-guided weapons used by US forces in the opening days of Operation Desert Storm missed their target due to poor weather, technical malfunction or pilot error. The report goes on to criticise arms company claims regarding the accuracy of their munitions stating “manufacturers claims of ‘one target, one bomb’ proved false in the combat conditions of Operation Desert Storm.”

Hitting a moving target from a moving aircraft, whether that be from a drone or anything else, is incredible difficult.  While we know that it can be done as there are occasional self-selected releases of short videos showing such targets being hit, we do not know how often these direct hits actually occur.  Every time?  Every second time? Three out of five? Without actual data it is not possible to be sure.

‘Precise’ Blast and Fragmentation?

Another aspect is how the phrase ‘precision strike’ underplays the impact of blast and fragmentation. Bombs create deadly blast waves as well as sending out lethal fragments and shrapnel which can travel great distances. Indeed, it is what bombs are designed to do.  Predator pilot Matt Martin, in an account of the early operations of US drones over Iraq, wrote about the technical changes made to Hellfire missiles to enable them to be fired from drones:

“We called [this new type] of Hellfire ‘Special K’, a regular K model with an even nastier antipersonnel bonus.  When the two charges, wrapped in a sleeve of scored steel detonated, the sleeve shatter along its scored lines and blasted out razor-sharp shrapnel in all directions to slice and dice anyone within a twenty-foot radius (depending on the surface).  Even those out to fifty feet might not escape its wrath.”

According to weaponneering expert Morris Driels, approximately 30% of the energy released by a high explosive detonation will fragment the case and impart kinetic energy to the fragments:  “The fragments are propelled at high velocity, and after a short distance they overtake and pass through the shock wave [… and therefore] the radius of effective fragment damage, although target dependent, exceeds considerably the radius of effective blast damage.”  He goes on: “Even very small fragments of the order of a few grains (1lb = 7,000 grains) will cause severe injury to personnel targets.”

US army diagram detailing impact of blast and fragmentation

An understanding of the danger that such an explosion can create can perhaps be gained from the safe distance that the US military mandates for its own troops to be away from explosions. To be safe, unprotected troops are required to be 1,000m (1km) away from a 2,000 lb bomb explosion and 500 metres away from a 500lb bombs.

British drones are launching 500lb bombs, but mainly the 100lb Hellfire missile. The US Counter Terrorism Center mandates that safe distance from even a 50lb bomb is 50 metres. When proponents of aerial bombing talk of striking precisely within a 2-3 metres radius, such a narrative simply ignores the much wider lethal radius that the blast will create.

The Problem of Precision

The constant presentation of air strikes as ‘precise’ and ‘pinpoint accurate’ has serious implications for our understanding of the actual impact of war. Due to the nature of today’s military interventions, few people have access to first-hand accounts of the impact on the ground, creating in the minds of many the idea that air strikes are clean, safe and even bloodless. Even fewer have access to the data surrounding such military operations enabling proper oversight. The MoD, for example, claim that “in the hundreds of air strikes that the RAF has carried out in Iraq, we have had absolutely no civilian casualties reported” (note of course that ‘reported’).  At the very same time, there is no doubt that there have been hundreds of civilian casualties from Coalition bombing in Iraq.

Captain Steinar Sanderød of the Norwegian Air Force writes “politicians and public opinion in the West seem to be convinced that air power is less ‘messy’ than the use of ground forces.”  Quoting arguments that “air forces proclaiming their ability to strike with precision [is] fuelling expectations of near-bloodless campaigns where enemy civilians are successfully avoided” Sanderød argues that “such a perception of air power has greatly contributed to lowering the threshold for using force among western politicians.”

In other words, the narrative that such air strikes do not cause civilian casualties helps to create public permission for the expansion of air campaigns.  Perhaps nowhere has this expansion been more visible than in the US (and now British) use of armed drones to undertake targeted killings. Civilian areas, where bombing would not previously have taken place, now come under the shadow of drones and this in turn will no doubt lead to more casualties. As Professor Michael Schmitt writes in his important review of international law in relation to precision strike for the International Red Cross

“Greater precision enables targets to be attacked that previously were off-limits due to likely excessive collateral damage or incidental injury. This is particularly true with regard to urban and dual-use targets. To the extent that such attacks are seldom free of collateral damage and incidental injury, opening additional targets to attack results in a net increase in potential harm to the civilian population.”

Over the past few years, and in particular over the past few weeks, ‘precision’ has been presented as something of a panacea to the problems of aerial bombing. While it is beyond question that precision weapons are more accurate than their unguided predecessors, in the way that ‘precision strike’ is both opening up previous off-limits civilian areas to aerial bombing and at the same time lowering the threshold for war, ‘precision strike’ may in fact lead to an increase in civilian casualties.

To summarise Professor Maja Zehfuss in her excellent essay on this issue, Targeting: Precision and the Production of Ethics, faith in precision bombing requires not only an under-examination of the technology itself, but a redefining of the very word ‘precision’.

In the last couple years US-NATO forces have intentionally pursued an aggressive path with a current trajectory leading humanity straight into World War III. In contrast to the West’s overt warmongering transgressions, the political, economic and military forces of the East in Russia and China have exercised far more prudent, defensive posturing that has demonstrated remarkable restraint, thus saving us from a potential nuclear war.  

This presentation will lay bare the tendencies displayed by the actions of a handful of neocons in Washington carrying out marching orders issued by the  ruling elite whose New World Order agenda for over a century has been a one world government.

Fearing wrath from a fast growing population of world citizens actively opposing the elite’s diabolical agenda, 2015 has seen the globalists fast tracking their orchestrated world catastrophes, i.e., the convergence of unprecedented global terrorism designed to act as the incendiary device used to ignite the so called East versus West world war accompanied by the complete collapse of their bankrupted, house of cards, debt-based economy and the rapid global breakdown of civil order.

Through their proven divide and conquer formula, the global elite intends to bring to fruition its one world government fully implemented by 2016. And at the escalating pace fueling today’s most disturbing world events erupting at near daily frequency, unless we citizen-activists of the world finally raise up in solidarity to stop this process, 2016 may well go down in history as the year they ultimately achieve their fully operational one world government.

The twentieth century has been called America’s century representing the apex of American Empire rule over the planet, culminating with the cold war breakup and defeat of the Soviet Empire, and the US claiming exclusive title as sole global superpower, wielding its full spectrum dominance and hegemonic control over every corner of the globe. But the neocons whose careers rapidly advanced under the Reagan-Bush senior regime, spearheaded by the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz as the Dr. Frankensteins of US neocon foreign policy was unabashedly spelled out in their ambitious take-over-the-world Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

In the wake of the Cold War, the PNAC came up with the 9/11 blueprint of a “new Pearl Harbor,” spawning their long war on terror against Muslim extremists as their newly designated enemy.

With fellow partners-in-crime Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Neocons having successfully stolen this century’s first two presidential elections to affix George W. as the dumbed down version of his demonic father in the White House flanked by Dick Cheney.

In the first 15 years of this century, the elite’s agenda to destabilize, impoverish and increase totalitarian control over the planet has advanced at breakneck speed. Having hijacked virtually every national government in the West, if the elite’s international crime cabal has its way, the twenty-first century will have to be remembered as the century that ushered in a barbaric age of New World Order tyranny.

Though the neocons’ foreign policy of constant regime change around the globe (7) would not be achieved within their overly optimistic 5-year vision vis-à-vis Syria and Iran, their endless war on terror would be fully actualized in spades during the century’s first decade with two costly protracted invasion-occupations changing how America fights its wars while using the central banking cabal’s unlimited fiat dollars to obliterate nation after nation with the killing power of the US military as overreaching global empire conquerors.

The exponential rise of the military industrial complex and deep state totalitarianism fueled by the cancerous growth of Homeland Security, FEMA,  UN and private civilian contracting armies sucking the cash funded by the no bid contracts of corrupt crony capitalists is the driving force behind an unsustainable, insurmountable national debt at taxpayer expense and middle class demise. But the ruling elite in 2015 has never been more blatant in its power grabbing and the global population more in peril because of it.

And with NATO member Turkey shooting down a Russian jet near the Turkish border in Syria last week, the stakes of a global war have never been higher. How did we get here to this brink of self-annihilation? A timeline roadmap of the last two years graphically illustrates just how deadly and reckless a course the US Empire of Chaos has been blundering, now seemingly driving humanity right off the doomsday cliff.

August 2013 Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

Obama instantly blamed Assad for a horrific chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb launched by US-backed terrorists. The president used this false flag operation to justify would-be airstrikes on Syria. Complete with photos of the children’s corpses, Obama self-righteously exalted his infamous red line ultimatum all the while acting as an accomplice himself to the war crime atrocity for financially supporting the murderers who without his guns and money would never have been able to kill those innocent kids. He shamelessly paraded their corpses out before the world sanctimoniously calling for airstrikes that he knew risked starting World War III with Russia and China lining up their warships off the Syrian coast in defense of their ally. Had the entire world not reacted so strongly in protest against Obama’s lust for war, combined with Putin’s last minute brokered deal with Assad to turn in his chemical weapons, we all might not even be alive right now.

February 2014 Violent Overthrow of Ukraine Government

On February 18^th, 2014 the Ukraine revolution turned violent. Through Hillary Clinton’s State Department NGO’s funded in part by the likes of billionaire George Soros, the US invested $5 billion to incite staged protests over several months that culminated in the US-induced coup that led to another democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation ousted from office and forced to flee the capital for his life. The US had an army of CIA and military intelligence operatives along with hired agitators and snipers in the streets escalating the level of violence in Kiev that toppled the existing government. The US had been aggressively courting Ukraine to join the EU as yet another former Soviet state to turn against its previous master when President Viktor Yanukovych decided to accept Putin’s loan offer, at which point the US regime change operation covertly shifted into overdrive. Of course part of the prize would have been stealing the Crimean naval base for maritime control over the Black Sea that belonged to Russia. A telling moment came when Hillary’s right hand woman Victoria Nuland, pushing and shoving amongst the demonstrating Kiev crowd, was caught uttering her infamous “fuck the EU” statement, telling because that’s the neocon way – ever-at-the-ready to throw Europe or anyone else under the bus, anything to retain global hegemony.

March 2014 Crimea Chooses Annexation to Russia

Heading US Empire off at the pass, on March 1^st Vladimir Putin strategically reclaimed his Russian naval base in Sevastopol. Just two weeks later in an emergency referendum election, 96% of Crimea’s residents voted for annexation with Russia. The West was stunned by this turn of events. Despite Crimea being part of Russia since 1783 until Ukrainian Soviet Premier Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, the US-led international community began denouncing Putin’s move as an illegal land grab. Thus unleashed was the West’s relentless demonization of Putin who was simply acting in both his nation’s interest as well as the interests of ethnic Russians who refused to live under the corrupt US neo-Nazi installed Kiev government.  The US has maintained a long historic policy of attempting to isolate Russia and China by turning neighboring countries into their enemies as US puppets. This longstanding strategy of course is a flagrant violation of international law – interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, including the Ukrainian coup a month earlier. But because of US dominance, it gets away with it. Hypocrite Secretary of State John Kerry chastising Putin: It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are  trying to achieve. That is not 21st century, G-8, major-nation behavior.

Tell that to Afghanistan and Iraq who had nothing to do with the neocons’ 9/11 inside attack on America. In response to the West’s hypocritical lambasting, Putin truthfully proclaimed: We have every reason to think that the notorious policy of confining Russia, pursued in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today.

Putin’s reference to “today” has everything to do with the United States actively recruiting the entire former Iron Curtain of Eastern European nations as NATO members hostile to Russia punctuated with nuclear warhead missiles aimed directly at Moscow… the US induced Ukraine coup only adding insult to injury.

Spring-Summer 2014 Separatist Movement in Donbass Region and US-Backed War against Freedom Fighting Rebels

After watching events unfold in nearby Crimea the month before, in April ethic Russian separatists living in Eastern Ukraine followed suit, moving to become independent. On May 11^th a referendum in the largest cities of Donetsk and Luhansk was held with over 90% voting for independence. Of course having just lost Crimea to Russia, the US and Kiev government were not about to concede losing any more control over existing Ukraine territory. All-out war was then declared against the rebels as Ukrainian military launched a major offensive into Donbass region during late spring into the summer. With full US-NATO support that soon included international mercenary volunteers, arms and supplies, the Kiev forces fired rockets, mortars and heavy artillery directly into residential neighborhoods in Donetsk and Luhansk, with at least 1130 dead in the Donbass region from April to late July. Meanwhile, Putin placed 20000 of his own troops along the Eastern Ukraine border. In their lust for war against nuclear powered Russia, US NATO Commander General Philip Breedlove, a Dr. Strangelove throwback, and his colleague commanding general of US Army forces in Europe Lt. General Ben Hodges took turns falsely accusing Russian troops of invading Ukraine.

After corrupt US puppet billionaire Petro Poroshenko was elected Ukrainian president on May 25^th, by summer his advancing Kiev forces were using superior firepower to brutally engage in cultural and ethnic cleansing. Amidst Poroshenko’s merciless slaughter of civilians he insisted were his own Ukrainian citizens, after reaching a peace agreement that he’d soon renege on, he had the audacity to utter these hollow words belying his murderous action: The highest value is human life, and we must do everything possible to stop the bloodshed and put an end to suffering.

July 17^th, 2014 Flight MH17 Shot Down over Eastern Ukraine

On July 17^th all evidence points to two Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jets trailing the Malaysian airliner for several minutes prior to its abrupt radar disappearance at 5:23PM Moscow time. The fighter jets were armed with both air-to-air missiles and a machine gun mount that likely brought the Flight MH17 down filled with 298 passengers headed from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur but ended up at a crash site outside Donetsk in Donbass region. However, it’s also been confirmed that the Ukrainian military moved three or four of its own BUK surface-to-air missiles in place inside the rebel held territory. Among the many smoking guns is the fact that as soon as the airliner left Polish airspace entering Ukraine, Kiev air traffic control ordered the ill-fated plane two hundred miles north from its original standard flight path into the eastern Ukrainian warzone. With confirmed records of the Ukraine traffic control diversion, the hovering Ukraine jet and the Ukraine missile ground systems, the Kiev government’s fingerprints were left all over the before, during and after MH17 crime scene, strongly indicating that the perpetrators causing the MH17 crash were all based out of Kiev. As always with false flags, right from the get-go to the present, Western media constantly protects the Empire evildoers spinning nonstop lies falsely casting judge, jury and executioner blame onto US designated enemies Putin and the Donbass rebels.

However, shrewd, fast thinking Putin released incontrovertible satellite and air traffic control evidence proving that both the rebels and Russia had nothing to do with the preplanned disaster carried out by US-NATO-Ukraine, forcing the US false narrative to have to regroup and assume a lower profile in its bombastic propaganda war. Also the West’s claim that a Su-25 could not fly at the cruising airliner altitude of 33000 feet was debunked by simply using an oxygen mask in a pressurized cockpit. “The mountain of evidence” Secretary of State John Kerry had so smugly claimed right after the crash “proving” that Putin and his rebels committed the crime suddenly evaporated into thin air. Putin’s smoking gun proof also uncovered the sloppy US-Ukrainian after-the-fact cover-up that had falsified and changed traffic control data, weather and satellite imagery records in its failed desperation attempt to blame Moscow.

Once the lies of the West were exposed, of course accompanied by accomplice Western media blackout, a recoiling US retaliated by committing another obstruction of justice crime immediately securing the airliner’s black box into US-NATO puppet England’s hands thereby ensuring the truth never get revealed and making sure that the US-NATO puppet Dutch authorities conducting the prelim investigation still feebly hold the fabricated line implicating by false innuendo Russian involvement.

Eventually the investigation has expanded to include a four nation commission. But the Dutch helped install the current illegitimate Ukraine government that’s been added to the investigative team and given veto power over what ends up released to the public. Major conflict of interest there that quashes any chance of the truth coming out. Other Western puppets on the commission are Australia and Belgium. As an afterthought, Malaysia’s been invited as the nation with both the downed airliner and aside from the Dutch the most dead. However, even the pilot’s body remains off limits to Malaysian inspectors as well as the pilot’s own family. Plus, the pilot’s seat still left in the field where the plane hit the ground has been discovered with very noticeable gunshot holes from a machine gun that would easily have been fired from one of the Su-25’s, ruling out the possibility that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air BUK missile fired from the ground. A recovered piece of the Boeing 777‘s fuselage also was riddled with gunshot holes. All guilty roads lead to a Ukrainian Air Force jets taking MH17 down with a massive cover-up from the West. The strategy of the whitewashing commission is to delay its “conclusive” findings due to its obvious need to hide the plain-to-see truth of another cover-up of yet another Western false flag.

2014-15 Expansion of War in Ukraine

At the time that flight MH17 went down too many co-occurring events beyond mere coincidence further point to the West’s criminal guilt. It was reported that Kiev troops were losing their resolve fighting an unpopular war on the eastern front and were deserting in large numbers, forcing Poroshenko into sending conscripted underage boys to the frontline quagmire. To turn the world against Putin and thus provide the pretext of US-NATO entering the Ukraine war, a false flag blaming Russia for murdering near 300 innocent people onboard MH17 was conceived to surely do the dirty trick. What US-NATO failed to consider is the truth exposing them as lying murderers on the wrong side of history.

Both the airliner crash and a major Ukrainian military offensive had been planned months in advance, with the air disaster scheduled on July 17^th and Kiev’s aggressive war campaign in Eastern Ukraine launched the very next day on July 18th. The US also just happened to be conducting two military live drills in Ukraine right up to the time of the false flag.

Where have we heard that before?

Operation Sea Breeze is an annual land, air and sea exercise conducting electronic warfare that involves monitoring passenger aircraft in the region and data collection from a spy satellite that happened to be sighted over the Donetsk area at the time of the crash. The other military exercise, Rapid Trident 2014, was a joint NATO-US-Ukraine sponsored operation to enhance cooperation between land forces. Overwhelming evidence proves that the taking down of the civilian airliner was yet another false flag operation for which the US-NATO are notoriously guilty. Western history is a history made of false flags.

Thus by US-NATO design, throughout the second half of 2014 despite several ceasefire agreements in Ukraine, emboldened by US Empire prodding to make its push east to crush the rebellion, Kiev would repeatedly violate the truces to resume its carnage. A negotiated September peace treaty did little to stop the bloodshed. Fighting for both their lives and for their freedom, the rebels managed to launch a counteroffensive trapping 2500 Ukrainian soldiers under siege in a key link city between rebel strongholds Donetsk and Luhansk, a major defeat for US-NATO-Kiev. Separatists claimed 3000 dead from the Ukrainian Army while Kiev claimed the farcical low number of just 22 KIA’s. In response to seeing his team floundering, Obama desperately began deploying US-NATO advisors to the warfront as well as proposed shipments of heavy arms to Ukraine for the first time. Ukraine military launched another major campaign in January 2015 ignoring another ceasefire.

Meanwhile fearing the high risk volatility of having to potentially fight another world war in their own backyard and hurt more than Russia with its winter natural gas supply cutoff by US-led negative sanctions against Putin, in February 2015 Germany and France began mediating peace talks between Ukraine and Russia in Minsk. Obama’s timing in wanting to raise the ante sending heavy arms and ammo along with US combat troops, CIA and FBI operatives was clearly intended to sabotage the Minsk negotiations. While Europe sought peace through conflict resolution, the Washington warmongers were busily plotting preemptive nuclear war strikes against Russia and deploying a rapid buildup of US military presence joining NATO forces amassing along the Russian border in Eastern Europe. Over recent months US-NATO troops have conducted a series of enormous, unprecedented joint military exercises as overt preparation for war against Russia.

While the US sends more armored tanks and troops to Europe integrating with NATO as they densely align along Russia’s border and continuing to deploy scheduled missile installments on Russia’s doorstep, Putin is forced to respond in kind. As the arms race intensifies, so does their eventual use. With nothing but lies and propaganda pumped out 24/7 by mainstream media demonizing Putin for the last two years, Western globalists have used their puppet Obama to aggressively exploit Ukraine along with Syria as the two primed hotspot startups for World War III.

June 8^th, 2014 ISIS Invasion of Iraq Taking Mosul

Despite possessing the technological means to monitor the whereabouts of virtually every human alive on this planet, much less an invading army moving from one country to another, Obama and his Pentagon pretended not to notice the miles long caravan of freshly US-armed Islamic State terrorists driving freshly US-gifted brand new Toyota trucks kicking up desert sand from Syria to Iraq. And then the Iraqi security forces that alleged war hero General David Petraeus worked so long and hard training the previous decade suddenly abandoned their positions surrendering their second largest city Mosul to ISIS. The June 2014 Islamic State incursion into Iraq read like an unbelievable B movie script. But we’re supposed to be convinced that ISIS just suddenly sprang out of nowhere to overnight become the biggest, baddest monsters alive, at least that’s how Obama and his puppet masters presented their half-assed staging of Middle Eastern theater featuring their bumbling US war operations in Syria and Iraq.

Forget that Obama was explicitly warned that this particular Islamic jihadist group entertained such grand ambitions to establish a massive Islamic caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. Because Obama chose these terrorists over his former favorite proxy mercenary ally al Qaeda, the US was bankrolling a brand new brand of terrorism over all the others, confident that these ones would finally take down Assad.

So way back in 2012 before ISIS even had its name, per Defense Intelligence Agency documents and a former DIA commander, our treasonous commander-in-chief favored these guys to keep the endless war on terror going and Bush-Cheney’s regime change operation still alive. Just as Osama and his al Qaeda were used as the patsies blamed for 9/11 that the neocons with help from their Israeli-Saudi friends pulled off, now it was ISIS’ turn to play the US manufactured heavy (along with Putin of course) while working closely with CIA to stage the beheading of the week theater for Western shock and awe YouTube entertainment. Cutting the throats of Western journalists and Middle Eastern Christians graphically made Islamic State legendary for their brand of evil in the minds of a horrified world. The August 19^th beheading of James Foley garnered MSM top billing ratings for weeks.

July 8^th, 2014 Israel Launches Operation Protective Edge against Palestinians in Gaza

As if the violent chaos and destruction in Ukraine and Syria/Iraq weren’t bloody enough all summer long last year, a third spectacle of horror and tragedy was brought to you by our best buds the apartheid butchers from Israel, the same ally US taxpayers are forced to give $3.7 billion of their hard earned dollars each year as Israel’s genocidal military aid. Using the excuse that three Jewish teenage boys were murdered by Palestinians, a likely false flag in and of itself, for two straight months Israel sought revenge by firing rockets daily into residential Palestinian neighborhoods including schools and hospitals in another genocidal rash of Gaza ethnic cleansing. During the summer bloodbath in 2014, Israel murdered over 2200 Palestinians, many of whom were children and women. And these days attacks on Palestinian civilians appear to be once again flaring up.

The United States has never ceased being a willing accomplice to Israel’s state sponsored terrorism that amounts to crimes against humanity. After all, for decades it’s the brutal US partner that’s been committing terrorist atrocities throughout the Middle East with impunity protection from the US world bully Empire. Likewise, the US has also perpetrated decades of terrorism on behalf and behest of Tel Aviv, fighting long costly proxy wars against Muslim nations posing no threat whatsoever to US national security. Allowing the nation Israel to defiantly refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty then proceed to willfully develop an enormous nuclear stockpile, even handing over nuclear secrets knowing Israel stole American secrets, covering up Israel’s 1967 massacre of 34 US Navy sailors onboard the USS Liberty along with its role in 9/11, allowing Israel’s nuclear blackmail with its Sampson Option threatening to nuke its allies should they somehow fail to adequately defend the Jewish state – all of these are flagrant violations of international law. Yet the DC neocons – half of whom hold dual citizenship – along with the bribed bought and sold Congress, both exercise their true loyalties to Israel while treasonously failing to uphold the US Constitution, much less protect and defend American citizens from foreign and domestic enemies.

August 9^th, 2014 Ferguson Riots

The day after Ebola’s declared a global threat after infecting so many black people in Africa, within 24 hours later the militarized US police state declares war against black people in America with the Ferguson riots.  The US federal government has a long history of victimizing people with darker-skinned complexion, be it in the US as well as around the globe. Using bio-warfare and race war as a means of increasing control over targeted populations is not a stretch of the imagination, especially when considering the facts.

The Tuskegee experiment cold-bloodedly infected poor American black males with lethal untreated syphilis for forty years spread to wives and children – all in the name of “science.” Most states in America passed eugenics laws legalizing a widespread half-century practice up till 1974 of compulsory sterilization of mostly poor African American and Native American women without obtaining either victims’ consent or knowledge.

Summer 2015 Jade Helm Operation

The massive three-month Jade Helm military operation that took place in nine states across Southern America this last summer was a psyops operation to learn about the so called domestic enemy that happens to be law abiding citizens like you and me. The goal was to determine the level of citizen resistance in advance of the next major false flag crisis when martial law goes into effect. It was another beta test dry run for Americans to get used to soldiers operating on US soil in their streets and neighborhoods rather than restricted to US military reservations or foreign deployment.

The Posse Comitatus law prohibiting US military use in civil matters became permanently suspended when the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act was passed allowing US military to break into your home in the middle of the night, arrest you without a warrant or charge, and imprison you without legal rights, without a trial for an indefinite period of time. Increasingly, average Americans are being viewed by both law enforcement and the feds as the most threatening enemy, even more so than ISIS. When veterans, constitutionalists, dissident-activists, gun owners, Christians, tea party members are all targeted on a growing watch list deemed as domestic terrorists, belligerents and enemies of the state, and especially when such federal agencies like the EPA, FDA, IRS, postal service, fish and wildlife department and the Social Security Administration have all been buying up billions of rounds of hollow point bullets. If that’s not declaring war on US citizens, I don’t know what is.

January 7^th, 2015 Charlie Hebdo Paris Attack and November’s Friday the 13^th Paris False Flag Terror II

Whether violations of Fourth Amendment invasive surveillance/search and seizure/right to privacy laws, First Amendment peaceful assembly free speech laws, Second Amendment private gun ownership laws, Sixth Amendment due process laws, civil liberties in a totalitarian police state are no longer upheld or enforceable. Ever since 9/11 an assault on citizens has been launched throughout the Western world in the misnomer name of national security where tyrannical public servants have illegally usurped and obliterated cherished freedoms. Western governments have resorted to staging dozens of false flag “terrorist” incidents to pass hundreds of draconian antiterrorism laws worldwide in order to keep the masses living in both paranoid fear and under increasingly oppressive surveillance and control. From 9/11 to 7/7 London to 3/11 Spain to the two Paris attacks this year, the international intelligence community like the CIA, Mossad and MI5 have worked hand-in-hand with Muslim jihadist terrorists.

This month’s second attack in Paris in less than a year brought martial law to France that’s been extended for at least the next three months. This latest terrorist event killing 130 innocent people and injuring over 350 more also reinvigorated the ruling elite/US Empire/West’s global war of terror, not so much to join Putin in actually destroying ISIS terrorists but to stop Putin from ending their endlessly long “war on terror.” You see, they cannot continue wreaking havoc around the world, destabilizing and impoverishing nations (including both developing and developed countries) without their secret symbiotic allies the terrorists. After all, the terrorists-r-us! It’s been proven beyond any doubt they are the twisted creation of Western elites, funded, trained, armed, supplied and protected by US Empire, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Europe, NATO and Arab Gulf States like Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan.

Late August 2015 to Present Mass Migration Refugee Crisis

Under the benign catch-all term “multiculturalism,” meant to conjure up the warm and fuzzy of universal tolerance embracing the richness of human diversity, arriving late this summer in Europe and continuing to spin out of control across the continent comes the globalist Trojan horse of the mass migration crisis. Just as the wars in the Middle East and North Africa using the antagonists US Empire to do its dirty bidding and ISIS to spread terror are all by globalist design, so too is this growing crisis placing a top heavy burden on European nations to absorb the massive, unending waves of new immigrants whose backgrounds are of such disparate ethnicity, language, culture and religion from Europe’s majority host populations. The accomplished mission of turning nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan that resisted US global hegemony into war ravaged failed states, murdering millions of innocents and displacing eleven million mostly Muslims from Syria alone, carries a part two agenda to destabilize and ultimately destroy the cultural fabric and identity of largely Caucasian inhabited developed nations in Europe and North America. The flooding of mass migration refugees quickly overloads host nations and potentially creates civil unrest

So what if it also increases unemployment and creates an enormous burden on the social human service systems that will soon reach critical mass? To the elite it delivers more money, more power and more control over the suffering masses. Ultimately it permanently changes the national and cultural identity of the developed world, rapidly homogenizing and lowering the standard of living to be of equal parity with the Third World. The elite’s goal ultimately is to create such dire uniform conditions across all continents by incrementally eliminating the distinction between First and Third Worlds.

October 5^th, 2015 TPP Trade Deal Reached

Of course in addition to the chaos, strife and instability caused by the migration crisis comes the elitist plan to remove the sovereign barriers that independent nations like the United States pose toward facilitating a one world government. When the dozen trade ministers representing the twelve nation members of the Tran Pacific Partnership signed off on the finalized agreement in October, the globalists moved one giant step closer to their one world government exercising tyrannical control over the human terrain. Within the next several months the twelve national governments will need to ratify TPP to make it law of the 12 nation land that generates 40% of the world’s economy. If and when this happens, there will no longer be a United States of America. The TTIP merges North America with Europe and serves the same sinister purpose promoting the globalized New World Order. There will only be corporatization of virtually the entire planet. Corporate lawyers will dictate how we are governed as their laws will supersede all national US laws.

September 28^th, 2015 Putin Outing Obama’s Fake War vs. Putin’s Real War against Terror

At the UN General Assembly Putin publicly outed to the world Obama’s façade of supposedly “hunting down” the ISIS terrorists since late August 2014. Despite leading an allied coalition alleged to have dropped over 16,000 airstrikes during the first year alone in its fake war against ISIS, Obama has little to show for himself. And the reason is all too obvious. Obama and the Pentagon’s actual mission in both Iraq and Syria has been to protect the Frankenstein monster that they’ve created.

Putin’s intelligence sources gathered the lowdown and confronted Obama on September 28^th when he exposed the West’s pretend game to coddle and protect terrorists instead of killing them. Because Putin was all too aware that the United States was in fact promoting the spread of terrorism far beyond the Middle East and North Africa, including north Caucasus into Russia and unwilling to sit by and risk losing his ally Assad replaced by another corrupt weak US puppet like every other destroyed nation on America’s kill list, Putin announced that at Assad’s request, Russia is sending troops, naval ships and launching airstrikes against ISIS.

Putin’s bold stand was received resoundingly well by virtually the entire world, that is except Obama and his terrorist allies like ISIS, Turkey, Israel. Vladimir Putin has outmaneuvered and outsmarted his US counterparts Clinton, Bush and Obama put together in his long run in power. Even US-NATO puppet nations like Germany’s Angela Merkel applauded Putin’s resolve as welcome relief. After all, Europe is also being victimized indirectly by US Empire’s overly aggressive need for unipolar hegemony, overrun by a massive refugee problem caused by US Empire wars, suffering without Russian oil and natural gas due to US sanctions against Putin, uneasy over the US belligerence destabilizing Ukraine as part of Empire’s apparent rush to global war that would be fought in Europe’s backyard, and tired of being bullied as longtime US puppets, more than they could publicly let on, European leaders were embracing Putin’s decisive rise as a real world leader versus the deceptive paper tiger.

October 1^st, 2015 to Present: Putin’s War against Islamic State Terrorists

Throughout October and November Putin has been conducting a massive air campaign along with using heavy artillery, armored vehicles and supplying intensive ground support for the Syrian Arab Army, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters to destroy ISIS in Syria. After two months fighting the tide has decisively turned against Obama and his West’s terrorist allies. In November the Putin coalition overtook a military airbase in northern Syria that the terrorists were holding under siege the last two years, liberating 250 grateful, relieved Syrian soldiers. Putin’s going after the terrorists’ bread and butter, the black market oil stolen from hijacked oil refineries in Syria and Iraq. In recent weeks Russian bombers have been destroying truck convoys of oil tankers miles long, hitting ISIS where it hurts most, money to fund its madness.

The neocon Obama administration is having a tizzy watching everything they’ve been building up and secretly supporting be mowed down by a true antiterrorist force. Kerry was anxious to make a deal with his Russian counterpart Sergie Lavrov in Vienna last month to spare losing ISIS in exchange for the West accepting Assad’s stay in power. Putin embarrassed a number of G-20 leaders at the mid-November meeting in Antalya, Turkey by revealing that Putin is well aware of the 40 nations that have been financially supporting the Islamic State, alluding to some being present in the room, and that he intends to hold every last one accountable. Of course as always, not one Western media outlet bothered to carry that piece of rather significant news.

October 27^th, 2015 US Navy Patrol-by Incident in South China Sea

For several years now the US has purposely soured its relations with its closest rivals Russia and China, unilaterally resurrecting the cold war again. Tensions between America and China neared the breaking point on October 27^th when the naval destroyer the USS Lassen sailed within 12 nautical miles of a couple of manmade islands China has claimed as its own in the Spratley Islands located in the South China Sea. Obama defied China’s warnings insisting that because the islands are artificially made, regular maritime rules don’t apply. The childish gesture is reminiscent of playground behavior with such defiant taunting as “you can’t make me!” The only problem is such a provocative act of aggression by Obama when conflict is boiling over is downright reckless and stupid.

October 30^th, 2015 Russian Airliner Brought Down over Sinai Desert

Russian investigators determined that the most likely cause of the plane going down killing all 224 passengers and crew was caused by a homemade bomb equivalent to one kg of TNT breaking the airliner apart in midair. Putin vows to hunt the perpetrators down and punish them. The Islamic State immediately took credit for it and since they had both probable access as well as motive, in all likelihood, the terrorists committed the heinous crime as revenge against Putin for going after them in Syria with a vengeance they’ve never seen before.

Despite the feeble dismissal from the Egyptian government not wanting to lose tourism dollars over its breach in security, the consensus from multiple intelligence sources is that ISIS did it. Now whether the Islamic State operated alone outside the probable Egyptian airport accomplices that enabled access to the plane for terrorists to plant the bomb remains to be seen. Though US Empire was steeped in the downing of MH17, any US culpability in this air disaster at this still early phase of investigation is far more questionable. Nonetheless, with the proven recklessness of Washington policymakers displayed earlier that week in the South China Sea, and then a NATO member shooting down a Russian warplane last week, anything is possible.

November 7^th, 2015 Missile Launch over LA Harbor

A week and a half after the South China Sea fiasco and a week following the Russian airliner disaster, the US was at it again with more provocative warmongering in a strange incident involving an unarmed missile launched from a US submarine off the Pacific coast of Southern California. It brightly lit up the Saturday night sky seen by thousands of surprised witnesses from hundreds of miles around wondering what they were observing. Speculation went wild on the internet with claims that it was a UFO. Several hours earlier just a few miles away at the neocon holy ground of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, US Secretary Ash Carter delivered a speech that in so many words bashed and threatened Putin accusing him of everything the US Empire is actually guilty of. Oddly enough, Carter downplayed the danger that ISIS poses (of course as his secret ally and partner-in-crime, why would he view terrorists as a threat?).

November 24^th, 2015 Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet near Syrian-Turkish Border

Less than a week after Carter’s public tirade, Paris was struck by more Islamic State terrorists who had been under surveillance for months in advance with all kinds of Intel reports warning of preeminent attacks specifying a concert venue as their target. If Western intelligence didn’t actually coordinate the attacks, it was complicit in allowing them to happen. Bottom line, the diabolical elite used 130 massacred lives in France to jump start the West’s war against Assad and Putin in Syria after Putin had stolen their thunder by completely upending the US-NATO agenda.

Just two weeks after Carter’s warmonger speech punctuated by the missile warning came what looks like the premeditated shoot down of a Russian jet by NATO member Turkey. To further complicate the already uneven, jagged Syrian-Turkish borderline, in June 2012 Turkey unilaterally altered the airspace moving it five miles south into Syrian territory. Back in early October there was an incident where apparently a Russian Su-24 fighter-bomber may have inadvertently skirted into Turkish airspace, especially if it was this artificial airspace that Turkey illegally grabbed. Pissed over Putin’s wrecking their agenda, the West self-righteously made a big to-do about it, thus setting the stage for yet more unavoidable confrontation.

So in all likelihood the United States and Turkey had already conspired to do their dirty deed and looking for an excuse to both literally and figuratively clip Russia’s wings, having their terrorist darlings suddenly losing their war against Assad and running for cover back into Turkey, 3000 big bad jihadists the first week alone. Putin had publicly humiliated ISIS on the run as well as both Turkish tyrant Erdogan and dictator Obama at both the UN and again at the G-20 conference in Turkey just a week earlier, outing the fact that both Erdogan and Obama among others were still actively funding and supporting the Islamic State terrorists. From Obama and Erdogan’s point of view, Putin had defiantly not been heeding his warnings – from Carter’s missile meltdown to the Russian airliner takedown over Sinai. So US-NATO had made the decision once that alleged Russian airspace violation occurred back in early October to not hesitate the next time in shooting down a Russian plane daring to come even close to Turkish airspace. The crash site was five miles from the border and the downed plane at the moment the Turkish air to air missile hit was estimated to be about a mile inside the Syrian border. So on November 24^th, Turkey was waiting in ambush to strike, taking full advantage of that next opportunity as the US-NATO-Turkey crime cabal struck its unsuspecting prey, and the villains were celebrating and giving thanks two days earlier than Thanksgiving after Turkey blindsided that Russian jet and its hapless pilot.

Both the Russian pilot and his co-pilot navigator exited the hit aircraft moments before it went down. But while they were parachuting to the ground, the pilot was shot and killed by hostile local ground forces. This is a war crime. Turkish authorities claim that the two Russian bombers that together had violated airspace were targeting ethnic Turks known as Turkmen who lived in mountainous villages inside Syria. Putin stated that the Russian planes were seeking militia forces from the north Caucasus that had joined the anti-Assad coalition. The navigator was able to make it to safety reaching the friendly forces of the Syrian army. However, a Russian rescue helicopter that had been dispatched was also fired upon and crashed killing one Russian marine. The weapon used by rebel forces to shoot the helicopter down was an American made anti-tank TOW missile launcher.

Of course not surprisingly, Turkish accounts of what transpired were very different from the surviving navigator and Russia’s side of the story. The Turks claim that they repeatedly warned the two Russian jets to move out of their airspace adding that no response came from the Russians. The navigator maintains that no warning was ever given. Russia also insists that at no time did the Russian aircraft violate Turkish airspace, each nation releasing a map of the projected radar flightpath of the Russian jet. The Russian Ministry of Defense furnished video evidence however corroborating the Russian contention that the Su-24 bomber never entered Turkish airspace.  The Turks also stated that the Russian warplane had moved through its airspace for a full 17 seconds.

Two Belgian physicists have calculated that that claim is physically impossible based on even the Turks’ projected flightpath. Assuming the Russian plane had entered Turkish territory, their scientifically arrived at conclusion based on the jet’s flight speed was that the plane could only have been inside Turkish airspace for all of about 5 seconds. Additionally, retired US Air Force Lt. General Tom McInerney drawing from years of his own ample experience stated emphatically on Fox News that the US-made Turkish Air Force F-16’s shoot down had to have been “preplanned” based on the short time span of the alleged violation.

Furthermore, Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu the next day went on public record stating that he personally gave the final order to shoot down the Russian plane. No doubt based on how rapid the unfolding chain of events in the air were that day, Davutoglu’s assertion seems extremely unlikely. Whereas the Turkish account has a number of discrepancies, the Russian version of events appears to hold up under closer scrutiny and analysis far more accurately than does Turkey’s.

The first thing Turkey did afterwards was notify NATO following the incident, seeking advisement and support from US-NATO allies. The Turkish official played an alleged recording of the Turks supposedly warning the Russians repeatedly for the five minutes that’s alleged to have drawn no response. Loyal to the Turks’ story to the end – however false, both Obama and American NATO rep Col. Steve Warren maintained Turkey’s right to defend its own space. The Obama administration is used to lying and then even when the lie has been exposed, the standard response is to live the lie right to the end in true psychopathic form. Available data proves that the Turkish assertion of repeated warnings for five minutes is a boldface lie. Both the Turkish and Russian projected flightpaths of the downed Russian jet a full five minutes before it was hit would have placed the aircraft flying in the opposite direction away from the border, so the alleged warnings that Turkey claims are preposterous since the Russian plane five minutes prior to missile impact would have been moving in a direction away from the border. The only realistic conclusion is that the Turkish F-16 that shot the Russian plane down had to have already been in the air and waiting to pounce, confirming the coldblooded, premeditated nature of the crime.

Four days prior to the shoot down the Turkish foreign minister met with the Russian ambassador and delivered the ultimatum that unless the Russians suspend all operations near the border inside Syria, bombing what Turkey calls local “civilian Turkmen villages,” the foreign minister warned the ambassador “there might be serious consequences.”

As a more viable anti-Assad force than the Turkmen, the al Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front, also operates in that same northern Syria area. It’s been a persistent military presence since 2012 and has been instrumental in maintaining the vital supply line open from Turkey into Syria. But with the strengthened air support Russia’s been able to provide for two months, the Russian coalition has made some notable progress threatening to sever the all-important Islamic State supply line. Turkey is so invested in its war against Assad that it was unwilling to concede any more setbacks or defeat. Thus, with full US-NATO support, Turkey took an aggressive threatening position to initiate hostile action that now takes the conflict to a whole new critically dangerous level. Obviously Putin is not about to suddenly back down but it appears with Obama standing by Erdogan on however shaky the moral ground, neither is Turkey willing to alter its course. Though all parties have paid lip service to leaving diplomatic channels open for resolving future conflict, it’s highly doubtful that any participant will be willing to change their position and another violent violent conflagration appears inevitable.

A whole other dimension is precariously at play here as well – millions of dollars in lost revenue for ISIS are at stake each day that Putin’s cruise missiles are destroying the Islamic States’s stolen oil shipments. The all too conspicuous added wrinkle is that the bulk of the illegal ISIS oil is transported in daily tanker truck caravans directly to Turkey. In recent weeks Putin has targeted these convoys and been blowing them up prior to their reaching their destination inside Turkey for sale. And who owns the Turkish oil company that’s been buying the terrorist oil in bulk volume on a daily basis also making a killing? None other than Turkish president Erdogan’s son as chief buyer of black market crude petroleum. Additionally, Erdogan himself is reported to be an investor in the family’s illicit business. And with Putin’s interventions, the Erdogans are also losing millions each day. This added piece makes the Turkish retaliation and willingness to escalate the war against Putin at grave risk and cost both more plausible and personal despite Erdogan’s denial and compromised involvement in an unlawful business violating international law. While Erdogan has the audacity to say he’ll resign if proof cab be presented confirming that he buys oil from terrorists. Putin counters in Paris at the Climate Conference with: we have recently received additional reports that confirm that [stolen] oil from ISIL-controlled territories is delivered to the territory of Turkey on an industrial scale.  

The plot thickens and if the world is fortunate, Erdogan will be pressured to resign as soon as Putin delivers the goods on the Turkish leader’s unsavory family business. Turkey has been as guilty a party as any including Obama for the exponential rise and success of the Islamic State terrorists. As a NATO lackey, it takes its orders from the US. That’s why the plane going down was a payback by both Turkey and US Empire. Turkey has been busily fueling the rich pockets of the biggest terrorist group on the planet, provided training camps for ISIS, offered a safe zone and staging area for terrorists and a constant flowing supply line from Turkey extending right to the Syrian battlefronts that’s absolutely essential for the terrorists’ survival. And just before Putin’s interventions in Syria, with the greenlight from Obama, Turkey was planning to enter the war sending its own military contingent into Syria to join the anti-Assad fray, even working out a covert deal with Obama to establish a no fly zone over northern Syria, thus securing a perfect haven inside northern Syria for the terrorists to maintain the strategic luxury of a large safe zone base of operations compliments of Erdogan and Obama.

Putin’s decisive move to take charge in Syria completely shattered the US-NATO agenda from materializing and the foiled evil ones are thoroughly pissed off to no end. Plus as the key NATO member supplying airbases for Empire’s strategic MENA operations, Erdogan’s Turkey has received full support and carte blanche protection from the powerful NATO killing force, prompting Erdogan’s personal vendetta against Putin to be that much more brazen and risky. Had Erdogan not had the luxury of hiding behind Empire’s shadow, Putin would have already dropped bombs over Ankara. Obama himself has peevishly gone on record recently defending Erdogan’s aggression, insisting that, “Turkey, like every other country, has a right to defend itself,” protect its sovereign territory and strategic airspace” … just like Assad as a sovereign leader in a sovereign nation posing no threat to America? The hypocrisy never ends. Despite Turkey shooting itself in the economic foot, losing even more billions worth from lost Russian tourism, the dead south stream pipeline deal and the enormous trade it no longer shares with Russia, Putin has pulled the plug on all business transactions, calling Erdogan’s act of war, “a stab in the back.”

Aggression from US-NATO-Turkey has forced Putin to now deploy Russia’s most modern S-400 air defense missile system in Syria to protect the Russian airbase in Latakia. The system can fire at targets up to 248 miles away which covers all of Syria and beyond. Nearby Russian warships are poised off the Syrian coast and warplanes with air-to-air missiles are now providing beefed up air and ground cover for its coalition force operations. Aside from imposing retroactive economic sanctions on Turkey, Putin may be motivated to begin shooting back, taking down Turkish planes. Meanwhile, Erdogan continues to be combative, claiming that Turkey will respond if Russia targets its planes violating Syrian airspace. First the airliner a month ago with 224 Russians onboard dead, then a week ago a warplane and helicopter are shot down with two dead Russian soldiers.

The very latest story just now breaking reports that Turkey may be exercising its power to establish a blockade to prevent Putin’s naval vessels from accessing the Mediterranean Sea, in effect blocking and restricting his Black Sea fleet from leaving its immediate port and adjacent waters. An old maritime treaty document from 1936 authorizes Turkey when at war to be able to exercise the right to restrict passage of enemy ships. At this point it’s unclear what Erdogan’s intentions are. But if in fact he invokes that war power, it would no doubt be taken by Putin as a clear act of war. Currently on each side of both the Bosporus Straits to the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas and the Dardanelles Straits to the Black Sea where Russia’s Sevastopol naval port is located, there are Russian ships lined up waiting for clearance.

The implications of an enforced blockade could be enormous as if war breaks out between Russia and Turkey, as a NATO member the US and other European members would be expected to also come to Turkey’s defense. However, given the fact that Turkey has been the aggressor in shooting down the Russian Su-24 last week, and then this second act of clear provocation, reasonable assessment would judge that Turkey is behaving both erratically and aggressively on the wrong side of history.

This latest flare-up between Putin and the West has only magnified the conflict and tension stretching to the limit. Last week’s violence may well have opened the Pandora’s Box. This week’s may be opening the floodgate.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

Author’s Note

*        *       *

Military planners in the Pentagon are acutely aware of the central role of war propaganda. Waged from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a fear and disinformation campaign (FDC) has been launched. The blatant distortion of the truth and the systematic manipulation of all sources of information is an integral part of war planning. In the wake of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or “Office of Disinformation” as it was labeled by its critics:

“The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries — as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.1

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the “Office’s intended functions are being carried out” 5 (Rumsfeld’s precise words can be consulted at http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units –with links to the Pentagon– are involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as “humanitarian interventions” geared towards “regime change” and “the restoration of democracy”. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as “peace-keeping”. The derogation of civil liberties –in the context of the so-called “anti-terrorist legislation”– is portrayed as a means to providing “domestic security” and upholding civil liberties. And underlying these manipulated realties, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements, which circulate profusely in the news chain, are upheld as the basis for an understanding of World events.

In the critical “planning stages” leading up to an invasion of Iraq, the twisting of public opinion at home and around the World, is an integral part of the War agenda, War propaganda is pursued at all stages:before, during the military operation as well as in its cruel aftermath. War propaganda serves to drown the real causes and consequences of war.

A few months after the OSI was disbanded amidst controversy (February 2002), The New York Times confirmed that the disinformation campaign was running strong and that the Pentagon was:

“…considering issuing a secret directive to American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policymakers in friendly and neutral nations …The proposal has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany… The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over ‘the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it….’We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn’t mean we should.’6

Fabricating the Truth

To sustain the war agenda, these “fabricated realities”, funneled on a day to day basis into the news chain must become indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media –although acting independently of the military-intelligence apparatus, is an instrument of this evolving totalitarian system.

In close liaison with the Pentagon and the CIA, the State Department has also set up its own “soft-sell” (civilian) propaganda unit, headed by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Charlotte Beers, a powerful figure in the advertising industry. Working in liaison with the Pentagon, Beers was appointed to head the State Department’s propaganda unit in the immediate wake of 9/11. Her mandate is “to counteract anti-Americanism abroad.”7 Her office at the State department is to:

“ensure that public diplomacy (engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences) is practiced in harmony with public affairs (outreach to Americans) and traditional diplomacy to advance U.S. interests and security and to provide the moral basis for U.S. leadership in the world.” (http://www.state.gov/r/ )

The Role of the CIA

The most powerful component of the Fear and Disinformation Campaign (FDI) rests with the CIA, which, secretly subsidizes authors, journalists and media critics, through a web of private foundations and CIA sponsored front organizations. The CIA also influences the scope and direction of many Hollywood productions. Since 9/11, one third of Hollywood productions are war movies. “Hollywood stars and scriptwriters are rushing to bolster the new message of patriotism, conferring with the CIA and brainstorming with the military about possible real-life terrorist attacks.”8 “The Sum of All Fears” directed by Phil Alden Robinson, which depicts the scenario of a nuclear war, received the endorsement and support of both the Pentagon and the CIA.9

Disinformation is routinely “planted” by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels. Outside public relations firms are often used to create “fake stories” Carefully documented by Chaim Kupferberg in relation to the events of September 11: “A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the “official reality” is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain.”10

Covert disinformation initiatives under CIA auspices are also funneled through various intelligence proxies in other countries. Since 9/11, they have resulted in the day-to-day dissemination of false information concerning alleged “terrorist attacks”. In virtually all of the reported cases (Britain, France, Indonesia, India, Philippines, etc.) the « alleged terrorist groups» are said to have «links to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda», without of course acknowledging the fact (amply documented by intelligence reports and official documents) that Al Qaeda is a creation of CIA.

The Doctrine of “Self Defense”

At this critical juncture, in the month(s) leading up to the announced invasion of Iraq, the propaganda campaign is geared towards sustaining the illusion that “America is under attack”. Relayed not only through the mainstream media but also through a number of alternative internet media sites, these “fabricated realities” portray the war as a bona fide act of self-defense, while carefully concealing the broad strategic and economic objectives of the war.

In turn, the propaganda campaign develops a casus belli, “a justification”, a political legitimacy for waging war. The “official reality” (conveyed profusely in George W’s speeches) rests on the broad “humanitarian” premise of a so-called “preemptive”, namely “defensive war”, “a war to protect freedom”:

« We’re under attack because we love freedom… And as long as we love freedom and love liberty and value every human life, they’re going to try to hurt us.» 11

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive “defensive war” doctrine and the “war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon’s propaganda campaign. The objective is to present “preemptive military action” –meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:

“The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

Feeding Disinformation into the News Chain

How is war propaganda carried out? Two sets of “eye popping” “statements” emanating from a variety of sources (including official National Security statements, media, Washington-based think tanks, etc.) are fed on a daily basis into the news chain. Some of the events (including news regarding presumed terrorists) are blatantly fabricated by the intelligence agencies. These statements are supported by simple and catchy “buzzwords”, which set the stage for fabricating the news:

Buzzword no. 1. “Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda” (Osama) is behind most news stories regarding the “war on terrorism” including “alleged”, “future” “presumed”, and “actual” terrorist attacks. What is rarely mentioned is that this outside enemy Al Qaeda is a CIA “intelligence asset”, used in covert operations.

Buzzword no. 2. The “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)” statement is used to justify the “pre-emptive war” against the “State sponsors of terror”, –i.e. countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Amply documented in the case of Iraq, a large body of news on WMD and biological attacks, are fabricated.

The “WMD” and “Osama bin Laden” statements become part of day to day debate, embodied in routine conversations between citizens. Repeated ad nauseam, they penetrate the inner consciousness of ordinary people molding their individual perceptions on current events. Through deception and manipulation, this shaping of the minds of entire populations, sets the stage –under the façade of a functioning democracy—for the installation of a de facto police State. Needless to say, war propaganda weakens the antiwar movement.

In turn, the disinformation regarding alleged “terrorist attacks” or “weapons of mass destruction” instils an atmosphere of fear, which mobilizes unswerving patriotism and support for the State, and its main political and military actors.

Repeated in virtually every national news report, this stigmatic focus on WMD-Al Qaeda essentially serves as a dogma, to blind people on the causes and consequences of America’s war of conquest, while providing a simple, unquestioned and authoritative justification for “self defense.”

More recently, both in speeches by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, as well as in the news, WMD statements are now carefully blended into Osama statements. UK Defense Minister Jack Straw warned in early January “that ‘rogue regimes’ such as Iraq were the most likely source of WMD technology for groups like al-Qaeda.”13 Also, in January, a presumed al Qaeda cell “with links to Iraq” was discovered in Edinburgh, allegedly involved in the use of biological weapons against people in the UK. The hidden agenda of “the links to Iraq” statement is blatantly obvious. The objective is to discredit Iraq in the months leading up to the war: the so-called “State sponsors of terror” are said to support Osama bin Laden, Conversely, Osama is said to collaborate with Iraq in the use of weapons of mass destruction.

In recent months, several thousand news reports have woven “WMD-Osama stories” of which a couple of excerpts are provided below:

“Skeptics will argue that the inconsistencies don’t prove the Iraqis have continued developing weapons of mass destruction. It also leaves Washington casting about for other damning material and charges, including the midweek claim, again unproved, that Islamic extremists affiliated with al-Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last November or late October.”14

North Korea has admitted it lied about that and is brazenly cranking up its nuclear program again. Iraq has almost certainly lied about it, but won’t admit it. Meanwhile Al Qaeda, although dispersed, remains a shadowy, threatening force, and along with other terrorist groups, a potential recipient of the deadly weaponry that could emerge from Iraq and North Korea.15

Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair listed Iraq, North Korea, the Middle East and al-Qaeda among “difficult and dangerous” problems Britain faced in the coming year.16

The WMD-Osama statements are used profusely by the mainstream media. In the wake of 9/11, these stylized statements have also become an integral part of day to day political discourse. They have also permeated the workings of international diplomacy and the functioning of the United Nations.

Notes

1. Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.

2. Air Force Magazine, January 2003, italics added..

3. Adubato, op. cit. italics added

4. Ibid, italics added.

5. Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld’s press interview can be consulted at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html .

6. New York Times, 16 December 2002.

7. Sunday Times, London 5 January 2003.

8. Ros Davidson, Stars earn their Stripes, The Sunday Herald (Scotland), 11 November 2001).

9. See Samuel Blumenfeld, Le Pentagone et la CIA enrôlent Hollywood, Le Monde, 24 July 2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BLU207A.html .

10. Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11, Global Outlook, No. 3, 2003, p. 19, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html .

11. Remarks by President Bush in Trenton, New Jersey, «Welcome Army National Guard Aviation Support Facility, Trenton, New Jersey », 23 September 2002.

12. National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

13. Agence France Presse (AFP), 7 January 2003.

14. Insight on the News, 20 January 2003.

15. Christian Science Monitor, 8 January 2003

16. Agence France Presse (AFP), 1 January 2003

And now for the good news.

As the rest of the world eats denutrified, poisoned ‘food’ and capitulates to the criminal cartel of US agribusiness, as India destroys its soils with petrochemical-monocrop agriculture and looks to GMOs, as corrupt governments and regulatory bodies do the bidding of Monsanto, Russia is committed to not selling out the health of millions, the fertility of the land or the food security of the nation to a handful of criminals in the West who have destroyed indigenous agriculture across the planet.

Russia could become the world’s largest supplier of ecologically clean and high-quality organic food. On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin while addressing the Russian parliament called on the country to become completely self-sufficient in food production by 2020:

“We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing.”

Russia is already developing a strategy to build up its domestic food production and is in a good position given its extremely fertile soils.

The government has already banned the import and planting of GM food and crops, and, according to Willian Engdahl, the language on Russian media news sites that punishment for knowingly introducing GMO crops into Russia illegally should have a punishment comparable to that given to terrorists for knowingly hurting people.

The other good news is that on the same day that Putin made his statement, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI) and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups, announced that they would be putting Monsanto on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, the Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

According to the Monsanto Tribunal website, the company promotes an agro-industrial model that:

·      contributes at least one third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

·      is largely responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction and declining biodiversity and the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide

·      is a model that threatens peoples’ food sovereignty by patenting seeds and privatising life

For many decades, Monsanto has developed a steady stream of highly toxic products which have permanently damaged the environment and caused illness or death for thousands of people. It has indulged in numerous acts of criminality, cover ups and duplicitous practices over the decades.

Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.

The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offence is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.

The announcement was made at a press conference held in conjunction with the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, November 30 – December 11, in Paris.

Speaking at the press conference, Andre Leu, president of IFOAM and a member of the RI Steering Committee, said:

“Monsanto is able to ignore the human and environmental damage caused by its products, and maintain its devastating activities through a strategy of systemic concealment: by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media. Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet.”

Vandana Shiva, founder of Navdanya (India) added:

“Monsanto has pushed GMOs in order to collect royalties from poor farmers, trapping them in unpayable debt. Monsanto promotes an agro-industrial model that contributes at least 50 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Monsanto is also largely responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction and declining biodiversity, and the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide.”

“Guns And Butter” Entrevista com Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky mais recente investigação sobre o terror ataque em Paris, alegadamente feito pelo Estado Islâmico, ISIS, assim como o do Radisson Hotel em Bamako, no Mali, é discutida na entrevista que poderá ser lida aqui nesse relatório..

Essa é uma análise do estado atual do financiamento do terror dentro de um quadro da geopolítica global e da estrutura econômica..

Os tópicos incluem:

• A contradição fundamental que se encontra nas bases da narrativa oficial da guerra contra o terror de maneira geral e mais especificamente contra o Estado Islâmic, ou ISIS.
• Estado islâmico, uma criação da inteligência norte-americana;
• A agenda geopolítica; a militarização da África; a Conferência de Berlim no final do século 19;
• A presciência do ataque – Paris terror;
• Escalada militar da França contra a Síria foi planejada antes dos ataques atuais;
• A replicação do discurso de 9/11 como um pretexto para justificar uma nova onda de bombardeios contra a Síria;
• Ataque por uma potência estrangeira justifica um estado de guerra;
• A Doutrina de Segurança Coletivo, o Artigo 5 da OTAN;
• A comunidade Muçulmana submetido a uma caça às bruxas; a criminalização do estado e o sistema financeiro;
• O fim da República francesa.

Transcrição completa da entrevista abaixo.

“GUNS AND BUTTLER”

Bonnie Faulkner

Foi Ao Ar: em 25 de novembro de 2015

Transcrição:

Aqui fala  “Guns and Butter” –

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – “Mas a coisa é que para aplicar uma agenda imperial, você tem que sucatar a república. Júlio César entendeu isso perfeitamente bem. Eu não consigo lembrar a citação exata, mas ele disse que não se pode construir um império sem acabar com a república. Eu acho que, na verdade, o que está acontecendo é que a república está sendo desmantelada. Ela não está sendo descartada só na França; ela está sendo descartada na América também.”—Michel Chossudovsky

Aqui fala Bonnie Faulkner. Hoje em “Guns and Butter“. Com Michel Chossudovsky. Apresentando aqui, “O terrorismo de stado: estilo franco-americano.”

Michel Chossudovsky é economista assim como o fundador, diretor e editor do Centro de Investigação sobre a Globalização com base em Montreal, Quebec. Ele é autor de 11 livros, incluindo A Globalização da Pobreza e a Nova Ordem Mundial, a Guerra e a Globalização, A Verdade por trás do 11 de setembro, Guerra da América contra o Terrorismo, e A Globalização da Guerra: A Longa Guerra da América contra a Humanidade. Hoje vamos discutir seus artigos mais recentes sobre a alegada responsabilidade ISIS no ataque terrorista em Paris, assim como no Radisson Hotel em Bamako, Mali, uma ex-colônia francesa. Vamos analisar o actual estado do patrocínio do terror dentro de um quadro da geopolítica global assim como da estrutura econômica.

Bonnie Faulkner : Michel Chossudovsky, benvindo.

Michel Chossudovsky : Tenho muito prazer de estar em “Guns and Butter”.

Bonnie Faulkner : Em 13 de novembro de 2015 tiroteios e atentados suicidas ocorreram em cinco localidades diferentes em Paris, capital da França. Cento e trinta pessoas foram mortas. Menos de uma semana depois dos ataques em Paris um grupo de pistoleiros fortemente armados invadiu o Radisson Blu Hotel em Bamako, capital do Mali, ex-colônia francesa. Nesse ataque foram mortas 21 pessoas. Houve uma recente sequência de ataques terroristas. Entre esses tem-se os bombardeios em Beirute e a derrubada do avião russo de passageiros sobre o deserto do Sinai. Onde você acha que nós deveríamos começar na nossa tentativa de responder as perguntas que se precipitam por causa de todos os recentes ataques terroristas?

(Clique na imagem para encomendar Chossudovsky livro diretamente a partir de Pesquisa Global)

Michel Chossudovsky – Eu acho que há uma contradição fundamental na narrativa oficial, tanto dos Estados Unidos e, é claro, da França e seus aliados. Os Estados Unidos dizem estar conduzindo uma guerra contra o terrorismo e contra o chamado Estado Islâmico, mas a evidência confirma que o Estado Islâmico, e várias outras organizações terroristas relacionadas a al Qaeda, são criações dos seviços de inteligência dos EUA. Eles são o que na linguagem dos serviços secretos se denomina como “nossos bens e ativos”.

Uma outra dimensão é que na verdade Obama não está desenvolvendo uma campanha contra os terroristas, porque esses terroristas são, na verdade, os soldados da Aliança Militar Ocidental na Síria. Na verdade, eles estão protegendo os terroristas. Isso foi amplamente confirmado. O início do bombardeio russo chamou a atenção para esse fato porque os Russos estão indo contra os verdadeiros terroristas.

Quando uma ocorrência como a de Paris ou de Bamako é apresentada à mídia o que essa faz é simplesmente copiar e colar o oficial da narrativa, sem a apresentação de uma análise ou de uma compreensão do que na verdade sucedeu, ou mesmo de um histórico dos acontecimentos, o que no caso seria também o que estaria por trás destas organizações terroristas. Quase que imediatamente na sequência dos ataques terroristas em Paris a mídia francesa entrou em estado de atividade acelerada indicando inequivocamente – e isso foi até mesmo antes do conduzir de uma investigação da polícia – que o Estado Islâmico estava indiscutivelmente por trás destes ataques.

Na sequência dos ataques o presidente François Hollande ordenou por decreto o estado de emergência nacional, a suspensão das liberdades civis, o direito de entrar nas casas das pessoas e prender a quem lhes interessasse e isso sem mandatos especiais. Ao mesmo tempo fecharam-se as fronteiras. Se bem me lembro tudo isso foi anunciado poucos minutos antes da meia-noite, no dia 13 de novembro, hora local, antes de qualquer consulta com o seu gabinete e colegas. Na verdade ele confirmou que a reunião de gabinete teria lugar posteriormente. Em seu discurso ele disse que: “Nós sabemos quem eles são.” Imediatamente a mídia francesa passou a dizer que esse seria o estilo francês do 9/11 dos EUA. Em outras palavras. – “Le 11 Septembre à la Française.” – A seguir a história oficial prevaleceu.

A história oficial é baseada, como acima mencionado, numa contradição fundamental. Você não pode, por um lado, dizer que é vítima de Estado Islâmico, quando, na verdade, você é o criador do Estado Islâmico. É um non sequitur. Você não pode dizer que os ataques – e ele foi muito explícito – foram de fora da França, originários da Síria, sem apresentarprovas convincentes. Você não pode dizer que os ataques originados da Síria foram dirigidos contra a república francesa e ao mesmo tempo em que suporta, secretamente, esses mesmos terroristas. Há amplas evidências de que não apenas os Estados Unidos e seus aliados, mas também a França têm apoiado a ISIS e seus grupos afiliados, tais como o Grupo de Combate Líbia Islâmica, com armas, treinamento, financiamento e assim por diante.

O público francês assim como o público dos países ocidentais em geral tem sido levados a acreditar que os terroristas estão envolvidos em crimes contra a humanidade sem perceber que, na verdade, seus serviços de inteligência, que estão sob os auspícios de um governo eleito, estão a manipular essas organizações terroristas, assim como a apoiá-las, fornecendo-lhes armas e tudo o mais.

Bonnie Faulkner : Você escreve que o alegado arquiteto dos ataques de Paris, tinha sido originalmente um al Qaeda afiliado, e que essa entidade terrorista tinha sido criada pelos serviços de inteligência dos EUA com o apoio da MI6 da Grã-Bretanha, da Mossad de Israel, do ISI do Paquistão, Inter-Services Intelligence, e da GIP da Arábia Saudita, ou seja da Inteligência Geral da Presidência. Você escreveu que, “desde o início a campanha de bombardeios de Obama que começou em agosto/setembro de 2014, tinha nos conduzido a coalizão, e que essa não  bombardeava as posições do Estado Islâmico, ISIS.” Teria toda essa campanha sido falsa?

Michel Chossudovsky : Bem, absolutamente. Esta é uma auto-proclamada campanha de luta contra o terrorismo, mas na verdade ela serve mesmo é para justificar o bombardeio de um país soberano em derrogação do direito internacional. Os Estados Unidos pressionam o governo de Bashar al-Assad a renunciar. Eles querem uma mudança de regime, o que eles não foram capazes de conseguir apesar de quatro anos de intensas atividades terroristas que eles vêm  patrocinando. Quanto ao último ano – nós estamos falando aqui sobre os bombardeamentos de raids que duraram 13 meses ou mais – esses foram para apoiar as entidades terroristas.

Agora, poderiam me perguntar de onde eu tirei as informações do que estaria por trás desses terroristas. Nesse caso eu poderia dizer-lhes que desde os primeiros dias, em março de 2011, os terroristas tinham sido enviados para a área com o apoio da Aliança Militar Ocidental. Na verdade, isso foi relatado em agosto de 2011 pelo DEBKA, que é uma inteligência de mídia on-line. Eu não estou dizendo que eu confio na fonte DEBKA, mas nela se reconhecia de forma muito clara, o que foi corroborado por outros estudos, ou seja, que a iniciativa da Aliança Militar Ocidental, na verdade, tinha sido lançada pela OTAN e que essa consistia na criação de uma campanha para alistar milhares de voluntários Muçulmanos em países Muçulmanos. A atividade deveria ser coordenada pela OTAN, em Bruxelas, e pelo alto comando turco, e isso foi exatamente o que aconteceu.

Levou um bom tempo para a opinião pública perceber que as chamadas forças de oposição contra o governo de Bashar al-Assad na verdade eram forças terroristas. Então, quando as atrocidades começaram eles invariavelmente diziam que era Bashar al-Assad a matar o seu próprio povo enquanto a mídia ocidental esteve sempre lá para acusar.

Bem, nós temos informações suficientes para saber que esta assim chamada guerra contra o terrorismo é uma farsa. Os Estados Unidos e seus aliados estão envolvidos em uma criminosa atividade de violação do direito internacional e numa violação dos direitos de um país soberano. Trata-se de geopolítica e de conquista econômica. Eles estão usando a guerra contra o terrorismo como pretexto. Na verdade a campanha de bombardeios veio realmente como  resposta ao fato de que as forças do governo sírio em 2014, tinham conseguido pacificar uma grande parte do seu território. Tem-se então que muitas bolsas terroristas tinham foram eliminadas. Foi por isso que a campanha de bombardeios foi iniciada. Depois ainda vieram o recrutamento e a formação de terroristas a partir da Arábia Saudita, do Qatar, e ainda de outras partes.

Tudo isso é conhecido e o que acontece é que a mídia ocidental vai,  ao fim e ao cabo, reconhecer o fato de que a Turquia é responsável por isso, aquilo e aquilo outro, que na Arábia Saudita não se pode confiar e que eles estão apoiando os terroristas. Do Qatar dirão que esses também estão a apoiar os terroristas. Mas é claro que os mesmos não dirão que os próprios países ocidentais estão a apoiar os terroristas e que esses seus aliados estão obedecendo ordens. O Qatar não é realmente um país; é um proxy-estado do Golfo pérsico. Ele obedece ordens.

Há toda uma série de bases militares e de inteligência perto de Doha, capital do Qatar.

Na Arábia Saudita é o mesmo. Estes são os países que estão alinhados com Washington. Eles recebem ajuda militar. EUA lhes diz o que devem fazer ou não. Historicamente, indo de volta a guerra entre a União Soviética e o Afeganistão, sabemos que o serviço de inteligência militar do Paquistão, o Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI, e seus homólogos da Arábia Saudita eram os financiadores desta operação e que eles recrutavam terroristas. Tudo isso foi  confirmado por Brzezinski e muitos outros. Tudo isso é conhecido. A CIA não o nega. O que eles dizem, é claro, é que depois da Guerra Fria, eles terminaram a sua relação com a al Qaeda e que a mesma então tinha se voltado contra nós, por assim dizer.

Este é um disparate absoluto. Por um lado os terroristas continuam a ser treinados no Afeganistão e no Paquistão. Na verdade Belmokhtar, o proclamado arquiteto do recente bombardeio de hotel em Bamako, foi recrutado pela CIA, em 1991. A guerra Soviética-Afegã, já terminou, assim também como a guerra fria, mas a CIA continua a recrutar essas pessoas.

Quem estão eles a recrutar?

Eles recrutam, entre outras coisas, potenciais para os serviços de inteligência a serem implantados em um número de países da ex- União Soviética. Claro que aqui entra também a Federação Russa e a Chechênia, mas recrutam ainda por ex. para o Oriente Médio.  BelMokhtar, do recente ataque em Mali, foi treinado no Paquistão e no Afeganistão pela CIA e, em seguida, ele foi enviado de volta para a Argélia, em 1993. Hoje em dia ele está atrás de uma fração do que é conhecido como a Al-Qaeda no Magrebe Islâmico. A operação em Bamako foi , alegadamente,  realizada pelo seu grupo e a organização mais ampla, a acima  denominada al-Qaeda no Magrebe Islâmico, AQIM, ela mesma uma afiliada da al Qaeda.

Devo mencionar que AQIM está também muito integrado com a chamada Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), que foi apoiada pela OTAN, durante a campanha da OTAN contra a Líbia, em 2011, de modo que a OTAN apoia esse Grupo Líbio de Combate Islâmico (Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) que, na verdade, tem mais ou menos conjuntamente com AQIM, o arquiteto  do ataque terrorisra em Bamako, Mali, ou seja, a mítica figura de Belmokhtar, o recrutado tornado arquiteto do recente ataque em Mali, que como acima mencionado, foi treinado pela CIA.

A CIA está por tudo, e eles não negam, porque as provas são muito convincentes. Os serviços de inteligência dos países ocidentais estão a apoiar os terroristas ao mesmo tempo que os governos desses países ocidentais desenvolvem campanhas militares supostamente para combater o Estado Islâmico, quando na verdade, eles estão também a apoiar o mesmo. Eles usam isso tudo como pretexto para bombardear um país soberano o que resulta em dezenas de milhares de vítimas, em crises de refugiados, na destruição de cidades inteiras. Tudo isso e muito mais.  Na Síria isso já vai a mais de quatro anos.

Não precisamos começar a nos engajar em qualquer tipo de teoria conspiratória  para sublinhar o fato de que os serviços de inteligência da França e os Estados Unidos estão a apoiar ISIS, e que ISIS é designado como ameaça à segurança da nação francesa.  Há aqui naturalmente uma contradição óbvia. Não se pode suportar a ISIS e, em seguida, fazer um discurso a meia noite – estou falando sobre o Presidente Hollande – e dizer que ‘Nós sabemos quem eles são, que eles estão nos atacando, e que estão matando nosso povo.’ Eu acho que, para dizer o mínimo, o Presidente François Hollande tem sangue em suas mãos.

Eu estou falando com o economista e diretor do Centro de Investigação sobre a Globalização, Michel Chossudovsky. Hoje, “O terrorismo de estado: estilo franco-americano. Fala Bonnie Faulkner. Esta é “Guns and Butter”.

Bonnie Faulkner : Agora, você está se referindo a Bamako, dos ataques a Mali, os mais recentes ataques terroristas. As notícias relatam que as operações terroristas de Bamako foram coordenadas por Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a quem você mencionou. Na sua opinião qual seria a importância dos ataques em  Bamako? Foram esses ataques em Bamako, Mali, relacionados com os de Paris? Por exemplo, qual foi o papel da França na guerra contra a Líbia de então e na queda de Muammar Gaddafi? O que representa tudo isso?

Michel Chossudovsky : Deixe-me colocar desta forma. Tanto os ataques de Paris, assim como os de Bamako têm implicações geopolíticas. Primeiro, com relação a Paris, vale a pena notar que uma semana antes destes ataques ocorrerem o governo Hollande havia ordenado o uso do Charles de Gaulle porta-aviões, do grupo para o Mediterrâneo oriental,  como apoio da suposta campanha contra o terrorismo na Síria. Isso mostra que mesmo antes dos ataques ocorreram eles já estavam se preparando para enviar esta poderosa marinha com a sua força aérea de ataque para o Oriente Médio para apoio da campanha de Obama contra a ISIS.

Seguindo os ataques de Paris, como podemos nos lembrar, a força aérea francesa  comunicou que tinha bombardeado a sede da ISIS, na Síria. Na declaração oficial do Ministério da Defesa foi dito depois que todos os ataques tinham sido orientados contra os postos de comando dos terroristas. Entretanto, nós temos informações da Síria que, de fato, os alvos atingidos por esses ataques foram clínicas de saúde, um museu e o estádio; em outras palavras, a infra-estrutura civíl do país. Ataques contra a infra-estrutura civíl da Síria tinham continuado e persistiram também no ano passado, de quando os Estados Unidos começaram seus próprios bombardeios contra a Síria.

Agora, com relação a Bamako a agenda geopolítica é essencialmente a de criar um pretexto e uma justificação para a intervenção da França e dos Estados Unidos na África Sub-Sahariana. Eles estariam direcionando suas ações, supostamente é claro, contra organizações terroristas que ameaçavam governos parceiros na África – o que é absurdo, porque eles controlam essas organizações terroristas, seja ela a Al-Qaeda no Magrebe Islâmico, ou Boko Haram na Nigéria, ou o Grupo de Combate da Líbia Islâmica (LIFG). Todas essas organizações fazem parte dos “bens e ativos de inteligência”, ou seja capital humano, os quais estão sendo usados para desestabilizar países soberanos.

Os ataques terroristas de Bamako serão sem dúvida utilizados pela França e pelos Estados Unidos para re-colonizar a África em termos de militarização de todo o continente, indo do controle dos recursos, a desestabilização da ordem pós-colonial da sociedade, e muito mais. Isso eles o estão fazendo através de vários mecanismos. Eu suspeito que a geopolítica subjacente aos ataques terroristas em Bamako é a militarização da África. Devo mencionar que a USAFRICOM, ou seja, o comando africano dos americanos, também enviou um contingente a Mali para ajudar as forças especiais dos franceses e os malineses as quais tinham invadido o hotel, durante os acontecimentos relacionados aos ataques.  Nós acreditamos que esse Comando-África, ou seja o US-AFRICOM é a chave mestra para a militarização da África.

Devo mencionar aqui também que François Hollande é, na verdade, um instrumento dos Estados Unidos. Ele age em nome de Washington, que não tem absolutamente nenhum interesse em realmente proteger esferas de influência dos francêses na África Ocidental, por exemplo. A aliança com os Estados Unidos – é uma aliança de subordinação. A França está subordinada a Washington – e isso é, na verdade, para preparar o nosso caminho em direção a nossa colonização do continente africano, que, historicamente, recordemos, foi realmente colonizado pelos europeus. No final do século 19, na chamada Conferência de Berlim a África foi dividida e esculpida em diferentes partes e secções, mas a América não estava incluida  no processo.

Agora, o que vemos emergir é, na verdade, o deslocamento das antigas potências coloniais da e na África. As ex-colônias de Portugal, Espanha, Bélgica e agora da França serão, em última análise, deslocadas para os Estados Unidos. Países francófonos estão a tornar-se americanizados. O dólar irá eventualmente substituir o franco CFA, que é um proxy moeda vinculada ao tesouro francês, mas amarrada em euro.

Eu acho que esse é o cenário que se apresenta. É a tentativa de conquista do continente africano pelos americanos. Isso está se tentando fazer através do auto-proclamado mandato do governo de Obama para ir atrás dos terroristas na África Sub-Sahariana. Aqui tem-se então o Boko Haram, AQIM, e muitos outros grupos terroristas no continente, que como mencionado acima, são a ser categorizados como “bens e ativos” – capital humano – dos que estão fazendo isso nas diversas áreas africanas, onde pretendem expandir sua zona de influência.

É claro que, no Sudeste da Ásia tem-se a Jamiya Islami (JI) na Indonésia e na Malásia e depois naturalmente, várias outras organizações jihadistas, na parte ocidental da China, que estão envolvidas, novamente, em rebeliões. Todas apoiadas pelos serviços de inteligência ocidental através do ISI do Paquistão.

Bonnie Faulkner: Parece que os Estados Unidos e a França estão trabalhando muito estreitamente sendo que há evidências de que a escalada militar francesa dirigida contra a Síria foi planejada antes dos ataques terroristas do 13 de novembro. Que provas existem, se houverem, da presciência oficial de Paris quanto aos ataques terroristas?

Michel Chossudovsky: Você está absolutamente certo . A França tem participado em ataques bombardeiros desde o início. Ironicamente, eles operam dos Emirados Árabes Unidos, o qual não só hospeda como também treina organizações terroristas.

Com relação à presciência, eu não quero, necessariamente, lidar com isso nesses termos, mas tem certos eventos que eu considero como reveladores. O fato de que cerca de um mês e meio antes dos ataques em Paris havia um certo artigo no Paris Match, que é um tablóide, uma revista que amplamente lida e que lidera quanto a dar o tom a ser seguido. Neste artigo do Paris Match afirmava-se que dentro de um curto período de tempo, iria haver um ataque terrorista. Eles usaram o termo “9/11 de estilo francês, ou em francês “La 11 septembre à la française.” Esse era também o título do artigo. “O 11 de setembro à francesa”.

O Paris Match no dia 2 de outubro previu um ataque terrorista na França semelhante ao dos Estados Unidos em 11 de setembro de 2001, mas de estilo francês então. Eles disseram que os ataques na França seriam numa escala comparável à do 9/11 nos Estados Unidos. Eles também disseram que os serviços de inteligência preocupavam-se com a possibilidade de um 9/11, de estilo francês. Então você pode agora se perguntar qual teria sido o propósito desta reportagem. Seria o caso de mídia desinformação? Estaria ele lá para criar uma atmosfera de medo e de intimidação antes dos acontecimentos a virem?

Ironicamente, quando os eventos realmente ocorreram a mídia simplesmente reafirmou o que tinha sido dito acerca de um mês e meio atrás. Eles disseram: ‘este é um ataque terrorista semelhante a 9/11.’ Eles também apontaram o presumido culpado imediatamente, não como presumido, mas como certo e isso sem qualquer tipo de prova. Afirmaram categóricamente em unisono que estes ataques vinham da Síria. Então, como podemos recordar, alguns dias mais tarde o presidente francês depois de ter declarado um estado de emergência nacional começou a afirmar:- “este é um ato de guerra contra nós”, apesar do fato desse não ser um ato de guerra. O que aconteceu deve ser categorisado como um ato terrorista, não como um ato de guerra. Entretanto o presidente da França descreveu o acontecimento como um ato de guerra. Ele disse que a França estava sendo atacada por uma potência estrangeira, e que essa potência estrangeira estava localizada no norte da Síria, em alguma parte em Raqqa.

Isso é o mesmo que dizer:- … acontece apenas que apoiamos esses terroristas, mas temos de invocar, em um sentido, o fato de que estamos sendo atacados de fora, por uma potência estrangeira, para que possamos em seguida então afirmar com nossos parceiros de coalizão da OTAN e da União Europeia a doutrina da segurança coletiva.

Esse é então o Artigo 5 da NATO, que diz que um ataque contra um membro da OTAN é um ataque contra todos os membros da OTAN. Isso foi exatamente o que os americanos  invocaram, em 12 de setembro de 2001, na sequência do ataque de 9/11. Eles dizeram que era um ataque contra os Estados Unidos a partir do estrangeiro – apesar de não se ter  visto nem testemunhado qualquer que fosse avião afegão, ou nem mesmo quaisquer outros aviões estrangeiros fora de rota nos céus de Nova York.

A França está fazendo exatamente o mesmo. Eles estão replicando o discurso de 9/11 dizendo que este é um ataque a partir de uma potência estrangeira; acontece apenas que essa potência estrangeira é no norte da Síria, em algum lugar. Estão usando isso como pretexto para escalar a guerra contra a Síria, e não contra os seus próprios proxy-terroristas em Raqqa. Fazem isso então para justificar uma nova onda de bombardeios pelas forças da coalizão. Eu acho que essa é, em última análise, a ordem do dia.

Eu estou falando com o economista e diretor do Centro de Investigação sobre a Globalização, Michel Chossudovsky. Hoje, “O terrorismo de estado: estilo franco-americano”. Eu sou Bonnie Faulkner. Da “Guns and Butter”.

Michel Chossudovsky : Então eles têm que enfrentar a Rússia, porque a Rússia está indo contra os verdadeiros terroristas. Eu acho que uma das dimensões dos ataques de Paris é que a coalizão precisava de um mecanismo, ou um pretexto, para minar os empreendimentos da Rússia que consiste essencialmente em destruir os soldados da Aliança Militar Ocidental, que são os terroristas – essas várias entidades, que são apoiadas secretamente pela CIA, MI6, Mossad, e que são integradas por forças especiais em permanente articulação com a Aliança Militar Ocidental. Estes soldados têm seus comandantes e os comandantes também cooperam com a OTAN e os Estados Unidos.

O fato é que Israel também está por trás dos terroristas e nem se precisa especular sobre isso. Eles realmente dizem que tem uma facilidade nas colinas de Golã. Eles estão levando terroristas feridos da Síria às colinas de Golã, onde tem suas instalações hospitalares. As formações terroristas tem consultores israelenses. Temos photo ops de Netanyahu com comandantes terroristas tendo tratamento hospitalar nas colinas de Golã.

O problema é que o que estamos discutindo aqui não terá cobertura na mídia. O público está sendo asfixiado abaixo de uma avalanche de discursos humanitários. Pessoas inocentes estão sendo mortas e os terroristas continuam a atacar pessoas inocentes, o que, em última análise, cria dentro de todos nós um sentimento de solidariedade com as vítimas, mas também um sentimento de medo. Quando a morte se manifesta, nós sentimos.

Então o que fazemos é correr para o lado do governo. O que é que todos na França estão fazendo? Todos compactuam com o governo francês. Mesmo as pessoas que odeiam François Hollande estão a compactuar com o governo francês, porque o governo francês está lá para protegê-los, e as pessoas estão chocados e preocupados com tanta perda de vida.

Esse conceito, ou melhor, esse procedimento como que automático, está bem estabelecido em nós como seres humanos, e daí vem a doutrina militar. Eu deveria lembrar os ouvintes a respeito da chamada “Operação Northwoods”. Essa doutrina viu a luz do dia durante a administração Kennedy. A doutrina contida na denominada “Operação Northwoods” motivou um plano secreto feito pelos Chefes do Estado Maior – Joint Chiefs of Staff – para começar a matar pessoas na comunidade cubana em Miami, assim como em Washington próprio, com vistas a justificar uma guerra de retaliação contra Cuba. Gostaria de citar o documento oficial. Eles diziam que iriam começar a matar pessoas em Miami e que isso iria criar “úteis ondas de indignação” – Contavam então aqui com a indignação da opinião pública dos Estados Unidos, como uma reação certa, automática e natural das pessoas. Contavam então com essa reação humana natural e espontânea, mas para atingir seus próprios fins militares. Todo mundo sente indignação quando pessoas são mortas da maneira que premeditavam e pessoas fortemente indignadas desejam agir, o que faz que mais fácilmente aceitem uma declaração de guerra, por ex.

No caso de Cuba e Operação Nortwoods  em seguida, e de acordo com os planos, eles iriam então dizer que Cuba, Fidel Castro, tinha atacado a América e que tinham agora que atacar Cuba em retribuição. O aqui apresentado mostra também a lógica das chamadas “falsas bandeiras”. Os documentos da “Operação Northwoods” estão lá, oficialmente. As pessoas podem ir e consultá-los, porque aqueles documentos secretos foram desclassificados depois de meio século, e  agora então, sem dúvidas, sabemos o que os militares dos EUA estavam a pensar quanto ao caso. O planejado foi rejeitado por Kennedy assim como também recusado pelo Secretário de Defesa McNamara. A “Operação Northwoods” tinha sua fonte a partir dos Chefes do Estado Maior – Joint Chiefs of Staff, mas de certeza também que era apoiado pelos serviços de inteligência dos EUA na época.

Abaixo apresenta-se um desses documentos traduzidos livremente ao português, mas seguido do original em inglês:

DOCUMENTO –

The Joint Chiefs of Staff

[Les Chefs d´ état major – Os Chefes do Estado Maior]

Washington 25, D.C.

Não Classificado                                                               13 de março de 1962

MEMORANDO PARA O SECRETÁRIO DE DEFESA

Assunto: Justificação para Intervenção dos militares dos EUA para intervenção em Cuba (TS)

1. Os Chefes do Estado Maior consideraram o anexado memorando para o Chefe de Operações, Projeto Cuba, o qual responde então ao requerimento desse oficial para uma curta, mas precisa, descrição dos pretextos que poderiam apresentar uma justificação para os militares dos Estados Unidos intervirem em Cuba.
2. Os Chefes do Estado Maior recomendam que o proposto memorando seja despachado como uma apresentação preliminar para fins de planejamento. Assume-se que haverão outras apresentações semelhantes vindas de outras agências e que essas serão usadas para o desenvolvimento de um plano determinando as diversas fases do projeto. Os diversos projetos poderão ser considerados em bases individuais.
3. Assume-se também que a principal responsabilidade para o desenvolvimento dos aspectos militares e para-militares do planejamento básico seja dada a uma só agência. Recomenda-se aqui que a responsabilidade tanto para as operações feitas de forma aberta como para as operações secretas seja dada aos Chefes do Estado Maior – The Joint Chefs of Staff.

Para os Chefes do Estado Maior

L.L.Lemitzer

Presidente – Chefes do Estado Maior

1 Anexo – Memorando para o Chefe de Operações, Projeto Cuba.

Apenas para mencionar um outro evento. O conceito é o que o General Tommy Franks, do US Central Comando (USCENTCOM), comandante responsável pela invasão do Iraque, descreveu como a possibilidade de um “evento terrorista, maciço, ou alernativamente como uma maciça produção-de-acidentes que resultem na morte de civis. Ele disse que, na verdade, ataques terroristas, ou enormes eventos tipo produção-de-acidentes, constituiria um instrumento que permitiria ao governo militarizar a situação – neste caso ele estava falando sobre os Estados Unidos – eventos e efeitos para militarizar os Estados Unidos, mas aqui tem-se também exatamente  o que está acontecendo na França agora. O maciço ataque terrorista em Paris foi um evento que trouxe consequências similares aos que uma maciça-produção-de-acidentes traria. Os ataques estão sendo usados como pretexto para a declaração da lei marcial e da suspensão das liberdades civis. Isso é o que eu chamaria o fim da República Francesa. Eles marcam o fim da república francesa e o potencial de transição para um regime totalitário, disfarçado de democracia com um governo representativo.

Bonnie Faulkner : Bom que você tenha mencionado a Operação Northwoods porque realmente estamos gravando esta entrevista no dia 22 de novembro, que é o 52º aniversário do assassinato do presidente dos Estados Unidos, John Kennedy. Claro, temos visto uma guerra sem fim desde então. Em termos de cobertura da mídia os ataques terroristas de Paris parecem usar uma noção de vingança e esta está sendo usada como um fator de motivação. Claro que seria contraditório afirmar isso, certo?

Michel Chossudovsky : Você sabe, vingança – olho por olho, dente por dente – tem estado conosco há milhares de anos. No conceito histórico você precisaria de um pretexto para começar uma guerra mas a guerra no contexto moderno –e os líderes políticos sabem disso– é o crime máximo de acordo com as regras de Nuremberga. Seja qual for o motivo subjacente, a única guerra que é legalmente permitida é uma guerra que se desencadeie a partir da necessidade de auto-defesa. Você está autorizado a defender-se contra a agressão. Sem isso qualquer ato de guerra contra um país estrangeiro é um crime.

O que esses ataques e mortes de civis estão lá para realizar é um mandato para o governo [dos EUA ou da França] iniciar uma guerra de retaliação contra um país estrangeiro – no caso aqui, a Síria, mesmo que eles não estejam abertamente e oficialmente dizendo que o governo sírio esteja atrás de terroristas que atacaram Paris. Eles provavelmente vão começar a dizer isso abertamente em um certo ponto – quando, na verdade, sabemos que Bashar al-Assad tem lutado arduamente contra o terrorismo, e isso já a partir dos meados de março de 2011. É uma batalha de forças do governo sírio contra o terrorismo mas os terroristas estão sendo apoiados por potências estrangeiras, de modo que, certamente, a Síria poderia legalmente chamar uma sua reação, quanto a uma guerra, de auto-defesa. [250.000 mortos na Síria – 130 na França]

Mas para a França invocar auto-defesa, alegando que ela foi atacada por alguns indescritível entidade no norte da Síria é, no mínimo, exagero. Entretanto parece que as pessoas estão comprando isso dizendo, sim, temos que agir. É um ato de vingança.

Uma outra dimensão aqui é que em toda a França a polícia está em frenesi e exaltação, se não fúria. Temos números oficiais quanto ao número de raids em casas particulares e quanto a buscas e prisões, entre outras atividades, mas nenhum desses números oficiais deveriam ser realmente levados a sério, porque o que está acontecendo mesmo agora é que a comunidade Muçulmana da França, que representa 7,5% da população, está sendo submetido a uma caça às bruxas. Estamos em uma situação que poderia ser chamado de Inquisição espanhola, se bem que seja necessário mencionar que historicamente a Inquisição francesa da Idade Média foi muito pior do que a espanhola.

É assim que a situação se apresenta. Estão indo atrás das pessoas, de uma maneira inquisitória. A onda de anti-terrorismo converge com a Islamofobia. Em última análise isso seria bastante lógico a partir de uma geopolítica ou do ponto de vista econômico do poder. Os Muçulmanos estão sendo demonizados porque o que acontece é que os Muçulmanos são os habitantes de países que possuem as reservas de petróleo do mundo.

De acordo com os meus cálculos 65% a 70% das reservas de petróleo bruto no mundo – e eu não estou falando sobre o gás natural ou outras formas de óleo como a tar sands – estão em países Muçulmanos, dos quais grande parte fica, claro, na região que se estende da ponta da Arábia Saudita, até a bacia do Mar Cáspio. Se aqueles países que possuem essas reservas de petróleo fossem Budistas, toda a campanha seria dirigida contra os Budistas. Eles precisam de demonizar os Muçulmanos como um pretexto para suas batalhas pelo petróleo.

Bonnie Faulkner : E, claro, o que começa como um demonizar dos Muçulmanos, ou qualquer que seja o grupo, em última análise acaba por cair em todo mundo, sobre a população em geral. Você mencionou que o estado de emergência tinha sido declarado na França. Tem-se medidas drásticas da polícia nesse estado de emergência, com prisões arbitrárias, entre outras coisas. Você mencionou também que estaríamos testemunhando o fim da república francesa.

Michel Chossudovsky : Absolutamente, mas a coisa que está implícita aqui é que para cumprir uma agenda imperial, você tem que sucatar a república. Agora, Júlio César entendeu isso muito bem. Eu não consigo lembrar a citação exata, mas ele disse que não se pode construir um império com a república. Eu acho que, na verdade, o que acontece é que a república está a ser desmantelada. Ela não está só a ser descartada na França; Ela está sendo descartado na América também.

Donald Trump em sua campanha eleitoral parece estar pedindo medidas políciais dirigidas contra todos Muçulmanos nos Estados Unidos, assim como o estabelecimento de algum tipo de banco de dados para acompanhar os Muçulmanos nos Estados Unidos.

Agora, ele foi rejeitado por seus coortes republicanos, mas no entanto, esse tipo de narrativa política, baseada na promoção do ódio, está se tornando muito popular sendo que a promoção do ódio é derivada do uso da produção-de-acidentes-de massas como instrumento de propaganda para uma demonização dos Muçulmanos. e assim por diante. As pessoas estão sendo manipuladas para compartilhar esta divisão, quando, na verdade, as pessoas de todo o mundo tem o mesmo valor humano. Somos todos seres humanos e devemos ser solidários um com o outro.

Se não fosse por nossos líderes, que tem ambições geopolíticas e econômicas quanto a construção e a extensão do império, provavelmente todos nós estaríamos juntos num ambiente multicultural. Mas isso não está acontecendo, e é particularmente grave em países como, eu diria, a Grã-Bretanha e a França. A Grã-Bretanha também está se tornando muito sectária, assim como até certo ponto os Estados Unidos também.

Eu estou falando com o economista e diretor do Centro de Investigação sobre a Globalização, Michel Chossudovsky. Hoje, “O terrorismo de estado: Estilo franco-americano. Eu sou Bonnie Faulkner. DA “Guns and Butter”.

Bonnie Faulkner : Você escreveu que a guerra global contra o terrorismo é uma mentira que fornece legitimidade para as medidas de um estado policial. O que você acha que está por trás da unidade para a criação de um estado policial que nós poderíamos designar como ex-repúblicas?

Michel Chossudovsky : O estado policial está lá para servir aos interesses econômicos e geopolíticos, assim como aos interesses estratégicos. Ele está lá para apoiar a organização de grandes interesses corporativos, as empresas de petróleo, o complexo militar-industrial, a defesa de empreiteiros, de Wall Street. Em efeito, fins lucrativos. A guerra é um empreendimento econômico. A guerra é boa para os negócios, por assim dizer. Ela fornece bons negócio para as pessoas que produzem as armas, mas ela também estende esse mercado ao mundo inteiro.

Então, é claro, as iniciativas, os chamados acordos de comércio, TPP e outros, estão ligados a agenda militares. Eles não são fenômenos isolados. Há uma interface. Não é por acaso que Paul Wolfowitz, por exemplo, passou do US Departamento de Defesa, ao Banco Mundial e de novo de volta e assim por diante. Há uma interface em Washington, entre entidades militares e civis, entre o Tesouro, a tesouraria, e o Pentágono. Então, é claro, todas essas organizações, como a Organização Mundial do Comércio e o Banco Mundial, são parte e parcela de uma agenda mais ampla. O que significa, em última análise, que os políticos não são políticos. Eles são instrumentos de grupos de lobby. Eu acho que nós compreendemos isso. Em um contexto americano entendemos que são os grupos de pressão que possuem os políticos.

Em seguida, em última análise, esses políticos são incitado pelos seus patrocinadores a cometer atos criminosos.

Obama, de quando deflagrando uma campanha contra a Síria, envolve-se em um ato criminoso. É contra o direito internacional o ir e bombardear um país soberano, seja lá abaixo do pretexto que for.

Isso é a criminalização do estado, a saber, o fato de que o estado não está mais lá para representar os cidadãos. O estado agora está representando as corporações. Muitíssimas e grandes empresas por sua vez também estão envolvidas em processos criminais. Nesse contexto tem-se então um sistema financeiro fraudulento e criminoso que consegue agir completamente impune.

Para manter as aparências, há uma eventual ação judicial contra o Goldman Sachs ou o JP Morgan Chase, mas não há real confisco de ativos financeiros, como ocorreu, digamos, na Islândia, onde, na esteira da crise financeira de 2008 os bens de um dos bancos foram confiscados e agora se está fazendo a redistribuição desses bens para os cidadãos.

Esse sim é um acontecimento singular. Não estou a dizer que isto significa uma completa mudança na estrutura. Mas você não vê os governos protegendo os direitos dos cidadãos contra corporações poderosas. Corporações estão a governar o mundo. Os acordos de comércio substituem a Constituição. Nós sabemos disso.

Há uma agenda imperial, que é, em última análise, uma agenda econômica. A ironia é que os Estados Unidos tem agora toda uma série de alianças com países que foram vítimas de nossos crimes de guerra. Eu estou pensando em Vietnã, Camboja, Filipinas, Indonésia. Todos eles são aliados dos Estados Unidos e essa aliança dirige-se agora contra a República popular da China, o que constitui uma violação a favor de uma hegemonia global.

Não para dizer que a China seria, necessariamente, uma alternativa; eu não acho que seja o caso. Mas a partir de um ponto de vista geopolítico compreende-se que existem alguns países dos quais os Estados Unidos querem se livrar e isso inclui a Federação Russa, a República Popular da China, o Irã, e, é claro, a Coreia do Norte.

Esses são os quatro países que estão no meio do caminho, impedindo a marcha para uma hegemonia global. Pode haver outros, mas eles são de menor importância.

Não é por acaso que estes quatro países estão sendo ameaçados simultaneamente. Na verdade, foi negociado um acordo com a Coreia do Sul, que ameaça a Coreia do Norte. Eu deveria mencionar a Coreia do Norte perdeu 30% da sua população durante a Guerra da Coreia e isso é algo que ficou bem compreendido, porque General Curtis Lemay claramente disse em um discurso, que devemos ter matado cerca de 20% da população e destruído cerca de 90% das cidades do país durante os ataques bombardeiros, que se fizeram. Estas atrocidades foram cometidas em várias partes do mundo – Indonésia – 500.000 a um milhão de supostos comunistas e simpatizantes foram mortos sob ordens da CIA. É documentado porque na verdade nós temos os documentos desclassificados da CIA sobre o evento.

Eu chamaria isto a criminalização do estado. A criminalização do estado é totalitária e vai contra os direitos dos cidadãos. Ela tem um interesse em manter uma fachada democrática, um  sistema de partidos políticos e outras instituições da democracia representativa. Entretanto sabemos que quem entra na Casa Branca, se é Hillary ou Donald Trump, ou Jeb Bush, vai, finalmente, ser uma figura de relações públicas que dará suporte aos dominante interesses econômicos dos Estados Unidos.

Bonnie Faulkner : Você escreve que, “A evidência amplamente confirma que, enquanto a Rússia focaliza o alvo nas fortalezas dos terroristas da ISIS na Síria, a Aliança Militar Ocidental está apoiando os terroristas do Estado Islâmico “. A Federação Russa está bombardeando ISIS enquanto a Aliança Militar Ocidental está a apoiar os terroristas, mas publicamente, todos alegam estar lutando contra ISIS. Há uma guerra não declarada entre a Federação Russa e a Aliança Militar Ocidental?

Michel Chossudovsky : em última análise, sim, há uma guerra não declarada e poderia evoluir em diferentes direções, porque os russos estão de fato dirigindo os seus ataques  contra os terroristas, mas isso significa entretanto atacar os soldados da Aliança Militar Ocidental. Atacando os terroristas os russos estão destruindo os esforços dos Estados Unidos e seus serviços de inteligência, assim como das forças armadas dos mesmos. Dentro das fileiras dos terroristas encontram-se assessores da aliança militar ocidental . Nós sabemos disso.

Mas, ao mesmo tempo, os EUA e os seus parceiros europeus tem que jogar o jogo, por assim dizer. Eles não podem simplesmente dizer para os russos, “Bem, você não está realmente atacando ISIS…” porque realmente é óbvio, mesmo para o público mundial das mais diversas camadas sociais, que a campanha de Obama falhou completamente onde a campanha russa, com limitada instalações para a ação aeronáutica, em questão de algumas semanas realmente conseguiu minar a presença terrorista na Síria.

Os apologistas dizem – ou algumas pessoas de esquerda poderiam dizer, “Obama cometeu um erro. Ele fez uma asneira. Ele não sabe como coordenar esses ataques”, etc., etc. como se.

Eles têm esses terroristas nas caminhonetes Toyota. Se eles quisessem eliminá-los, eles poderiam ter feito isso com muita facilidade, logo no início, quando os grupos de terroristas cruzaram o deserto da Síria para o Iraque em suas caminhonetes. O propósito não era destruí-los; o propósito era, na verdade, de protegê-los. Então, os Estados Unidos tem sido muito eficaz em protege-los e também quanto a dissipar da compreensão pública que estão realmente apoiando os terroristas, em vez de atacá-los.

Agora, é claro, o jogo é diferente, porque os Russos estão lá e, ironicamente, eles estabeleceram canais de cooperação, vamos dizer, entre a França e a Rússia, com relação à luta contra o terrorismo. Mas Putin é um muito astuto diplomata bem como ele foi, claro, um oficial da inteligência, um oficial da KGB, e ele sabe como jogar esse tipo de jogo. A imprensa russa não está acusando François Hollande, de ser cúmplice desses ataques. Muito pelo contrário, eles estão dizendo: “Amigo, Amigo.” Putin diz para François Hollande ‘Vamos cooperar. Vamos colaborar.’ Em seguida, Hollande vai para Moscou.

Isso é claro, num certo sentido, pode criar divisões dentro da Aliança Militar Ocidental, mas também poderia manter a legitimidade de François Hollande porque ele não estaria sendo criticados pelos Russos. Há um jogo muito delicado em curso.

Mas olhando para um quadro mais amplo, a saber, o fato de que os EUA-OTAN estão na porta de entrada da Rússia, na Europa do Leste, por ex. nos estados Bálticos, tanto com armas convencionais nas mãos, assim como com avançados sistemas de defesa aérea.

Eles dizem que os instrumentos e mísseis de defesa não são dirigidos contra a Rússia, mas contra o Irã, o que é um absurdo. Esses instrumentos e mísseis de defesa aérea estão dirigidos contra cada uma das grandes cidades russas. Eles estão então com a Rússia no foco da mira. Depois, vê-se claramente que eles estão apoiando um governo ilegal na Ucrânia, o qual é integrado por Neo-Nazistas. Essa é a situação real. Além disso eles têm também a intenção de desestabilizar a economia russa através de sanções e outros mecanismos financeiros. Essa é também uma situação real em curso

Depois o que aconteceu é que a Rússia com suas acções no domínio militar mostrou aos americanos que podiam fazer o mesmo que eles. A Rússia mostrou também a eles que possui recursos avançados, os quais o mundo sabe que eles tem. É, em última análise, parece ser uma fonte de grande embaraço diplomático que os Russos tenham sido capazes de liquidar os terroristas em questão de meses, e os Estados Unidos tenham se mostradotão inéptos nesse sentido – Mas, o fato é que aqui não se trata deles serem realmente inéptos porque na verdade eles nunca pretenderam lutar contra ou acabar com os terroristas.

Bonnie Faulkner : Michel Chossudovsky, muito obrigado.

Michel Chossudovsky : Muito Obrigado.

* * * *

Bonnie Faulkner : estive a falar com Michel Chossudovsky. Hoje apresentando o show “O terrorismo de estado: estilo franco-americano.” Michel Chossudovsky é o fundador, diretor e editor do Centro de Investigação sobre a Globalização com base em Montreal, Quebec. A Pesquisa Global de website, GlobalResearch.ca, notícias públicas, artigos, comentários, fundo de pesquisa e análise. Michel Chossudovsky é autor de 11 livros, incluindo A Globalização da Pobreza e a Nova Ordem Mundial,  A Guerra e a Globalização : A Verdade por Trás do 11 de setembro, Guerra da América contra o Terrorismo, A Globalização da Guerra : América “Longa Guerra” Contra a Humanidade, bem como co-editor da antologia da Crise Econômica Global : A Grande Depressão do Século 21. Todos os livros estão disponíveis em GlobalResearch.ac.

“Guns and Butter” é produzido por Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow Mahko e Tony Rango. Para deixar um comentário, ou ordem, cópias de shows, e-mail para [email protected]. Visite o nosso site em GunsandButter.org para se inscrever em nossa lista de e-mail e receba nossa newsletter. Siga-nos no GandB Rádio.

No Pós-Guerra, a Reconstrução da Síria

Michel Chossudovsky: Eu gostaria de dizer uma outra coisa que é absolutamente fundamental. O presidente Bashar al-Assad, em uma entrevista esta semana, disse algo muito importante. Isso tem a ver com o que deve acontecer na esteira dos ataques russos nas fortalezas dos terroristas. O governo Sírio está falando sobre a reconstrução do seu país, o que espero venha a se realizar. O país está dizimado. Parte da população teve de fugir, as pessoas ficaram empobrecidos, a economia está em frangalhos, mas o povo Sírio tem o objetivo de reconstruir seu país. Agora eles estão se aproximando de potenciais parceiros, em particular da China, para auxiliar no processo de reconstrução.

Agora, se esse processo for em frente, eu acho que o problema das reparações de guerra e danos também deveria ser levantado contra os estados patrocinadores do terrorismo, e, certamente, eles devem ser levantadas então em relação a Arábia Saudita, Qatar e Turquia. É muito mais fácil documentar a participação desses. Até mesmo a mídia Ocidental irá concordar que os Turcos e os Árabes mencionados têm apoiado os terroristas, mas, é claro, nós sabemos que, em última análise, os principais patrocinadores do terrorismo são os Estados Unidos da América, a OTAN e Israel.

Isso do ponto de vista de nossa compreensão, mas também da nossa solidariedade. Nós devemos ser solidários com a reconstrução do pós-guerra deste país, se essa vier a ocorrer, e nós devemos também começar a falar sobre os danos incorridos pelos Estados Unidos e seus aliados contra os diferentes países que destruiram. No caso aqui específico seria o Iraque e a Síria. Entretanto também se tem o Iêmen, o Afeganistão e o Sudão, e vários países por todo o mundo que foram literalmente dizimados, transformados em territórios, sem nenhum tipo de compensação.

Vietnã – Um país que ganhou a guerra – Lembro-me de que uma das condições para a normalização das relações econômicas com o Vietnã, por volta dos anos 90, foi a de que eles pagassem sua dívida para com o Clube de Paris – em outras palavras, o clube dos credores oficiais ocidentais – o dinheiro que o regime de Saigon estava em dívida para com eles. Em outras palavras, o dinheiro que estava lá para financiar a guerra liderada pelos EUA.  Isso significa que o Vietnã foi obrigado a pagar reparações de guerra aos países que estavam por trás da Guerra do Vietnã, nomeadamente os Estados Unidos e seus aliados.

Bonnie Faulkner : Wow. Que chocante. Vietnã teve que pagar indenizações às pessoas que o atacaram?

Michel Chossudovsky : Absolutamente. Lá havia um acordo secreto no contrato do Clube de Paris para dívidas incobráveis (caso de insolvência). As dívidas do governo de Saigon tinham de ser pagas. Essas foram as dívidas que se fizeram na década de 1960, e sabemos que o regime de Saigon foi, em última análise, o destinatário da ajuda militar dos Estados Unidos. Vietnã nunca negociou reparações de guerra. Seria bom se ele tivesse feito isso, porque ele venceu a guerra – bem, ele jogou para fora do país as forças dos EUA – mas lá nunca houve qualquer tipo de compensação.

Na verdade, para o levantamento das sanções Vietnã teve que chegar a um acordo com os credores externos, tanto do Clube de Paris como com o o Fundo Monetary Internacional. Eu estava no Vietnã no momento e entrevistei a pessoa responsável pela realização dessas negociações. O que aconteceu em relação ao FMI é que os vietnameses agora queriam normalizar relações com o FMI, mas lá havia então a dívida do período do regime de Saigon para o FMI do tempo da guerra, e eles disseram que o Vietnam teria que pagar esse dinheiro antes que relações pudessem ser normalizadas.

Então o que foi que aconteceu depois?

O vietnamita disse que não tinham esse dinheiro para o qual o representante do FMI disse então que não havia problema. Para tanto foi criado um grupo de amigos do Vietnã, grupo esse composto da França e Japão – que tinham passado a ser ex-potências coloniais o que remonta a década de 1940 – França e Japão emprestaram então o dinheiro para o Vietnã, dinheiro esse que Vietnã pagou de volta ao FMI. Na verdade o dinheiro realmente nem entrou no Vietnã. Tudo isso para normalizar a relação do Vietnã com as instituições de Bretton Woods.

Agora, o jogo final desse processo vê-se hoje. Vietnã é uma outra fronteira da mão de obra barata da economia global, uma população empobrecida, toda a infra-estrutura social arruinada, uma economia de bens de luxo, de operações bancárias fraudulentas e assim por diante. Foi a mesma coisa no Camboja. Todos estes países, que são agora aliados dos Estados Unidos, foram destruídos. Eles nunca receberam reparações de guerra.

Neste caso em particular, reparações de guerra para a Síria e o Iraque deve ser debatida, pelo menos, e a questão da reconstrução deve ser também na agenda, principalmente de pessoas que estão em causa, dentro do movimento anti-guerra.

Bonnie Faulkner : Nesse contexto histórico que você descreve parece que a Síria correria o risco de ter que pagar reparações de guerra a Aliança Militar Ocidental.

Michel Chossudovsky : Ainda não está completamente claro qual seria a natureza da normalização a ser desejada. Mas posso dizer que com relação ao Iraque que esse tem uma dívida pública que está sob os auspícios de uma Comissão de Compensação das Nações Unidas a qual é administrada de Genebra e que já houveram várias reclamações de credores, reclamações essas que basearam em alegados danos. Trata-se tanto de empresas como de particulares, mas as reivindicações contra o Iraque estão na casa dos bilhões. Isso significa que os recursos do Iraque e suas reservas de petróleo, em última análise tudo, serão destinados nos próximos anos para o serviço da dívida.

Essa é realmente toda a finalidade, todo o propósito. Esse é o propósito de uma guerra, mas é também o propósito da condicionalidade das dívidas que acompanham a guerra e que envolvem, muitas vezes, a intervenção do Banco Mundial e do FMI [dois dos mais importantes instrumentos de dominação dos Estados Unidos]. Eles estão lá, essencialmente, para garantir que esses países que já perderam tudo, não possam reconstruir seus países e se eles o reconstruirem isso terá que ser feito através da criação da dívida.

É o que está acontecendo no Iraque neste mesmo momento. Quaisquer que sejam os investimentos feitos no Iraque por empresas estrangeiras, ou outras, serão em última análise utilizados para aumentar a dívida, o que significa então que a dívida terá de ser pagada usando o lucro entrado na economia pelo petróleo do Iraque.

Bonnie Faulkner : Chocante

A fonte original deste artigo é :

State Terrorism: Franco-American Style, 27 de Novembro de 2015

Tradução –  https://artigospoliticos.wordpress.com e https://translate.yandex.ru

Anna Malm / Yandex

Baynazar Mohammad Nazar was a husband and a father of four — and a patient killed during the [US] attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz. This is his story.

In the first operating room, the surgical bed was empty except for a thin layer of concrete dust. The second room had been harder hit. A man’s body, arms and legs outstretched, lay supine on the operating table with a cannula inserted in his left forearm. Blotches of rust-colored antiseptic stained his torso; there was a steel bracket fixed to his right thigh. A surgical curtain had collapsed across his chest and shoulders above where a ceiling panel lay across his abdomen. On the cushioned head support, the patient’s bearded jaw was all that remained of his head — the rest appeared to have been sheared off by shrapnel or a large ammunition round.

In the corridor outside the operating rooms, a slew of broken ceiling panels lay on the floor covered in dust and debris; a whiteboard hung askew on the wall. Even in the middle of the afternoon, apart from the occasional pop of a Kalashnikov firing in the distance, this part of the hospital was silent and dark.

The main part of the Médecins Sans Frontières Kunduz Trauma Center had faired far worse. Little remained after the deadly strikes carried out by a U.S. AC-130 gunship over the course of an hour. In the weeks after the attack, investigators determined that at least 30 staff and patients had died on Oct. 3. Initially, Afghan commandos claimed they had requested the airstrike after coming under fire from Taliban fighters in the hospital compound. Afghan government officials echoed this account, while a dozen eyewitnesses I spoke to refuted it. A U.S. military investigation released on Nov. 25 admitted human error and technical failures resulted in the “tragic but avoidable accident.”

For complete article by Foreign Policy click here

The highest-level NSA whistleblower in history – William Binney – the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, and managed thousands of NSA employees – has a great suggestion for motivating U.S. intelligence agencies to prevent terrorism.

Binney tells Washington’s Blog:

If you want to get into the real reason politicians, companies and agencies are hard over advocates for mass/bulk surveillance, then you need to look at all the money involved. It’s about 100 Billion (that’s with a B) per year.

When NSA Director Alexander said their objective is to “collect it all”, then that simply exposed the underlying reason for all this spying. That committed the government to collecting an ever increasing year-by-year amount of data which takes an ever increasing year-by-year amount of money to do. And to achieve that, they use fear mongering and lies to mislead and bamboozle us into letting them take more and more of our money to achieve very little. [Background.]

So, every time there is a terrorist attack, what we really need to do is demand that they cut the budgets of all the intelligence agencies. And, if they still keep failing, then we need to get rid of them and start the process again with new agencies and new managers. It could be as simple are removing the top 4 layers of management at an agency and replacing them with external people drawn from professional ranks not related to politics or government.

Mass collection on everybody, of course, makes government (including FBI, DEA, DHS, IRS, CIA …) all knowing like a J. Edger Hoover on super steroids or an all knowing Stasi with more complete, accurate, timely, mineable/interrogateable, stored electronic files. This does make the government all knowing and in a position to manipulate and control people just like the KGB or the Stasi did.  [Background.]

Also, it represents a total flip of the founding principles of our country. We were supposed to know what the government was doing in our name; the government was not supposed to know what we were doing unless they had probable cause to look at us. [Backgroundhere, here and here.]

But, that takes a mainstream media that wants to do their job and keep the public informed.

Postscript: In ancient China, traditional Chinese doctors only got paid as long as their patients remained healthy. If the patients got sick, they stopped paying their doctors.

Binney’s proposal is arguably analogous … pay the intelligence agencies so long as they are bolstering our defenses and keeping our national security “healthy”;  stop paying them if we get attacked.

On Sunday, the NSA was forced to shut down its bulk collection of the phone records of Americans. While that program may have ended —  and there is evidence that it may not have — the world now knows the spy agency’s capabilities, and that is changing the behavior of people everywhere.

How much, and in what way, is currently being studied. What effect does the awareness of surveillance have on the behavior of people? WhoWhatWhy looked at the available results of research being conducted, and found that we may be reaching the tipping point — when awareness of being watched starts to affect behavior.

Helsinki Syndrome

A team of researchers from the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology recorded nearly every piece of data — calls, texts, GPS locations, keypresses, mouse clicks, screenshots of computer desktops, browsing histories, and credit card usages, a total of 32 TB of data from 10 households — for an entire year. They found that constant, intrusive surveillance consistently resulted in behavioral effects.

As Oulasvirta explained, “people may stop being careful after they have slipped at least once. Digital records that are not erased will contain that slip (potentially) for a long time.”

The researchers called the study ”The Helsinki Privacy Experiment,” and in September 2012 they published their findings in the paper, “Long-term Effects of Ubiquitous Surveillance in the Home.”

Interestingly, the researchers found that increased surveillance did not necessarily increase stress.

However, Antti Oulasvirta, lead author and electrical engineering professor at Aalto University, warned against jumping to conclusions based on the above. “You have to remember that they self-selected themselves to the study, consented, and knew how the data is going to be treated and used. This is not the case with the NSA, for instance,” he told WhoWhatWhy.

While there were few psychological impacts, researchers found significant changes in subjects’ behavior.

Some spent more time in rooms that weren’t covered by cameras, while others retreated to cafes and libraries to discuss private matters and browse the internet undetected. Having guests over was a particular source of anxiety, as Finnish law requires signs outside areas with camera surveillance. Some subjects admitted to turning off the cameras during social events rather than explaining the study to friends.

Subjects also wore more clothes at home and avoided intimate interactions in surveilled areas, though some described becoming accustomed to the camera’s presence. “After I realized that I’d already walked naked to the kitchen a couple of times, my threshold kind of got lower after that,” one participant said in the paper.

In effect, inadvertent disclosures of compromising images or information eventually made the participants less sensitive about such disclosures. As Oulasvirta explained, “people may stop being careful after they have slipped at least once. Digital records that are not erased will contain that slip (potentially) for a long time.”

Not all of the subjects were comfortable with the experiment. One participant became increasingly disturbed by the surveillance and dropped out after six months. Constantly being observed, the subject said, in notable understatement, was “not fun.”

Pipe Bombs and Kardashians

What if vast quantities of data were collected on a global scale?

Boston-based privacy advocate Alex Marthews and MIT professor Catherine Tucker analyzed search data from 11 different countries (the US and its top ten trading partners) from Google before and after June 6, 2013 — when the media revealed the existence of PRISM, the NSA’s internet communications collection program. According to their working paper, “Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior,” awareness of government surveillance of one’s search behavior on the Internet had a “chilling effect.”

The investigators analyzed the use of three sets of search terms: (1) those that could get the user in trouble (e.g., “pipe bomb,” “anthrax”); (2) terms that were considered personally embarrassing (e.g.,“white power,” “sexual addiction”); and (3) a non-worrisome control group of terms for comparison:  Google’s top 50 search terms for 2013 (e.g., 2014 FIFA World Cup,” “Kim Kardashian baby”).

They found that — after June 6, 2013 — users were less likely to search for terms they believed might get them in trouble with the US government. That, naturally, had a more pronounced effect in the US, while other countries saw a more significant drop in use of terms that might prove personally embarrassing.

***

But a May 2015 paper called “Privacy Behaviors After Snowden” seems to contradict Marthews and Tucker’s conclusions. It found a more carefree attitude toward a loss of privacy.

Google researcher Sören Preibusch, who worked for Microsoft when he wrote the paper, analyzed Bing search data for PRISM-related terms (“Snowden” and “NSA”), pageviews for PRISM-related topics (Microsoft’s privacy policy page and various Wikipedia articles), and the use of privacy-enhancing tools (the Firefox extensionAnonymox and the Tor internet browser).

This deeply troubles Titus. As he puts it, a person is a collection of data points that can be thought of as a “digital soul, a thing that is you, but yet can be disembodied from you and still exist.” Legally speaking, data in the US is considered property, and if “we are data, and if data is property, then we are property.”

They concluded that the PRISM revelation “had only a small impact on Web users beyond debates among journalists and academic researchers.” And Marthews noted that Preibusch used data from Bing, and that “Bing users may differ from average internet users.”

The Tipping Point

What Marthews and Preibusch both agree on is that more research needs to be done. One researcher, Iowa State business professor Brian Mennecke, is looking into what he calls the privacy “uncanny valley,” — the tipping point at which surveillance becomes sufficiently “creepy” to result in behavioral change.

“What makes something creepy?” Mennecke told WhoWhatWhy. “I don’t know the answer right now, but it’s an important question.”

Mennecke primarily studies corporate applications of surveillance. These include video analytics technology, where digital signs can, for example, analyze a person “based on their clothing, how they walk, height, hair color” — and pitch specific ads to him or her. This technology is already available: NEC has software that “automatically detects suspicious behavior such as intrusion, loitering, and object abandonment,” according to its website.

Iowa State PhD student Akmal Mirsadikov posed another example: Walmart experimenting with facial recognition software, where cameras scanned the faces of customers, compared them to a database of known shoplifters, and alerted security personnel if a match was found.

When this type of technology is announced, “people freak out. We want to find out why that happens,” Mirsadikov told WhoWhatWhy.

One factor that could affect behavior because of awareness of surveillance is what Mirsadikov called the “saliency” of surveillance. “For example, let’s say death. That is inevitable. Everybody takes it easy because you cannot always live worrying about death. But if a doctor says you have cancer and you only have a few days left, you suddenly become very aware of this, and your behavior changes very suddenly,” Mirsadikov said, implying that, perhaps in the same way, sudden shocks about mass surveillance could trigger unease that results in altered behavior.

Digital Souls

We may have already crossed the tipping point, says Aaron Titus, former privacy director of the Liberty Coalition.  Most of us, Titus told WhoWhatWhy, have a vague notion that we are being surveilled, but don’t understand how much, or in what way it affects our lives. And there is no incentive to find out.

This deeply troubles Titus. As he puts it, a person is a collection of data points that can be thought of as a “digital soul, a thing that is you, but yet can be disembodied from you and still exist.” Legally speaking, he said, data in the US is considered property, and if we are data, and if data is property, then we are property.

The need for privacy, then, is not just a matter of control over who can see one’s Facebook profiles, but control over one’s self. Addressing the notion that privacy doesn’t matter if one has nothing to hide, he said that implies that shame is the only reason anyone would want privacy.

Privacy is necessary he said, “because individuals and institutions do not act in the best interest of other individuals, institutions, or society at large, when in possession of true facts.”

For example, people keep their social security numbers private, not because they are ashamed of them, but because of what thieves can do with them. The idea that a central power would act in society’s best interests if it had access to everyone’s information is, according to Titus, demonstrably incorrect.

“I wish we could see…that we’re living in a panopticon. Then at least it would spur us on to some sort of action,” Titus said. The image is compelling: a panopticon is a circular prison with cells arranged around a central well from which prisoners can be observed at all times.

“My personal opinion is that privacy is going to lose, or at least it’ll take another generation, and at least some major event, before privacy really becomes something that is concrete again to fight for.”

On Thursday, the Syrian Arab Army and its allies have resumed large-scale military operations against terrorists in the provinces of Damascus, Quneitra, Aleppo, Homs and Latakia. The pro-government sources’ reports said large groups of terrorists have been killed and injured in the clashes. While such terrorists’ loses are hardly confirmed, it’s clear that the pro-government forces are intensifying its activity at the battlefield.

The recent reports confirm that vast areas of the North of Marj al-Sultan village in Damascus were liberated by the Syrian Arab Army from the control of jnad al-Sham Islamic Union and al-Nusra. The clashes in the area are continuing. Separately, the SAA is advancing towards Harasta al-Qantara and Noulah in the South of the Eastern Ghouta.

The Syrian government has deployed large reinforcements of the SAA’s 4th Mechanized Division and Hezbollah to the Southern Aleppo.

Supported by the earlier arrived T-90 Tanks, these forces will play a lead role in the pro-government offensive in the area aimed to capture the strategic ICARDA agricultural facility which is located along the Aleppo-Damascus Highway. If seized, the militants will have their primary supply line cut.

On Friday morning, the Syrian forces struck back against the militants of Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham and Harakat Nouriddeen Al-Zinki, capturing the small villages of Tal Al-Baraqa, Tal Dadeen, Tal Ja’eera and Tal ‘Arba’een.

Commander of Iraq’s popular forces complain that the US is hindering the start of final phase of the operation to free Ramadi, from ISIS control.

“The US bargains and pressures on the Baghdad government have prevented accomplishment of Ramadi liberation operation,” Abu Yousef al-Khazali, a commander of Seyed al-Shohada battalion, told FNA on Thursday. According to him, the Washington concerns about a high role of popular forces in anti-ISIS operations in Iraq because it increases their influence in the country.

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

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

https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Do you remember one reason Washington gave for invading Afghanistan in 2001? It was to liberate women. Watching pictures of ill-treated Afghan women, previously uncommitted Americans heartily joined the cry for war. (No possibility of doing that in Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Since no good friend of America would suffer that kind of liberation.)

Hidden from war headlines are hundreds of millions of women from Japan to the USA fighting for justice within their legal system, for parity in media portrayals, for equality in the office, and for respect in their own homes and bedrooms. They include Arab –or if you prefer, Muslim—women. And don’t forget Christian and Buddhist, Jewish and Hindi and Shinto. Even non-believers shouldn’t be excluded? (You might ignore Ms. Twakkol Karman, Yemen’s Nobel Peace Laureate because presently she and her people are being besieged and bombed by American ally Saudi Arabia.)

Anyway, Egyptian women seem to receive an excess of attention. Maybe it’s because they’re so numerous– half of Egypt’s 80 million– or because they’re so glittery, or perhaps because Egyptian feminists are especially outspoken and creative, or because Egypt has a vigorous literary and film industry that takes on issues with boldness and skill. A powerful film emerging from this trade is Yousry Nasrallah’s 2009 feature “Scheherazade: Tell Me a Story”. It’s playing again in New York, double-billed with a new release, “Before and After the Spring Revolution”.http://nyadiff.org/adiff-ny-2015-egypt-before-after-spring-revolution/. Both films explore the lives of women.

The “Before and After” film, a documentary by a European team directed by Alexandra Schneider, focuses on four individuals during the 2011 revolt, and later. Schneider revisits Cairo to learn the fate of each of them following the ouster of the elected Muslim Brotherhood-led government and the re-imposition of a military dictatorship. “Scheherazade” is a fictional tale set in modern (pre Arab-Spring) Cairo, the work of two men, the renowned director Nasrallah and writer Wahid Hamed, and some very fine actors.

Schneider’s documentary will seem more credible because we know these are real people with apartments and neighbors. But both films are bigger-than-life dramas. “Scheherazade”’s four women are no less credible; indeed the scriptwriter says this story was inspired by true events. The central character here is Hebba, a TV host and a modern woman recently married to a seemingly progressive man. Confronting her nation’s social realities, journalist Hebba decides to profile three women on her show and in the course of these interviews exposes widespread misogyny and corruption at high levels. Her truth-telling goes too far, upsetting her husband’s career, and when she finds herself a victim of abuse, Hebba emerges more determined. She enters the debate with her own personal experience.

Schneider chose four Cairo activists for “Before and After the Spring Revolution”. Each woman is struggling for recognition and for freedom, some in her local community, others within the national campaign to oust a corrupt government and install a true democracy. The filmmaker caught them at a promising time in their careers when each exhibits a thrilling confidence on camera…at first. Their candor is extraordinary and Schneider makes us really care about each woman. When the filmmaker revisits Cairo after the restoration of military rule, two of these women are unavailable; one has vanished and another rebuffs the director.

Fictionalized or documented, both films portray a slice of the multifarious life of contemporary Egypt– portraits of “women who fight back”. All the women here will touch you and provoke you. South Asian, African and Arab women are already deeply engaged in the ‘challenges’ portrayed here. But Western women may only grasp these characters as unfortunate products of exotic, troubled places. (I hope not.) If we are honest, we in the US and Europe can recognize that we share a great deal with the eight women we meet through these films.

Today the women’s movement globally is weak and fragmented, fragmented by culture and war, and by class. Western women’s patronizing narrative of Third World women has alienated many; this applies especially to their view of Muslim women. If western audiences see the women in these films as only Egyptian, or only Muslim, the gulf between us will grow wider. And the value of such films will be lost.

The Pentagon isn’t known for being frugal with its spending habits, and new reports have surfaced which show that US taxpayers footed the bill for nearly $150 million in luxury villa rentals and fine dining in Afghanistan.

In a sentence buried at the very bottom of a story making headlines nationwide, Politico revealed for the first time one of the funders of Columbia University’s influential Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP).

The funder: ExxonMobil, the company embroiled in a New York state Attorney General investigation for its extensive internal knowledge of the impacts of climate change since the 1970s, followed by Exxon’s funding of climate change denial campaigns to the tune of $31 million. Politico got its numbers from ExxonMobil’s 2014 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments report.

While Politico reported on Exxon’s grievances about the Los Angeles Times’ two–part investigation conducted by students and staff at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism that exposed what Exxon knew about climate change science and when it knew it, it also touched on what money currently flows into the University’s coffers via the “private empire.”

“Through its foundation, Exxon gave $219,229 to Columbia in 2014 as part of a matching gift program for educational institutions, as well as $9,000 in direct grants,” reads the article’s final paragraph. “The company also gave $25,000 last year to the markets program at the university’s Center on Global Energy Policy.”

DeSmog has long sought to discover who funds CGEP and has sent multiple rounds of information requests to the Center, never receiving a response.

The watchdog group Checks and Balances Project, which contacted DeSmog months back about CGEP and its lack of disclosure regarding funding, has also written multiple rounds of letters to the Center and also received no response.

Checks and Balances Project wrote letters to CGEP, published here for the first time on DeSmog, asking for clarification about who butters its bread in both September 2014 and January 2015.

Academic Veneer, Advocacy Reality

As reported previously by DeSmog, CGEP has used the veneer of academia and traded on the Columbia University brand to serve as a leading advocate for exporting oil obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to the global market, as well as forMexico’s energy sector privatization and other energy issues.

“If you were looking for a success story in starting up a brand new group at your university and having it very quickly jump into a leading role in the national energy policy debate, Columbia’s CGEP represents the gold standard,” wrote DeSmog’s Justin Mikulka back in October. “On the surface the formula is pretty simple, although perhaps not easily replicated without some deep-pocketed funders.”

The Center is headed by Jason Bordoff, former special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for energy and climate change for the National Security Council. Bordoff has not responded to multiple requests for comment on CGEP’s funding stream sent by DeSmog.

With 22 fellows and 19 faculty affiliates staffed at CGEP — with backgrounds ranging from Wall Street bank oil trading, a U.S.ambassador, an industry executive, industry consultants, etc. — one can probably safely bet that the $25,000 Exxon gave to the Center merely serves as pennies to the dollar in terms of overall industry bucks buttering CGEP’s bread. DeSmog will continue digging for answers.

Saudi Arabia’s warplanes are targeting the Southern parts of the kingdom with cluster bombs in a bid to stop the Yemeni army and popular forces’ continued and rapid advance deep into their territories.

On Monday November 30, the Chinese currency – the yuan – will join the dollar, euro, pound and yen as the world’s official reserve currencies, as recommended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Are we reaching the fabled new era of multipolarity, and will it bring stability to a chaotic world economy – “a win-win result for China and the world,” as the People’s Bank of China claims? Or instead, will this heraldthe amplification of extreme uneven development, worsening financial crises, and the abuse of Chinese economic surpluses, yet again, for the purpose of bailing out the corrupt, fragile world financial institutions and their elites?

In that optimistic People’s Bank statement, I take the name “China” to mean the neoliberal clique at the helm of Beijing’s economic management and Shanghai’s financial institutions, and the “world” to mean a very shaky capitalist system suffering periodic spasms in its hyper-speculative financial centers.

Since Wall Street’s crash of 1987, these centres have enjoyed Washington backstops (the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury) that have themselves been the lucky beneficiary of Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasury Bills. Reaching the sum of $1.3-trillion in late 2013, that process has finally reversed, with about $100-billion in net T-Bill sales by China since then. But Beijing still holds about a third of its total foreign reserves in these investments, representing more than a fifth of all foreign U.S. T-Bill holdings. In turn, the $6-trillion in U.S. T-Bills is about a third of total U.S. foreign indebtedness.

China is joined at the hip with Washington’s maniacal, money-printing Fed and Treasury. Its elites need U.S. borrowing power to translate to U.S. consuming power to translate to Chinese exports; that relationship appears too important to jettison.

China’s Homegrown Economic Problems

Moreover, Beijing is mindful of homegrown economic problems, including its own vast overindebtedness, the secondary cities’ real estate meltdown and the $3.5-trillion collapse of the main stock markets mid-year. If London bankers are correct, then as the IMF welcomes the yuan to world-bourgeois respectability, an additional $1-trillion of global reserves could move into Chinese financial assets. That inflow would negate Beijing’s August 2015 two per cent currency devaluation and make the whole system more balanced at surface level (since there is currently so little yuan trade outside Hong Kong), yet far more chaotic underneath as a result of international contagion from a future Chinese debt crisis or from world finance meltdowns finally affecting China. Meantime, China will probably bolster the IMF’s own loan-pushing in its new self-interested currency partnership.

Is there an alternative strategy: an opting-out of the financial death grip between China and the West? And for the other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), is there a way to support the Bank of the South founded by Hugo Chavez (which without Brazil’s support appears stillborn), or to default on ‘Odious Debt’ (as did Ecuador in 2009), or to impose tough exchange controls (as did Malaysia to halt capital flight in 1998), or to insist that state regulators get control of local financiers rather than the other way around?

Aside from Russia (facing partial Western financial sanctions), the answer is no, thanks to the BRICS’ neoliberal decision-making officials now in power. To illustrate, at its founding, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) was designed so the IMF gets ever stronger, the more quickly and desperately BRICS borrowers need a bail-out loan. The CRA articles of agreement compel the borrower to visit Washington for an IMF structural adjustment loan after drawing down just 30 per cent of their quota in the supposedly ‘alternative’ institutions.

China, USA and Global Financial Institutions

Just after the BRICS CRA became operational in late September, Barack Obama’s statement during Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s visit confirmed the game in play: “China has a strong stake in the maintenance and further strengthening and modernization of global financial institutions, and the United States welcomes China’s growing contributions to financing development and infrastructure in Asia and beyond.”

To be sure, Obama was outmanoeuvred on this front earlier in the year – when Beijing’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank received European and Bretton Woods Institutions’ support against his wishes – and so in appeasement mode, he told his guest, “The United States commits to implement the 2010 IMF quota and governance reforms as soon as possible and reaffirms that the distribution of quotas should continue to shift toward dynamic emerging markets and developing countries.”

He may break that promise, because Republican members of the U.S. Congress have for five years blocked the quota voting reform, due to their worry about declining power at the IMF, even with minimal shrinkage (from 17% to 16.5% of voting shares). It’s a typical silly rightwing-populist ruse, for Obama has protected the U.S. veto by not letting his delegate’s voting quota fall below 15 per cent.

The argument for IMF vote rejigging comes mainly from the countries that gain votes once the 2010 deal is implemented: China +37%, Brazil +23%, India +11%, and Russia +8%. (South Africa loses out, as Pretoria’s share would fall 21% under the 2010 terms.)

Which countries, then, lose the most IMF voting power if the 2010 deal is implemented? Amongst them are these Southern countries: Nigeria -41%, Venezuela -41%, Sri Lanka -34%, Uruguay -32%, Argentina -31%, Jamaica -31%, Morocco -27%, Gabon -26%, Algeria -26%, Bolivia -26% and Namibia -26%. So much for the BRICS’ South-South solidarity.

In return, said Obama, “The United States supports China’s presidency of the G-20 in 2016.” After all, Beijing will also “promote international trade and investment as engines of global growth,” even if left out of Obama’s trade deals.

Engine of Global Crisis

In reality, China stands poised to be the engine of global crisis. Though he is not always trustworthy, the Ronald Reagan regime’s former Budget Director and subsequent Wall Street financier, David Stockman, is scathing about China’s governing elites: “In the process of taking its debt from $2-trillion in the year 2000 to $28-trillion at present, in fact, China has erected an endless string of uneconomic public facilities and industrial white elephants that boggle the mind. For instance, it has 1.1 billion tons of steel capacity: 400-500 million tons more than its domestic economy will ever be able to use on a sustained, sell-through basis.”

Here in South Africa, the steel industry is an obvious victim of Chinese overcapacity, with the recent closure of the second biggest firm, Evraz Highveld (owned by a Russian tycoon) and the shuttering of many foundries belong to the world’s largest, Arcelor Mittal (owned by an Indian tycoon). The 10 per cent tariff protection offered the two by the Trade and Industry Minister (a Communist Party member, Rob Davies) is simply a flimsy bandage: much needed for flesh-wounds but not much use against China’s fatal overproduction malady.

For this reason, the world’s most frivolous investors, notorious for fad acronyms and investor-churning, have just abandoned the BRICS: Goldman Sachs. On November 8, the bank that brought the world to the edge of the financial cliff after gaming U.S. home mortgages and other ‘toxics’, closed its main BRIC (i.e. minus South Africa) investment fund. That fund’s peak valuation of $842-million in 2010 was reduced by 88% in value to $98-million this month. Over the same period, $15-billion was withdrawn from the four economies by Goldman Sachs and other frightened investors.

In this chaotic context, the IMF’s assimilation of the yuan helps prepare world financial markets for the next version of bailouts, perhaps similar to the 2008-13 Federal Reserve ‘Quantitative Easing’ and 2009-style IMF Special Drawing Rights pump-priming. If in coming months recessionary winds howl, as expected, it appears the BRICS and especially China will blow even harder to keep the West’s financial house of cards standing.

They shouldn’t, but the power balance within the BRICS today seems to dictate a sub-imperialist stance in relation to global finance, instead of an anti-imperialist one. To illustrate, the two men the Pretoria regime just deployed to co-direct the BRICS New Development Bank go to Shanghai from high-paid jobs at, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs-Johannesburg: Leslie Maasdorp and Tito Mboweni.

To change that power balance here in South Africa, much more pressure is needed from below:

• more student victories so as to redistribute the fiscus to where it is needed, probably at next February’s Budget Speech;
• more demonstrations at SA Reserve Bank branches to lower interest rates (as implied by the leftist students’ anti-debt protest in Pretoria and the Economic Freedom Fighters’ 50,000-strong march in Johannesburg, both on October 27);
• renewed metalworker trade union demands for exchange controls (since the limit on annual expatriation was loosened from $275,000 to nearly $700,000 this year to the applause of rich whites); and
• an intensification of society’s critique of bankers’ exploitation (coming from ordinary citizens who are filing successful lawsuits against salary-garnishee and debit order abuses).

Those, at least, are hopeful signs that while China shifts the deck-chairs on the world financial Titanic and while the BRICS sink fastest into the whirlpool, a few life-preservers are being readied for the rest of us on the lower decks here in South Africa.

Internationally, other life-rafts are being pumped up or hopefully can be quickly reinflated: European struggles against austerity, the Occupy movement and its various residues, debt cancellation advocacy and the Third World’s thousands of ‘IMF Riots’ over the last third of a century. Sure, that kind of counter-power has repeatedly risen and then rapidly shrivelled during the neoliberal era’s contestations against corporate and banking elites.

So in your neck of the woods? What preparations are activists and progressive strategists making for the next 2008-type financial melt? •

Patrick Bond teaches political economy at the Wits University School of Governance in Johannesburg. He also directs the UKZN Centre for Civil Society. His book BRICS: An Anti-Capitalist Critique (co-edited with Ana Garcia) will be published in July by Pluto (London), Haymarket (Chicago), Jacana (Joburg) and Aakar (Delhi). This article appeared originally at CounterPunch.org.

“Was there a link to terror?” 

That’s the question Americans are asking themselves the morning after a husband and wife opened fire with assault rifles killing 14 and wounding 21 at a San Bernardino County employee holiday party. 

The shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, left their young child with Farook’s mother in nearby Redlands on Wednesday morning before dressing in “assault clothing,” and crashing the party (literally). A subsequent shootout with authorities left both suspects dead. The couple used a DPMS model and a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 along with two handguns, a llama and a Smith & Wesson. The rifles, two .223s, are capable of piercing bulletproof vests. The weapons were purchased legally.

Here’s what we know about Farook and Malik so far.

Farook, whose family was originally from Pakistan, was born in America and was employed as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County. He did what health specialists do: inspect restaurants and other facilities for health violations.

Reuters was able to obtain some on-the-ground intelligence from a SusAnn Chapman, who’s described as “a cashier and waitress at China Doll Fast Food.” Apparently, Farook inspected the China Doll earlier this year. “He was real quiet,” Chapman said. “He checked the food and said he was here because somebody complained. … He looked completely normal.”

Ok, not helpful.

However, some clues as to what might (and we emphasize “might”) be going on here emerge when we take a closer look at Malik. According to Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who, like SusAnn, spoke to Reuters, Malik “was believed to be from Pakistan and had lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States.” 

“Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia earlier this year and returned with a wife,” AP reports, citing co-worker Patrick Baccari, who said Farook “was gone for about a month in the spring, and when he returned word got around [he’d] had been married.” His new wife was described as “a pharmacist.”

Now clearly there are no smoking guns there, but it’s worth noting that when it comes to radicalization, no one does it quite like the Saudis. But as we read further, AP uncovers the smoking gun: “Several months ago Farook grew out his beard.” There you go – excessive beard action. The terrorist hallmark.

All sarcasm aside, AP goes on to say that according to coworkers, Farook was “a devout Muslim,” and according to a profile posted on the dating site iMilap, Farook enjoyed “reading religious books and target practice with younger sister and friends.”

A separate profile on Dubai matrimonial.com (which describes itself as the “first and only legal marriage service provider in the UAE), shows Farook identifying himself as a Sunni:

Although we would urge caution when it comes to drawing conclusions around the sectarian divide, we’d be remiss if we didn’t note that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other groups the public generally identifies with extremism, are Sunni. Saudi Arabia (where Farook allegedly found his wife) promotes puritanical Wahhabism.

In the wake of the tragedy, Muzammil Siddiqi, religious director of The Islamic Society of Orange County, reminded Americans that Islam is not synonymous with terror: “Please do not implicate Islam or Muslims. Our faith is against this kind of behaviour.”

Here’s Patrick Baccari’s (quoted above) account of the shooting, again, via AP:

 Baccari, who was sitting at the same table as Farook, said employees at the holiday party were taking a break before snapping group photos when Farook suddenly disappeared, leaving a jacket draped over his chair. Baccari stepped out to the bathroom when he heard explosions.

“I’m getting pelted by shrapnel coming through the walls,” he said. “We hit the ground.”

The shooting lasted about five minutes, he said, and when he looked in the mirror he realized he was bleeding. He was hit by fragments in the body, face and arms.

“If I hadn’t been in the bathroom, I’d probably be laying dead on the floor,” he said.

Clearly, quite a bit hinges on whether or not this gets tied to radical Islam. If authorities “prove” (or create) a link to extremists, the backlash against Syrian immigrants and against American Muslims more generally, will only grow.

Additionally, public support for American boots on Syrian ground will rise as any link to terrorist ideology will invariably be trotted out as “proof” that “lone wolf” or not, attacks have now crossed the pond to reach American soil.

Of course at the end of the day, two people opening fire with assault rifles on a holiday party seems pretty “terrifying” to us regardless of what inspired the shooters, but remember, crises like these are only “useful” in today’s world if they serve someone’s geopolitical ends so don’t be surprised if the mainstream media soon turns up the San Bernardino equivalent of the forged Syrian passport found in Paris three weeks ago.

It should go without saying that the internal political processes of a sovereign country belongs to the people of that country, and no-one else. Nevertheless, as Washington insists on a prerogative to determine who can or cannot lead another country, some background on Bashar al Assad and the political reform process in Syria might be useful.

We find little reasonable discussion of either, in western circles, after the Islamist insurrection of 2011. Instead, the wartime discussion descended into caricatures, conditioned by ‘regime-change’ fervour and bloody war, of a bloodthirsty ‘brutal dictator’ mindlessly repressing and slaughtering his own people. None of this helps sensible or principled understandings. Fortunately, there are a range of Syrian and independent sources that allow us to put together a more realistic picture. If we believed most western media reports we would think President Assad had launched repeated and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, including the gassing of children.

We might also think he heads an ‘Alawi regime’, where a 12% minority represses a Sunni Muslim majority, crushing a popular ‘revolution’ which, only in later years, was ‘hijacked’ by extremists. A key problem with that story is the President’s great popularity at home. The fact that there has been popular dissatisfaction with corruption and cronyism, fear of the secret police, and that an authoritarian state maintains a type of personality cult, does not negate the man’s genuine popularity. Even most of his enemies admit that. We have to look a bit deeper.

A mild mannered eye doctor, with part of his training in Britain, Bashar al Assad was effectively conscripted to the Presidency by the Ba’ath Party after the death of his father Hafez, in 2000. He was expected on the one hand to maintain his father’s pluralist and nationalist legacy, yet on the other hand develop important elements of political and economic reform. President Hafez al Assad had brought three decades of internal stability to Syria, after the turmoil of the 1960s. This allowed important social advances.

Social divisions were smoothed through strong pressures to identify as Syrian, without regard for religion or community. There were substantial improvements in education and health, including universal vaccination and improved literacy for women. Between 1970 and 2010 infant mortality fell from 132 to 14 (per 1,000), while maternal mortality fell from 482 to 45 (per 100,000). These were particularly good outcomes for a country with very modest levels of GDP per capita (Sen, Al-Faisal and Al-Saleh 2012: 196). Electricity supply to rural areas rose from 2% in 1963 to 95% in 1992 (Hinnebusch 2012: 2). Traditions of social pluralism combined with advances in education drove the human development of the country well ahead of many of the more wealthy states in the region.

Nevertheless, while the system built by Hafez al Assad was socially inclusive it also remained an authoritarian one-party system, conditioned by war with Israel and periodic violent insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood. US intelligence observed that the crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood’s insurrections in the early 1980s was welcomed by most Syrians (DIA 1982, vii). Yet, after that, criticism of the government was viewed with great suspicion. Sectarian groups were banned, as was the acceptance of foreign funds for political purposes. In that climate some opposition figures said that Syrians felt helpless, and ‘did not know how to … take initiative or discuss and develop their ideas’ (Wikas 2007: 6). The feared secret police (mukhabarat) were ever vigilant for Zionist spies and new Muslim Brotherhood conspiracies, but this meant they also harassed a wider range of government critics (Seale 1988: 335). From the secular opposition side, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was unhappy with the failed compromise left by Hafez al Assad, by which the constitution required that the President be a Muslim (al Akhbar, 22 Feb 2012). On top of this, there was resentment at the corruption built on cronyism through Ba’ath Party networks. Bashar faced all this when he came to the top job.

This chapter reviews the political reform movement, from the time Bashar al Assad became President until the Islamist insurrection of 2011. It then examines the best evidence on the extent of domestic support for the President.

5.1 The reform movement

At the start of the millennium, Bashar al Assad was the official candidate for reform, but there was also a fairly large if fragmented anti-Ba’ath Party political opposition. Many saw the chance of reform through the youthful new President while others, particularly the banned Muslim Brotherhood, wanted to dismantle the secular state, establishing some sort of theocracy. Yet the simple fact of a change of leadership to a youthful and western educated man gave rise to the idea of a ‘Damascus Spring’, in the year 2000. Bashar was widely seen as an agent of reform, but his rise was meteoric and quite dependent on the networks of the ruling Ba’ath Party which had recruited him. There were no dramatic political reforms, despite the widespread complaints of corruption (Otrakji 2012). However his socio-economic reforms involved giving new impetus to mass education and citizenship, with a controlled economic liberalisation which opened up new markets, yet without the privatisations that had swept Eastern Europe.

He released several thousand political prisoners, mainly Islamists and their sympathisers (Landis and Pace 2007: 47). He probably had little room for political reform in the early years as he did not have an organised constituency outside the Ba’ath Party. Perhaps in part to compensate for this he built links with businessmen and initiated several government sponsored NGOs amongst youth, students, other ‘civil society’ sectors and rural workers. These groups included the Syrian Trust for Development and the Fund for Integrated Rural Development of Syria (FIRDOS). First Lady Asma al Assad played a prominent role in some of these groups, particularly those to do with youth and children. They attracted some international partners, including the UNDP and UNICEF (Kawakibi 2013). One US analyst says the Damascus Spring of 2000 saw a ‘flowering of expression, assembly and political action unknown since the 1950s’ (Wikas 2007: 4). Despite the market reforms, Syria maintained its virtually free health and education system. State universities also remain virtually free, to this day, with several hundred thousand enrolled students. That sort of mass education is critical, the foundation of social empowerment.

In this period a number of critical political discussion groups were established, including the Kawakibi forum, the Atassi Forum and the National Dialogue Forum. They began to issue statements of demand on the government, one of which had 1,000 signatories (Landis and Pace 2007: 47). However ‘state of emergency’ laws still applied and military intelligence saw conspirators in some of these groups, leading to arrests in what some called a ‘Damascus Winter’. Some of the prisoners were reported as tortured and killed (Ghadry 2005; Ulutas 2011: 89-90). Despite this, some relatively well informed US analysts say the ‘Damascus Spring’ left some ‘lasting if modest accomplishments’. There was no unified opposition, but for the first time in many years ‘individuals could vocalise critical views of the regime in public settings’. Some of the discussion groups survived for some years, including the Committee for the revival of Civil Society and the Attasi Forum for Democratic Dialogue (Landis and Pace 2007: 48-49).

However, with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Syria was caught between two powerful occupying armies, Israel and the USA, both hostile to the Syrian state. More than a million Iraqi refugees passed into Syria, to escape the carnage. Syria’s generosity with Iraqi refugees was met with US accusations that it was backing the Iraqi resistance, and sanctions were imposed. Yet it was Syria’s abrupt withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, after 30 years of occupation, and Lebanon’s subsequent ‘Cedar Revolution’, which helped sparked another period of opposition activity. Even though this Lebanese ‘revolution’ has been assessed with great scepticism (Narwani 2015), it did help initiate a show of extraordinary unity amongst Syrian opposition groups. The charter declaration from that time remains as quite a good indication of the principles on which all those diverse groups they were able to agree.

After the Damascus declaration a US report saw the ‘secular opposition’ as ‘all but powerless’, while suppression of the sectarian Islamists had ‘shaped the current government’s tactics and politics’(Wikas 2007: 12, 22). Nevertheless,Arab nationalism and regional solidarity remained strong and the young President remained popular, in the region as well as in Syria. In 2009 a six country poll which cited Israel and the USAas the greatest threats to the region (at 88% and 77% respectively) also put Bashar al Assad as the most popular Arab leader in the Middle East (MESI 2009). That regional view was to change, after the2011 outbreak of violence, as distinct from opinion within Syria.

With the rallies of February-March 2011 there was a further burst of political activity, mainly in the regional towns, not so much in Damascus and Aleppo (Ulutas 2011: 99-100). This time, however, things were different. Most of the domestic opposition groups, just as they had said in the 2005 declaration, did not support either armed attacks on the state or the involvementof foreign powers. Most remained in Syria and some, such as the Syrian Social National Party, rallied to the government. Others, while not supporting he government, backed the state and the army. Syria had seen sectarian Islamist violence before.

What became known in western circles as ‘the opposition’ were mostly exiles and the Islamists who had initiated the violence. The exile meetings began in Paris, Turkey and Brussels.A range of groups and individuals attended these initial meetings, but they were poorly coordinated, quickly came under foreign tutelage and the Muslim Brotherhood quickly ‘took a leading role’(Ulutas 2011: 91-94). Western reports of the Islamist leadership were often generous, as the Muslim Brotherhood was better organised and therefore the most likely partner in any big power ‘regime change’ operation.

Hassan Mneimneh, for the Washington-based ‘Brussels Forum’, noted the real fears inthe region of an ‘Islamist winter’, as the Arab Spring had handed the Islamists ‘an unexpected, maybe undeserved, victory’. Nevertheless, he goes on to exaggerate the support held by Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafist groups, claiming the Salafists appealed to ‘a sizeable fraction of the electorate’, while the Muslim Brotherhood could enjoy ‘a plurality or may even be a slim majority’(Mneimneh 2012: 1-4). This is neither consistent with Syria’sstrong pluralist history nor supported by regional polls. For example a 1984 poll amongst Palestinians showed that, even though almost half the population was very religious (praying five times a day), far more religious in that sense than Syria, the secular nationalist politics of the PLO had 90% support. This reflects badly on the Brotherhood strategy of attacking secularnationalist Palestinians before the occupying power.Israel, on the other hand, saw that ‘any success by the Brotherhood would be at the expense of the nationalists’, so ‘the Brotherhood is treated less harshly [by the Israelis] than the nationalists’(Shadid 1988: 663, 674-675, 679). Support for Islam should not be confused with support for sectarian Islamists.Asenior official in Damascus told me, in late 2013, that the Muslim Brotherhood had always been the largest and best organised opposition group in his country but that, at its best andwhen there was no violence, they might command a maximum of 15% support. That support would fall when the Brotherhood engaged in sectarian violence.

The armed conflict in Syria could signal the start of WW3 if Berlin fails to coordinate its military operations with Russia in the long-troubled Arab country, a German MP warned on Thursday.

Sahra Wagenknecht, deputy chair of the German Die Linke (Left Party), criticized the government’s decision to send a military party to battle Islamic State terrorists in Syria.

In an interview with Die Welt she said that the decision, agreed upon in Vienna, was “sheer lunacy” that could precipitate a Third World War.

“Germany is entering a big war with a huge potential for an escalation… If in Syria we are also going to fight Russia, the conflict may degenerate into WW3,” Wagenknecht warned.

She also criticized NATO’s decision to grant membership to Montenegro, which she said would further antagonize Russia and exacerbate what is already a very bad situation in Syria.

William Perry served as Clinton’s defense secretary from 1994 – 1997, is currently the Nuclear Risk Reduction and Preventive Defense Project co-director.

In an interview with Sputnik News, Perry warned about reckless US policy.  Perry agrees in remarks delivered before a defense writers group, warning of a potentially disastrous new nuclear arms race, saying:

“We’re now at the precipice, maybe I should say the brink, of a new nuclear arms race. This arms race will be at least as expensive as the arms race we had during the Cold War, which is a lot of money.”

Washington intends spending $1 trillion over the next 30 years, upgrading its nuclear arsenal along with increasing US-led provocative actions near Russia’s borders – risking direct confrontation.

Nuclear war by design or accident is a risk too great to take. Perry said he “probably…would not have” highlighted the threat

“10 years ago – but today, we now face the kind of dangers of a nuclear event like we had during the Cold War, an accidental war. I see an imperative to stop this damn nuclear arms race from accelerating again.”

He stopped short of explaining it’s fuelled by Washington’s longstanding rage for regime change in Russia, as well as all other independent states.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

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

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

This is the text of the open letter of Angela Kerrigan published in Evening Times  

The British media has carefully twisted the meaning of Angela Kerrigan’s statement. 

Dear David Cameron,

This is my beautiful daughter, she is almost three-years-old. I’m sitting tonight watching you debate the prospect of bombing Syria. You claim that it is to protect every man woman and child in this country from extremist. I’d just like to correct you, you are an extremist. What she needs, is to be protected from you.

“The war on Iraq didnt stop the 7/7 bombings. It didnt stop the Glasgow Airport bombings. Why you think bombing Syria will stop Daesh is beyond me. Extremists are everywhere, your intelligence tells you this, yet you insist on concentrating you military action on one country. One country with hundreds of thousands of innocents. Innocent men, women and children, just like us!

“And as for you Jeremy Corbyn, you were voted in to lead your party, lead them away from the same catastrophic decisions they made about Iraq. But instead you have been upstaged by your very own shadow foreign secretary, who received a standing ovation for his war mongering. You have failed to lead your party.

“The French bombed Syria. They were attacked just weeks later. Going to war to prevent war is absolute lunacy! Dropping bombs on children just like mine below, from 34 thousand feet, offers us zero protection.

Britain has been on severe risk/ red alert since August. And yet the first time I have been scared is tonight. Watching you offer up hugely reactionary and extreme solutions to protect us from Daesh.

My heart tonight is with the parents and grandparents in Syria who are waiting to see if the actions of my country are going to destroy their lives, their homes, their existance. I want them to know, loud and clear, this war is in your name sir! Their blood will be on your hands. I cry for them.

What you have done is guarenteed that my daughter, Erin Rose, will grow up to see the new generation of extremists you will have created with your military action. Its history repeating itself. Its a never ending war.

“Not in her name!”

Britain has since carried out its first airstrikes in Syria, hours after MPs voted overwhelmingly to authorise military action.

Since the decision, Angela has posted: “And as the first bombs fall. I pray for the innocents who’s blood will be running in the streets.

“Syria, I’m so so sorry.”

Angela Kerrigan

Ever since the Russians began dropping real bombs on real ISIS targets in Syria, the United States and NATO have been forced to engage in a two-sided propaganda campaign that swears opposition to ISIS while simultaneously doing everything it can to facilitate and protect ISIS forces on the ground. It has also found itself in the bizarre position of trying to facilitate the death squad army while, at the same time, attempting to play catch-up to the Russians in at least the appearance of bombing ISIS.

Thus, when Russian forces truly hit at one of the sources of ISIS funding – the captured oil being shipped from Syria and Iraq to Turkey where it is purchased by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s son, Bilal – the United States must then engage in its own faux bombing campaign against ISIS oil trucks.

Yet, instead of actually bombing the trucks – drivers and all – and putting them out of commission permanently, the U.S. bombing campaign takes the form of a laughable formality that involves a 45-minute warning to the oil convoys that a U.S. bombing campaign is about to take place. The warning involves an airdrop of leaflets to the tankers that read “Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life.”

The justification is that the drivers of the tankers might be civilians and not actual ISIS members.

Of course, there is no mention of the fact that, in any other context, an individual who renders “material support to terrorists,” particularly in the form of driving tankers of stolen oil in a war zone that will be used to fund the terrorist organization would killed without question under that designation.

There is also no mention as to why these “potential civilians” received ample warning but true civilians receive no such courtesy. It is truly a pity that the U.S. did not drop leaflets to the million Iraqis it has killed over the last decade or the thousands of Libyans that died at the hands of NATO.

Still, one need only look at the numbers of destroyed oil tankers racked up by the U.S. in comparison to the Russians to see a distinct difference. The United States, according to Col. Steve Warren, has taken out only 116 tankers since the bombing campaign began while the Russians have eliminated over 1,000 in five days. Remember, until the Russians began bombing the oil tankers, the United States had yet to launch an attack on them.

Even more laughable was the response that came when the U.S. military was questioned as to why they were unable to destroy more trucks than they did after such a highly publicized strategy. According to Army Co. Steve Warren, the American jets simply “ran out of ammo” in the process. “The goal was to destroy every truck there. They ran out of ammunition before they were able to do that. But the desire was to destroy every single truck there,” he said.

Even with the new attempt to be seen as truly aimed at fighting ISIS in the eyes of the gullible American public, the U.S. has been forced to use videos and photographs from Russian bombings to purvey across the mainstream media due to the fact that American strikes on ISIS oil trucks are so rare.

The pathetic propaganda fail by the United States military now stands as yet one more example of how the United States is not at all interested in defeating ISIS but instead on defeating Assad, Iran, and the Russians.

Indeed, American foreign policy propaganda would be greeted as much needed comic relief if it were not so tragic and potentially dangerous to the rest of the world.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

“The Rally involving Yanis was immensely successful in moving the debate about austerity forward into a discussion about how we can not only oppose the attack on our welfare state, but as importantly, how we can create the society we need… a tremendous achievement.”  Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell

“Why is so little hope growing among so many riches?” Yanis Varoufakis [ pictured left]

It has been a depressing few weeks for the supporters of the British Labour Party’s new leader Jeremy Corbyn.  After seeing crowds attending meetings across the country to hear him speak and the roar that raised the roof when the election results were announced, it was down to dirty earth the day after.

The relentless criticisms from the Tories and the very right-wing mainstream media were expected.  Nothing Corbyn’s new team did was right.  It was pored over, picked over and pulled to pieces.  And any good news was ignored, such as…

Such as Labour wins in Council by-elections since Corbyn became leader.  For example, in Banbury, Oxfordshire they took a seat from the Tories with a 5.9% swing and 45% of the vote.  Not the kind of news that the media wants to publicise so they ignored it.

Just as, after the first rush of news, they ignored the sheer numbers behind Corbyn’s win.  Of a total of 422,664 votes cast, Corbyn received 251,417 or 59.5%.  An astonishing 16,000 people signed up as volunteers to help run Corbyn’s leadership campaign.  The latest poll, from the Times no less, shows that Corbyn’s leadership is backed by two thirds of party members, an increase on what he achieved in the election.

The Labour Party has benefited, seeing a surge in membership.  More people have joined the Party since the general election than there are in the entire Conservative party.  Wouldn’t you think that Labour MPs would be strutting around Parliament with new-found confidence?

Here is a new leader who can draw crowds and bring in new members; a new team putting forward policies that are backed by the public, even though the press and their polls say the majority of the public doesn’t understand what Corbyn’s policies are, possibly because they keep misrepresenting what he and his allies say.

There is a hum and a buzz in the air, a sense of a political watershed.  Yet the sniping, the vitriol, the plans by some fellow MPs to oust Corbyn, all faithfully reported by the media, comes from the Parliamentary Labour Party.  They do not support Corbyn and his team, and are eager to carp and criticise on the floor of the House of Commons.  How low can they sink?

As a body, the PLP simply does not connect with its party membership.  Members and supporters are invisible.  They should have no say in what Labour’s policies are.  Many Labour MPs remain wedded to the Westminster system based on power and entitlement.  They do not want change.

But the membership does.  As an antidote to the depressing plotting and biased reporting, one needs to attend an event centred on the ‘new politics’ and join in the political conversation.  Momentum, naturally labelled as a ‘hard left’ and therefore dangerous organisation, is organising various events.

There has been little mention of the Trade Unions, once the backbone of the Labour Party – also PLP invisible.  But the Trade Union Coordinating Group hosted a blinder of a Rally at Westminster Hall on November 21 – Build the Fight against Austerity.  Around 1400 people attended and the atmosphere was electric.  It is hard to describe what it is like to walk into a hall full of strangers knowing that each is a friend with the same hope, vision and aims as you – invigorating, life-affirming, energising – all these things.

And humour.  There was a lot of that and it was genuine, not the embarrassing jokes that David Cameron uses in Parliament; positive and forward looking humour; laughter among friends.  But mostly there was an undercurrent of knowledge that, if we get it right, this is a pivotal moment in this country’s political history.  If we get it right.

Among the first panel of four speakers was Ellen Clifford of Disabled People Against Cuts – an emotive presentation that got huge sympathy from the audience.  With disabled people driven to suicide by poverty, it is hard to grasp that the Tories have little sympathy for such people.  Have Cameron and Osborne ever thought “here but for the grace of God…”?

Dave Ward of the CWU gave a barnstorming speech and made two powerful pleas: that trade unions stopped defending their territories and unite in the fight against austerity (a hint here to some Labour MPs?) and for the Labour Party to create a Bill of Rights for workers, to combat the assault on Trade Unions by the Tories.

The heart of the event was the Q&A session with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and the Greek ex-Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis.  They didn’t disappoint.  McDonnell opened with a story about going to the then Justice Minister Jack Straw in 2007, to inform him the Prison Officers Union was calling its members out on strike.

“But that’s illegal!” protested Straw.

“Well, who’s going to lock them up then?” replied McDonnell.  He added, “There’s a tale in there somewhere!”  Indeed.

Because one question from the floor was from Yannis Gourtsoyannis, prompting Varoufakis’ comment “Oh my God, another Greek!”  Laughter erupted into cheers when it came out he was a junior doctor, one of the 98% who had voted for strike action because the government was trying to force them into accepting a deal that promised a pay rise that actually meant longer hours for less money, which would endanger the safety of their patients.

He asked how the junior doctors could maintain public support and deal with the unsupportive press.  McDonnell, tongue in cheek, suggested creating a ‘warm relationship’ with the right-wing, Tory-supporting Daily Mail.  He also said that during the last 7 weeks the media assault on Corbyn’s team had been “a disgrace to any civilised society.”

 On a more serious note, following a question about the Trade Union Bill and whether workers have the right to resist unjust laws, he pointed out that the Tories could not destroy the workers’ basic human rights.  “If we have to defy unjust legislation we not only have the right to do it, we have the duty.”

On finance, having outlined the reviews that Labour is now undertaking on the Treasury, banking and the finance sector, McDonnell said there was a need for financiers “to understand that we cannot tolerate a finance sector that is not contributing to the prosperity of the country overall.”

Another aim, based on the cuts to local council budgets meaning the closure of many local services, is to form a national movement to address local problems.  Currently local campaigns, good though they are, can be isolated.  The Local Councils campaign will be a national campaign, McDonnell promised.

Over to Varoufakis.  He has often claimed that we are not suffering ‘austerity’, a view which, to people suddenly finding that they are genuinely poor, seems wrong.  But his explanation makes sense.

All governments run deficits and debt; they borrow money on our behalf.   But it is government debt.  “George Osborne’s project of reducing the deficit,” said Varoufakis, “means that the people of Britain will be condemned to go deeper and deeper into the red.”  So, in Varoufakis’ analysis, what we are suffering from is not genuine austerity, but the government shifting the debt to our shoulders, increasing our insecurity.

“Why is so little hope growing among so many riches?” he asked, because this is a rich country.  Hope, he said, “requires the prospect of creative labour, the opportunity for people to unfold their talents.”  That means investment in infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and above all, people.  The money is there, an estimated £743 billion sitting idle in corporate accounts.  Listing the many areas where investment should take place he suggested that, while companies should be made to pay the full amount of tax, they could be given tax breaks on the money they invest.

Suffering ‘austerity’ makes it difficult to imagine a better future, and that creates depression and despair.  How do we build the hope, so evident at this event, out in the wider world?   Unity among Trade Unions, a Workers’ Rights Bill to combat the Tory assault on workers, a sound financial plan involving a Public Investment Bank and genuine investment to combat the so-called ‘necessary’ austerity programme, bringing local community campaigns into a national campaign – we need all this, just as we need unity within the Parliamentary Labour Party.

But the hope, the energy and inspiration, the pressure to change things for the better, that has to come from us, the people.  What everyone felt at the Rally has to be shared among friends, neighbours, groups, strangers on buses, trains and in supermarket till queues.  It is too good not to be shared and then acted upon.

Videos of Yanis Varoufakis explaining his investment plan, and of the Q&A session, can be found here.

The Palestinian Health Ministry has confirmed that the Tel HaShomer Israeli Hospital sent them a bill, demanding the Palestinians to pay the expenses of the treatment of Ahmad Dawabsha, the only survivor of his family after Israeli terrorists firebombed their home five months ago, killing his mother, father and his 18-month-old brother.

The Ministry denied statements by the head of the Israeli “Civil Administration Office” in the occupied West Bank, Yuav Mordechai, who claimed that Israel would be paying all the medical expenses.

On October 25, the Tal HaShomer Hospital Administration demanded the Palestinian Health Ministry pay the expenses, which initially amounted to 259.643 New Israeli Shekels (NIS), in addition to the costs of a special mask for the child; the Palestinian Authority paid for the mask.

On October 6, the hospital demanded a payment of 216.754 NIS, for the treatment costs of the child’s mother, Reham Dawabsha, who died on August 7, due to severe burns covering 90% of her body.

The Health Ministry said that it is ready to provide medical treatment to Ahmad, in the best hospitals in the world, and that it is closely following his treatment, based on direct orders from President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Dr. Rami Hamdallah.

The surviving child has undergone many surgeries, and is still receiving treatment, always accompanied by his grandfather, and is reportedly starting to remember the horrific night, while constantly asking about his mother and father, and “why haven’t they come to see him yet.”

Ahmad still needs extensive treatment and rehabilitation from his burns, and the trauma he suffered as a result of the terrorist attack.

The attack fatally burnt his baby brother, Ali Dawabsha, 18 months of age, http://www.imemc.org/article/72444, while his father, Sa’ad Dawabsha, http://www.imemc.org/article/72565, and his mother, Reham Dawabsha, http://www.imemc.org/article/72935, died of severe burns in Israeli hospitals.

Palestinians have still been waiting for action to be taken against the individuals responsible for the attack. A number of Jewish extremists were detained, but, nearly all of them were later released and none were convicted.

Israeli news site Ynet, on Sunday, reported that Israel had made a breakthrough in “one of the most serious acts of Jewish terrorism to take place in recent years,” but the details remained under gag order and the site could not confirm that it was referring to the Douma attack.

Notes:

http://www.imemc.org/article/74076

Since the Paris attack of 13 November 2015, which killed 130 people and injured hundreds of others, the headlines of the various news outlets and social media have been keeping analysts and experts busy examining this murderous act ─ and its future ramifications not only for France and Europe but also the entire world. The attack came days after another (suicide) attack was carried out that  targeted a southern suburb of Beirut, killing forty innocent civilians. A few days earlier, a Russian air plane had been downed, taking the lives of more than 200 people. All these attacks were carried out by ISIS which straightforwardly has claimed responsibility.

Ever since the atrocities, the focus has been on mainly, if not only, the Paris attacks and on aspects of minor relevance such as the portraits of the individual perpetrators, their past and upbringing, their affiliation with ISIS, and how they managed to plan and carry out the attacks. Even though the investigation of this security-related information is crucial, more important questions related to the larger context of the relationship between the West and the Middle East need to be tackled courageously and now.

Of course, 13 November 2015 will be added to 11 September 2001 in the calendar listing murderous attacks of Islamist zealots against American and European targets. The implication here is that the world is sailing into, even being steered towards an episode similar to the one that followed 11 September, which failed to produce security and stability– not for western capitals, nor for the Middle East. This new episode of the war on terror is equally unlikely to succeed as long as western powers persist in placing their domestic security above stability and security in the Middle East. Achieving durable security and stability in the western capitals such as Paris and London, adamantly necessitates achieving security and stability in Arab capitals such as Baghdad, Damascus, Sana’a, and Jerusalem.

Since 9/11 and the ensuing “war against al-Qaeda terror,” neither peace nor democracy was brought to the Middle East. Instead, al-Qaeda has been replaced by another, notoriously militant group called ISIS. Both al-Qaeda and ISIS are made up of heirs of the militant Islamists who were supported by western countries in the 1980s, during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Back then, they were called mujahedeen, and were offered funds and weapons to fight on behalf of the United States and its allies. In those days, these Jihadi groups, a name that carries negative connotations now, were perceived as “the good guys” since they served the western objective of fighting communism. As unveiled in the Washington Post, “In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum.” In sum, ISIS is an extension of the groups that the United States has perceived in the past as fighters against tyranny.

The instrumental role of these Islamist groups in the US strategy at the time was summed up by the former chief of the CIA, Robert Gates in his memoirs “From the Shadows”, when he admitted that  American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention, knowing that such aid will induce a Soviet military intervention. This approach was a continuation of the strategy adopted, at least since the 1950s, a strategy that perceived hard-core Islamists as allies because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and opposed to nationalist leaders such as Nasser in Egypt and Mohammed Mosaddak in Iran.

There is no question that the horrible attack against the French capital is a heinous act of terror which reveals moral and political darkness that should not be tolerated. In order for the French (and the West in general) to truly succeed in fighting terror domestically and abroad, a different and more profound approach must be developed towards the Middle East that acknowledges and considers the following issues:

First, the investigation of the reasons for the attacks against the French capital can be better served by linking them to recent developments, of the last century or so, than by linking them to Islam which is 1400 years old. The former allows for the explanation of the shortsightedness of the Western approach towards the Middle East and the identification of the root causes of the animosity between the peoples that live on the two banks of the Mediterranean, whereas the latter allows only for the perpetuation of a self-produced narrative about the different Other that produces neither mutual understanding or respect, nor security, a mutual sense and assurance of security.

Second, the Paris attacks should be understood as a byproduct of the collapse of the old order in the Middle East ,which was brought about by the colonial West (France and United Kingdom) in 1916 with the Sykes–Picot Agreement. The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of future British and French control. In the context of colonial rivalry, the Arab world was divided by creating individual “states” in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, not to forget the Jewish state in Palestine. A hundred years later, that order has collapsed and the peoples of the area are engaged in internal strife and civil wars that have disintegrated and fragmented “their” states, allowing for Islamists such as ISIS to emerge as unbeatable domestic power brokers to fill the void by writing a new chapter in the region’s history

Third, in order for France – and the West in general – to succeed in combating terror, one unified yardstick must be employed that values and cherishes all human lives equally, regardless of religion and ethnic affiliation. This implies that terror is ugly not only when it reaches Paris, London, and New York but also when it takes the lives of ninety-seven people in the Turkish capital on 10 October 2015, and forty people in a southern suburb of Beirut on 12 November 2015, and over one hundred people in Palestine killed by the Israeli colonial settlers and their protective army over the month of October 2015. State-sponsored terror by the US and UK, under Bush and Blair in particular, that took lives, injured and displaced millions in Iraq and Afghanistan is as ugly and vicious as the Paris attacks.

Finally, in order to better serve the great principles of the French revolution Liberté, égalité, fraternité that stand for France and reflect its ideals, the plight of the Palestinians should be ended. To this end, the comment made by the Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström regarding the Paris attacks is important and could be a sound beginning for a guiding strategy. In that comment she said “Obviously, we have reason to be worried … across the world — because there are so many that are being radicalized. Here, once again, we are brought back to situations like the one in the Middle East, where not least, the Palestinians see that there is not a future. [The Palestinians] must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”

Unless the above four issues are acknowledged, encountering Jihadists through racism is a lost battle.

Basem Ezbidi holds a PhD in political theory from the University of Cincinnati in the United States. Currently, teaches at Qatar university. He has written on aspects related to Palestine, the West and the Moslem World, Hamas, state-building, democratization, political reform, corruption, and development.

Russia’s defense ministry accused Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan [pictured left with US President Barack Obama] and his family of directly and personally benefiting from illegal oil smuggled through Islamic State-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq — and Russia has pictures that appear to prove it.

At a rare briefing that was open to the press in Moscow, defense ministry officials displayed satellite images it claims show the “vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon” that Russian President Vladimir Putin described to French President François Hollande in a meeting on Friday, as reported by Zero Hedge. “The views resemble a living oil pipe stretched from ISIS and rebel-controlled areas of Syria into Turkey.” Putin expounded on the scenes Russian pilots had observed in surveillance sorties:

“Day and night they are going to Turkey. Trucks always go there loaded, and back from there — empty. We are talking about a commercial-scale supply of oil from the occupied Syrian territories seized by terrorists. It is from these areas [that oil comes from], and not with any others. And we can see it from the air, where these vehicles are going.”

He added that Russia “assume[s] that the top political leadership of Turkey might not know anything about this [illegal oil trade]. Hard to believe, but it is theoretically possible.”

Putin has accused Turkey of downing a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border to protect its own oil supply line. He stated Monday:

“We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil’s delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers.”

Though Russian officials did not specify what evidence they might have of the Erdoğan family’s direct involvement in this illicit oil trade, other news sources have come forward in recent times to implicate his son, Bilal Erdoğan, who heads BMZ Group Denizcilik, a maritime shipping company that primarily transports oil. According to Zero Hedge:

“The son of Erdoğan, it seems, is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.

“Bilal Erdoğan owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdoğan’s maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS’ smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.”

Pres. Erdoğan has repeatedly, vehemently denied any entanglement in the illicit ISIS oil business — even going as far as promising to tender his resignation should verifiable evidence surface:

“We are not that dishonest as to buy oil from terrorists. If it is proven that we have, in fact, done so, I will leave office. If there is any evidence, let them present it, we’ll consider [it].”

Russia’s defense ministry has answered this challenge by presenting their evidence which can be viewed in the video and images below:

Though Erdoğan seemingly proffered this offer without any sense of irony, the global community collectively wondered if, as Zero Hedge put it, “the man who just finished starting a civil war just so he could regain a few lost seats in Parliament and who would just as soon throw you in jail as look at you if he thinks you might be a threat to his government,” could ever stick to such a promise.

“Nobody has the right to slander Turkey by saying Turkey is buying Daesh [ISIS, Islamic State] oil,” Erdoğan asserted Wednesday from a university in Qatar’s capital, Doha.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov retorted:

“Turkey is the main consumer of the oil stolen from its rightful owners, Syria and Iraq. According to information we’ve received, the senior political leadership of the country — President Erdoğan and his family — are involved in the criminal business. Maybe I’m being too blunt, but one can only entrust control over this thieving business to one’s closest associates.

“They have invaded the territory of another country and are brazenly plundering it.

“In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president’s son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvelous family business!”

One notable omission by mainstream media in the U.S., concerning escalating tensions between Turkey and Russia, is a potentially explosive claim by opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) that Bilal Erdoğan’s company’s ships have stopped in ports in both Syria and Russia, transporting unknown commercial merchandise and food. Dr. Sezin Tanrikulu of the CHP explained the allegation in the Turkish daily newspaper, Cumhuriyet, whose chief editors were recently arrested and charged with espionage for reporting ostensible evidence about Turkey’s entanglement in the ISIS oil business:

“It was reported by the press that the ship G. Inebolu, belonging to Manta Denizcilik [BMZ Group], in which Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s son is a partner, left the Russian port of Novorossiysk on April 3rd 2014, arrived in Istanbul on April 10 and on the same day traveled through the Aegean and Mediterranean and cast anchor in the Syrian port of Tartus, which is under the control of Esad [Assad].”

Tanrikulu goes on to ask what those goods might be, should those shipments be proven true — and more importantly, if a conflict exists with Erdoğan’s own son being involved in trade with Syria and Russia in this way.

What is perhaps most pertinent — and also most representative of the complexities rife in the Middle East imbroglio — is the extent to which Erdoğan knows about his son’s dealings, and precisely what those dealings might be. Wouldn’t such commerce with Syria’s Assad regime and Russia’s Putin administration directly contradict NATO’s support of member state, Turkey?

After accusations had been cast between the two increasingly belligerent States in late November, Iraq had finally had enough, and on Wednesday, demanded a U.N. Security Council investigation of the “criminals” smuggling ISIS oil.

“We don’t believe the Americans support Daesh,” said spokesperson for Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, Naseer Nouri.

“But it is true that most people are saying they do, and they are right to believe that the Americans should be doing more than they are. It’s because America is so slow that most people believe they are supporting Daesh.”

The population of the United States and the world watched in horror as news of another mass shooting emerged Wednesday afternoon. A total of 14 people are confirmed dead and 21 injured in the massacre at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. When one includes the families and friends of the dead and injured, who will be permanently scarred by the tragedy, the victims number in the thousands.

As of this writing, it is not clear what precisely motivated the two shooters, Syed Farook, 28, and his wife Tashfeed Malik, 27. Farook, who was born in the United States, worked as an environmental inspector at the center, which provides services for people with disabilities. He reportedly got into an argument while attending a holiday party at the facility, left, and returned, heavily armed, with his wife. Both were killed yesterday evening following a car chase and a shootout with the police.

The killings were evidently planned in advance, as the pair were armed with two assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns, dressed in masks, and wearing body armor and cameras. They also reportedly brought explosives that were not detonated. After the shootout, police found 1,600 rounds of ammunition in their SUV, with thousands more rounds discovered at their house in Redlands.

On Thursday afternoon, FBI officials announced they were treating the massacre as a terrorism case, citing the extensive preparations for the crime, a previous communication with an individual being monitored by the state, and the travels of Farook to Saudi Arabia, where he met his wife in 2014.

If it does turn out that Farook and Malik were influenced at least in part by Islamic fundamentalism, it is significant that the ties are to Saudi Arabia, Washington’s principal Arab ally in the Middle East and the source of much of the financing and support for what the US claims to be fighting in the “war on terror.” However, such connections at this point remain speculative.

Whether or not the perpetrators were tied to Islamist political organizations, the mass killing in San Bernardino is hardly an isolated episode. Explanations based on terrorist sympathies are not required and are, in fact, an evasion to avoid examining the social roots of the repeated manifestations of homicidal violence in the United States.

So far this year, there have been at least 353 mass shootings in the United States, with at least 461 dead and 1,309 injured. Wednesday’s massacre is the deadliest mass killing since Sandy Hook Elementary School, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six staff members.

In virtually every case, the victims are mowed down indiscriminately. The killers are not striking out at any particular individual. Their actions express extreme alienation from other people and indifference to human life—the lives of others as well as their own. In the San Bernardino tragedy, the two perpetrators had a six-month-old baby, whom they reportedly left with relatives the morning of the killings.

There is a particular horror in the targeting of a facility dedicated to providing aid for the disabled.

Whatever the specific individual motives for each such act, their frequency demands a deeper explanation. The answer is to be found not in individual, but in social pathology. While only an infinitesimal minority of people commit such crimes, those who do are taking to an extreme dysfunctional and diseased tendencies in American society as whole.

From the political establishment and media, no explanation is forthcoming. The Obama administration responded with its standard platitudes. In a statement Thursday, President Obama acknowledged the “prevalence of these types of mass shootings in this country.”

He added that it was not yet known whether the attack was “workplace-related” or “terrorist-related,” and repeated his call to limit access to guns. “When individuals decide they want to do somebody harm [we need] to make it a little harder for them to do it,” he said. While the prevalence of guns may explain how the killers got access to the weapons they used, it says nothing about the origins of the crime.

What is most notable about the endless media commentary that follows each mass killing is the failure to relate these crimes to specific circumstances in American society. This is because such events are a damning indictment of the state of American capitalism and its products—endless war abroad and deep social crisis within the United States.

The US has been in a state of perpetual war unprecedented in American history—going back a quarter century to the first Gulf War in 1990-1991. Someone like Farook, born in 1987, has grown up under conditions of non-stop war. For 15 years, war has been carried out under the banner of the “war on terror,” which has been used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, the bombing of Libya in 2011 and the escalating war in Syria and Iraq today. The toll in human life from these wars is well over a million, with millions more turned into refugees, their lives destroyed.

On a daily basis, the US military is engaged in bombings, drone strikes and “targeted assassinations.” The “war on terror” has been used to justify torture, concentration camps, the horror of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration has gone further than any other government in routinizing state-sponsored murder and devaluing human life. The political establishment and the media in the US would have the American people believe that endless violence and killing internationally have no domestic consequences.

The state of perpetual war seeps into every aspect of social life in the United States. The “war on terror” has been accompanied by a continual whipping up of an atmosphere of fear and repression at home. Violence abroad is increasingly brought back into daily life in America.

The police are armed to the teeth with military weaponry and carry out killings at a rate of more than 1,000 people a year. On the same day as the San Bernardino killing, video was released showing police in San Francisco, California claiming another victim. This follows the release of video of the blatant police murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in Chicago last year.

State violence for plunder and repression intersects with the immense social crisis. It is notable that San Bernardino is known as the “Detroit of California.” In the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, the city has been plunged into bankruptcy, mass unemployment and poverty. These conditions are mirrored in different forms throughout the country.

There is an acute level of social alienation that is felt by millions of people, with, at present, no progressive outlet. There are countless grievances that find no redress. Political life in the United States is deeply toxic, with the most backward and malignant conceptions fostered by the establishment and promoted by the media. In this confused environment, people snap and do monstrous things. With no mechanism for the legitimate expression of social and personal grievances, they take instead a maniacal form.

If you’ve been waiting to finally see Monsanto – one of the most hated companies in the world – to pay for its ecocide, knowing harm of human life, and devastation of our pollinators, then you won’t have to wait much longer. Several activist groups joined by food and farming experts are suing Monsanto for their crimes against humanity. [1]

Finally, Monsanto, the US-based, transnational company responsible for introducing multiple genetically modified crops and numerous toxic chemicals into our environment – including saccharin, aspartame, polystyrene, DDT, dioxin, Agent Orange, petroleum based fertilizers, recombinant bovine growth hormones (rGBH), Round Up (glyphosate), Lasso (an herbicide used in Europe), Bt toxic plants, and more – will have to answer to the world for its reign of terror. Monsanto has acted with severe negligence, and the hubris and supremacy of a corporation given personhood, but no longer.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, along with dozens of global food, farming, and environmental justice groups announced at the United Nations conference held recently in Paris that an international court of lawyers and judges will assess Monsanto’s criminal liability for their atrocious acts.

The court, in The Hague, Netherlands, will use the UN’s ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ developed in 2011 to assess damages for Monsanto’s acts against human life and the environment.

The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.

This International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.

Speaking at the press conference, Ronnie Cummins, international director of the OCA (US) and Via Organica (Mexico), and member of the RI Steering Committee, said:

“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. . . Corporate agribusiness, industrial forestry, the garbage and sewage industry and agricultural biotechnology have literally killed the climate-stabilizing, carbon-sink capacity of the Earth’s living soil.”

The proceedings will take place on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

Notes:

[1] SustainablePulse

Normally, when a country is hit by an act of terrorism, there is universal sympathy even if the country has engaged in actions that may have made it a target of the terrorists. After 9/11, for instance, any discussion of whether U.S. violent meddling in the Middle East may have precipitated the attack was ruled out of the public debate.

Similarly, the 7/7 attacks against London’s Underground in 2005 were not excused because the United Kingdom had joined in President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq. The same with the more recent terror strikes in Paris. No respectable politician or pundit gloated about the French getting what they deserved for their long history of imperialism in the Muslim world.

But a different set of rules apply to Russia. Along with other prominent Americans, President Barack Obama and New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman have expressed smug satisfaction over the murder of 224 people aboard a Russian charter flight blown up over the Sinai and in the slaying of a Russian pilot who had been shot down by a Turkish warplane and the killing of a Russian marine on a rescue mission.

Apparently, the political imperative to display disdain for Russian President Vladimir Putin trumps any normal sense of humanity. Both Obama on Tuesday and Friedman on Wednesday treated those Russian deaths at the hands of the Islamic State or other jihadists as Putin’s comeuppance for intervening against terrorist/jihadist gains in Syria.

Image: President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)

At a news conference in Paris, Obama expressed his lack of sympathy as part of a bizarre comment in which he faulted Putin for somehow not turning around the Syrian conflict during the past month – when Obama and his allies have been floundering in their “war” against the Islamic State and its parent, Al Qaeda, for years, if not decades.

“The Russians now have been there for several weeks, over a month, and I think fair-minded reporters who looked at the situation would say that the situation hasn’t changed significantly,” Obama said.

“In the interim, Russia has lost a commercial passenger jet.  You’ve seen another jet shot down. There have been losses in terms of Russian personnel.  And I think Mr. Putin understands that, with Afghanistan fresh in the memory, for him to simply get bogged down in a inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict is not the outcome that he’s looking for.”

In examining that one paragraph, a “fair-minded” reporter could find a great deal to dispute. Indeed, the comments suggest that President Obama has crossed some line into either believing his own propaganda or thinking that everyone who listens to him is an idiot and will believe whatever he says.

But what was perhaps most disturbing was Obama’s graceless manner of discussing the tragedy of the Sinai bombing, followed by his seeming pleasure over Turkey shooting down a Russian SU-24 last week, leading to the killing of two Russian military men, one the pilot who was targeted while parachuting to the ground and the other a marine after his search-and-rescue helicopter was downed by a TOW missile.

Even more troubling, the key weapon systems used – the Turkish F-16 fighter jet and the TOW missile – were U.S.-manufactured and apparently U.S. supplied, in the case of the TOW missile either directly or indirectly to Sunni jihadists deemed “moderate” by the Obama administration.

The Ever-Smug Friedman

Columnist Friedman was equally unfeeling about the Russian deaths. In a column entitled “Putin’s Great Syrian Adventure,” Friedman offered a mocking assessment of Russia’s intervention against Sunni jihadists and terrorists seeking to take control of Syria.

While ridiculing anyone who praised Putin’s initiative or who just thought the Russian president was “crazy like a fox,” Friedman wrote:

“Some of us thought he was just crazy.

“Well, two months later, let’s do the math: So far, Putin’s Syrian adventure has resulted in a Russian civilian airliner carrying 224 people being blown up, apparently by pro-ISIS militants in Sinai. Turkey shot down a Russian bomber after it strayed into Turkish territory. And then Syrian rebels killed one of the pilots as he parachuted to earth and one of the Russian marines sent to rescue him.”

Ha-ha, very funny! And, by the way, it has not been established that the Russian SU-24 did stray into Turkish air space but if it did, according to the Turkish account, it passed over a sliver of Turkish territory for all of 17 seconds.

The evidence is quite clear that the SU-24 was ambushed in a reckless act by Turkey’s autocratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who has been collaborating with Syrian and foreign jihadists for the past four years to overthrow Syria’s secular government. And the murder of the pilot after he bailed out of the plane is not some reason to smirk; it is a war crime.

Even uglier is the lack of any sympathy or outrage over the terrorist bombing that killed 224 innocent people, mostly tourists, aboard a Russian charter flight in Egypt. If the victims had been American and a similar callous reaction had come from President Putin and a columnist for a major Russian newspaper, one can only imagine the outrage. However, in Official Washington, any recognition of a common humanity with Russians makes you a “Moscow stooge.”

The other wacky part of both Obama’s comments and Friedman’s echoes of the same themes is this quick assessment that the Russian intervention in support of the Syrian government has been some abject failure – as if the U.S.-led coalition has been doing so wonderfully.

First, as a “fair-minded” reporter, I would say that it appears the Russian-backed Syrian offensive has at least stopped the advances of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and its jihadist allies, including Ahrar al-Sham (which technically separates itself from Al Qaeda and thus qualifies for U.S.-supplied weaponry even though it fights side-by-side with Nusra in the Saudi-backed Army of Conquest).

The Afghan Memories

Obama’s reference to Afghanistan was also startling. He was suggesting that Putin should have learned a lesson from Moscow’s intervention in the 1980s in support of a secular, pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, which came under attack by CIA-organized-and-armed Islamic jihadists known then as mujahedeen.

Wielding sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and benefiting from $1 billion a year in Saudi-U.S.-supplied weapons, the Afghan fundamentalist mujahedeen and their allies, including Saudi Osama bin Laden, eventually drove Soviet troops out in 1989 and – several years later behind the Taliban – completed the reversion of Afghanistan back to the Seventh Century. Women in Kabul went from dressing any way they liked in public, including wearing mini-skirts, to being covered in chadors and kept at home.

Obama’s bringing up Afghanistan in the Syrian context and Putin’s supposed one-month Syrian failure was ironic in another way. After Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden and has been bogged down in a quagmire there for 14 years, including nearly seven years under Obama.

So, Obama may not be on the firmest ground when he suggests that Putin recall Moscow’s experience in Afghanistan a few decades ago. After all, Obama has many more recent memories.

Further, what is different about Putin’s Syrian strategy – compared with Obama’s – is that the Russians are targeting all the terrorists and jihadists, not just the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). While U.S. propaganda tries to present the non-ISIS jihadists as “moderates” (somehow pretending that Al Qaeda is no longer a terrorist organization), there is, in reality, very little distinction between ISIS and the alliance of Nusra/Ahrar al-Sham.

And, as for Official Washington’s new “group think” about the Syrian government’s lack of progress in the war, there is the discordant news that the last of rebel forces have agreed to abandon the central city of Homs, which had been dubbed the “capital of the revolution.” The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that “thousands of insurgents will leave the last opposition-held neighborhood in” Homs, with the withdrawal beginning next week.

Al-Jazeera added the additional fact that the remaining 4,000 insurgents are “from al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham and the Free Syrian Army.” In other words, the “moderate” Free Syrian Army was operating in collusion with Al Qaeda’s affiliate and its major jihadist partner.

While it’s hard to get reliable up-to-date information from inside Syria, one intelligence source familiar with the military situation told me that the Syrian government offensive, backed by Iranian troops and Russian air power, had been surprisingly successful in putting the jihadists, including ISIS and Nusra, on the defensive, with additional gains around the key city of Aleppo.

The Belated Oil Bombings

Also, in the past week, Putin shamed Obama into joining in a bombing operation to destroy hundreds of trucks carrying ISIS oil to Turkey. Why that valuable business was allowed to continue during the U.S.-led war on ISIS since summer 2014 has not been adequately explained. It apparently was being protected by Turkish President Erdogan.

Another irony of Obama’s (and Friedman’s) critical assessment of Putin’s one-month military campaign came in Obama’s recounting of his meeting during the Paris climate summit with Erdogan. Obama said he was still appealing to Erdogan to close the Turkish-Syrian border although radical jihadists have been crossing it since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011.

“With respect to Turkey, I have had repeated conversations with President Erdogan about the need to close the border between Turkey and Syria,” Obama said. “We’ve seen some serious progress on that front, but there are still some gaps.  In particular, there’s about 98 kilometers that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters, ISIL shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities.”

In other words, all these years into the conflict – and about 1½ years since Obama specifically targeted ISIS – Turkey has not closed its borders to prevent ISIS from reinforcing itself with foreign fighters and trafficking in illicit oil sales to fund its terror operations. One might suspect that Erdogan has no intention of really stopping the Sunni jihadists from ravaging Syria.

Erdogan still seems set on violent “regime change” in Syria after allowing his intelligence services to provide extensive help to ISIS, Al Qaeda’s Nusra and other extremists. The Russians claim that politically well-connected Turkish businessmen also have been profiting off the ISIS oil sales.

But Obama’s acknowledgement that he has not even been able to get NATO “ally” Turkey to seal its border and that ISIS still remains a potent fighting force makes a mockery of his mocking Putin for not “significantly” changing the situation on the ground in Syria in one month.

Obama also slid into propaganda speak when he blamed Assad for all the deaths that have occurred during the Syrian conflict. “I consider somebody who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people illegitimate,” Obama said.

But again Obama is applying double standards. For instance, he would not blame President George W. Bush for the hundreds of thousands (possibly more than a million) dead Iraqis, yet Bush was arguably more responsible for those deaths by launching an unprovoked invasion of Iraq than Assad was in battling a jihadist-led insurgency.

Plus, the death toll of Syrians, estimated to exceed a quarter million, includes many soldiers and police as well as armed jihadists. That does not excuse Assad or his regime for excessively heavy-handed tactics that have inflicted civilian casualties, but Obama and his predecessor both have plenty of innocent blood on their hands, too.

After watching Obama’s news conference, one perhaps can hope that he is just speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth as he is wont to do. Maybe, he’s playing his usual game of “above-the-table/below-the-table,” praising Erdogan above the table while chastising him below the table and disparaging Putin in public while cooperating with the Russian president in private.

Or maybe President Obama has simply lost touch with reality – and with common human decency.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Fallon authorised the first air strikes by RAF squadrons immediately following the vote by the British parliament in favour of bombing Syria.

MPs voted for air strikes at 10.30 pm Wednesday. By 11.30 pm two Tornado bombers took off from the RAF’s base in Akrotiri, Cyprus, each loaded with three Paveway missiles, worth more than £100,000 each. An hour later, two more Tornados took off, also armed with Paveways.

On Thursday morning, more Tornado jets departed from Marham, Norfolk, to join the RAF’s squadron in Akrotiri. These are to be backed by an RAF Airbus A400M tactical transport plane that flew to Cyprus from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland. This will take engineers and ground staff.

“We have enough Tornados and we are now sending Typhoons [fighter jets] as well,” Fallon told the BBC Thursday.

Fallon said the British bombers had attacked “oilfields in eastern Syria—the Omar oilfields—from which the Daesh [Islamic State] terrorists receive a huge part of their revenue.” The locations bombed were around 35 miles inside Syria’s border adjacent with Iraq, where RAF planes have already been bombing for more than a year.

The Guardian noted that the “defence secretary indicated that military action against Isis could be expected to continue for years, rather than months. ”Fallon told the broadcaster, “The prime minister has confirmed this is going to be a long campaign… This is not going to be quick.”

In fact, according to Al Arabiya, the oil fields bombed by the RAF had already been “destroyed” by a US-led air strike two months ago.

Within the most pro-war sections of the ruling elite and media, the response to the vote for military action has been a hysterical campaign against Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for opposing the bombing of Syria. This is the case despite Corbyn allowing Labour MPs a “free vote” on the issue, meaning they would not be censured or disciplined in any way for voting for war.

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron began the attacks the night before the vote, referring to Corbyn and anyone planning to vote against military action, as “terrorist sympathisers.”

On the morning of the vote, the Financial Times all but called for Corbyn’s removal, editorialising,

“[C]orbyn seems determined to push his party towards the far left whatever the consequences for its electability. The longer he stays in his post, the more likely it is that he will destroy Labour as a mainstream political party.”

Hilary Benn, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, who supports bombing Syria and had voted for both the Iraq war and the war on Libya, closed the parliamentary debate for Labour with Corbyn’s blessing. He is being lionised as a figure comparable to Winston Churchill for his “historic” speech, in order to beat the drums of war and hasten Corbyn’s removal. The attacks on Corbyn in the right-wing media have centred on his being a danger to “national security” and a threat to the “values” upheld by the warmonger Benn, the Labour right wing and the Tories.

In its editorial Tuesday, the Daily Telegraph stated that Benn, “did not just deliver a towering moral argument for intervention… he exposed his own leader’s position as worthless…and demonstrates once again why Mr Corbyn cannot be trusted with national security.” The house organ of the Tory party led its front page Thursday with an excerpt from Benn’s speech, in which he compared the forces of the Islamic State to Hitler’s fascist army that conquered large parts of Europe.

Benn’s speech has led to numerous calls for him to be installed as leader of the Labour Party, with the Telegraph ’s Dan Hodges, a leading Blairite, commenting, “Hilary Benn didn’t just look like the leader of the opposition. He looked like the prime minister.”

In its editorial Thursday the liberal Guardian claimed, at the last moment, to have opposed Cameron’s motion endorsing war while insisting, “We support the cause of defeating Isis, and we do not reject military action.” It was euphoric over Benn’s speech, describing it as a “shock and awe campaign.” Martin Kettle said the speech positioned Benn “as a serious leadership challenger.”

The response to this offensive by Corbyn and his closest ally, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, has once again been an attempt to appease and protect the party’s right wing from Labour members’ anger. Both have issued statements that they will personally oppose any attempt by local Labour Party constituencies to “deselect” MPs who voted for war.

After allowing nearly a third of Labour MPs to vote for war, thus granting Cameron the supposed “consensus” he demanded to justify British imperialism’s latest bloody venture, McDonnell stated, “The whole debate made me proud that in the Labour Party we allow people to vote with their consciences and I think we took British politics on a step, a qualitative step forward, allowing people to express their views.

“I don’t think MPs who are elected by their constituents should come to Parliament to have their consciences overridden by the party whip. That’s unacceptable.”

Corbyn, a supine Labour backbencher for more than 30 years, is a known quantity to the bourgeoisie and their attacks are not aimed primarily at him. They are directed instead at suppressing and silencing growing anti-war sentiment among workers and young people as illegitimate and intolerable.

On the morning of the vote, the Daily Mail was forced to acknowledge that despite the wall-to-wall media propaganda for the launch of bombing raids in Syria, only a minority of the population were in favour of war. Another poll showed that 72 percent of Scottish voters opposed bombing. These backed up the poll commissioned by Corbyn, prior to the vote, showing that 75 percent of Labour Party members opposed war.

The suppression of all dissent is paramount for the ruling elite, as it embarks on yet another war of conquest under such socially and politically polarised conditions. Cameron’s statement that opposition to war is tantamount to support for terrorism must be taken as a stark warning. It was of a piece with Labour peer Jeffrey Rooker’s statement, during a simultaneous debate on war in Syria in the House of Lords. Labour had to “get rid” of Corbyn, he said, identifying Islamic State’s “innate intolerance” for the “British way of life” with the “anti-British Trots in the Labour Party” who were “using our tolerance to try and get control” of the party.

Those opposing war represent the majority of the population. They are now being branded as supporters of terrorism, anti-British and a threat to the British way of life under conditions in which, since 9/11, under the guise of the “war on terror”, a mass of reactionary legislation has attacked democratic rights and civil liberties, introducing methods normally associated with a police state.

Last year, the

“Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism defined “extremism” as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs… There is a range of extremist individuals and organisations, including Islamists, the far right and others.”

Cameron said in relation to new legislation to be enacted:

“Dealing with the terrorist threat is about not just new powers but how we combat extremism in all its forms. That is why we have a new approach to tackling radicalisation, focusing on all types of extremism, not just violent extremism.” [emphasis added].

“If you are not confused, then you don’t understand the situation.”

Sir Alan Duncan, Dec 2, 2015 London.

It was a long session of debates – some 10 hours in all.  There was little sane about this Commons session – the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was making his case to rope in parliamentarians in the hope that he would get the numbers to bomb Syria. He refused to apologise for his expansive suggestion that opponents of any enlarged operation against ISIL and its components were terrorist sympathisers.

The SNP’s Alex Salmond, in looking through a list of members who had made their stance against such actions clear, searched in vain for them.  “I have examined that list very carefully and cannot identify a single terrorist sympathiser.”[1]

The debate that led to a solid vote in favour of the bombing motion on Syria (397 for; 223 against) was a bitter thing to see.  On the pretext of being brave, men and women decided that more armed conflict was the answer. Logistics did not matter, logic even less. The sentiment of waging war, the instinct to be violent in anticipation of more violence, triumphed.

There was nothing brave or decent, let alone principled, by the proceedings. The recourse to war in distant theatres on the pretext that the war is already on your doorstep is the greatest symptom of woolly-headed thinking in the Twenty First Century. The Bush legacy of a “war on terror” has proven irreversible in making countries hundreds of miles away havens for forces that require uprooting.

Scholars in the field of international relations theory, religious figures, and even the odd philosopher has been attempting to rationalise where a “just war” figures after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  That that particular US-led adventure was fatuous (poor intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s links to al-Qaida), deceptive (no fabled weapons of mass destruction), and disastrous (removing the lid on Sunni-Shia tension), should have been ample proof that the idea was dead and deeply buried.  There were just wars, bad and worse.

The effigy of just war, having been burnt, was revived in an even more disturbing form: the responsibility to protect. The R2P doctrine (such terminology emphasises clarity, clean killing and protection) has insinuated itself so comprehensively in the righteous wars since 2003. Libya was where it made its most grotesque debut.  It predictably failed, giving way to more bloody, destabilising realities.

The end of the Qaddafi regime, the handiwork of French-UK-US strikes, has also allowed another phenomenon to dovetail into the global terrorist mania: refugees, making their way through the broken doors of Libya, have been packaged with terrorist infiltration, a reactionary’s wet dream.

To then hear the drivel of shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn’s “internationalist” emphasis on the compact of the UN, and the role of socialism in protecting such values, was yet another seedy attempt to bring violence to bear upon an already failed situation.  If history needed a good deal of abuse and misuse, Benn was there to provide it.

“What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated and it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unions were just one part of the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco.”  It was the reason, argued Benn, “why this entire house stood up against Hitler and Mussolini.”  So much conflation; so much ease in doing so.

Even such progressive outlets as The Guardian fell for the spectacle, seduced by the message for war war over jaw jaw.  Rafael Behr claimed that the Commons had done itself credit in the entire debate.[2]  John Crace would call Benn’s performance a “morality tale made flesh.”[3]

If there was a historical reminder worth pushing down the throats of the Labour hawks, it was the very point that a social democratic party, pretend or otherwise, when on appropriate digestives, will embrace bloodshed.  Pacifist credentials will be thrown out.  The triggers will be pushed. The bugles of war will sound.

Eerily, the shadow of 1914 was cast over proceedings, a year when the supposed socialist cause capitulated, even gladly, to the guns of August.  Lights went out, and a generation in Europe was killed off.

Even the religious figure of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who has shown himself to be rather sensible at points, decided to jump onto the wagon of an enlarged conflict without form, without boundaries, without limits. He could see that the “just war” criteria had been met, and encouraged the MPs to vote accordingly.

As if seeking the ultimate blessing for what effectively amounts to a revived Crusader rhetoric, Cameron got what he wanted from the Archbishop, with a caveat: merely bombing Islamic State targets would “confirm their dreadful belief that what they are doing is the will of God.”[4]  In that sense, the just war context is pure nonsense, a false calculation imposed on an amorphous, immeasurable problem.

It should be axiomatic: There is nothing, by definition, proportionate in something that cannot be measured. If that be the case, everything is either proportionate, or not. Standards are removed altogether.  What, in a sense, are they bombing?  Depots, supply lines, the oil links? Formations, marked positions, as opposed to villages where civilian and fighter comingle?  The refusal to even describe ISIL/ISIS elements as Islamic State in preference for the more derogatory Daesh provides an all too clear example about an inscrutable force that has befuddled opponents.

In the absence of definition, the emotive register is struck instead.  The religious killings. Paris. Beheadings.  Burnings.  The destruction of artefacts, the erasure of history. The upstart Caliphate.  Never mind that beheadings, killing and remorseless strafing is practiced by that erstwhile British ally Saudi Arabia, who has been rather happy to funnel supplies to groups who have found themselves on an assortment of terrorist lists while also bombing Yemen.  (To date, Sanaa has been reduced to rubble.)  Terrorist sympathies can come in all forms – including your allies.

There is no “exit” plan.  Or strategically viable prospects.  Hard headed sceptical advice has been avoided.  Most disturbingly of all, there is no sense about how many civilians have perished amidst the murderous righteousness.  Yet two RAF tornadoes were, symbolically, awaiting the call to fly and were off within hours of the vote from the Akrotiri air base in Cyprus. Two more followed.  And, said BBC news, they returned – unharmed.

Britain has signalled that it will, foolishly, continue that Western tendency to interfere in zones its imperial ambitions have long traumatised. It is a trauma that will make a revisit.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34986204

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/02/syria-airstrikes-commons-isis-debate

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/03/syria-debate-hilary-benn-launches-shock-and-awe-campaign-against-labour

[4] http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2015/12/archbishop-of-canterbury-speaks-on-uks-anti-daesh-military-campaign.aspx

You know the country has really gone to the dogs when Washington’s main allies in its war on Syria are the two biggest terrorist incubators on the planet. I’m talking about Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both of which are run by fanatical Islamic zealots devoted to spreading violent jihad to the four corners of the earth. Not that the US doesn’t have blood on its hands too. It does, but that’s beside the point.

The point is that if you’re trying to sell your fake war on terror to the public, then you might want to think twice about lining up with Grand Sultan Erdogan and King Chop-Chop of Riyadh. The optics alone should have sent the White House PR team running for cover. I mean, couldn’t they have hired squeaky-clean Iceland to join the fray just to persuade the public that the ongoing proxy war wasn’t a complete sham. Which it is.

It all goes to show that no one in the administration really gives a rip about appearances anymore. Obama is going to do what he wants to do, and if you don’t like it: Tough!

Isn’t that the message?

Of course it is. But just look how that apathy transfers itself into other areas of governing like, let’s say, strategic planning. Take Syria for example, where the think tank pundits were given the task of coming up with a plan to topple a secular regime without: 1–triggering a violent insurgency.  2–igniting massive antiwar demonstrations around the world and, 3—producing hundreds or thousands of US casualties. In other words, our esteemed leaders didn’t want another Iraq which is understandable.

Anyway, that was the basic assignment. So the think tankers came up with this brilliant plan to enlist Sunni militants that the CIA would fund, arm, train and deploy into Syria to shoot the place up, raise holy hell, and then topple the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad.  That was the plan, at least.

Four and half years later, the place is a worse mess than Iraq.  Half the population is either dead or internally displaced, the civilian infrastructure is a shambles, and nothing has been achieved. Nothing.  Assad is safely tucked away in Damascus, the jihadi proxies are on the run, and everyone hates the US more than ever.

Great plan, eh? Where’s the downside?

The downside is that now Washington finds itself backed against the wall with precious  few options that don’t involve a direct confrontation with Moscow. Of course, all of this could have been avoided had the White House been more eager to negotiate a settlement to the conflict months earlier in Vienna. But, instead, the bullheaded Obama team decided to stick with its dreary “Assad must go” mantra which put the kibosh on any long-term agreement or ceasefire proposal. So now, the Russian-led coalition has made significant gains on the ground, retaking numerous key cities, highways and airbases in the west and south while sending US-backed terrorists fleeing eastward towards Raqqa.  These developments have forced Washington into a fallback position that will likely entail air-support for Turkish ground forces who will be deployed to Northern Syria to take and hold area sufficient for a “safe zone”, which is an innocuous sounding moniker the media invokes to conceal the fact that Turkey plans to annex sovereign Syrian territory which, by the way, is an act of war.

Now fast-forward to last week:

Some readers may have noticed disturbing headlines like this in the Wall Street Journal: “U.S. Urges Turkey to Seal Border”

Or this Reuters piece that popped up on Monday:  “NATO allies act to strengthen Turkey’s air defenses”

Why, you may ask, does Obama want Turkey to close the border now when the horse has already left the barn? What I mean is that the White House has known for over 3 years that the bulk of the jihadis were transiting Turkey on their way  to Syria, just like they knew that ISIS’s oil was being transported across Turkey. They knew it all because they have their damn spy satellites and  AWACs circling overhead. In fact, they could probably tell you how many bumblebees crossed the border at any given time, so they sure as heck saw the throngs of bearded roughnecks moving southward in droves.  So why is it so urgent to close the border now, after all, the damage is already done, right?

Could it have something to do with the fact that Putin’s legions are moving north to seal the border? Could there be an alternate objective, for example, could the US and Turkey be setting the stage for an incursion into Syria that would secure the land needed for the glorious safe zone?

That’s what most of the analysts seem to think, at least the ones that haven’t been coopted by the mainstream media. But why is NATO suddenly getting involved? What’s that all about? After all, Putin was reluctant to even commit his airforce to the Syrian conflict. It’s not like he’s planning to invade Turkey or something, right?

Of course he’s not thinking of invading Turkey. That would pit Russia against NATO in a planet-incinerating fight-to-the-death. That might please some of the crackpots in Washington, but just about everyone else would rather avoid the mushroom cloud scenario.

So, what’s really going on?

For that, we turn to Moon of Alabama that provides this excellent summary in a recent post titled:  “The Real “Terrorist Sympathizers” Want To Wage War On Syria … And Russia”. Here’s an excerpt:

 Who initiated this sudden rush within major NATO governments to get parliamentary blank checks for waging a long war on Syria? Not only in the UK but also in France and Germany?

The German government turned on a dime from “no military intervention in Syria ever” to “lets wage a war of terror on Syria” without any backing from the UN or international law. .. Who initiated this? A simple, medium size terror attack in Paris by some Belgians and French can not be the sole reason for this stampede.

Did Obama call and demand support for his plans? What are these?

I smell that a trap is being laid, likely via a treacherous Turkey, to somehow threaten Russia with, or involve it in, a wider war. This would include military attacks in east-Ukraine or Crimea as well as in Syria. Obama demanded European backing in case the issue gets out of hand. No other reason I have found explains the current panic. The terrorists the “west” supports in Syria are in trouble. The real terrorist sympathizers need to rush to their help. It is a start of all-out war on Syria and its Russian protectors. (“Terrorist Sympathizers” Want To Wage War On Syria … And Russia“, Moon of Alabama)

Is that what’s going on? Has Turkish President Erdogan figured out how to hoodwink the NATO allies into a confrontation with Russia that will help him achieve his goal of toppling  Assad and stealing Syrian territory?

It’s hard to say, but clearly something has changed,  after all, neither France, nor Germany nor the UK were nearly as gung-ho just a few weeks ago. Now they’re all hyped-up and ready for WW3. Why is that?

Ahh, Grasshopper, that is the mystery, a mystery that was unraveled in an op-ed that appeared in the Tuesday edition of the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet Daily News. Here’s the excerpt:

The increase in military cooperation within NATO countries against ISIL and the piling up of NATO forces near Turkey’s border with Syria take place in parallel with the recent deal between Ankara and the Brussels over Syrian refugees and the re-activation of Turkey’s EU accession bid.  ….(“Western forces pile up on Turkey-Syria border“, Hurriyet)

Okay, so Erdogan worked out a deal with the other NATO countries. Why is that such a big deal?

Well, check out this blurb from the Today’s Zaman:  “Erdogan’s advisor, Burhan Kuzu, summed it up even more succinctly saying: “The EU finally got Turkey’s message and opened its purse strings. What did we say? ‘We’ll open our borders and unleash all the Syrian refugees on you,’” Kuzu stated in his controversial tweet… ” (“EU bows to Turkey’s threat on refugees says Erdoğan advisor“, Today’s Zaman)

Blackmail? Is that what we’re talking about, blackmail?

It sure sounds like it.

Let’s summarize: Erdogan intentionally releases tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into Europe to put pressure on EU politicians who quickly lose the support of their people and face the meteoric rise of right wing parties. And then, the next thing you know, Merkel, Hollande and every other EU leader is looking to cut a deal with Erdogan to keep the refugees in Turkey.

Isn’t that how it all went down? Except we’re missing one important factoid here, because according to the first op-ed “The increase in military cooperation within NATO… and the piling up of NATO forces near Turkey’s border”…took  place in parallel with the deal between Ankara and the Brussels.”

Get it? So there was a quid pro quo that no one wants to talk about.  In other words, Germany, France and the UK agreed to support Erdogan’s loony plan to conduct military operations in Syria, risking a serious dust-up with Russia, in order to save their own miserable political careers.

Boy, if that doesn’t take the cake, than I don’t know what does.

On December 1, the Free Syrian Army’s central command agreed to a permanent ceasefire and evacuation for the remaining rebels inside of Al-Wa’er with the Governor of Homs – Talal Al-Barazi. The evacuation includes two phases:

•    1st is to allow humanitarian aid to any remaining civilians living inside the district
•    2nd is the transportation of the 600 rebel fighters from Al-Wa’er to the Idlib Governorate.

The plan is supposed to take about two months. After this, the Syrian Government will be in full control of the city of Homs. The agreement has become possible due to a strategic initiative taken by the pro-government forces after the start of the Russian military operations in Syria.

Earlier, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence has noted that despite the terrorists’ counter-attacks, the Syrian Arab Army and its allies supported by the Russian warplanes, intelligence assistance and material support has a significant edge in a fire power and the command.

ISIS claimed control of al-Kafrah in a statement and are moving towards Azaz. If ISIS takes Azaz it will extend the ISIS control of bordering areas which allows greater access to smuggling routes for potential recruits and arms. It will also break the Army of Conquest military operations room, which includes Al Nusra, supply routes to the Aleppo city.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has presented evidence of Turkish involvement in the ISIS oil business. It includes photos and videos of oil delivery convoys passing the border between Syria and Turkey and information about the routes of oil smuggling from Syria and Iraq to Turkey. There are three main oil routes:

1. The western route leads to the Turkish ports in the Mediterranean

2. The northern — to Patma oil refinery

3. The eastern — to Dzhazri transfer point

The town of Dier ez-Zor is one of the largest centers of oil extraction. The delivery route runs from Eastern Syria to the Batman refinery in Turkey. The size of the illegal oil trade is impressive.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said he’ll resign if Moscow can prove the Turkish participation in ISIS oil trade. Here it is.