Protests erupted in Chicago Tuesday night, following the release of video footage from the October 20, 2014 police killing of Laquan McDonald by 14-year veteran cop Jason Van Dyke. Several hundred people demonstrated late into the night, and at least three arrests were made.

The release of the video shatters a year-long attempted cover-up by the Chicago Police Department and the administration of Democratic Party Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff for President Barack Obama. The city worked systematically to prevent the video from being made public, while lying about the circumstances behind the murder of McDonald.

Earlier on Tuesday, Illinois state prosecutors charged Van Dyke with murder in the first degree for the shooting, which occurred “without legal justification and with the intent to kill or do great bodily harm,” according to a one-page court filing.

The release of the video and the decision to charge Van Dyke comes nearly a week after Cook County Judge Franklin Valderrama ordered city officials to make public the footage. Charges against Van Dyke were sped up in an effort to assuage public outrage and social unrest that city officials anticipated would follow the forced release of evidence of wanton murder.

Video footage of the killing of Laquan McDonald

The video, which comes from a police cruiser’s dashboard camera, shows McDonald walking in the center lane of a busy thoroughfare. Van Dyke gets out of his car and, unprovoked, fires 16 bullets into the teen, who is walking away from the officers. Gun smoke visibly emanates from McDonald’s body as he is repeatedly shot while lying on the ground.

Autopsy reports show that McDonald was shot twice in the back, while 9 of the 16 bullet wounds he received had a downward trajectory.

Van Dyke, who had been placed on desk duty pending investigations by the FBI, the US attorney’s office in Chicago and the state attorney’s office for Cook County, turned himself in Tuesday. He is being held without bail.

While Emanuel is now claiming that he supports the video’s release—a transparent attempt to deflect attention from his own culpability in the cover-up—the city and Chicago Police Department in fact desperately attempted to prevent public exposure of the crime. In April, the city awarded a nearly $5 million settlement to the family of McDonald in a wrongful death lawsuit, which included a provision that the video would be kept secret.

Chicago police also reportedly deleted 86 minutes of footage from a security camera at a nearby Burger King, which would have shown the events leading up to the killing. Police refrained from interviewing witnesses to the killing, telling them simply to go home. One later described the killing as an “execution.”

As in many similar incidents, police claimed “self defense.” “He is a very serious threat to the officers, and he leaves them no choice at that point to defend themselves,” Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden declared on the night of the killing last year. “When police tell you to drop a weapon, all you have to do is drop it.”

The judicial order requiring the video’s release, exposing these lies, came only after an independent journalist sued the police department following an initial decision not to grant his Freedom of Information request. Even the existence of the video came to light only thanks to the actions of a whistleblower.

Image Source: Cook County Medical Examiner

“The real issue here is, this terrible thing happened, how did our governmental institutions respond?” Jason Kalven, the reporter who first uncovered the story, told the Chicago Reporter.

“And from everything we’ve learned, compulsively at every level, from the cops on the scene to the highest levels of government, they responded by circling the wagons and by fabricating a narrative that they knew was completely false.”

Van Dyke was not an unknown quantity. Eighteen complaints had been filed against the cop throughout his 14 year career in the Chicago Police Department, including for the use of excessive force and shouting racial slurs at individuals whom he had detained. Yet he remained on active duty.

The political establishment and the media are now working in overdrive to contain public anger, while also preparing for police repression of protests. In advance of the video’s release, a spokesperson for the Chicago police declared, “The department is prepared to respond to any demonstrations and will hold people accountable if they cross the line. We might use the same tactics that were used during the NATO demonstrations.”

The charging of Van Dyke after a coordinated campaign of cover-up and lies only exposes the fact that the vast majority of police murders go unpunished. The entire political establishment, from the Obama administration on down, works systematically to exonerate killer cops. Only in extraordinary circumstances—when video unambiguously shows criminal activity—are charges filed, and often these result in exoneration.

Indeed, it is exactly one year since St. Louis prosecutors announced that they would not press charges against Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for the murder of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Since then, more than 1,000 people have been killed by police in the United States.

Washington Post report earlier this year found that only 54 police officers have been charged over the past decade, leading to only 11 convictions.

Significantly, it was in Chicago that the Obama administration’s FBI director, James Comey, last month criticized the prevalence of video showing police killings for creating a “chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year.” In other words, the problem is not that cops are murdering unarmed individuals, but that these murders are being documented and exposed.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Protests Erupt in Chicago After Release of Video Showing Police Murder of 17-year-old

GR Editor’s Note

The following text was first published in March 2015 in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks.

In the context of the tragic events of November 13 in Paris, this analysis brings to the forefront the issue of freedom of expression and critique of the established political order and media narrative in France as more broadly in the EU and North America.

In this regard, Francois Hollande’s decision to  establish a State of Emergency constitutes a threat against online independent media including those which are casually referred to as “conspiracy theorists”. 

With the repeal of civil liberties, the independent media will in all likelihood be the target of State repression.  

The broader question is the following: is the State of Emergency in France intended to eventually establish a de facto totalitarian regime in France (and more broadly in the EU) under the disguise of democracy, namely to abolish the political and social foundations of the French Republic. This totalitarian environment and its media propaganda apparatus are also required to grant legitimacy to the US-NATO led “global war on terrorism”.  

Michel Chossudovsky, November 25  2015

*      *      *

Political elites and super-bureaucrats are worried. It’s becoming harder to control consensus reality. 

A history stitched together by lies and cover-ups, political assassinations, slight-of-hand false flag deceptions, secret societies, dual loyalties and stolen fortunes – this has been the exclusive privilege of organized crime and the ruling elite for centuries.

Putting aside history’s ‘big ticket’ items though, the real reason for this authoritarian trend is much more fundamental. By knocking out their intellectual competition, political elites and their media moguls hope to minimalize, and thus eliminate any alternative analysis and opinion by applying the completely open-ended and arbitrary label of “extremist” to speech. They want to wind back the clock, where a pre-internet, monolithic corporate media cartel held a monopoly on ideas.

Although France has taken the lead in this inter-governmental effort (see below), the preliminary assault began this past fall with British Prime Minster David Cameron publicly announcing on two separate occasions, that all of these so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ (anything which challenges the official orthodoxy) should be deemed as “extremist” and equivalent to “terrorist” and should be purged from society on the grounds of ‘national security’. The first came with Cameron’s warped speech at the UN, and afterwards, a similar charge was made by the UK leader against anyone who dares press the issue of institutional paedophilia and child abuse.

Watch this UN speech by Cameron where he clearly claims that ‘conspiracy theorists’ are the ‘root cause’ and indeed, an equal threat to national security as ISIS terrorists currently running amok in Syria and Iraq (start 4:26)…

As yet, few are aware of how in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, French Prime Minster,Francois Hollande delivered an official declaration (see full report and text from his speech below). However, Hollande takes it beyond the usual hyperbole and focuses on giving the state an administrative and legal foothold for policing both speech and thought crimes in France. If this can be accomplished in France, then a European roll-out would soon follow.

Ironically, in order to achieve this fascist leap forward, Hollande has equated “conspiracy theories” to Nazism, and is calling for government regulations to prevent any sharing or publishing of any views deemed as ‘dangerous thought’ by the state. Specifically, Hollande is citing “Anti-Semitism” and also anything which could inspire ‘acts terrorism’ – as the chief vehicles for what the state will be designating as ‘dangerous thoughts’. With the thumb of Hebdo still pressing down, this may just sound like politics writ large by the French leader, but in reality it’s full-blown fascism.

Worse yet, with all of the world leaders gathered togther in Paris in January supposedly marching solidarity for ‘free speech’ and proudly chanting “Je Suis Charlie” (image above), that Hollande would use this as political cover to restrict free speech in Europe should shock even.

RINF reports how the new censorship regime has already been implemented this week:

“Earlier this week, the Interior Minister of France — with no court review or adversarial process — ordered five websites to not only be blocked in France, but that anyone who visits any of the sites get redirected to a scary looking government website, saying:

While it could be argued that the four websites initially listed by the government for ‘blocking’ were exclusively for ISIS/ISIL-related activity and thus, should be kept hidden, the government has made no caveat in its reams of policy literature, other than some vague language as to what it defines as ‘extremist’, as to where this growing list will stop, or indeed, if it has any limits at all. Because this process is extrajudicial, then there will be no warning to gov’t targets of this new regime. In fact, as RINF reports, this has already happened:

“In that first batch was a site called “islamic-news.info.” The owner of that site not only notes that he was never first contacted to “remove” whatever material was deemed terrorist supporting (as required by the law), but that nothing in what he had posted was supporting terrorism.”

Will French gov’t censors also block this website – because it is challenging the government’s new public filtering program? Are we entering a new intolerant, Chinese-style policing culture in Europe, and throughout the west? Certainly they have the ability and the legal clearance to do just that right now.

Fear of losing control over manipulative narratives has always been a primary obsession with those in power, and clearly, based on what we’ve seen here – governments are making an aggressive move on free speech now. Skeptics will no doubt argue that this 21WIRE article itself constitutes a conspiracy theory. If that was the case, then why have western governments, particularly those in the US and Britain, already spent millions, if not billions in state funds in order to infiltrate, disrupt, and occupy forum websites, and social networking groups of so-called ‘conspiracy theorist and even creating entirely new groups just to contradict them? Does that not already prove what the government modus operandi is?

As if that wasn’t enough already, now France wants to take it to a whole new authoritarian level. It may sound ridiculous, but this is exactly what is taking place in government as we speak.

History shows that once this new regime is in place, they will not relinquish any new powers of censorship, and so a long, intellectual dark age is certain to follow…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France Moves to Make “Conspiracy Theories” Illegal by Government Decree

The possibility of a Jewish homeland in Palestine had been a goal of Zionist organizations since the late 19th century. Eventually, as a matter of political expediency, the British Foreign Secretary stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. 

Paragraph 13 of the Israeli Declaration of Independence provides that the State of Israel would:

be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex’.

‘THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the United Nations.

Why?

[email protected]    London     November 2015

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Israeli Declaration of Independence: The World Continues to Ignore its Provisions and those of the British Balfour Declaration

UN Backs Russia’s War against ISIL / Da’esh

November 25th, 2015 by Alexander Mercouris

Russia’s diplomats have been as busy as Russia’s military.

They have now obtained UN Security Council as well as Syrian government approval for Russia’s military campaign.

They have also got the UN Security Council to scotch the myth of the “moderate jihadis” once and for all.

Back in September, when it became clear the Russians were intending to act in Syria, Russia Insider predicted the Russians would try to get a Resolution from the UN Security Council to give additional legal cover for their military action.

This is in contrast to the US, which avoids the Security Council whenever it can, and which usually prefers to act unilaterally without a UN Security Council mandate.

Thus US bombing of the Islamic State in Syria was doubly illegal under international law because it was carried out without permission from either the UN Security Council or from the Syrian government.

Russia’s military action by contrast is completely legal. It has the permission of both the UN Security Council and the Syrian government for it.

It took weeks for the Russians to get their Security Council Resolution. This was because the US did everything it could to stand in the way. However, after weeks of hard work, Russia’s diplomats have finally got the Resolution Russia wanted.

What changed the position was the terrorist outrage in Paris.

After the Paris attack the French backed Russia’s proposal for a UN Security Council Resolution. At that point the US could no longer block it. The US cannot veto a Resolution backed by its own ally France, especially in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Something that suggests some people in the US might be unhappy with this development is the absence from the Security Council table of one person who would normally be expected to be there for such an important vote.

This was Samantha Power – the US’s UN ambassador – a hardline liberal interventionist and one of the most aggressive voices within the US administration calling for regime change in Syria and confrontation with Russia.

Her relations with Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s exceptionally able UN ambassador, are said to be poisonous (see the photo at the top of this article).

It looks as if voting for the Resolution was more than Samantha Power could bear. That probably explains why she stayed away.

In her absence it was left to her deputy, Michele Sison – a career diplomat – to speak and vote for the US.

The full text of the Resolution – which is not limited to Syria – is below.

The UN has also released – along with the full text of the Resolution – a summary of the debate in the Security Council that preceded the vote.

The key words in the Resolution are these:

“(The Security Council) Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups”

The Security Council has not only backed Russia’s military campaign (“all necessary means”), but it has also made clear that Russia is fully entitled to extend this campaign to “all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups”.

The Resolution names amongst these terrorist groups the Al-Nusrah Front.

Russia is therefore fully authorised to bomb all the various jihadi groups in Syria that it is bombing.

Even the US has been forced to admit – at least in the Security Council – that the talk of Russia bombing the wrong people – the “moderate jihadis” – is nonsense.


Transcript of the Security Council’s Decision

The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its resolutions 1267 (1999), 1368 (2001), 1373 (2001), 1618 (2005), 1624 (2005), 2083 (2012), 2129 (2013), 2133 (2014), 2161 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2195 (2014), 2199 (2015) and 2214 (2015), and its relevant presidential statements,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States in accordance with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter,

“Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed,

“Determining that, by its violent extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control over significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“Recalling that the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF) and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida also constitute a threat to international peace and security,

“Determined to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“Noting the letters dated 25 June 2014 and 20 September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da’esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq’s borders that is a direct threat to the security of the Iraqi people and territory,

“Reaffirming that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law;

“Reiterating that the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the joint statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015,

“1.   Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh, including hostage-taking and killing, and notes it has the capability and intention to carry out further attacks and regards all such acts of terrorism as a threat to peace and security;

“2.   Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France, and to all Governments whose citizens were targeted in the above mentioned attacks and all other victims of terrorism;

“3.      Condemns also in the strongest terms the continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law, as well as barbaric acts of destruction and looting of cultural heritage carried out by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“4.   Reaffirms that those responsible for committing or otherwise responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable;

“5.   Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;

“6.   Urges Member States to intensify their efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, and urges all Members States to continue to fully implement the above-mentioned resolutions;

“7.   Expresses its intention to swiftly update the 1267 committee sanctions list in order to better reflect the threat posed by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“8.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Backs Russia’s War against ISIL / Da’esh

It has been frightening to listen to the intolerant and near hysterical tone of the debate over admitting Syrian refugees into America.

Despite the fact that conflating refugees with terrorism is irrational and bigoted, this notion has spread quickly, with most of the Republican presidential aspirants making frighteningly bigoted statements about refugees or Muslims, in general, more than 30 governors saying that they will not accept Syrians in their states and 289 members of Congress voting to restrict the ability of the president to fulfil his goal of increasing the number of Syrian refugees to be admitted each year.

It is not the first time that such a wave of intolerant hysteria has swept over our nation. We have seen it before, and each time we submitted to fear and bigotry, we did damage to countless numbers of immigrants and stained the pages of our history.

During last century’s two world wars, we did it to the Italians, the Germans and the Japanese. In peacetime, we persecuted blacks, Jews, Asians and Latinos.

And because this is not the first time that Syrians have been victims of bigotry and intolerance, for me this is personal.

During World War I, my grandfather was forced to take his family from their ancestral home in the hills of Lebanon seeking refuge from preying Ottoman armed forces.

My grandfather died in exile, leaving my grandmother alone with seven children. At the end of the war, they returned to their village and began preparations to join the massive wave of immigrants making their way from Syria and Lebanon to America.

They were economic and political refugees seeking freedom and opportunity.

En route, my father was waylaid in France where he found work, hoping to earn enough to continue his onward journey. By the time he was ready to depart, Congress had voted to cancel visas to the US for all “Syrians” (since that is what Syrians and Lebanese were called back then).

They were termed a “public menace”, who brought “foreign ways” and “nothing of value” to the US.

Senator David Reed of Pennsylvania, in making his case for Syrian exclusion, said: “We don’t need anymore Syrian trash coming to America.”

Desperate to rejoin his family, my father got a job on a ship sailing from Marseille to New York. On arrival, he disembarked and entered the US illegally.

Eventually he connected with his mother and siblings and he never looked back. After years in hiding, fearing deportation and separation from his family, my father took advantage of a 1930s amnesty programme and in 1942 he was sworn in a citizen of the United States of America.

During the past nine decades, my extended family has done well in their new home. They produced doctors, lawyers, teachers, veterans of every war and public servants in every branch of government.

In 2013, President Barack Obama appointed me to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

With the appointment comes what is called “a parchment” — a hand written declaration, signed by the president, making a formal announcement of the appointment.

On the wall in my office, my parchment hangs next to my father’s naturalisation certificate. To me, it tells a wonderful story about what makes America great — how it can change from exclusion and intolerance to acceptance and opportunity.

The extraordinary thing about my family’s story is that it is so ordinary, because it is a story shared by millions of others Americans.

It defines the essential quality that makes us a good nation.

There have always been two voices competing for the soul of America: one has been welcoming and respectful of diversity, while the other has been intolerant and fearful of those who were different.

The tension between them has defined our nation’s history from its beginning.

While we were born in sin, marked by the twin evils of slavery and genocide against indigenous peoples, our founders also elevated the virtue of religious freedom and the notion that all were created equal.

Over the last two-and-a-half centuries, these two Americas have been in locked in battle. In times of national hysteria, like the one we are going through now, I believe it is imperative that we understand what is at stake in the outcome of this contest.

One speaks to the values to which we aspire, the other to our darker impulses and fears.

The former is rational, the latter is irrational. If left unchecked, the dark side can, for a time, win out. And because runaway fears can so easily trump right reason, they must be confronted.

We could make all the arguments about the rigorous vetting process and the security checks in place to insure that the refugees we receive do not present a threat to our country.

Or we could cite the fact that since September 11 we have welcomed 784,000 refugees into our country and not a single one of them has committed a violent act that would endanger us.

But I know that when hysteria is in the air, rational arguments are not heard against the voices of intolerance and fear.

And so, when Republican candidates call for shutting mosques, closing our doors to all Muslim immigrants or creating special IDs for those who are here, it is time to push back.

What we must do in response is stand up to the bullies, as our president has done.

If our history teaches us anything, it is that the voices of our better angels will ultimately be heard and they will win in the end.

We have confronted and defeated our demons before and we can do so again.

How long it will take and how much damage is done before we come to our senses will be determined by the degree to which we demonstrate strong and assertive leadership to challenge and overcome the fear and temporary madness that is in the air.

– See more at: http://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/james-j-zogby/we-have-gone-temporarily-mad-again%E2%80%99#sthash.AJWC2ErA.dpuf

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Debate Over Admitting Syrian Refugees: ‘We have Gone Temporarily Mad, Again’

6 out of 11 former Presidents of South Korea raised and plotted a rebellion.

There were two types of rebellions in Korean modern history.

The first type is a ‘successful coup d’etat’.

The military men of Park Jung-Hee (tenure: 1961~1979), Chun Du H-hwan (tenure: 1980~1987) and Noh Tae-woo (tenure: 1987~1992) staged a military coup in 1961 and 1980, respectively, to take power.

Rhee Syng-Man, the first president of South Korea, (tenure: 1948~1960) was accused of rebellion after his removal. He stepped down from his long dictatorship by the April 19 Revolution, born out of which is the students’ pro-democracy movements.

The second type is the fabricated rebellion created and manipulated by the dictators. The dictators who took power by military coup utilized the rebellion events to suppress their political opponents. Kim Dae-Jung (tenure: 1997~2002), when he was a politician in the opposition party, had been sentenced to death under conspiracy charges by the military regime.

Lee Myung-Bak (tenure: 2002~2007) had been convicted of rebellion in his college years, due to his participation in a demonstration opposing the military dictatorship when he was a college student.

Another ‘Rebellion’ charge without violence attempted to cover up the scandal when the National Intelligence Service (NIS) intervened in the 2012 Presidential Election.

In September 2013, Lee Suk-Ki,  a member of the National Assembly, and 6 members of the Unified Progressive Party were accused of rebellion conspiracy, inciting rebellion and violating the National Security Law.

At the time, struggles of the people and the resistance of the opposition party and people against President Park Geun-Hye reached its peak around the NIS scandal, regarding the NIS illegally interfering in the Presidential Election. The recordings taken from Lee Suk-Ki’s lecture to the party members was the only evidence.

More than half of the audience were women. Before and after the speech, there was not a single action relating to rebellion and no violent action planned by the participants. The public media, which was critical of the government believed that the government, which was losing its ground, was pushed into a corner due to the presidential election scandal and fabricated the charge, just like many former dictators in history.

In January 2015, the Supreme Court dropped the rebellion conspiracy charge, as not guilty but it still found them guilty of inciting rebellion and/or violating the National Security Law, sentencing them to 9 years of imprisonment for the agitation of rebellion and the violation of National Security Law.

The National Security Law and inciting rebellion charge are the legacy of the Cold War era and the dictatorship.

The National Security Law, which was temporarily established in 1948 to cope with the military risks of North Korea, is legislation designed to criminally accuse dissenters who have a different political opinions.

In particular, the Korean former dictators of Korea had frequently used it together with the clause on incitement of rebellion to make political criticisms a crime against the state. It is clear that the National Security Law is the key obstacle in pursuing the realization of protected rights specified in the International Covenants on Human Rights. A number of non-governmental organizations and foreign governmental agencies of other countries, as well as the United Nations Human Rights Council, have insisted that the Korean government should abolish or amend the law. The incitement of rebellion agitation in the criminal law is the twin act of the National Security Law in its functional terms of the violation of people’s freedom of expression. The legal experts and human rights groups in Korea have expressed their concern that the suppression of political opponents will be more devastating with the guilty verdict of the accused of incitement of rebellion.

Recently in Korea, the freedom of expression is being severely hindered. Criticisms toward the government, including the creative activities of artists, and internet activities are being criminally prosecuted. Especially Lee Suk-ki’s case, who has been sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment due to his 90 minute lecture.

We have witnessed the development of democracy and the growth of human rights in Korea, which were hard earned by the efforts of the people of Korea. And now, at this time, we feel very disappointed and concerned, and accordingly, we ask the governmen the following:

  1. Abolish the National Security Law and guarantee freedom of expression!
  2. Free Lee Suk-ki and Release the 66 other UPP prisoners immediately!
  3. Stop all sorts of continuing investigations and detentions regarding this case immediately!
  4. Observe and adhere to all of the articles in the International Covenant on Human Rights!

Date: ____________________________________

Name: of declarer_____________________________________

Company or Party/PositionAffiliation: _________________________________

Signature: _________________________________

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Freedom of Expression and Civil Liberties in South Korea

Turkey has committed an act of War against the Russian Federation, in its downing of a Russian Su-24 fighter jet.  

A Turkish fighter jet shot down the Russian plane. Militia, under Turkish command, have killed the pilot who attempted to surrender. The pilot, being one man surrounded by hostile forces, clearly unable and not wanting to fight, would have followed protocols and Geneva convention proscribed procedures, and attempted to surrender. Instead, he was either killed in the field or executed by the Turkmen militia once captured.

It is highly probable that these actions taken by militia, as a proxy force under direct command from Ankara, carried out these actions with tacit state approval.  Turkmen militias have played a supportive role in supporting ISIS border crossings and ISIS oil shipments into Turkey.

Turkey claims the jet violated airspace, and that therefore the aggression was Russia’s.  There are numerous problems with this claim, leading to the conclusion that the ‘Act of War’ is Turkey’s.

First, the question here is whether the airspace was in fact violated.  The previous Russian response to the October 5th incident should be deemed a short-term diplomatic success, but an overall strategic failure.  Russia did not challenge that a technical violation had occurred, but relied on technical-legal factors such as degree of the violation, the intent of the pilot (scope of mission) and that no harm was done. Two stories ran immediately following the October 5th incident – 1.) that the violation was accidental, and contrary to this, 2.) that the violation was a maneuver meant to avoid anti-air activity from the ground in Syria. Instead of sticking to the second story, the first story was more heavily promoted and became dominant. This precludes an ‘easy course’ for Russia to use this pretext in the event of a future incident, which has now happened.

A violation of airspace is in and of itself a legal matter within international law and agreements between states. 

The manner and degree in which airspace is trespassed, and the probable intentions of the pilot, are both factors that must figure into a state’s legal and diplomatic justifications in deciding to shoot down a plane that has allegedly violated airspace.

Thus, justifiable responses are largely considered those which contain sufficient elements of parity or mirroring of the initial activity in question. The factors are the degree of the violation (how many km into the territory), which also speaks to the intention itself; The official mission of the pilot(s) and whether an ulterior mission is probable or possible;  In connection with this, whether the offending party, in this case Russia, has any actual or possible targets in Turkey if it posed any threat immediate to Turkish national security (immediate threats are dealt with immediately, other kinds dealt with diplomatically, etc.). Finally, if the offending party has any overt goal in an outright provocation

Therefore, the first factors which lead us to conclude that the Turkish response did not mirror the Russian actions are that:

1.) Russia has no formal or informal targets in Turkey- The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, when construed legally.

2.) Russia has no geopolitical gain to be made from violating Turkish airspace (therefore, incidental).

This means that Turkey’s act can be construed as an act of war.

Turkey is performing NATO’s task – establishing a No-Fly zone in Northern Syria

The No-Fly zone is to protect ISIS supply lines in the north and north-east, including into Iraq as well.

In response to the Turkish aggression, Putin today has openly declared that the Turkish state itself is supporting ISIS terrorism. This follows a major report released last week showing the individuals and private-co-public institutions from certain states (Qatar, Turkey, KSA, etc.) supporting ISIS. Today’s statement from the Kremlin is aimed at disambiguation.

Were Turkey’s actions against Russia  a provocation, or a response?

Analysis indicates a bit of both, but tending towards response.

Turkey struggles to maintain its interest in the Syrian conflict, importing oil from ISIS controlled areas.  Russia recently dealt a serious blow to ISIS, striking a convoy of oil trucks headed to Turkey. From this perspective, Turkey has retaliated against Russia.

Erdogan’s son Bilal Erdogan is the owner of some 500 of the trucks used by ISIS to transport oil into Turkey.  It was these trucks that were struck by Russian attack jets during the past week. Therefore, Erdogan’s decision to shoot down the Russian Su-24 met these important requirements for NATO and Erdogan’s increasingly unstable AKP rule:

1.) Develop a NATO No-Fly Zone in northern Syria

2.) Establish Turkey unabashedly as a supporter of ISIS (to deflate the impact of the Russian investigation)

3.) Force increased NATO official action, possible invocation of Article 5 which would, for France, make independent or even Russian-coordinated anti-ISIS action extremely difficult. It would also openly activate German anti-air batteries located on the Turkish border

4.) Force a Russian response, which regardless of the nature of the response, has the advantage of requiring the opponent to make a move at a predictable time (known time of move is very important in strategy)

5.) Further activate anti-Russian, pro-Atlanticist opposition within Russia. Inside Russia, the 5th and 6th column will use this against the Russian state – the 5th saying this is proof that the Russian activity in Syria produces unwanted consequences.  The 6th will say that this is proof that Russia needs to push further (pursue a course of blind entanglement).

6.) Eliminate all positive speculation about Turkish-Stream – push Russia into a one-track solution ‘Nordstream II’, which later can be singled out and attacked by NATO through pressure on Berlin

7.) Retaliate and ‘make a strong statement’ about Bilal Erdogan’s personal business being targeted

8.) Marginalize anti-Erdogan forces within Turkey, shift the national dialogue from internal to external

At the present time it is difficult to order these by significance, except that the last two points are probably secondary or tertiary in importance in the broad geostrategic schemata.

What will Russia’s response be?

Russia’s response, to be sufficient, must address each of the above NATO and Turkey goals. These are ordered in direct relation to the above.  Some responses are short term, others more long term, in relation to the actions of Turkey and NATO.

1.) Continue to be active in Northern Syria – it has 4 mandates for this: legal, political, sovereign, and strategic. The loss of this plane, even several others, is militarily and strategically acceptable.

2.) Concretize the discourse – following up on the ISIS finance investigation and Putin’s statements today –  that Russian activity in Syria that happens to be anti-Turkish is in fact anti-Terrorist and therefore lawful action. Distinguish between Turkey as a sovereign state, Turkish long term interests, and thirdly the individual players running the Turkish establishment (Erdogan, AKP, et al) in anti-Turkish activities in Syria. Make Turkish support for ISIS a criminal matter of ‘the regime’ and its supporters, and not Turkish security and the Turkish state all together.

3.) Continue to invoke the Paris attacks as further pretext for anti-ISIS actions in Syria: Perpetuate rift between anti-ISIS France and pro-ISIS Turkey, focus and broaden the scope of this obvious contradiction. Create a security related ‘amicus brief’ to the French prosecutors and courts pursuing the Paris attack matter: this should focus on Turkish connections to ISIS. Push the Paris-Berlin axis to oppose Article 5 invocation.

4.) Russia must not be controlled by any forced response, but must forge its own activity. Initial public statements may suffice – further actions should follow the doctrine of mirrored/parity based response.  These do not need to be carried out immediately.  Again, single plane and the loss of a single pilot is an acceptable loss in purely strategic and military terms. The only possible problems are internal public discourse, as well as diplomatic. Russia must regain control time and timing.  Among Turkmen fighters in Syria are Turkish nationals as advisers and leaders: Deploying a Syrian, Iranian, or Russian special force to neutralize or arrest these individuals would be an example of a mirrored/parity based response.

5.)  Activated Russian 5th and 6th column threats exist at top levels, but cannot create  much political instability in Russia outside of mass media. Thus, their modes of attack in this stage are primarily rhetorical.  Therefore, activities to neutralize these should be rhetorical.

a.) The Kremlin must continue its course of public statements. Rule number 1 – never directly address the 5th and 6th columnists, only make statements which are totally based in one’s own policy and proclivities, and never as a response to the critiques of others, which may seem to give the specter of legitimizing such criticisms.  The opposition cannot be helped to exist as a viable source of policy formation, in any way.

b.) Neutralizing the 5th column, this is along the lines of acknowledging the risks and responsibilities that go along with military action – emphasizing the need for them, invoking a combination of the Sinai terrorist attack, the Paris terrorist attack, and Russia’s own experience with Wahhabi terrorism from Chechnya.

c.) Neutralizing the 6th column, reaffirm the need and plan for a robust and adequate counter-measure, while emphasizing the need to avoid being ensnared or losing sight of the mission; this will tacitly accuse the 6th column of promoting an irresponsible course without ever addressing them.

6.) Aggressively push Bulgaria back onto a South-Stream course.  All options on the table including the complete utilization of the Color-Spring technology: ‘peaceful’ regime change in Bulgaria if necessary

a.) Russia can here capitalize on its successes to thwart NATO attempts at Color-Spring maneuvers in Macedonia and Montenegro.  Publicly affirm that Serbia’s course towards the EU is a positive one. Welcome increased security integration of the Serbian military and deep-state into already developing Russian structures in Serbia.

b.) Alternately, Romania can be a surrogate for Bulgaria in South-Stream – at least as a stand-in to push Bulgarian energy and political elites into the course of a pro-Russian oriented power transition. Romania can be brought in with adequate resolution of Moldova and Transnistria issues, as well as other more mundane – but still outstanding – matters relating to grain and real estate.

7.) Publicize Bilal Erdogan’s role in supporting ISIS – engage in a media campaign which personalizes an otherwise state-based, abstracted accusation into a personality based, anthropomorphic version of the same. Publicly connect Turkey’s actions against the Russia to the criminal activities of Bilal Erdogan.

8.) Re-activate the pro-Eurasianist NGO’s which took part in the ‘Turkish Spring’ at Taksim Gezi park in Istanbul. Here is where Russia first showed its ability to utilize the Color-Spring tactic outside of defensive internal counter-operations.  Capitalize from the Russian success in getting Dogu Perincek released from prison, along with other pro-Eurasian military leaders, former generals, and members of the Worker’s Party (now called Patriotic Party), following the so-called Ergenekon conspiracy and Sledgehammer cases. Raise the demands – “political reform, anti-corruption, infrastructure, healthcare, education, anti-war/militarism, pluralist and civil rights”.  Pursue full support for the active socialist or social-nationalist opposition groups in Turkey today. These are not likely to succeed in taking power, will succeed in creating internal disruptions that make present Turkish regional aims more difficult to pursue.

Other theatres of Russia-Turkey Conflict – Recipe for Total War

Russia does not war.  Ultimately, war only benefits the US ruling class, safely across the Atlantic, and supports the needs of both the Military Industrial Complex and City of London and Wall Street based banking elites. To that end, we should expect the following

1.) Increased Turkish support for Tatar extremist groups in Crimea, making a two-pronged attack on Crimea following the recent Kiev backed attack on the power station. These extremist groups exist based on Turkish support, actual Crimean laws in the wake of the constitutional process to re-join Russia have granted minority status rights to Tatars which were denied to them by previous Kiev governments, including rights to language, schools, and plural and civic institutions. Therefore, today’s Crimean Tatar extremist groups cannot exist outside of artificial foreign backing.  Moderate Crimean minority leadership is institutional and supports the Crimean government and, by extension, Russia.

2.) Increased support of Turkey for Azerbaijan – supporting their aims in the conflict with Armenia over the contested border regions.  Russia will increase its support for Armenia.  This will act in connection with the Azeri natural gas project controlled presently by the Shah Denis consortium, now running the Shah Dennis 2 or Full Field Development (FFD) project. This will revive the Nabucco project in the wake of the total freezing of Turkish-Russian stream speculation. This will mitigate the economic/speculative impact on energy markets of this major cooling in Russian-Turkish bilateral relations.

3.) Turkey will collaborate further in supporting ISIS with Qatar and KSA in Khorasan/Kwarazem and Turkmen regions east of the Caspian, broadly speaking, Turkic lands – creating a total or final link between Caucus conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Syria-Iran conflict with Qatar/Israel/Turkey/KSA, and Afghan ‘Al Qaeda’ Mujahideen who will attempt push into Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

4.) Final short-term goal will be breach of security in pro-Russian Kazakhstan, and Russian Dagestan, and Chechnya. Uzbekistan pulled from the CSTO in 2012, but remains in the Chinese SCO: NATO destabilization attempts in the region hold the promise of pushing Uzbekistan closer to Russia (while remaining close to China).

Joaquin Flores is a Mexican-American expat based in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst and director at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank and consultancy firm, as well Veritas, a London based private geostrategic consultancy firm, and as as the co-editor of Fort Russ news service. His expertise encompasses Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and he has a strong proficiency in Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing ideology and the role of mass psychology, as well as the methods of the information war in the context of 4GW and New Media. He is a political scientist educated at California State University. In the US, he worked for a number of years as a labor union organizer, chief negotiator, and strategist for a major trade union federation. He presently serves as the president of the Berlin based Independent Journalist Association for Peace.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Turkish Act of War Against Russia. A No Fly Zone in Northern Syria

On Tuesday, Turkey shot down a Russian warplane that was carrying out military operations against jihadi groups in Northern Syria. The downing of the Su-24 fighter jet is part of a broader plan by the administration of Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan to topple the secular government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad and to establish “safe zones” on the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border.

Erdogan needs the safe zones to provide a sanctuary for the militant extremists who are the footsoldiers in his war against Syria. The downing of the Russian fighter is a desperate attempt by Erdogan to incite a reaction from Russia that will draw either NATO or the United States deeper into a conflict which has dragged on for 4 and a half years and killed 250,000 people.

Unlike the Obama administration, that has been willing to arm and train jihadi groups to conduct its proxy-war against Assad in Syria, Erdogan is a true believer, a committed Islamist who has done everything in his power to roll back democracy in Turkey, to establish one-man rule, to destroy the independent judiciary, to silence the free press, and to establish a conservative and intolerant Islamic state. Erdogan is what many would call a “Koolaid drinker”, a man who believes that his support for disparate and vicious terrorist groups that have decimated Syria, laid its civilian infrastructure to waste, and displaced more than half the population is “God’s work”. Make no mistake, the Turkish government is the modern-day Caliphate. The fact that its government officials dress in nicely-tailored suits rather than black pajamas, is merely a way to divert attention from their extreme fanaticism and their covert support for liver-eating fundamentalist savages.

In the seven weeks since Russia began military operations in Syria, nearly all of the gains of the US-Turkey-Saudi-Qatar jihadi coalition have been wiped out. The decisive battle took place more than a week ago at Kuweris airbase east of Aleppo. This was the tipping point for the war although the imminent fall of Aleppo is bound to attract more notoriety. It’s clear now that the Russian-led coalition is winning the war, has foiled US attempt to remove Assad, and that the bulk of the foreign mercenaries will either be killed or captured. The Obama administration realizes that the current phase of the war is hopeless and has started to implement a fallback plan to control territory in E Syria that is critical for future pipeline corridors. In contrast, the Turkish government is completely unwilling to accept the fact that its plan has failed which is why it has embarked on this risky strategy to draw either NATO or Washington deeper into the fray. Check this out from a Tuesday battlefield report from South Front:

“The Syrian forces backed up by the Russian warplanes, pushed back the militant groups from nearly 200 kilometers of land in the coastal province of Lattakia, military sources said Monday. On Sunday, the Syrian army and popular forces purged the terrorists and advanced to areas near the Turkish borders. The ground reports argue that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) took control of Zahia heights, 2km from the joint borders with Turkey.”

Can you see what’s going on? The Russian-led coalition is closing in on the Syria-Turkish border which will put an end to Erdogan’s dream of toppling Assad or continuing to fuel the war with terrorists that are provided a safe haven on Syrian soil. This is why the Su-24 fighter was shot down on Tuesday. It is a desperate attempt to salvage the failed strategy of toppling a secular government and replacing it with friendly Islamic extremists who hew to Erdogan’s twisted worldview.

By the way, readers should take a minute and review the video of the “moderate” headchoppers that the US supports in Syria paying special attention to their moderate treatment of prisoners. The Russian pilot was captured by these “freedom fighters”, shot twice in the chest and then his clothes were ripped off so he could be moderately photographed. These are the fine fellows that Uncle Sam would like to see in Damascus heading the government because, as we all know, “Assad has lost legitimacy.” (See here.)

For the last three days, I have been following a fast-evolving plan by the Turkish Terrorist Government (TTG) to create a false flag operation that would draw either the US or NATO deeper into the war in Syria reversing Obama’s recent commitment NOT to deploy ground troops to the warzone. On Saturday, Turkish newspapers reported that 1,500 Syrian Turkmen had fled to the Turkish border for safety. The reasons that were given were that the Russian warplanes were bombing areas where ISIS was not located. True, ISIS is not located in these Turkmen villages by the border; rather the barbarians that you see in the video are located there. These men belong to the jihadi groups that that have been funded, armed and trained by Turkey and the US and who are fighting to topple Assad. Reasonable people who would like to see an end to terrorism, should feel supportive of Putin’s efforts to annihilate these monsters. Instead, the Turkish government has been trying to make the case that Russia is bombing innocent civilians. Now check out this story (from Monday) in Turkey’s leading newspaper Hurriyet:

“Turkey has called for a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss attacks on Turkmens in neighboring Syria, according to Prime Ministry sources, with Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu saying his government will “not hesitate” to take the required measures on Syrian soil to protect the Turkmen people…

Turkey is in discussions with the United States and Russia over the bombing of the villages and has sent a letter to Britain, the current holder of the U.N. Security Council’s presidency, asking for the subject to be taken up, sources from Davutoğlu’s office told Reuters on Nov. 23…

Speaking to reporters late on Nov. 22, Davutoğlu recalled that he was engaged in constant contact with both Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar and National Intelligence Organization (MİT) Chief Hakan Fidan over the weekend concerning alleged Russian air raids on Turkmen villages near the Syrian-Turkish border. Sources, meanwhile, told Reuters that Davutoğlu had consulted on the intelligence dimension of the issue with Akar and Fidan.

“Our security forces have been instructed to retaliate against any development that would threaten Turkey’s border security,” the prime minister said. “If there is an attack that would lead to an intense influx of refugees to Turkey, required measures would be taken both inside Syria and Turkey,” he added.

“Looking at background of these attacks, in a region where very clearly there is no element of Deash (ISIS), where there is no terrorist element, first Russian airplanes come and then with support from foreign fighters.

“We will also take the required measures diplomatically for the protection of our brothers and sisters in the place where they are located and for the protection of their human rights in the face of any threat,” he also stated.” (Turkey urges UN to act to protect Turkmens in Syria, Hurriyet)

So is the Turkish PM correct in saying the Russians are bombing the Turkmen civilians forcing them to flee from their homes. Not according to Turkmen leader Ali Türkmani. Here’s what he said:

“There is a perception operation that is being waged over the Turkmens. The regime will of course attempt to maintain its territorial integrity. As such, threats from al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army are being targeted [by Russian air strikes]. It’s not correct to say the Turkmens are being targeted.”

So civilians are not being targeted, but the Turkish government is supplying weapons and ammo to the terrorists as this article in the Turkish Daily Zaman proves:

“Several trucks bound for Syria were stopped at the beginning of last year by Turkish gendarmerie forces upon instructions by a prosecutor. It turned out they contained weapons.
The AK Party government claimed for months that the trucks only included humanitarian aid, but a report published by the Cumhuriyet daily in May last year revealed that the trucks contained weapons.

According to the daily’s report, a truck, which is thought to be one of many, contained 1,000 artillery shells, 50,000 machine gun rounds, 30,000 heavy machine gun rounds and 1,000 mortar shells.

The government was accused of sending the weapons to radical Islamist groups in Syria, but Davutoğlu swore in June that the trucks were bound for Turkmens. In contrast, Turkmens had earlier denied receiving any weapons from Turkey.” (Turkey calls on UN Security Council to convene for Turkmens in Syria, Today’s Zaman)

So what is the game-plan here? What is Turkey really up to?

Well, first of all, they are trying to set up a safe zone on sovereign Syrian territory so they can continue to spread terror across Syria. Check out this clip from the Daily Sabah and you’ll see how these Turkmen radicals who are allies of Ankara are seizing villages to create the safe zone:

“Syrian opposition groups supported by Turkish and US warplanes took control of two Turkmen towns in Northern Syria early Saturday, Anadolu Agency reported….The operation was supported by six Turkish F-16s, four US F-15s and an AC-130 joined the offensive along with three drones.

Security sources added that this success in the fight against DAESH that can be defined as the first step for the creation of a DAESH-free zone in Northern Syria….

Speaking about Turkey’s stance on the recent developments in Northern Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in a live broadcast on Wednesday that declaring no-fly and safe zones is crucial to resolve the Syrian Crisis….Erdoğan further stated that Turkey will continue to carry out anti-terror operations until concrete results are achieved and peace is restored.” (First step for the safe zone in N. Syria: opposition groups take two Turkmen towns from DAESH, Daily Sabah)

Whether you call it an ISIS-free zone or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the Turkish government (with US air support) is trying to annex Syrian territory for its own nefarious purposes. That much is clear.

The downing of the Russian Su-24 fighter fits perfectly with the way in which the Turkish government has been ratcheting up tensions on the border, using its jihadi allies to seize Syrian territory, and trying to incite a violent reaction that will force greater NATO or US involvement. I seriously doubt that Putin is gullible enough to take the bait and overreact to this obvious and pathetic provocation in Ankara. He will exact his pound of flesh at some other time, a time of his own choosing.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Downs Russian Fighter to Draw NATO and US Deeper into Syrian Quagmire

The Perils of Certainty: Obama and the “Assad Regime”

November 25th, 2015 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

In Kuala Lumpur, the US president continued the line that Bashar al-Assad had to go. His approach, one that has failed on all fronts thus far, has been to marginalise Assad while supplying a fictional grouping of regime opponents conveniently designated “moderates”.

Again, such descriptions are useless in the battlefield where arms supplied by one backer are regularly channelled to another, be it through design or natural folly. This is a war of fanatical objectives and bloody outlines. It resists the moral codebook so conveniently, and disingenuously used, by the Obama administration and its allies.

Even as the Coalition pounds, however effectively, Islamic state positions, more covert operations are being directed, albeit it poorly, against Assad. Each time the Central Intelligence Agency has, since 2013, ventured to bolster a faction of anti-regime “moderates,” the results have been the same: defection, desertion, capture and overall incompetence. All in all, the number of CIA-trained forces remain sketchy, coming to approximately 10,000. Such a poor record was enough to waken some on the Hill as to the need to trim the agency’s operating budget.

The ones who are doing most of the dying and fighting are the ones who believe, be they the soldiers of the Assad regime itself, the Kurds, or the assortment of fundamentalist brigades from al-Nusra to Islamic State itself.

Even within the US political establishment, a sense that Washington ballsed up this particular issue is doing the rounds. Obama’s own deputy, Joe Biden, has expressly admitted that the policy of arming moderates was one that invariably ended up assisting al-Nusra and ISIS elements.

None of this should be surprising on peeking into his various foreign policy stances over the years. Biden has brought to his office a distinct scepticism about vast US deployments and meddling. He opposed the intervention in Libya that ultimately destabilised the country and saw the overthrowing of Muammar el-Qaddafi, while a very enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supported it.

House Representatives, already confused earlier in the year by what, exactly, to do with Assad, have made some moves that do not accord with the Obama White House. Such confused thinking manifested itself in the May 15 defence bill which did instruct the Pentagon to ensure that Syrian units opposed to Assad have the ability to combat him. But another provision also authorised the blacklisting of such units who proceeded to turn on Assad’s forces rather than those of Islamic State.[1] Clear, in such minds, as mud.

As Rep. Nick Nolan (D-Minn.) then explained, “We [have] spent literally trillions of dollars in the Middle East in what many would describe as wars of choice and nation building. All too often, the moneys have made a mockery of our good intentions and ended up in the wrong hands and in many cases used against us.”

House Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), along with Austin Scott (R-Ga.) went so far on Friday as to introduce legislation that would terminate what they have termed an “illegal war” to overthrow the Assad regime. There was only one true target in this duel, argued Gabbard: Islamic State.

“The US is waging two wars in Syria. The first is the war against ISIS and the other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11. The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”[2] Scott reiterated the line. “Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”

Notwithstanding such observations coming from sceptical voices in Washington, Obama insisted that, “It would not work to keep him in power. This is a practical issue, not just a matter of conscience.” Since when removing Assad was a matter of pragmatic consideration shows how distant Obama has been on the Syrian conflict.

A good degree of cynicism also accompanied the KL press conference. Obama decided to flag Putin that Moscow’s own options were limited. Abandon, he seemed to be saying, Assad, and we will have a better chance with fighting Russia’s real threat: Islamic State and it is associates. Forget the piddly, murderous regime in Damascus and go in for the big win.

The signs, however, in convincing Moscow to yield to US unctuousness, are not good. Even the president’s own description did not leave much room for optimism on his part. “Russia has not officially committed to a transition of Assad moving out but they did agree to a political transition process. And I think we’ll find out over the next several weeks whether or not we can bring about that change with the Russians.”

In the meantime, French President François Hollande has been attempting to do some bridging politics. Since the Paris attacks, he has found more common ground with the Russian campaign against Islamic State. He has subsequently been fretting about bringing Obama and Putin onto common ground. Whether that common ground includes a patch allowing Assad to prevail in any post-Islamic State environment remains the teasing, and lingering question.

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

Notes

 [1] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/congress-assad-defense-bill-contradictory-guidance-rebels.html#

[2] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-democrat-republican-urge-obama-to-focus-on-isis-not-assad/

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Perils of Certainty: Obama and the “Assad Regime”

Netanyahu Paves the Way for a New Era Of Tyranny

November 25th, 2015 by Jonathan Cook

With dismaying predictability, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu lost no time in exploiting the massacre in Paris. As he has done many times before, he claimed Europe’s trauma was just a taste of the suffering Israelis have long known.

Discounting decades of a brutal Israeli occupation as the cause of the recent wave of Palestinian attacks, he said: “It is the terrorists who are to blame for terrorism, not the territories, not the settlements and not any other thing.”

Rather than criticising the occupation, he added, the world should learn from Israel’s “aggressive policy” how to defeat its enemies. Last week, he unveiled the latest measure, outlawing the northern wing of the Islamic Movement, a popular party among Israel’s Palestinian citizens, one in five of the population.

Netanyahu and his ministers justified the decision by conflating the Islamic Movement with Hamas and ISIL. But while its leader, Sheikh Raed Salah, rejects the idea of a Jewish state, the movement operates entirely within Israeli law. Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency opposed Netanyahu’s move, admitting that it had failed to find any evidence linking the movement to violence.

Salah’s organisation refuses to participate in the Israeli parliament, and instead directs much of its efforts at religious instruction and good works, including health clinics, nurseries and sports clubs, to the poorest communities in Israel.

That has made it hugely popular. A recent survey found 57 per cent of Israel’s 1.6 million Palestinian citizens believe the movement represents them. A third of Israel’s Palestinian Christians support it too. And it has 10,000 paid-up members, who now risk imprisonment.

So why do it? There are several benefits for Netanyahu and the Israeli right in equating all Islamic activism with terrorism.

Not least, international pressure to negotiate an end to the occupation is likely to lift. He can now recast Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians from a national conflict into a religious – and existential – one. If France is getting tough against ISIL, why should Netanyahu be expected to sit down with his own extremists?

It also helps him domestically. He needs an implacable foe to justify to Israelis why they need an authoritarian government like his.

The US nuclear deal with Iran removed his chief bogeyman. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority is helping maintain order in the West Bank. And Hamas is licking its wounds in Gaza. Now he has an internal enemy, the Islamic Movement, that the argument goes must be fought ruthlessly from within.

Salah’s group fits the bill well. It has been an obstacle to two key planks of the Israeli right’s agenda.

First, it has frustrated the government’s efforts to drive tens of thousands of Bedouin from their ancestral villages into hugely deprived townships. The Islamic Movement has helped to organise and strengthen these communities.

And second, Salah has taken on the fight at Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, as Jewish settler groups have used their government connections to gain ever greater purchase on the holy esplanade.

Salah’s cry of “Al Aqsa is in danger” has rallied huge numbers of supporters – Palestinians with the advantage of Israeli citizenship – to get involved at the mosque, at a time when all other Palestinian players, including the PA, have been excluded from Jerusalem.

Netanyahu characterises that opposition to his Jerusalem policies as a terror-like “incitement”, saying it has triggered the current Palestinian unrest.

Outlawing the Islamic Movement looks set to be the first step down a path to greater political repression.

Last year the Netanyahu government passed a law raising the electoral threshold too high for any of Israel’s Palestinian political parties to pass it and so win seats in the parliament.

Against the odds, the disparate factions created a Joint List, which is now the third largest party in the chamber. In response, Netanyahu used the election campaign to fearmonger, warning that Palestinian citizens were coming out to vote “in droves”.

The crackdown on the Islamic Movement paves the way to justifying a ban on members of the Joint List. The Balad faction, in particular, has skated close to illegality by arguing that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic.

Its demand that Israel choose democracy – becoming a “state of all its citizens” – has outraged the right and led to repeated efforts to ban it. That now seems likelier than ever.

If Balad is outlawed too, the Joint List will collapse and the Palestinian parties will be forced out of the Israeli political arena.

The Shin Bet opposed outlawing Salah’s movement because it feared the move would radicalise the Palestinian minority. Denied either a parliamentary or extra-parliamentary platform, some would drift towards violence.

That is already a danger. Last week six Palestinian citizens were charged with trying to join ISIL in Syria, so far a tiny but discernible trend.

Netanyahu’s world view has always depended on a bloody, winner-takes-all clash of civilisations between West and East. He will continue offering vociferous advice on tackling terrorism to European leaders. They would do well to ignore him.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu Paves the Way for a New Era Of Tyranny

Despite demands from France’s Hollande, America’s Obama, and NATO’s Stoltenberg that this situation not esclate, it appears Putin is not taking the shooting down of a fighter jet lying down.

The seemingly cagey confirmation by NATO and Obama of Turkey’s claims that Russia invaded its airspace has been rebuked by Russia which claims the Hmeimim airbase radar shows the attacking Turkish plane violating Syrian airspace.

In response, Russia is moving a Cruiser ‘Moskva’ off the coast to strengthen air-defenses – just as French and US carriers are on their way.

Here is The Turkish version mapping of the flight paths.

Russia claims otherwise:

  • HMEIMIM AIRBASE’S RADAR SYSTEM RECORDS VIOLATION OF SYRIAN AIRSPACE BY ATTACKING TURKISH WARPLANE – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

And is escalating:

  • RUSSIAN ‘MOSKVA” CRUISER TO GO TO AREA IN COASTAL LATAKIA TO STRENGTHEN AIR DEFENSE IN SYRIA – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

The Missile cruiser in question:

The reason for the deployment:

  • RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES GENERAL STAFF: NONE OF OUR PARTNERS, COUNTRIES FIGHTING ISIL HAVE EVER TOLD US THAT SO-CALLED MODERATE OPPOSITION UNITS WERE IN AREA WHERE SU-24 DOWNED
  • NO ATTEMPTS REGISTERED ON PART OF TURKISH PLANE TO GET IN TOUCH OR ESTABLISH VISUAL CONTACT WITH OUR CREW VIA OBJECTVE CONTROL DEVICES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINSTRY
  • WARSHIP TO DESTROY ANY THREATS SEEN TO RUSSIAN PLANES: IFX

Specifically, as RT reports, the steps announced by Russian top brass as the following:Three steps as announced by top brass:

  1. Each and every strike groups’ operation is to be carried out under the guise of fighter jets
  2. Air defense to be boosted with the deployment of Moskva guided missile cruiser off Latakia coast with an aim to destroy any target that may pose danger
  3. Military contacts with Turkey to be suspended

Just like the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine, it has quickly become a case of “he said, she said”:

Rudskoy said the Russian warplane did not violate Turkish airspace. Additionally, according to the Hmeymim airfield radar, it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber. The Turkish fighter jet made no attempts to contact Russian pilots before attacking the bomber, Rudskoy added.

“We assume the strike was carried out with a close range missile with an infra-red seeker,” Rudskoy said. “The Turkish jet made no attempts to communicate or establish visual contact with our crew that our equipment would have registered. The Su-24 was hit by a missile over Syria’s territory.”

Sergey Rudskoy, a top official with the Russian General Staff, condemned the attack on the Russian bomber in Syrian airspace by a Turkish fighter jet as “a severe violation of international law”. He stressed that the Su-24 was downed over the Syrian territory. The crash site was four kilometers away from the Turkish border, he said.

As a result, Russia now plans to implement new measures aimed at strengthening the security of the country’s air base in Syria and in particular to bolster air defense. Russian guided missile cruiser Moskva, equipped with the ‘Fort’ air defense system, similar to the S-300, will be deployed off Latakia province’s coast.

“We warn that every target posing a potential threat will be destroyed,” lieutenant general Sergey Rudskoy said during the briefing.

“All military contacts with Turkey will be suspended,” he added.

Furthermore, as the Russian Ministry of Defense explained, going forward, any Turkish plane that enters Syrian airspace will be fair game.

So just as we warned in September, the situation has become a complete rerun of the 2013 Syria “Mediterranean” showdown, with full naval engagement by all parties, except this time the tensions are significantly escalated, a Russian fighter jet has just been taken down, US and French aircraft carriers are arriving in weeks, and Putin will not hestitate to go as far as he has to in order to save face.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia Deploys Warship Off Syrian Coast To “Destroy Any Threats To Russian Planes”

The thesis of anthropologist David Vine’s latest book, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, is taboo in American political discourse. It is a radical notion to suggest that foreign bases don’t protect American interests but actively harm them.

Candidates who fail to reflexively support U.S. militarism face a political land mine. Even putative leftist Bernie Sanders has refused to challenge the status quo, in which the United States has 800 foreign military bases while the rest of the world combined has 30.

Vine makes his argument by comprehensively detailing the profligate, unsustainable spending on overseas bases, which is undertaken with little to no meaningful oversight by Congressional representatives. This spending is the main driver in perennial budget deficits. It also carries a tremendous opportunity cost. Direly needed investments in infrastructure, education and social programs are neglected at the expense of runaway military costs outside the country.

Beyond demonstrating that military buildup overseas is inefficient and wasteful, Vine reveals a deeper societal critique that manifests itself in the country’s military policy. “Force,” Vine notes, “has become one of America’s fundamental policy maxims.”

Rather than a noble instrument of beneficence, the U.S. military is a blunt projection of American power, radically opposed to the ideals of democracy and human rights it purports to represent. This gap between perception and reality has been cultivated for decades to serve the aims of the ruling class.

The notion that the U.S. needs to cover the globe in military bases emerged among elite planners in the buildup to World War II. Behind this policy, which is now taken for granted, is a pathological paranoia that demands absolute American hegemony.

“Even before the United States entered World War II, Roosevelt and other leaders had started developing a vision of the world as intrinsically threatening, in which any instability and danger, no matter how small or far removed from the United States, was seen as a vital threat,” Vine writes.

Immediately thereafter, the vast military buildup that President Dwight D. Eisenhower would famously label the “military-industrial complex” began. The complex that Eisenhower warned about has grown exponentially in the 50 years since, morphing into what investigative journalist Nick Turse calls the “military-industrial-technological-entertainment-academic-scientific-media-intelligence-homeland security-surveillance-national security-corporate complex.”

Military spending now accounts for 54% of discretionary spending in the entire federal budget ($599 billion of $1.1 trillion). Vine calculates that overseas bases account for anywhere between $71 – $120 billion of military spending. That is to say, bases abroad cost as much as four times the amount spent on Social Security, Unemployment & Labor ($29 billion); nearly twice as much as Housing and Community ($63 billion); four times as much as Science ($30 billion); and 1.7 times as much as Education ($70 billion).

Foreign bases generate enormous corporate profits. Contracting firms like Lockheed Martin and former Halliburton subsidiary KBR spend feverishly on lobbying to keep the spigot flowing.

Yet while both factions of the business party are dedicated to austerity – with the Republican faction rabid in their zeal to curtail public spending – any discussion of cutting military spending is a non-starter in Washington.

Politicians of all stripes eagerly back anything the military asks for in order to avoid accusations of being unpatriotic and weak on security. The use of dishonest McCarthy-like rhetoric to cower the military’s overseers has proved a powerful weapon in preventing critical discourse from entering the public arena.

The lack of criticism has more serious repercussions than merely wasting taxpayer dollars and allowing an outdated strategy to go unchallenged. It allows actions that would be condemned in the most severe terms if they were committed by an official enemy to be ignored and hidden in the name of “supporting the troops.”

Throughout decades of a permanent U.S. military presence abroad, the military and its personnel have committed many atrocities. Overwhelmingly, the crimes go unnoticed and the perpetrators go unpunished. Rather than a collection of isolated incidents, they comprise a pattern of human rights abuses and, in some cases, war crimes.

Displacement

Creating outposts for the U.S. military in every corner of the globe makes displacement inevitable. The problem is exacerbated by the belief that foreign lands do not actually belong to the people who inhabit them, but to the United States, which is free to exploit them as it pleases. The story of the ethnic cleansing of the Chagossians is most demonstrative of this ethos. 

In the late 1960s, U.S. Navy officials planned to remove all 2,000 inhabitants of the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia, part of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. After construction on Diego began in 1971, the Navy’s top admiral said the Chagossians “absolutely must go.” The entire Chagossian population was forcibly evicted from their island and moved 1,200 miles away without any financial assistance.

Vine’s account of the ethnic cleansing of the Chagossians is horrifying: 

“With the help of U.S. Navy Seabees, British agents began the deportation process by rounding up the islanders’ pet dogs. They gassed and burned them in sealed cargo sheds as Chagossians watched in horror. Then the authorities ordered the remaining Chagossians onto overcrowded cargo ships. During the deportations, which took place in stages until May 1973, most of the Chagossians slept in the ship’s hold atop guano – bird shit. Horses stayed on deck. By the end of the five-day journey, vomit, urine, and excrement were everywhere. At least one woman miscarried. Some compare conditions to those on slave ships.”

This was far from an isolated case. “Around the world, often on islands and in other isolated locations, the U.S. military long displaced indigenous groups to create bases. In most cases the displaced populations have ended up deeply impoverished, like the Chagossians and Bikinians,” Vine writes.

From Panama to Guam to Puerto Rico to Okinawa to dozens of other locations across the world, the military has taken valuable land from local populations, often pushing out indigenous people in the process, without their consent and without reparations. They are enabled by the political subjugation of native peoples.

“From the military’s perspective, ongoing colonial relationships have allowed officials to ‘do what we want’ without many of the restrictions faced in the fifty states or in fully independent nations,” Vine writes.

Sexual Exploitation

One of the strongest condemnations of terrorist groups like ISIS – rightly so – is that they exploit women for sex. Examination of the U.S. military’s history abroad reveals a track record of similar sexual abuse of local women and girls. Vine describes cases of Army soldiers who reported coworkers buying women as sex slaves. But he also describes larger structural forces that facilitate sexual exploitation.

“Commercial sex zones have developed around U.S. bases worldwide,” Vine writes. “Many look much the same, filled with liquor stores, fast-food outlets, tattoo parlors, bars and clubs, and prostitution in one form or another. The evidence is just outside the gates in places such as Baumholder and Kaiserslautern in Germany, and Kadena and Kin Town in Okinawa. Even during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been multiple reports of brothels and sex trafficking involving U.S. troops and contractors.” 

In South Korea, Vine traces the evolution of “camptowns” from the emergence of American military bases in the 1950s. More than 150,000 local Korean women, lacking viable economic alternatives, were forced into sex work catering to American troops. They later faced severe social stigmatization and many ended up destitute.

One could argue that the U.S. military did not create these conditions but, rather, the supply emerged to meet a market demand. But bases with American troops are not a product of a free market. They are imposed without consent on communities where they dominate the local economies.

Unequal power relationships between the occupying military and the indigenous populations create the conditions for social and economic exploitation. The existence of sexual exploitation to serve U.S. military personnel abroad is directly attributable to policy decisions that create bases at the expense of alternative possibilities of independent development. 

Violent Crime

The lack of respect for the lives and bodies of indigenous people is another product of unequal power relationships between U.S. military and the people whose land they occupy. American troops abroad are often afforded impunity to injure and kill those understood to be inferior to them.

“Status of forces agreements (SOFAs) that often allow U.S. troops to escape prosecution by host nations for the crimes they commit,” Vine writes. “Little known in the United States, SOFAs govern the presence of U.S. troops in most countries abroad, covering everything from taxation to driving permits to what happens if a GI breaks the host country’s laws.” 

There is a long history on the Japanese island of Okinawa of the local population suffering violent crime at the hands of the American military. Military personnel in Okinawa have kidnapped, raped, murdered and killed women and girls. Vine says that during the Vietnam War, soldiers on leave or stationed at Okinawa killed at least 17 women, many of whom worked at bars or saunas. 

“Between 1959 and 1964, at least four Okinawans were shot and killed as the result of what military officials said were hunting accidents or stray bullets from training,” Vine writes. “Between 1962 and 1968, there were at least four more crashes and accidents involving military aircraft, leaving at least eight dead and twelve injured. At least fourteen people died after being hit by U.S. military vehicles, including a four-year-old killed by a crane.” 

These crimes carried out directly by U.S. personnel are suffered by powerless populations who have no recourse to obtain justice. Even their narratives are covered up and ignored.

Vine’s study presents a much needed corrective to the nationalist narrative the American state, its public and its media would like to believe. If it is not enough to at least bring military policy into mainstream discourse, where it belongs, there will be little hope for the political system the military has come to dominate – or for the millions of people outside U.S. borders who continue to suffer its effects.

Matt Peppe writes about politics, U.S. foreign policy and Latin America on his blog. You can follow him on twitter.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bad Policy, Bad Ethics: U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World

Turkey Has Destroyed Russia’s Hope Of Western Cooperation

November 25th, 2015 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

UPDATE FROM AUTHOR: A friend, George Abert, suggested a reason why the Turks shot down the Russian fighter-bomber over Syria. The Russians have a technology that they recently demonstrated against the newest US missile cruiser and Israel’s US jet fighters. The technology shuts down the communication systems of hostile forces, leaving them blind. He wonders if the Russian aircraft was shot down in order to encourage the Russians to use its unknown technology whenever Russian aircraft are in the vicinity of NATO and Israeli aircraft. He bets that the US has sent every Raven and ELINT specialist to the area in hopes that Russia’s use of the technology will allow them to learn enough about the system to duplicate it or learn how to block it.

*        *       *

Turkey’s unprovoked shoot-down of a Russian military aircraft over Syria raises interesting questions. It seems unlikely that the Turkish government would commit an act of war against a much more powerful neighbor unless Washington had cleared the attack. Turkey’s government is not very competent, but even the incompetent know better than to put themselves into a position of facing Russia alone.

If the attack was cleared with Washington, was Obama bypassed by the neocons who control his government, or is Obama himself complicit? Clearly the neoconservatives are disturbed by the French president’s call for unity with Russia against ISIL and easily could have used their connections to Turkey to stage an event that Washington can use to prevent cooperation with Russia.

Washington’s complicity is certainly indicated, but it is not completely out of the question that the well-placed Turks who are purchasing oil from ISIL took revenge against Russia for destroying their oil tanker investments and profitable business. But if the attack has a private or semi-private origin in connections between gangsters and military, would Turkey’s president have defended the shoot-down on such spurious grounds as “national defense”? No one can believe that one Russian jet is a threat to Turkey’s security.

Don’t expect the presstitutes to look into any such questions. The presstitutes, such as the BBC’s Moscow correspondent Sarah Rainsford, are spinning the story that the loss of the Russian aircraft, and earlier the airliner, proves that Putin’s policy of air strikes against iSIL has backfired as Russians are not safer.

The responses to the shoot-down are also interesting. From what I heard of Obama’s press conference, Obama’s definition of “moderate Syrian rebels” includes all the extremist jihadish groups, such as al Nursa and ISIL, that are the focus of the Russian attacks. Only Assad is an extremist. Obama, following the neocon line, says that Assad has too much blood on his hands to be allowed to remain president of Syria.

Obama is not specific about the “blood on Assad’s hands,” but we can be. The blood is the blood of ISIL forces fighting the Syrian army. Obama doesn’t refer to the blood on ISIL’s hands, but even the presstitutes have told us the horror stories associated with the blood on ISIL’s hands, with whom Obama has allied us.

And what about the blood on Obama’s hands? Here we are talking about a very large quantity of blood: the blood of entire countries—Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and the blood that Obama’s puppet government in Kiev has spilled of the ethnic Russian inhabitants of Ukraine, not to forget the Palestinian blood spilled by Israel using US supplied weapons.

If the blood on Assad’s hands disqualifies Assad from office, the much greater quantity on Obama’s hands disqualifies Obama. And Cameron. And Hollande. And Merkel. And Netanyahu.

Throughout the entire Washington orchestrated conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and Ukraine, the Russian government has spoken reasonably and responded in a diplomatic manner to the many provocations. The Russian government relied on European governments realizing that Europe does not benefit from conflicts generated by Washington and separating themselves from a policy that is against their interests. But Europe proved to be a collection of American vassals, not independent countries capable of independent foreign policies.

In its campaign against ISIL in Syria, the Russian government relied on the agreement made with NATO countries to avoid engaging in the air. Now Turkey has violated this agreement.

I will be surprised if the Russian government any longer places any trust in the words of the West and any hope in diplomacy with the West. By now the Russian government and the Russian people will have learned that the Wolfowitz doctrine means what it says and is in force against Russia.

From the Ukrainian attack on Crimea’s power supply and the blackout that is affecting Crimea, the Russian government has also learned that Washington’s puppet government in Kiev intends further conflict with Russia.

Washington has made it clear from the beginning that Washington’s focus is on overthrowing Assad, not ISIL. Despite the alleged attack on France by ISIL, the US State Department press spokesperson, Admiral John Kirby, said that Russia cannot be a member of the coalition against ISIL until Russia stops propping up Assad.

To the extent that the shoot-down of the Russian military aircraft has a silver lining, the incident has likely saved the Russian government from a coalition in which Russia would have lost control of its war against ISIL and would have had to accept the defeat of Assad’s removal.

Each step along the way the Russian government has held strong cards that it did not play, trusting instead to diplomacy. Diplomacy has now proven to be a deadend. If Russia does not join the real game and begin to play its strong cards, Russia will be defeated.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Has Destroyed Russia’s Hope Of Western Cooperation

Did Turkey just provoke a proxy-war on behalf of NATO against Russia? – Turkey knew very well that the Russian SU-24 fighter jet was inside Syria’s borders and that even as it may have been close to Turkey it was no threat for Turkey. Russia’s mission was clear to all the 19 nations which attended the G20 meeting some 10 days ago in Antalya, Turkey, when the entire group unanimously decided to cooperate in fighting the Islamic State (IS – or Daesh, according to its Arabic acronym).

This ‘voice in unison’ seemed to have been prompted by the Paris massacre on 13 November, which was allegedly claimed by ISIS / Daesh. – Was the agreed ‘cooperation’ to jointly fighting terrorism all hypocrisy? – An international arena to spread lies and make-believe that there is hope to eradicate the all-fearsome terrorist threat in the heart of Europe?

It might well be that Turkey got marching orders from Washington to know no mercy for Russia and Russian fighter planes. Never mind that past Turkish-Russian relations have been good. As recent as a year ago, Turkey was ready turning her back to Europe and eyed instead at joining the SCO – the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, led by China and Russia, where most Central Asian former Soviet Republics are members, and with India, Pakistan and Iran in the process of also associating with SCO.

But then again, Turkey, on the divide between Europe and Asia has historically been wavering between East and West – according to the motto, let’s see who offers the most, including recent talks by Mr. Erdogan and Madame Merkel, whereby the former offered to control the flood of refugees for a little help from a friend in the amount of three billion euros.

*      *      *

President Putin, who met today with Jordan’s King Abdullah II (see image above), said at the margin of the meeting, in which fighting terrorism was a key item of the agenda:

“Our servicemen are engaged in a heroic fight against terrorism, not sparing themselves or their own lives. However, today’s loss is a result of a stab in the back delivered by terrorists’ accomplices (emphasis added). There is no other way I can qualify what happened today.

Our aircraft was shot down over Syrian territory by an air-to-air missile launched from a Turkish F-16 plane. It fell on Syrian territory, four kilometres from the Turkish border. When it was attacked in the air, it was flying at an altitude of 6,000 metres, one kilometre away from the Turkish territory. In any case, our plane and our pilots were in no way a threat to the Turkish Republic in any way. This is obvious.”

Mr. Putin elaborated further:

“We have long been recording the movement of a large amount of oil and petroleum products to Turkey from ISIS-occupied territories. This explains the significant funding the terrorists are receiving. Now they are stabbing us in the back by hitting our planes that are fighting terrorism. This is happening despite the agreement we have signed with our American partners to prevent air incidents, and, as you know, Turkey is among those who are supposed to be fighting terrorism within the American coalition.

If ISIS is making so much money – we are talking about tens or maybe even hundreds of millions, possibly billions of dollars – in oil trade and they are supported by the armed forces of an entire state, it is clear why they are being so daring and impudent, why they are killing people in such gruesome ways, why they are committing terrorist attacks all over the world, including in the heart of Europe.”

It is clear, Turkey a prominent NATO country, follows Washington’s orders. Hosting the recent G20 meeting and subscribing to the east-west ‘coalition’ of fighting the ISIS / DAESH / Al Qaeda terror, was a loosely disguised farce.

*        *        *

Washington needs a large-scale war. Her masters, the military industry, Wall Street, Big Oil – and not to forget AIPAC, the all-powerful Israeli lobby – ask for it. The US economy is faltering, as it always did before the onset of a major war, including the two world wars; and Israel’s ambition to become the ruler of the Middle-East is under the war criminal Netanyahu more alive than ever.

If Russia were to retaliate within Turkey’s borders, it could be construed as an aggression against a NATO country which under the rules of the Trans-Atlantic alliance is a free pass for NATO to wage war against the aggressor. Should Russia fall into this trap – which most likely Mr. Putin will not – it might be the first step towards WWIII – to be played out in the Middle-East. Whether nuclear or not, such a war would risk leaving the entire MENA (Middle-East and North Africa) region in shambles, destroy what still stands, including ancient culture dating back to the cradle of our current civilization, and most likely killing millions, and further increasing the flood of refugees to Europe.

No need to destroy Europe with bombs. Destabilization from the consequences of a MENA war would reduce Europe to a wasteland of serfs – serfs to the Great Dictator. Waiting in the wings are already the TTIP and other atrocities instigated by the Zionist led elite that directs the Washington war-machine. For example, the western dollar-based monetary assault on Europe – a forced cash-free society, banks imposing negative interest on peoples’ savings and planned bail-ins for failing banks – would leave the European populace powerless – ready to be stripped of any economic and financial assets – worse than what the troika did and continues doing to Greece (www.globalresearch.ca/hang-onto-your-wallets-negative-interest-rates-the- war-on-cash…trillion-bail-in/5490376).

Could today’s action of impunity by Turkey be the trigger of such a war? – A conflict that would reopen all doors that Washington saw gradually closing, like the regime change in Syria, questioning the Iran Nuclear Deal, keeping all criminal sanctions in place – sanctions – we must all know – only function as long as we, the West, are at the mercy of the western dollar based fraudulent monetary system.

In the meantime the bought western media – CBC, CNN, BBC and their continental European partners – keep slandering Russia as the aggressor who deserves what happened to them; she is also the cause for the rapid spread of terrorism to the heartland of Europe – and of course, Russia’s fighting terrorism in Syria is also responsible for the flood of refugees engulfing the Old Continent, right before winter, when it is most difficult to absorb them with safe and humanitarian shelter due to lacking infrastructure. Who needs a war in Europe if propaganda induced destabilization achieves the same objective – economic and social hegemony.

If the West is successful in turning back a public opinion that has since Russia’s widely successful air raids against ISIS / DAESH in Syria rapidly turned favourably towards Russia, it would indeed bring Washington one more step closer towards what the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) likes to call it – Full Spectrum Dominance. But Vladimir Putin, the brilliant geopolitical chess player, won’t fall for it.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Turkey Starting a Proxy-War on Behalf of NATO against Russia?

Turkish Shootdown of Russian Jet: What You Need to Know

November 25th, 2015 by Washington's Blog

A U.S. official told Reuters that the Russian jet was inside of Syria when it was shot down:

The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Russia denies that the Russian fighter jet – which was bombing ISIS – ever entered Turkish air space, and has put out its own map purporting to prove that claim.

The Russian jet pilots who parachuted free of their burning plane were then purportedly killed by Turkish rebels inside Syria.  If true, this is a war crime.

Then – when a Russian helicopter tried to save the pilots – it was shot down by American-backed Syrian rebels – using weapons provided to them by the United States  – and a Russian marine was killed.

Russia is deploying a warship off the Syrian coast to “destroy any threats to Russian planes”.   Many believe this is the start of World War III.

While the U.S. and NATO tried to blame Russia, German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel slammed Turkey:

“This incident shows for the first time that we are to dealing with an actor who is unpredictable according to statements from various parts of the region – that is not Russia, that is Turkey,” Gabriel said, as cited by DPA news agency. He added that Turkey was playing “a complicated role” in the Syrian conflict.

Indeed, NATO-member Turkey is MASSIVELY supporting ISIS, provided chemical weapons used in the jihadi’s massacre of civilians, and has been bombing ISIS’ main on-the-ground enemy – Kurdish soldiers – using its air force.  And some of the Turkish people are also unsympathetic to the victims of ISIS terrorism.Turkey was also instrumental in the creation of ISIS.  An internal Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document produced recently shows, the U.S. knew that the actions of “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey” in Syria might create a terrorist group like ISIS and an Islamic CALIPHATE.

As the former DIA head explained:

It was a willful decision [by Turkey, the West and Gulf countries] to … support an insurgency that had salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood ….

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkish Shootdown of Russian Jet: What You Need to Know

Russia-China Relations and the Downing of Russia’s Jet Fighter by Turkey

November 25th, 2015 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The downing of a Russian jet fighter over Syria’s airspace was undertaken  by Turkey in consultation with Washington and Brussels. Turkey did not take this decision without getting the greenlight from the Pentagon. 

Is this an act of  revenge against Russia for bombing the US-sponsored Islamic State in Syria? 

The unspoken truth is that Russia is undermining US-NATO’s ground operations inside Syria. The latter are made up of  various Al Qaeda affiliated  formations which de facto constitute the foot-soldiers of the Western alliance. These ISIS and Al Nusrah rebel forces are in turn led by intelligence operatives and Western special forces, many of whom are deployed by private mercenary companies on contract to US-NATO.

The downing of Russia’s plane by Turkey is a clear act of provocation. What is its broader intent?

How will it backlash at the diplomatic level? Is military escalation contemplated by Washington?

A covert war of stealth is currently unfolding which could evolve towards direct military confrontation between US-NATO and Russia.

The Role of China

From a strategic and military standpoint of view, Russia’s main ally is China, which until recently has been the object of military threats in the South China sea under Obama’s pivot to Asia.

What has been Beijing’s response to the downing of Russia’s aircraft by Turkey? What future role would China play in a scenario of military confrontation and escalation directed against the Russian Federation?

US-China Military Relations

In the course of the last few months, both the US and Britain have been playing a game of friendly diplomacy and economic cooperation with China’s president Xi Jinping. President Xi Jinping’s visit to the US and his meetings with president Obama were intended to strengthen Sino-US ties.

Is the West attempting to Co-opt China? What bearing do these developments have on China and its strategic alliance with Russia?

According to US analysts, relations between the U.S. military and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are said to have “improved” in recent years “amid growing tensions between the United States and China” in the South China Sea.

The two countries have held frequent joint military exercises (theoretically limited to humanitarian assistance/disaster relief). In June 2015, a China-US army dialogue mechanism was signed with a view to “boosting army cooperation”

Central Military Commission Vice-Chairman Fan Changlong, who has just completed a visit to the US, urged Washington to reduce its military activities both in the air and in the waters of the South China Sea when meeting US government and military leaders.

Fan and US army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno witnessed the signing of the dialogue mechanism at the National Defense University in Washington on June 15 2015.

This is the first cooperation document to be signed by the two armies in recent years.

Guan Youfei, director of the Foreign Affairs Office of the Ministry of National Defense, said afterward that the two armies could hold joint exercises on land next year.

Guan said the two sides discussed mutual trust mechanisms for reporting major military operations and the code of conduct on military encounters in the air and at sea, both signed last year. (China Daily, June 15, 2015, emphasis added)

In August 2015, China and Russia launched major war games entitled ‘Joint Sea 2015 II,’ described it as an “unprecedented show of military cooperation,” (See RT, August 30, 2015). The drills involved the deployment of “a total of 22 ships, 20 aircraft, 40 armored vehicles, and 500 marines from the two countries, including the Varyag missile cruiser, flagship of the Russian Pacific fleet; and the Shenyang destroyer, the Chinese flagship, participated in the active phase of the exercises”(RT, August 30, 2015)

US-China Joint Navy Exercise

The conduct of major China-Russia war games in late August did not foreclose China’s decision to the holding of military drills some three months later (November 16-21) with the United States. This time the US Navy Pacific Fleet and the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) conducted a “friendly” joint US-China military exercise off the coast of Shanghai in the East China Sea.

According to the U.S. Navy, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) arrived in Shanghai on the 16th of November with  a mission to promote “maritime cooperation and reinforce a positive naval relationship with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) East Sea Fleet.” (The Diplomat, November 18, 2015)

While U.S. sailors stood at attention when entering the port, around 70 Chinese sailors held up a bilingual sign that said “Welcome US Navy Destroyer USS Stethem to Shanghai.”

This was a friendly military exercise coupled with social events. The scale was by no means comparable to that of the August Sino-Russian Joint Sea 2015 II held off the coast of Vladivostok in August. Nonetheless, in the course of this 5 days mission, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift held consultations with his Chinese counterpart  commander of the China’s East Sea Fleet, Admiral Su Zhiqian:

After the port visit, the USS Stethem will hold naval drills with the People’s Liberation Army Navy, including a joint rescue operation with Chinese warships near the estuary of the Yangtze River, as well as communications exercises involving the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).

In a bitter irony, these joint exercises took place following the dispatch of “the USS Lassen, another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, within 12 nautical miles of China’s man-made islands”. These US maneuvers in the South China Sea were considered by Beijing as an act of provocation instigated by the US Navy.

In turn, the US has mobilized a military alliance of  several Southeast Asian countries against the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not to mention the establishment of the US sponsored Republic of Korea Naval base on Jeju Island, which lies within proximity of China’s coastline. The naval base constitutes a threat to China (rather than to North Korea).

The November Sino-US military exercise in the East China Sea are part of a propaganda campaign which consists in tacitly instilling a pro-US perspective within the ranks of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA):

“This is our second visit to China in three months,” said Lt. Erika Betancourt, Stethem’s operations officer. “The strides we have made in our partnership and operational cooperation improve both our ability to conduct exercises and our interactions at sea.” US Navy News Service, November 23, 2015)

While the November joint military exercises were largely symbolic, the important question is:

Are they indicative of an “About Turn” in Sino-US military relations— i.e. a shift from overt threats under Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” towards “military cooperation” and “dialogue”.

Defense News (November 16, 2015) intimates that a redirection of US military strategy in relation to China is unfolding: “US, Chinese Navies Train Together Despite Tensions”. 

USS Stethem (image left)

The ship’s commanding officer, Harry Marsh, told reporters the visit was intended to “build mutual trust” between the two navies.

US sailors, he said, would learn about their counterparts’ “maritime experiences, so that when we operate at sea we can do it safely, and we understand what they are doing and what we do”.

The stopover comes shortly after the US sailed a warship near artificial islands being built by Beijing in the South China Sea.

Harris downplayed the friction [between the US and China]: “Countries may have some disagreements, yet our navies are able to operate safely at sea.“(Defense News) 

The Role of Military Alliances

Alliances are fundamental in the history of war. The First World war was in part the result of a destabilization and shift in military alliances.

Strategic alliances are often characterized by “cross-cutting coalitions” between opposing sides which in some cases lead to destabilizing the broader structure of military alliances.

Unquestionably, Washington’s intent is to establish a “cross-cutting” relationship with the People’s Republic of China with a view to eventually undermining and destabilizing China’s alliance with Russia.

US foreign policy in relation to China could be described as  a “threaten-cooperate” strategy. It’s an ambivalent relationship which involves a quid pro quo. “Pivot to Asia” versus “military cooperation”. It consists in “threatening” China with a view to forcing China to “cooperate” with the US.

Will China succumb to this diabolical agenda?

Is Washington attempting to rebuild its strategic relations with China with a view to eventually weakening and isolating Russia?

While the Chinese political leadership is divided, there is nonetheless a strong pro-American lobby in China both within the Shanghai business community, the media as well as among intellectuals in elite universities and the Beijing-based think tanks such as the  Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

Sino-US cooperation in the military sphere inevitably has a bearing on Moscow’s strategic relationship with Beijing.

The US Navy held friendly military exercises with China’s PLA Navy  less than a week prior to a blatant act of military aggression against the Russian Federation, which is China’s closest ally.

In recent developments, Turkey has acknowledged in a letter addressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UNSC that “it had shot down on an unidentified plane that violated Turkish airspace and defended its right to do so”.

While China and Russia are the core members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), they have also developed important bilateral relations in military affairs.  For Moscow, the Sino-Russian military alliance is central to its ability to play a key “stabilizing role” in global politics.

The consolidated position of our countries is having a stabilizing effect on the international situation,”  according to Russia’s defense minister Sergei Shogu on an  official visit to Beijing in September.

“The Russian defense chief added that military cooperation remained the main basis of Russia and China’s strategic partnership” (emphasis added), following the conduct of  the biggest ever joint Sino-Russian naval drill in Russia’s Far East.  “By broadening their military cooperation, Russia and China will protect the security of their sovereign territories, the Russian defense chief said.” (RT,  September 2, 2015)

The question is how will China respond to an act of military aggression by a NATO member State directed against the Russian Federation?

We are at a dangerous crossroads: With regard to Turkey, any act of military reprisal by Russia (which at this stage seems unlikely) could potentially lead to military action by NATO against the Russian Federation, invoking the clause of “collective security” (article 5 of the Washington Treaty). Moreover, the aggressive action by Turkey could be followed by subsequent acts of aggression and/or provocation against Russia with a view to triggering (i.e. justifying) a process of military escalation.

What position will China take when the issue of Turkey’s downing of Russia’s war plane over Syria is brought to the UN Security Council?

The position taken by China could be decisive in preventing a process of military escalation.

Escalation would consist in an enlarged US-NATO-Israel led war against the broader Middle East-Central Asian region, extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Xinjiang-Uighur Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan. (see map below).

At the time of writing, no significant statement has as yet emanated from the Chinese government.

UPDATE:  

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a bland statement regarding the downing of Russia’s SU-24 jet by Turkey. It did not express condemnation of  Turkey’s aggressive act, nor does the statement reflect support for Russia, China’s closest military ally.

“Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China was paying close attention to the incident and that many circumstances “needed further clarification”. “China supports the international fight against terrorism, and we hope all sides strengthen their communication and coordination,” Hong told a regular press briefing. (AsiaNewsChannel, November 25, 2015)

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-China Relations and the Downing of Russia’s Jet Fighter by Turkey

Russia-China Relations and the Downing of Russia’s Jet Fighter by Turkey

November 25th, 2015 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The downing of a Russian jet fighter over Syria’s airspace was undertaken  by Turkey in consultation with Washington and Brussels. Turkey did not take this decision without getting the greenlight from the Pentagon. 

Is this an act of  revenge against Russia for bombing the US-sponsored Islamic State in Syria? 

The unspoken truth is that Russia is undermining US-NATO’s ground operations inside Syria. The latter are made up of  various Al Qaeda affiliated  formations which de facto constitute the foot-soldiers of the Western alliance. These ISIS and Al Nusrah rebel forces are in turn led by intelligence operatives and Western special forces, many of whom are deployed by private mercenary companies on contract to US-NATO.

The downing of Russia’s plane by Turkey is a clear act of provocation. What is its broader intent?

How will it backlash at the diplomatic level? Is military escalation contemplated by Washington?

A covert war of stealth is currently unfolding which could evolve towards direct military confrontation between US-NATO and Russia.

The Role of China

From a strategic and military standpoint of view, Russia’s main ally is China, which until recently has been the object of military threats in the South China sea under Obama’s pivot to Asia.

What has been Beijing’s response to the downing of Russia’s aircraft by Turkey? What future role would China play in a scenario of military confrontation and escalation directed against the Russian Federation?

US-China Military Relations

In the course of the last few months, both the US and Britain have been playing a game of friendly diplomacy and economic cooperation with China’s president Xi Jinping. President Xi Jinping’s visit to the US and his meetings with president Obama were intended to strengthen Sino-US ties.

Is the West attempting to Co-opt China? What bearing do these developments have on China and its strategic alliance with Russia?

According to US analysts, relations between the U.S. military and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are said to have “improved” in recent years “amid growing tensions between the United States and China” in the South China Sea.

The two countries have held frequent joint military exercises (theoretically limited to humanitarian assistance/disaster relief). In June 2015, a China-US army dialogue mechanism was signed with a view to “boosting army cooperation”

Central Military Commission Vice-Chairman Fan Changlong, who has just completed a visit to the US, urged Washington to reduce its military activities both in the air and in the waters of the South China Sea when meeting US government and military leaders.

Fan and US army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno witnessed the signing of the dialogue mechanism at the National Defense University in Washington on June 15 2015.

This is the first cooperation document to be signed by the two armies in recent years.

Guan Youfei, director of the Foreign Affairs Office of the Ministry of National Defense, said afterward that the two armies could hold joint exercises on land next year.

Guan said the two sides discussed mutual trust mechanisms for reporting major military operations and the code of conduct on military encounters in the air and at sea, both signed last year. (China Daily, June 15, 2015, emphasis added)

In August 2015, China and Russia launched major war games entitled ‘Joint Sea 2015 II,’ described it as an “unprecedented show of military cooperation,” (See RT, August 30, 2015). The drills involved the deployment of “a total of 22 ships, 20 aircraft, 40 armored vehicles, and 500 marines from the two countries, including the Varyag missile cruiser, flagship of the Russian Pacific fleet; and the Shenyang destroyer, the Chinese flagship, participated in the active phase of the exercises”(RT, August 30, 2015)

US-China Joint Navy Exercise

The conduct of major China-Russia war games in late August did not foreclose China’s decision to the holding of military drills some three months later (November 16-21) with the United States. This time the US Navy Pacific Fleet and the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) conducted a “friendly” joint US-China military exercise off the coast of Shanghai in the East China Sea.

According to the U.S. Navy, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) arrived in Shanghai on the 16th of November with  a mission to promote “maritime cooperation and reinforce a positive naval relationship with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) East Sea Fleet.” (The Diplomat, November 18, 2015)

While U.S. sailors stood at attention when entering the port, around 70 Chinese sailors held up a bilingual sign that said “Welcome US Navy Destroyer USS Stethem to Shanghai.”

This was a friendly military exercise coupled with social events. The scale was by no means comparable to that of the August Sino-Russian Joint Sea 2015 II held off the coast of Vladivostok in August. Nonetheless, in the course of this 5 days mission, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift held consultations with his Chinese counterpart  commander of the China’s East Sea Fleet, Admiral Su Zhiqian:

After the port visit, the USS Stethem will hold naval drills with the People’s Liberation Army Navy, including a joint rescue operation with Chinese warships near the estuary of the Yangtze River, as well as communications exercises involving the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).

In a bitter irony, these joint exercises took place following the dispatch of “the USS Lassen, another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, within 12 nautical miles of China’s man-made islands”. These US maneuvers in the South China Sea were considered by Beijing as an act of provocation instigated by the US Navy.

In turn, the US has mobilized a military alliance of  several Southeast Asian countries against the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not to mention the establishment of the US sponsored Republic of Korea Naval base on Jeju Island, which lies within proximity of China’s coastline. The naval base constitutes a threat to China (rather than to North Korea).

The November Sino-US military exercise in the East China Sea are part of a propaganda campaign which consists in tacitly instilling a pro-US perspective within the ranks of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA):

“This is our second visit to China in three months,” said Lt. Erika Betancourt, Stethem’s operations officer. “The strides we have made in our partnership and operational cooperation improve both our ability to conduct exercises and our interactions at sea.” US Navy News Service, November 23, 2015)

While the November joint military exercises were largely symbolic, the important question is:

Are they indicative of an “About Turn” in Sino-US military relations— i.e. a shift from overt threats under Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” towards “military cooperation” and “dialogue”.

Defense News (November 16, 2015) intimates that a redirection of US military strategy in relation to China is unfolding: “US, Chinese Navies Train Together Despite Tensions”. 

USS Stethem (image left)

The ship’s commanding officer, Harry Marsh, told reporters the visit was intended to “build mutual trust” between the two navies.

US sailors, he said, would learn about their counterparts’ “maritime experiences, so that when we operate at sea we can do it safely, and we understand what they are doing and what we do”.

The stopover comes shortly after the US sailed a warship near artificial islands being built by Beijing in the South China Sea.

Harris downplayed the friction [between the US and China]: “Countries may have some disagreements, yet our navies are able to operate safely at sea.“(Defense News) 

The Role of Military Alliances

Alliances are fundamental in the history of war. The First World war was in part the result of a destabilization and shift in military alliances.

Strategic alliances are often characterized by “cross-cutting coalitions” between opposing sides which in some cases lead to destabilizing the broader structure of military alliances.

Unquestionably, Washington’s intent is to establish a “cross-cutting” relationship with the People’s Republic of China with a view to eventually undermining and destabilizing China’s alliance with Russia.

US foreign policy in relation to China could be described as  a “threaten-cooperate” strategy. It’s an ambivalent relationship which involves a quid pro quo. “Pivot to Asia” versus “military cooperation”. It consists in “threatening” China with a view to forcing China to “cooperate” with the US.

Will China succumb to this diabolical agenda?

Is Washington attempting to rebuild its strategic relations with China with a view to eventually weakening and isolating Russia?

While the Chinese political leadership is divided, there is nonetheless a strong pro-American lobby in China both within the Shanghai business community, the media as well as among intellectuals in elite universities and the Beijing-based think tanks such as the  Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

Sino-US cooperation in the military sphere inevitably has a bearing on Moscow’s strategic relationship with Beijing.

The US Navy held friendly military exercises with China’s PLA Navy  less than a week prior to a blatant act of military aggression against the Russian Federation, which is China’s closest ally.

In recent developments, Turkey has acknowledged in a letter addressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UNSC that “it had shot down on an unidentified plane that violated Turkish airspace and defended its right to do so”.

While China and Russia are the core members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), they have also developed important bilateral relations in military affairs.  For Moscow, the Sino-Russian military alliance is central to its ability to play a key “stabilizing role” in global politics.

The consolidated position of our countries is having a stabilizing effect on the international situation,”  according to Russia’s defense minister Sergei Shogu on an  official visit to Beijing in September.

“The Russian defense chief added that military cooperation remained the main basis of Russia and China’s strategic partnership” (emphasis added), following the conduct of  the biggest ever joint Sino-Russian naval drill in Russia’s Far East.  “By broadening their military cooperation, Russia and China will protect the security of their sovereign territories, the Russian defense chief said.” (RT,  September 2, 2015)

The question is how will China respond to an act of military aggression by a NATO member State directed against the Russian Federation?

We are at a dangerous crossroads: With regard to Turkey, any act of military reprisal by Russia (which at this stage seems unlikely) could potentially lead to military action by NATO against the Russian Federation, invoking the clause of “collective security” (article 5 of the Washington Treaty). Moreover, the aggressive action by Turkey could be followed by subsequent acts of aggression and/or provocation against Russia with a view to triggering (i.e. justifying) a process of military escalation.

What position will China take when the issue of Turkey’s downing of Russia’s war plane over Syria is brought to the UN Security Council?

The position taken by China could be decisive in preventing a process of military escalation.

Escalation would consist in an enlarged US-NATO-Israel led war against the broader Middle East-Central Asian region, extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Xinjiang-Uighur Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan. (see map below).

At the time of writing, no significant statement has as yet emanated from the Chinese government.

UPDATE:  

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a bland statement regarding the downing of Russia’s SU-24 jet by Turkey. It did not express condemnation of  Turkey’s aggressive act, nor does the statement reflect support for Russia, China’s closest military ally.

“Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China was paying close attention to the incident and that many circumstances “needed further clarification”. “China supports the international fight against terrorism, and we hope all sides strengthen their communication and coordination,” Hong told a regular press briefing. (AsiaNewsChannel, November 25, 2015)

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-China Relations and the Downing of Russia’s Jet Fighter by Turkey

NATO-RussiaRussian Warplane Down: NATO’s Act of War

By Tony Cartalucci, November 24 2015

With cameras rolling, Turkey has claimed it has shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft.

The North Atlantic Council visits Italy - Opening ceremony of the Trident Juncture 2015 exerciseNATO Calls Emergency Meeting After Russian Su-24 Downed Over Syria

By Sputnik, November 24 2015

NATO has called an emergency meeting after Russian Su-24 jet was downed over the Turkish-Syrian border.  The NATO ambassadors will meet in Brussels at 5 pm (4 pm GMT).

By President Vladimir Putin, November 24 2015

Vladimir Putin had talks with King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is in Russia on a working visit. Below is the transcript of a recent meeting between both leaders.

By SyrianFreePress, November 24 2015

This article originally published on October 7, 2015 is of utmost relevance in understanding the action taken by Turkey to down a Russian jet fighter over Syria airspace. (GR. Editor. M. Ch.)

fighter planeDo We Really Want a “Pre-emptive” World War with Russia?

By F. William Engdahl, November 24 2015

Washington continues making an international fool of herself by her inability to effectively counter the impression around the world that Russia, spending less than 10% of the Pentagon annually on defense, has managed to do more against ISIS in Syria in six weeks than the mighty US Air Force bombing campaign has done in almost a year and half.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Act of War by NATO? Turkey Responsible For Downing of Russian Su-24 Fighter-Bomber

This article was first published by Who What Whay

For more than half a century, the combined American thought establishment (media, publishing, film, academia, and the like) have been cranking out a steady stream of books, articles, films, plays and more that present a completely false picture of what the assassination of John F. Kennedy was about — including who was behind it, and why.

No mention of the tremendous animus massed against John and Robert Kennedy from every quarter, including but hardly limited to Wall Street, the oil industry, the steel industry, the armaments industry, big publishers, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Mob, the John Birchers. They all hated John and Robert Kennedy and wanted them out. They said it to each other, and virtually spat it in the brothers’ faces. Ruthless men, men who found violence a necessary tool of success.

Yet, who killed John F. Kennedy? We are told that it was one angry, unstable man. Forget that the evidence — massively documented in hundreds of books, government papers and more — is that Oswald was nothing like the way he was portrayed, but instead, a focused, deliberate individual with a history that almost certainly involved participation with American intelligence.

One can debate that forever, though the assembled evidence is that it was not Oswald at all who wanted Kennedy dead, not Oswald who shot him. More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.

***

If this were Stalinist Russia or 1984, we could understand who was behind this giant hoax perpetrated against the people. But this is the Land of the Free. How is it that a Big Lie of such magnitude could roll along, unflinchingly, after half a century? Yet, let’s consider the tremendous output of this well-oiled machine, and ask ourselves: How does this work?

Though polls have shown varying majorities of the public (sometimes more than 80 percent) disbelieving the “lone nut” story over the years, and though the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that Kennedy’s death was the result of a probable conspiracy, the establishment continues to produce and approve, with a few controversial and flawed exceptions, narratives that support the “Oswald done it” school.

It would seem there are more people who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny than who believe Oswald did it alone. Nevertheless, the propaganda keeps coming. The entire establishment spectrum, from “liberals” to arch-conservatives, has continually backed the Warren Commission’s discredited version. For example, liberal TV host Chris Matthews of MSNBC has repeatedly promoted the Lone Nut angle on his own show, on other shows, Access Hollywood, for example, and in interviews, such as this one with the Los Angeles Times.

Below we begin with only a few choice examples to demonstrate the chicanery involved in selling the Lone Nut theory. The first is about the manipulating and cropping of an interview by CBS to make a witness appear to say something he did not. The second demonstrates a deceptive presentation of Kennedy’s posture in a computer simulation by Emmy-Award winner Dale Myers, to promote the single-bullet theory. The third is about a high tech show that made the gory head shot appear to support the official line.

1

Vintage BS from CBS

The first big special promoting the government-approved narrative was the 1967 CBS four-part documentary series The Warren Report, which had been labeled “independent.” In fact, it was full of tricks.

According to Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff, the series was “secretly reviewed and seemingly altered by former Warren Commission member John Jay McCloy, through a ‘Dad says’ memo written by his daughter Ellen McCloy, the administrative assistant of CBS News president Richard Salant; within that same CBS series, the testimony of Orville Nix — an amateur filmmaker who captured the ‘grassy knoll’ angle on tape — was tailored to fit the requirements of CBS’s Warren Commission slant.

Here’s how they pulled off that particular trick, as reported by his granddaughter, Gayle Jackson Nix: With the cameras rolling, Nix had been asked where he thought the shots came from, and he pointed to the grassy knoll area. Someone immediately yelled “Cut! Cut!” Then he was asked — with the camera off — Where did we tell you the shots came from? And — with the cameras rolling again — he indicated the Depository Building, where Oswald allegedly fired from a window. End result: when asked where the shots came from — Nix appears to answer by indicating the Depository Building — although that is not what he said at all.

To this day, most of the TV specials, articles, and books on the assassination are trying to refute the same fatal problems in the official narrative, sometimes using the same old tricks. More recently, with increasing sophistication and technology, they have found new ways to sell the same defective product.

(None of the above should be surprising: CBS was founded by William S. Paley who, during World War II, was a colonel in the Psychological Warfare branch of the Office of War Information. And, as readers of Family of Secrets may know, Prescott Bush was on the CBS Board of Directors. The Bush family investment bank, Brown Brothers Harriman, played a major role in expanding Paley’s network. Also, Paley was mentioned by Carl Bernstein in his 1977 Rolling Stones article as being very helpful to the CIA.)

Dale Myers’s Hard Sell, Soft Science

One of the new techniques for peddling the false narrative is computer animation and, presumably, Dale K. Myers is a master at it. He won an Emmy for his computer animated recreation of the assassination featured in the ABC News 2003 television special, Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination — Beyond Conspiracy.

Let’s take a look at one of Myers’s tricks to solve a major problem with the single bullet theory — the problem of the vertical path of the bullet: It is supposed to have gone through JFK’s back, out his throat, into Governor Connally’s back, out the front of his chest, through his wrist, and into part of his thigh.

The problem starts with the location of the back wound. Because the entrance in the back is too low compared with the alleged exit in the throat, the bullet would have to travel upward, and would therefore not be able to finish the journey through Connally. Not a problem for Myers:

One Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

2

Myers turns Kennedy into a hunchback — effectively raising the back wound up, and the throat wound down. But this is how Kennedy actually looked, just seconds before the shooting began:

3

Photo Credit: Bob Towner

And now, please compare Myers’s distorted image with reality:

4

LEFT: Dale Myers’s portrayal of Kennedy’s posture. RIGHT: reality (a frame from a film taken by Bob Towner). The nearly horizontal white line going across the photo of Kennedy on the right is the top of the limousine window. By coincidence, it seems to follow the hypothetical path from the wound in Kennedy’s back to the wound in his throat.

In Myers’s grotesque rendition, Kennedy’s head is thrust forward, out from the hump on his back, like a turtle. The back of his jacket stands out like a shelf. Much of his throat area is in shadow, but if you look closely, you will see that the distance from chin to collar is about twice as great as it is in reality.This, in effect, lowers the throat wound. (Note: Years ago, these juxtaposed images and observations were originally posted on the CTKA website by WhoWhatWhy senior editor, Milicent Cranor.)

The above is just one example of many that appeared in the Peter Jennings special. It was a misleading come-on, because if we went “Beyond Conspiracy” ABC News style, we ended up right back where we started, with the government version — thanks to Dale Myers.

Splat Power and the Head Shot

In 2008, the Discovery Channel presented a graphics-heavy special called Inside the Target Car. Typical of the show was the fraudulent way in which they “proved” JFK was hit in the head by only one bullet. As noted by Milicent Cranor, they stacked the deck by using a simulated skull that, despite claims to the contrary, was not nearly as hard as a real one, a “skull” that would easily explode and break apart.

We know this is the case because of the condition of the bullet afterwards: it remained intact. Had it perforated a real head, which is much harder, the bullet would have fragmented. But would a real head show as much damage as that seen in Kennedy’s autopsy photos — if struck by only one jacketed bullet?

Other TV Specials

PBS, National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the Military Channel, the Smithsonian, Reelz, and of course Fox News — all continue to do their part, right into the present, selling the same old same old. And the website Mediaite.com introduces its list of this year’s JFK specials with the words “According to four government investigations, Lee Harvey Oswald was the sniper who assassinated the president.”

Books, Films, Plays

In 2007, the famous prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi, produced a six-pound volume — Reclaiming History, for which Bugliosi reportedly received a million dollars. And Dale Myers contributed a large hunk of it. Here, he was just as deceptive with words as he is with images. (Fox brought Bugliosi on Bill O’Reilly’s program, where the host lobbed softballs at him. Note: Critiques of the Bugliosi book can be found here.)

In 2011, the novelist Stephen King came out with his 11/22/63, in which he imagined a man time-traveling and stopping Oswald — who is of course a “troubled loner.” King’s book is now being made into a movie starring James Franco.

As a young reporter, Bill O’Reilly had presented evidence of conspiracy. But by 2012, as a major celebrity being paid vast sums, he had shifted to the Lone Nutter camp, and produced his huge bestseller, Killing Kennedy.

In 2013, for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, the publisher William Morrow brought out End of Days, from the author James Swanson, who, like O’Reilly, also wrote about Lincoln’s assassination. Swanson was rumored to have been paid a million dollars for his Lone Nutter explication. The book was praised by former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, who in 2015 would come out with his own whitewash, an “authorized biography” of George H.W. Bush, which, among other things, left out Bush’s intriguing connection to the events of 11/22/63. It would be one of many examples of those carrying forward the establishment’s desired narrative by helping each other maintain the official story.

Also in 2013, Tom Hanks came out with the film Parkland, based on the writings of Bugliosi and Myers.

And in 2013, former New York Times reporter Philip Shenon published A Cruel and Shocking Act, which, according to NPR, “explores what keeps these conspiracy theories alive.”

This year, a play opened in Chicago that presents a “conspiracy theory” of a sort that has been a second-favorite with the establishment: the Mob did it. The favorable linked review is from Epoch Times, an anti-China enterprise suspected of being backed by the US government.

***

Some of the counter-factual material promulgated about JFK’s assassination masquerades as non-fiction, while the rest is presented as artful imagining. But even the latter raises the question: Isn’t the outcome of such artful imagining to influence how people think about events? In the end, “nonfiction” that is fiction, and fiction that is a distortion of reality, both contribute to keeping the public in the dark.

To be sure, there may be elements in the government whose job is to “keep people calm” through efforts to perpetuate reassuring fairy tales. But there are others who sense the desires of dominant interests and wittingly or unwittingly kowtow to them. From this kind of accommodation is fashioned professional success and personal riches. It is a deal with the devil, apparently one without adverse consequences — except for those of us who would prefer the truth to comforting lies.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who killed John F. Kennedy? The Mystery of the Constant Flow of JFK Disinformation

Both countries are NATO allies, united against Assad, wanting him toppled, actively complicit in supporting and using ISIS, as well as other terrorist groups as proxy foot soldiers in the war Obama launched in March 2011.

It’s inconceivable Turkey acted on its own, independent of US-dominated NATO. Its action is a major geopolitical incident – a premeditated act of war against Russia in Syrian airspace.

Ankara claiming the aircraft entered Turkish airspace, ignoring multiple warnings, has the distinct aroma of a bald-faced lied to cover up a hostile act.

Erdogan’s recklessness ruptured Turkish/Russian relations, at least for the time being. Sergey Lavrov cancelled his scheduled Wednesday trip to Istanbul, saying “(a) decision has been made to cancel the meeting at the level of Russian and Turkish foreign ministers…”

He urged Russian citizens avoid visiting Turkey, leaving themselves vulnerable to terrorism, adding:

“It’s necessary to emphasize that the terror threats with their roots in Turkey have been aggravated. And that’s true even if we don’t take into account what happened today. We estimate the threats to be no less than in Egypt.”

Russia’s state tourism agency Rostourism recommended suspending tour package sales to Turkey. Moscow-based Natalie tours already did so.

Putin minced no words blasting Erdogan, saying “(t)his incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism.”

“Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists.” He warned of grave consequence for Russian/Turkish relations.

A Turkish Lockheed-Martin produced F-16 warplane willfully and without provocation downed Russia’s aircraft posing no threat to Ankara’s national security, Putin explained.

He’s well aware of Erdogan’s complicity with terrorists Russia is combating in Syria – at the request of its government, its actions entirely legal and heroic against a common scourge.

“IS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling (stolen Syrian) oil. In addition they are protected by the military of an entire nation,” Putin stressed – leaving no doubt he means Turkey, well aware of Washington using ISIS and other takfiri terrorists as proxy foot soldiers against Assad’s legitimate government.

“One can understand why they are acting so boldly and blatantly,” said Putin. “Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts across the world, including in the heart of Europe.”

Recalling Russia’s ambassador may come next. Expect Putin to react appropriately to what happened. It’s too serious to ignore or smooth over through normal diplomatic channels between both nations.

Putin explained Ankara didn’t contact Russia after what happened, instead outrageously called an emergency late afternoon Tuesday NATO meeting – apparently wanting the Alliance to serve the interests of ISIS, he added. Its actions won’t be tolerated, he stressed.

Washington backed Turkey’s absurd claim about issuing “10 warnings” before downing Russia’s aircraft. Was it directly complicit with what happened?

It bears repeating. It’s inconceivable Turkey acted alone without permission or direct complicity with NATO’s highest authority. America provides 75% of its budget. It calls the shots – deciding whether, when, where and how to act or react.

Erdogan’s action was reckless. Obama is playing with fire if his involvement with what happened is determined. Putin won’t let it pass without appropriate actions in response, already begun.

An official protest was lodged with Turkey military attache. A Russian Defense Ministry statement said “(w)e are considering actions of the Turkish air forces as an unfriendly act.”

Moscow’s anti-terrorist campaign in Syria will continue as planned, maybe intensified further after what happened – Turkey now clearly and openly an adversary in the war on terrorism, risking direct confrontation with Russia.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Did Not Act on Its Own. Was Washington Complicit in Downing Russia’s Aircraft?

A Russian rescue helicopter was shot down by Syrian ‘moderate’ jihadist rebels, as the Russian rescue team was searching for the missing pilots who ejected during NATO member Turkey’s troubling attack on the Russian Su-25 jet.

Insurgents used anti-tank US TOW missiles to attack the rescue chopper, forcing it to make an emergency landing in a government army-held area in Syria’s Latakia province.

The Express reports:

“In the disturbing film released by the Free Syrian Army rebel group a missile can be seen travelling towards the stricken chopper, which has landed in a mountainous area, before it explodes in a huge fireball.”

The following edited video was uploaded today, and it cannot be confirmed whether or not this is a shoot-down of Russian rescue helicopters, or Syrian Arab Army helicopters from an earlier date. It appears to show US-backed ‘moderate’ jihadists destroying a reconnaissance chopper with a US-supplied TOW missile unit:

“Moments earlier a single soldier is seen assembling an American made TOW portable anti-tank missile launcher on a hillside before taking aim at the helicopter.”

“A narrator triumphantly gloats over the top of the video exclaiming “Allahu Akbar” – meaning “God is great” – as the missile hits and mangled wreckage from the craft is blasted into the air”.

Map-Russian-jet
(Image Source: Express Newspapers)
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on VIDEO: ‘Moderate Rebels’ Attack Russian Rescue Helicopter Searching for Downed Pilots

Russian Warplane Down: NATO’s Act of War

November 24th, 2015 by Tony Cartalucci

With cameras rolling, Turkey has claimed it has shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft. The New York Times in its article, “Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syria Border,” reports that:

Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday after it violated Turkey’s airspace, a long-feared escalation that could further strain relations between Russia and the West.

The escalation is “long feared” not because the Turkish government actually fears that Russian warplanes crossing their border pose a threat to it or its people, but because Russia has ended NATO’s proxy war, a proxy war spearheaded in part by Turkey itself, amid Russia’s joint military operations with Syria against the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and supporting terrorist factions.

In addition to having a camera rolling as the plane went down in flames, terrorists operating in region had allegedly surrounded the dead pilot shortly after the incident according to Reuters.

While Turkey maintains that it was only reacting in self-defense – it was against a nation’s planes that it knew had no intention of attacking its territory – and what looks like instead was Turkey targeting planes operating along reoccurring routes and shooting one down once the pieces were in place to maximize the event politically.

For Russia’s part, it claims its plane had not even entered Turkish territory which would reveal Turkey’s actions as an outright act of war.

Russia Continues Toward the Finish Line 

In recent weeks with Russian air support, Syrian troops have retaken large swaths of territory from ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist fighters. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS from its supply lines leading out of Turkish territory.

From there, Syrian troops would move north, into the very “safe zone” the US and its Turkish partners have long-sought but have so far failed to establish within Syria’s borders. This “safe zone” includes a region of northern Syrian stretching from Jarabulus near the west bank of the Euphrates to Afrin and Ad Dana approximately 90-100 kilometers west.

Once Syrian troops retake this territory, the prospect of the West ever making an incursion into Syria, holding territory, or compromising Syria’s territorial integrity would be lost forever. Western ambitions toward regime change in Damascus would be indefinitely suspended.

The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria’s borders. Turkey’s provocation is just such a measure.

Russia’s time, place, and method of retaliating against Turkey is something only the Kremlin will know. But Russia’s actions upon the international stage have been so far thoroughly thought out, allowing Moscow to outmaneuver the West at every juncture and in the wake of every Western provocation.

For Turkey’s government – one that has been consistent only in its constant failure regarding its proxy war against its neighbor Syria, who has been caught planning false flag provocations to trigger wider and more direct war in Syria, and whose government is now exposed and widely known to be directly feeding, not fighting ISIS – the prospect of Russian retaliation against it, either directly or indirectly, and in whatever form will leave it increasingly isolated.

Until then, Russia’s best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. With Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes’ efforts in Yemen, and in a wider sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region.

The West, already being pushed out of Asia by China, will suffer immeasurably as the world dismantles its unipolar international order, region by region.

As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves. The more emotional their opponent becomes, the easier it is to control the game as it unfolds. Likewise in geopolitics and war, emotions can get one killed, or, be channeled by reason and superior strategic thinking into a plan that satisfies short-term requirements but serves long-term objectives. Russia has proven time and time again that it is capable of striking this balance and now, more than ever, it must prove so again.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Warplane Down: NATO’s Act of War

Vladimir Putin had talks with King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is in Russia on a working visit. Below is the transcript of a recent meeting between both leaders. 

At the outset of this meeting, the issue of the Russian Jet Fighter attacked by Turkey was raised.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to Russia.

We maintain constant contacts with you. Today, when there is such a serious struggle against international terrorism, it is obvious that we must join our efforts. I am happy to state that our military and official services are working in this direction.

Apart from that, we have other matters to discuss – I am referring to our bilateral relations.

King Abdullah II of Jordan: My dear brother, I thank you very much for seeing me today, on a day when you have many weighty issues on your shoulders.

I would like to offer my condolences and those of the Jordanian people for that tragic terrorist heinous attack on the innocent Russians that lost their lives through the Metrojet terrorist attack, as well as the loss of your pilot today. I believe that this compels the international community to work stronger together both militarily and diplomatically in the context of Vienna, which is something that you have been a strong sponsor of.

You know, Mr President, I have said for many years that the only way of finding a political solution in Syria is with the strong role that both you and Russia play for a political solution for the Syrian people.

Your fight against Daesh is a fight that all of us have to do together not only in Syria and Iraq but also both you and I have said that this a global war, a war that binds all of us together.

Daesh, Al Qaeda and their offshoots want this to be a fight against humanity. And you and I have both hoped for many years about the holistic nature of this challenge — how we have to combine international efforts not only in our region but to fight this in Africa, in Asia, in Europe as well as our region.

So these are not only the challenges we face in Syria and Iraq, but also we have seen terrorism in Saudi Arabia, in Beirut, and unfortunately recently in Paris as well as Mali.

I know that this is a fight that both you and I, our countries and many others in the world are determined to win. Again, this is an opportunity for all of us in the international community to come together and fight this fight as part of a coordinated international body. I again commend the very strong relationship between our two countries and between you and myself.

I have known you for many years and our relationship has always been a strong one, and I know that it will continue to move from strength to strength.

I thank you for the valuable time that you have given me today on a very difficult day for you and for your people.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, Your Majesty.

Thank you for your condolences, including your words in connection with today’s crash of our fighter aircraft. This event goes beyond regular efforts to combat terrorism.

Our servicemen are engaged in a heroic fight against terrorism, not sparing themselves or their own lives. However, today’s loss is a result of a stab in the back delivered by terrorists’ accomplices. There is no other way I can qualify what happened today.

Our aircraft was shot down over Syrian territory by an air-to-air missile launched from a Turkish F-16 plane. It fell on Syrian territory, four kilometres from the Turkish border. When it was attacked in the air, it was flying at an altitude of 6,000 metres, one kilometre away from the Turkish territory. In any case, our plane and our pilots were in no way a threat to the Turkish Republic in any way. This is obvious.

They were conducting an operation to fight ISIS in northern Latakia – a mountainous area where militants, mainly those coming from the Russian Federation, are concentrated. In this sense, they were doing their direct duty delivering preventive blows at terrorists who could return to Russia at any moment. Those people should certainly be classified as international terrorists.

We have long been recording the movement of a large amount of oil and petroleum products to Turkey from ISIS-occupied territories. This explains the significant funding the terrorists are receiving. Now they are stabbing us in the back by hitting our planes that are fighting terrorism. This is happening despite the agreement we have signed with our American partners to prevent air incidents, and, as you know, Turkey is among those who are supposed to be fighting terrorism within the American coalition.

 

If ISIS is making so much money – we are talking about tens or maybe even hundreds of millions, possibly billions of dollars – in oil trade and they are supported by the armed forces of an entire state, it is clear why they are being so daring and impudent, why they are killing people in such gruesome ways, why they are committing terrorist attacks all over the world, including in the heart of Europe.

We will of course carefully analyse what has happened and today’s tragic event will have significant consequences for Russian-Turkish relations.

We have always treated Turkey not merely as a close neighbour, but as a friendly state. I do not know who benefits from what has happened today. We certainly do not. Moreover, instead of immediately establishing contacts with us, as far as we know Turkey turned to its NATO partners to discuss this incident. As if we had hit their plane and not the other way around.

Do they wish to make NATO serve ISIS? I know that every state has its regional interests, and we always respect those. However, we will never turn a blind eye to such crimes as the one that was committed today.

Obviously, we expect the international community to make an effort to join forces in the fight against this common evil.

In this connection, we are counting on the active participation of all the countries in the region in this struggle. I am therefore very happy to meet with you today, Your Majesty. We will continue working with your special services experts and your military, as well as with other countries in the region.

Thank you.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on President Putin’s Statement on Russian Jet Fighter Shot Down by Turkey. Meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan

The mass bombing in Paris points out the inconsistencies in French Middle East diplomacy. In September 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy received Muammar Gaddafi lavishly for a five-day visit, graciously allowing the Libyan leader to set up his tent in the gardens of the official residence in Marigny when he visited Paris in December 2007 and signed major military agreements worth some 4.5 billion euros. And in 2008, he extended a personal invitation to the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, to watch the military parade celebrating Bastille Day on July 14.

This contrasts with the feverish activism in favor of military interventions to overthrow their regimes. The about-face regarding military intervention in Iraq, initially ruled out by President Jacques Chirac but now implemented by President François Hollande (deployment of 600 ground troops and the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle with 2,500 marines as part of the “Chammal” operation, more than 200 air raids between September 2014 and August 2015). And now the intervention in Syria, which violates international law, has not been authorized by the Security Council, and was not requested by the Syrian government.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls legitimized the action by invoking the concept of pre-emptive defense introduced by U.S. President George W. Bush, with the disastrous consequences we are all familiar with, notably the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), whose leaders were once interned in the U.S. military prison at Camp Bucca, Iraq, subjected to degrading treatments.

The bombing raids, started again in September 2014, to no constraints of accountability, generated yet more damage, deaths, orphans, widows, and hatred. According to the NGO Airwars, the “coalition” conducted more bombing raids from January 1 to August 20, 2015 than it had in the previous eight years combined (3,945 as of August 24, 2015).

The use of military action as the core of a security strategy has led to radicalization in Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Mali, Pakistan…). The Livre Blanc sur la Défense et la Sécurité de la France, published in 2013, openly sanctions this policy: “the many military operations in which France has taken part in recent years (Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Libya, Mali) prove that military action remains an important component of our [national] security”. But security derives first and foremost from negotiation, mediation, and cooperation; a military response is not appropriate because it ultimately only generates more violence. Three hundred and fifteen suicide attacks were recorded in the Middle East from 1980 to 2003; since 2003 they number in the thousands.

Fait accompli? French jets have carried out dozens of sorties on Raqqa, supposedly as retaliation for the Paris attacks, but France may be trying, along with the US, to federalize Syria.

Fait accompli? French jets have carried out dozens of sorties on Raqqa, supposedly as retaliation for the Paris attacks, but France may be trying, along with the US, to federalize Syria.

Young Muslims (from Belgium, France, Denmark, Germany, Canada…) join the jihad in Somalia, Algeria, and Syria. They metamorphose into terrorists in the name of a cause that will continue to motivate followers as long as it continues to appear legitimate and without alternative in their eyes. This cause is amplified by a growing Islamophobia, discrimination and marginalization of the Muslim community, specially the youth, and the persistence of the Palestinian drama. It is fueled by repeated military operations on Islamic soil, particularly drone strikes, the indiscriminate deaths of innocents raining down from the sky, leaving a seething wake of injustice and humiliation. The former head of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Klynn (2012-2014), now admit that drones generate more terrorists than they kill.

ISIL-Militants-massExecutions

The extreme violence by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) may seem less incomprehensible if we put it in the context of some hard, revealing data: an estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed following the invasion and occupation of Iraq; 500,000 children died between 1991 and 1998 as a result of sanctions imposed against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

In Afghanistan since 2003 more than 250 000 civilians have been killed. More than 130,000 people disabled, mainly because of landmines, including 40,000 amputees among the civilian population according to Afghan governmental sources, and these figures are considered to be significantly underestimated According to the United Nations, the number of Afghan children and Afghan women killed in the first half of 2015 increased by 13% and 23%, respectively, with respect to the same period in 2014. There are an estimated 5 million orphans in Iraq; 2 million in Afghanistan where 20% of the children will not live to see their fifth birthday according to a report by the World Bank. On April 30, 2015, in the Syrian village of Bir Mahli in the Aleppo Governorate, on the east bank of the Euphrates – a village I found peaceful and hospitable in 1972 when I participated in an archaeological dig at the Citadel of Aleppo – more than 50 civilians were killed by “coalition” bombs, including 31 children and 19 women. The NGOs Airwars and McClatchy have challenged the Pentagon about these blunders. And we must also add the deaths of 18 civilians in Harem on November 5 and 50 in Al-Bab on December 28, 2014; of 70 civilians in Hawija on June 2, 13 in Kafr Hind on July 28, and 11 in Atmeh on August 11, 2015. With 2,449 air attacks in Syria between September 2014 and August 20, 2015, the only civilian deaths publicly acknowledged by the Pentagon (Centcom) on May 21, 2015 were those of two 5-year-old girls. France didn´t even care to communicate on this issue.

“The media consistently cloak the responsibility of the West and its proxies for initiating and expanding wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Horn of Africa…”

What can we expect when children, the most precious part of our life, are killed or abused, except more grief, hatred and violence? What can we hope to reap from fields sown with so much sorrow and despair? What alternative means of redress is offered to Gaza resident Tawfik Abu Jama, the only survivor of an Israeli bombing raid on July 20, 2014 that killed 26 members of his family, including his wife and his eight children?

Group of men look at large ISIS flag flying over building in Raqqa.

In 2014 alone, more than 1.2 million people were forced into refugee status; and the appalling figures continue in 2015 (more than 4 million Syrian refugees). The 71 decomposing Syrian bodies found in a smuggler´s abandoned truck in Austria and the drowned body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish beach have shocked the West and should weigh heavily on its conscience, given its fundamental role in their misfortune. But the media consistently cloak the responsibility of the West and its proxies for initiating and expanding wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Horn of Africa. The brutal violence exhibited now in Paris, Beyrouth, Aleppo and elsewhere by combatants in the jihadi movement has grown from this heritage. Terrorism feeds off this violence. ISIL is a phenomenon that has its parallels with the emergence of the Khmer Rouge, originally a minority Maoist rebellion, led by Pol Pot. After the violation of national sovereignty in 1973 and U.S. bombing raids causing some 500,000 deaths, the Khmer Rouge transformed into an extremely violent movement, responsible for the deaths of an estimated 2 million people between 1975 and 1979, a quarter of the country’s population.

The French explanation for terrorism, a multi-purpose term covering armed insurrections, rebellions, and resistance movements against occupational forces, is not convincing. Investigations of the issue, such as that by Michael Bond, who studied 500 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003 and published his findings in the British journal New Scientist, underscore the absence of fanaticism, religious extremism or poverty in the great majority of cases. What is highlighted instead are motives driven by dramas in the perpetrators’ personal lives or by injustice and humiliation they have suffered, engendering a desire for vengeance and an openness to indoctrination within the tight-knit community of a brotherhood.

ParisAttack-WANTED-suspects

In a February 2015 New York Times article, the new Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, commented on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism

“As a Muslim, I can tell you that the problem isn’t Islam: it’s hopelessness. It’s the kind of hopelessness that abounds in the Syrian and Palestinian refugee camps, and in war-weary towns and villages in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Gaza. It’s the hopelessness we see in the poorer neighborhoods of Europe’s great cities, and, yes, even in the United States. And it is this hopelessness, which knows no state or religion, that we need to address if we are to stem the tide of terrorism.” {NOTE: Qatar remains an ally of Washington in prosecuting its criminal war in Syria.—Eds.]

isisFanatics

Islamophobia will arouse increasingly violent reactions in the Muslim world. Beyond the issues that have nourished the debate on Islam (the burqa, caricatures of the Prophet, terrorist plots, plans for a mosque at Ground Zero, burning of the Qur’an, campaign against sharia, the ad campaign on buses in Washington DC with a photograph of Adolf Hitler with the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini and the words “Islamic Jew-Hatred: it’s in the Quran”, expulsion of Muslim girls from a school in the French town of Charleville-Mézières because of their unusually long dresses), there is a real increase in anti-Muslim discrimination and Islamophobic acts that fueled extreme reactions from the “beurs”, the youth Muslims with a French passport.

Arbitrary colonial rule created a lot of the trouble we witness today. This is the map of the "French mandate" of Syria (1922).

Arbitrary colonial rule created a lot of the trouble we witness today. This is the map of the “French mandate” of Syria (1922). In the wake of the Great War the victorious powers —chiefly Britain and France—simply took apart the Ottoman empire with little regard for ethnic, tribal or religious boundaries or customs.

As the killings in Charlie Hebdo had been a chronicle foretold given the insults and obscenities circulated by this satirical magazine against a religion that constitutes, in many countries and in the disinherited suburbs of the major French cities, the only moral support, the only source of dignity, for marginalized and humiliated communities, the terrorist attacks in Paris are too a chronicle foretold, an expected blowback of France militarism and adventurism in the Middle East and France too long inability to integrate its Islamic young population, the largest one in Europe.

Notes

[1] Henri Roussel, “Delfeil du Ton”, Le Nouvel Observateur, January 2015; see also the book by the historian Emmanuel Todd, Qui est Charlie?, éditions du Seuil, Paris, 2015.

Patrick Howlett-Martin is a career diplomat living in Paris.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Paris Terrorist Attacks: “Pre-emptive Defense”, A Chronicle Foretold

This article originally published on October 7, 2015 is of utmost relevance in understanding the action taken by Turkey to down a Russian jet fighter over Syria airspace. (GR. Editor. M. Ch.)

One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border [in October] while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above “violations” is because Turkey unilaterally “moved” the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:

Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

If Syrian rules of engagement would “move” its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the “new” Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one…

Russia “Violated” Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border

Russian planes in Syria “violated Turkish air space” the news agency currently tell us. But an earlier report shows that this claim may well be wrong and that the U.S. pushes Turkey to release such propaganda.

Reuters (Mon Oct 5, 2015 7:54am BST): Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace

A Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace near the Syrian border on Saturday, prompting the Air Force to scramble two F-16 jets to intercept it, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.The Foreign Ministry summoned Moscow’s ambassador to protest the violation, according to an e-mailed statement. Turkey urged Russia to avoid repeating such a violation, or it would be held “responsible for any undesired incident that may occur.”

AFP (10:20am · 5 Oct 2015): Turkey ‘intercepts’ Russian jet violating its air space

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.

Here now what McClatchy reported on these air space violations in a longer piece several hours before Reuters and AFP reported the Turkish claim:

ISTANBUL – A Russian warplane on a bombing run in Syria flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space, Turkish and U.S. officials said Sunday.

A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace.But a U.S. military official suggested the incident had come close to sparking an armed confrontation. Reading from a report, he said the Russian aircraft had violated Turkish air space by five miles and that Turkish jets had scrambled, but that the Russian aircraft had returned to Syrian airspace before they could respond.The Turkish security official said he could not confirm that account.

So it is the U.S., not Turkey, which was first pushing the claims of air space violation and of scrambling fighters. The Turkish source would not confirm that.

But how could it be a real air space violation when Russian planes “flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space”. The Russian planes were flying in Syrian airspace. They “may have crossed” is like saying that the earth “may be flat”. Well maybe it is, right?

Fact is the Russians fly ery near to the border and bomb position of some anti-Syrian fighters Turkey supports. They have good reasons to do so:

The town, in a mountainous region of northern Latakia province, has been a prime route for smuggling people and goods between Turkey and Syria and reportedly has functioned as a key entry for weapons shipped to Syrian rebels by the U.S.-led Friends of Syria group of Western and Middle Eastern countries.

One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above “violations” is because Turkey unilaterally “moved” the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:

Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

If Syrian rules of engagement would “move” its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the “new” Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one.

It would also be no good reason to start a NATO-Russia war just because such a plane might at times slightly intrude on the Turkish side due to an emergency or other accidental circumstances. Do we have to mention that the U.S., France, Britain and Jordan regularly violate Syrian airspace for their pretended ISIS bombing? That Turkey is bombing the PKK in north Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi government? What about Israels regular air space violations over Lebanon?

But what is this all really about? Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. stationed some Patriot air defense systems in Turkey to defend Turkey and its Islamist storm troops in north-Syria. These systems were announced to leave or have already left. Are these claims about air-space violation now an attempt to get these systems back into Turkey? For what real purpose?

Notes:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/10/russia-violates-turkish-airspace-because-turkey-moved-its-border.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia “Violated” Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border

More than 25,000 people have so far signed on to join privacy advocate Max Schrems’ complaint against Facebook. However, it will be up to the Austrian Supreme Court to decide whether they can make their cases jointly as a class action lawsuit.

Schrems, an Austrian citizen, filed a lawsuit aganst Facebook Ireland in July 2014, alleging that the social networking giant’s handling of user data violated European privacy laws.

Both Schrems and Facebook appealed to Austria’s Supreme Court after the Vienna Court of Appeal issued its decision on the case last month. The appeals court ruled in favor of Schrems on 20 out of 22 claims, but said the Supreme Court would have to rule on the question of whether other potential litigants could join Schrems in a class action.

A decision by the Austrian Supreme Court is expected sometime in early 2016. Schrems is seeking 500 euros (about $531) in damages for every complainant.

Class Action ‘Legal and Reasonable’

Neither Schrems nor Facebook responded to our requests for comment on the coming Supreme Court case. However, in a statement released today, Schrems said he believes he has EU law on his side in regard to his request for a class action or model case lawsuit.

“It would not make a lot of sense for the court or the parties before it to file these claims as thousands of individual lawsuits — which we can still do if a ‘class action’ is not allowed,” Schrems said. “We therefore think that the ‘class action’ is not only legal but also the only reasonable way to deal with thousands of identical privacy violations by Facebook.”

Schrems’ inspiration for the complaint came after a 2011 talk by Facebook privacy lawyer Ed Palmieri that he heard while he was studying in the U.S. Schrems said his takeaway from that speech was that Facebook’s handling of user data did not comply with the European Union’s data protection Relevant Products/Services laws.

Making ‘Legal History’

Privacy complaints against Facebook received a boost in October when the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that an E.U.-U.S. agreement on how U.S. companies handled European citizens’ personal data was “invalid.” The Safe Harbor agreement, which had been used since 2000, allowed U.S. companies to self-certify they would comply with European privacy standards.

The Court of Justice’s opinion was issued in response to Schrems’ complaint against the Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland. That case stemmed from the Irish commissioner’s rejection of Schrem’s complaint against Facebook, whose European headquarters is in Ireland.

In its October ruling, the Court of Justice noted that “national security, public interest and law enforcement requirements of the United States prevail over the Safe [Harbor] scheme, so that United States undertakings are bound to disregard, without limitation, the protective rules laid down by that scheme where they conflict with such requirements. The United States Safe [Harbor] scheme thus enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons.”

In a statement today, Arndt Eversberg, CEO of Roland ProzessFinanz, the company that is paying for Schrems’ case against Facebook, said, “If the Austrian Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice allows the lawsuit, Mr. Schrems may write a bit of legal history in the privacy field for the second time — after the ‘Safe Harbor’ decision.”

Shirley Siluk

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Facebook Class Action Privacy Case Goes to Austria’s Supreme Court

Europe and the Global Systemic Economic Crisis

November 24th, 2015 by Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB)

The global systemic crisis we have been experiencing for at least eight years is challenging a world order which we have often compared to the one going back not only to the end of the Second World War, but more broadly to the Renaissance and the great discoveries of late fifteenth century. 500 years ago, Europe put itself at the heart of the planet, launching an extensive programme of exploration, followed by exploitation, then colonization, and finally cooperation with the rest of the world. 500 years ago, Europe became the heart of the world.

Europe, lacking an anchor, in the middle of the raging sea

For more than eight years now, we have also been describing a wide transition from a Western-centered world to a multi-polar world, showing its countless opportunities, but, above all, the dangers presented by such a reconfiguration whenever it is poorly controlled. Thus, we constantly call for the democratic anchoring of the integrated Europe … which is essentially just an anchoring; we also call for the involvement of Europe at all new tables for debates aimed at rethinking governance at all levels, mainly at the Euro-BRICS table, which has such a potential for positive change.

All crises which have crossed Europe since 2008-2009 have had two characteristics:
– they come from the outside;
– they all reveal Europe’s structural weakness.

On this very last point, Franck Biancheri had, however, spent over 25 years working closely with the European and national institutions, alerting them based on a simple observation: the European integration had been set up as a laboratory project well-protected between the Berlin Wall and the American umbrella. Nevertheless, in the early 90s, this Europe made its entrance into history, and the winds of this history which started to blow on it, required it to implement a consolidation process which could not be anything but political, and therefore democratic. The work hasn’t been done after all, because there were too many players not having an interest in that on a short term. Europe has not been firmly anchored, and today, it floats, lacking any anchor, in the heart of a storm of Homeric proportions, being torn apart.

Failure of the nation- state model’s adaptation

Within the wide on-going geopolitical reconfiguration, there is this construction, eminently European and structural to our continent, which broke up completely: the nation state. Regional integration, globalization, the Internet and the emergence of new actors of different political cultures have made the national level, as it has existed, completely obsolete. The paradox is that Europe itself understood that, in the aftermath of its two world wars, initiating a process of overcoming this 19th century model. Yet, the visionary men who conceived this project were replaced, starting with the 90s, by a generation which basically never understood anything to Europe or the integration process, the famous baby boomers, whose leadership,  particularly in the past 20 years, led to the complete failure of the European integration experience.

Europe developed its integration based on the nation states – which was a good thing, but these nation states have failed to play the game until the end and to reinvent their added-value to this new configuration. We have already said that the only added-value of the nation-states is in their ability to collaborate among each other in order to create the social change required for adaptation. Instead, the unanimity rules of any European action resulted in some political paralysis and the obvious failure of its democratization. In addition, Europe, geopolitically central, which articulated the world around itself during 500 years of supreme reign, is now torn by this world’s mutations. Europe would have needed to watch the new world as it was and note and accept any differences in an act of decoupling of the rest of the world, with the aim to rethink itself on new bases.

Multi-polarization and differentiation

The most striking example we can give of this decoupling work is the one provided by the transatlantic relationship, but we could also quote the EU-India relationship, which remained at the stage of former colonial power and former colonized state; the EU-Russia relationship, which oscillates between a pan-European vision (Russia is Europe) and Cold War flashbacks (Russia is Marxism); the EU-China relationship, which is the most perplexing (the great Asian mystery), so far from our models that Europe starts acting like a chicken in front of an ax when it comes to developing relations with China; the South Africa-EU relationship, if it exists, inevitably passes through the Netherlands and England, etc. The EU continued to watch the rest of the world only through its former input there, instead of building relations with emerging entities seen as independent actors. As a result of that, it remained structurally linked to the most outdated parts of these countries and regions, those which currently are disappearing. Yet, let’s go back to the typical example of the transatlantic relationship.

Differentiation and decoupling: the case of the US

We have repeatedly pointed out that it was imperative for Europe to detach from its American avatar, an avatar undergoing a profound change. Indeed, the transatlantic relationship is based on the fact that the United States was originally a European extension, then a European extension which took the leadership after Europe committed suicide during the two world wars. Yet, the Bush Jr. years, in particular, marked the beginning of an era of strong differentiation between Europe and the United States. This country is no longer WASP[1], the proof: even Bush campaigned in Spanish in some states, but Spanish is still European (though mixed with indigenous or African cultures); but there are also these large Chinese, Iranian, and Indian communities, which, contrary to what happens in Europe, gather in large regions, providing them with new features and giving America a social structure which does not have much to do with Europe anymore.

There is also this differentiation as regards to value systems. Until Clinton, albeit wrongly, Europeans wanted to see in the Democratic and Republican parties, a comparable European-style left and a right wing. But with Bush Jr, this was no longer possible. In terms of secularism, a value which, in our opinion, was defended by America according to Tocqueville, the constant references to God in Bush’s speeches convince us of the contrary. The death penalty, weapon carrying, questionable democracy, foreign policy … the list of all topics that start to visibly separate Europe from the United States is quite long. It would have been high time for everyone to create the conditions for their own independence from one another; not to ignore or make war with each other, but to build a new framework for cooperation, a less fusional one.figure 1

Figure 1 – Rate of European favourable opinions regarding the US during Bush junior’s mandates. Source : Pew research centre.

All the misfortunes of the world come ashore on our beaches

Some decoupling attempts did take place, but very few were completed. So little completed that, during the Euro-Russian crisis over Ukraine, in 2014, “the tail wagged the dog”: the United States directly contributed to a hallucinating escalation between Europeans and Russians which we are still not able to get over. Europe, heart of the world, finds itself on the path of a US-Russian confrontation strategy which is overtaking and crushing it… overtaking it and participating directly in the next crisis, the Syrian crisis, another one which comes from the outside, but is hitting us hard. We are not so much involved yet in the Syrian conflict, since we nonetheless resisted rather well the intervention injunctions that came from our American, Israeli and Saudi friends. Yet, we were less successful in defending the only rational policy necessary in 2011: supporting the regular Syrian army and, in exchange for this support, imposing on Bashar Al-Assad a democratic transition … or the peace plan proposed by the Russians. Many deaths, refugees and terrorism would have thus been avoided, had we objectively heard that plan four years ago, rather than just now. But Russia, and not Daesh, was the enemy we were then offered.

Is it our transatlantic link or the trans- channel one that allowed us to act like an island, the way the US or the UK did, and made us believe that we could contribute to the increase of chaos in the Middle East without suffering the consequences?

Notes:

[1] WASP, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, archetype of the average American citizen in the 50s.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe and the Global Systemic Economic Crisis

A Russian Su-24 fighter has been shot down in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding the plane hadn’t violated Turkish airspace and was flying at an altitude of 6,000 meters.

“During the flight, the aircraft was flying within the borders of Syria, which was registered by objective monitoring data,” the ministry said, adding that the aircraft was “supposedly shot down from the ground.”

The pilots managed to eject, the ministry said, adding their fate is as yet unknown.

The downing of the Russian plane is “a very serious incident,” said Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov. He added, however, that it is too early to draw conclusions until the whole situation is clear.

Footage has emerged online, allegedly showing Russian pilots from the downed jet immobile on the ground and surrounded by locals. Some reports claim that one pilot is dead.

Reports of a downed plane emerged earlier in Turkish media. A Habertürk TV reporter on the scene said the aircraft “turned into a fireball.” Numerous witnesses wrote on social media, saying thick plumes of smoke have been rising from the jet crash site.

 

Turkish military added the plane had been warned at least 10 times over a period of five minutes before being shot down by two Turkish F-16 fighter jets. He said the plane had violated Turkish airspace.

The plane reportedly crashed in a village mostly populated by Syrian Turkmen. The place has been a hotspot between the opposition and the Syrian Army.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has met with officials from the Foreign Ministry. He instructed them to consult with NATO and the UN on the latest developments on the Syrian border, Davutoglu’s office said in a statement.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Su-24 fighter jet shot down over Syria – Russian MoD (VIDEO)

Limits of Liberal War Opposition

November 24th, 2015 by David Swanson

Robert Reich’s website is full of proposals for how to oppose plutocracy, raise the minimum wage, reverse the trend toward greater inequality of wealth, etc. His focus on domestic economic policy is done in the traditional bizarre manner of U.S. liberals in which virtually no mention is ever made of the 54% of the federal discretionary budget that gets dumped into militarism.

When such a commentator notices the problem of war, it’s worth paying attention to exactly how far they’re willing to go. Of course, they’ll object to the financial cost of a potential war, while continuing to ignore the ten-times-greater cost of routine military spending. But where else does their rare war opposition fall short?

Well, here, to begin with: Reich’s new post begins thus: “We appear to be moving ever closer toward a world war against the Islamic State.” That helpless fatalism doesn’t show up in his other commentary. We’re not doomed to plutocracy, poverty, or corporate trade. But we’re doomed to war. It’s coming upon us like the weather, and we’ll need to handle it as well as we can. And it will be a “world” affair even if it’s principally the 4% of humanity in the United States with a military engaged in it.

“No sane person welcomes war,” says Reich. “Yet if we do go to war against ISIS we must keep a watchful eye on 5 things.” Nobody, inlcuding Reich as far as I know, ever says this about plutocracy, fascism, slavery, child abuse, rape, de-unionization. Imagine reading this: “No sane person welcomes massive gun violence and school shootings, yet if we’re going to let all these children die for the gun makers’ profits we must keep a watchful eye on 5 things.” Who would say that? What could the 5 things possibly be? The only people who talk this way about climate destruction are those who believe it’s already past the point of no return, beyond any possible human control. Why do U.S. liberals “oppose” war by pretending it’s inevitable and then keeping an eye on certain aspects of its damage?

Reich must be aware that most of Europe is very reluctant to engage in another U.S. war, that proxies in the Middle East are almost impossible to come by, and that President Obama still insists on a limited war slowly worsening the situation. But I suspect that Reich, like many people, has seen so much “election” coverage that he thinks the United States is about to have a new president, and that it will be either a war-mad Republican or a war-mad Hillary Clinton. Yet, such a development is over a year away, making Reich’s fatalism all the more outrageous.

Let’s look at the five things we’re suppose to keep an eye on.

“1. The burden of fighting the war must be widely shared among Americans. America’s current ‘all-volunteer’ army is comprised largely of lower-income men and women for whom army pay is the best option. ‘We’re staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden,’ says Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project, whose study found low- and middle-income families supply far more Army recruits than families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year. That’s not fair. Moreover, when the vast majority of Americans depend on a small number of people to fight wars for us, the public stops feeling the toll such wars take. From World War II until the final days of the Vietnam War, in July 1973, nearly every young man in America faced the prospect of being drafted into the Army. Sure, many children of the rich found means to stay out of harm’s way. But the draft at least spread responsibility and heightened the public’s sensitivity to the human costs of war. If we go into a ground war against ISIS, we should seriously consider reinstating the draft.”

This is madness. As a bank shot aimed at indirectly preventing war it’s incredibly risky and uncertain. As a means of ameliorating war by making it more “fair,” it grotesquely ignores the vast majority of victims, who will of course be the people living in the areas where the war is fought.

“2. We must not sacrifice our civil liberties. U.S. spy agencies no longer have authority they had in the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act to collect Americans’ phone and other records. The NSA must now gain court approval for such access. But in light of the Paris attacks, the FBI director and other leading U.S. law enforcement officials now say they need access to encrypted information on smartphones, personal and business records of suspected terrorists, and ‘roving wiretaps’ of suspects using multiple disposable cell phones. War can also lead to internment of suspects and suspensions of constitutional rights, as we’ve painfully witnessed. Donald Trump says he’d require American Muslims to register in a federal data base, and he refuses to rule out requiring all Muslims to carry special religious identification. “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before….we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” he adds. We must be vigilant that we maintain the freedoms we are fighting for.”

This is delusional. The FBI needs to break through encryption but is kindly refraining from spying on anything unencrypted? The wars strip away civil liberties but are fought “for” them? There has not in fact been a war fought that did not remove liberties, and it seems highly unlikely that there could be. This has been clearly and accurately understood for centuries now.

“3. We must minimize the deaths of innocent civilians abroad. The bombing raids have already claimed a terrible civilian toll, contributing to a mass exodus of refugees. Last month the independent monitoring group Airwars said at least 459 civilians have died from coalition airstrikes in Syria over the past year. Other monitoring groups, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, also claim significant civilian deaths. Some civilian casualties are unavoidable. But we must ensure they are minimized – and not just out of humanitarian concern. Every civilian death creates more enemies. And we must do our part to take in a fair portion of Syrian refugees.”

Minimize inevitable murders? Assist inevitably displaced families turned into refugees by the destruction of their homes? This is kinder gentler imperialism.

“4. We must not tolerate anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States. Already, leading Republican candidates are fanning the flames. Ben Carson says no Muslim should be president. Trump says ‘thousands’ of Arab-Americans cheered when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11 – a boldface lie. Ted Cruz wants to accept Christians refugees from Syrian [sic] but not Muslims. Jeb Bush says American assistance for refugees should focus on Christians. Marco Rubio wants to close down ‘any place where radicals are being inspired,’ including American mosques. It’s outrageous that leading Republican candidates for president of the United States are fueling such hate. Such bigotry is not only morally odious. It also plays into the hands of ISIS.”

Hmm. Can you name the last war that did not include the promotion of bigotry or xenophobia? By now xenophobia is so engrained that no U.S. columnist would propose a project that would kill U.S. citizens while “minimizing” such deaths, yet proposing such a fate for foreigners is deemed liberal and progressive.

“5. The war must be paid for with higher taxes on the rich. A week before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Senate passed a $607 billion defense spending bill, with 93 senators in favor and 3 opposed (including Bernie Sanders). The House has already passed it, 370 to 58. Obama has said he’ll sign it. That defense appropriation is larded with pork for military contractors – including Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history. Now Republicans are pushing for even more military spending.  We cannot let them use the war as a pretext to cut Social Security and Medicare, or programs for the poor. The war should be paid for the way we used to pay for wars – with higher taxes, especially on the wealthy. As we move toward war against ISIS, we must be vigilant – to fairly allocate the burdens of who’s called on to fight the war, to protect civil liberties, to protect innocent civilians abroad, to avoid hate and bigotry, and to fairly distribute the cost of paying for war. These aren’t just worthy aims. They are also the foundations of our nation’s strength.”

Of course the wealthy should pay more taxes and everyone else less. That’s true for taxes for parks or taxes for schools. It would also be true for taxes to pay for a project of blowing up coral reefs or a new initiative to drown kittens, but who would justify such things by properly funding them?

War, in fact, is worse than virtually anything else imaginable, including many things we absolutely reject in moral horror. War is mass murder, it brings with it brutality and a total degradation of morality, it is our top destroyer of the environment including the climate, it endangers rather than protecting — just as bigotry plays into ISIS’s hands, so does bombing ISIS. War — and much more so, routine military spending — kills primarily through the diversion of resources. A fraction of what is wasted could end starvation. I mean 3% of U.S. military spending could end starvation worldwide. Diseases could be wiped out. Energy systems could be made sustainable. The resources are that massive. Housing, education, and other rights could be guaranteed, in the United States and abroad.

Sure it’s good for liberal commentators to point out some of war’s downsides. But depicting them as acceptable and inevitable doesn’t help.

So what should be done? Do I love ISIS, then? Is it my wish for us to all die? Et cetera.

I’ve been blogging my answers to that question for many months. I just asked Johan Galtung for his answer, and you can listen to him here.

This is certainly not good…

Turkey has admitted that it just shot down a Russian Su-24 Fighter Bomber on the Syrian-Turkish border earlier today.

According to Russian Defense Ministry, the Russian jet was shot down this morning from the ground while flying over the Kazildag Mountains where intense fighting has been taking place between the Syrian Arab Army (government forces) and terrorist insurgents.

Both pilots are said to have ejected and parachuted to safety but their current status is yet unknown.

UPDATE:

Some social media reports now claim that one of the two Russian pilots is dead. Russian helicopters tried to evacuate both of them but were shot at from the ground by pro-Turkish militants, US-backed ‘moderate’ al Nusra Front (al Qaeda) rebels.

UNCONFIRMED VIDEO here of “Mujahedin” (al Nusra Front) seemingly gloating over the body of the dead Russian pilot…

 

Russian Defense Ministers maintain that the Russia jet fighter which was shot down didnot violate Turkish airspace and has mission data to prove this is the case. It’s confirmed that the plane came down in Syrian territory. Although reports indicate the Russian plane was shot down from the ground, Turkey is claiming that its own F16 fighter intercepted and shot down the Russian aircraft.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan was briefed and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu ordered consultations with NATO, and the United Nations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to address a press conference late this afternoon to comment on the situation.

Last month, a ‘deconfliction’ contact center was set-up precisely to avoid this very situation. In this way, this has all the hallmarks of a premeditated act of aggression by Turkey designed to break-up cooperation between Russia, France and other NATO countries, and also to assert Turkey’s role as a protector of the Pro-Turkish, al Nusra Front and other armed insurgents in the north of Syria.

NATO’s Provocative Policy

Turkey is well-aware that Russia is now the leading member of the international coalition doing real damage to terrorist forces by airstrikes against ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria, and seeing that ISIS does not have an air force of its own – it makes no sense why Turkey would want to shoot down a Russian plane and risk an international incident – unless it has become a rogue geopolitical actor, or more likely – this dangerous stunt was in fact green-lighted by either the US, or NATO command in Brussels. NATO previously hawkish rhetoric towards Russia last month over alleged violations of Turkish air space only indicates that their agenda is quiet clearly an aggressive one. Another tense incident last month saw Turkey accuse Russia of violating its airspace. Turkey calmed down quickly over it, but NATO then seized on the incident in order to escalate tensions with Russia who had just recently entered the conflict by invitation of the Syrian government.

Regardless of how you look at this incident, the fact that Turkey is a NATO member – and would still knowingly shoot down a Russian fighter jet involved in operations against ISIS and al Nusra (al Qaeda) terrorists – is defacto proof that Turkey is not only coordinating with terrorist paramilitary forces on the ground, but is effectively providing counter air defense for the terrorist forces on the ground. In this way, Turkey is attempting to sabotage the fight against ISIS terrorists in Syria.

Evidence suggests that this is what the US-led ‘Coalition’ is actually doing, via a likely CIA arms-running rat-line running out of Ukraine. Oriental Review reported 48 hrs ago:

“The fact that the ISIS infrastructure in Syria and Iraq is absolutely vulnerable to the airstrikes of the international coalition is undoubtful. During the last week only the Russian Air Force and Navy hit around 826 ISIS targets (training camps, munition and explosives plants, depots, oil refinery and transport objects) causing critical damage to the terrorist groups and its revenue sources. The sponsors of the ISIS are certainly committed to acquire and supply to the jihadist brigades the air defense systems efficient enough to at least hamper the activities of the coalition in the Syrian sky. Back in September 2015, being aware of the Russian plans to launch anti-terrorist air campaign, a Qatari delegation from the Ministry of Defense came to Kiev to take part in the Arms and Security Expo, September 22-27, 2015:

(GR Editor, Letter from Cyber Berkut unconfirmed)

Turkey: Aiding ISIS

Turkey is also playing THE pivotal role in helping ISIS traffic its illegal oil trade, allowing ISIS trucks to drive into Turkey on a daily basis – and then allowing terrorist convoys to sell its ‘black market’ oil in Turkey to buyers. The US is always touting ISIS’s $1.5 million per day income from selling stolen Syrian oil, but over the last 18 months, have done nothing to either hit, or slow down the lucrative terrorist trade. As a NATO member, Turkey should be held directly responsible for its obvious and corrupt role in enabling the financial health of ISIS.

RT confirmed:

“A Russian Su-24 fighter has been shot down in Syria, Russian Defense Ministry said, adding the plane hadn’t violated Turkish airspace and was at an altitude of 6,000 meters.”

“The pilots managed to eject from the downed jet, the ministry said, adding their fate is as yet unknown.”

 

Reports of a downed plane emerged earlier in Turkish media. A Habertürk TV reporter on the scene said the aircraft “turned into a fireball.” Numerous witnesses wrote on social media, saying thick plumes of smoke have been rising from the jet crash site.

A Turkish military official told Reuters the jet was warned before being targeted, adding the plane was shot down by Turkish F-16 fighter jets. He said the plane had violated Turkish airspace.

The plane reportedly crashed in a village mostly populated by Syrian Turkmen. The place has been a hotspot between the opposition and the Syrian Army.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO’s Provocative Policy: Russian Su-24 Fighter Bomber Shot Down By Turkey On Syrian Border

En una entrevista en un sitio Web alternativo basado en los EE.UU., publicada el 7 de enero de 2015, se me preguntó mi opinión sobre el aparente acercamiento entre los Estados Unidos y Cuba. En referencia al anuncio del 17 de diciembre de 2014, yo repliqué:

«En ese 17 de diciembre, la situación me hizo pensar en el discurso del 8 de enero de 1959 pronunciado por Fidel Castro a sus seguidores, ocho días después del triunfo de la Revolución: “Creo que es este un momento decisivo de nuestra historia: la tiranía ha sido derrocada.  La alegría es inmensa. Y sin embargo, queda mucho por hacer todavía. No nos engañamos creyendo que en lo adelante todo será fácil; quizás en lo adelante todo sea más difícil”».

Entiendo perfectamente que no se puede comparar de forma alguna la victoria del 1 de enero de 1959 con el anuncio del 17 de diciembre de 2014; y de la misma manera, la situación frágil existente en 1959 y a principios de los años 60, que se caracterizó por ataques abiertos promovidos por los Estados Unidos y la invasión de Playa Girón, no puede compararse con la situación después del 17 de diciembre, como transcurre en estos momentos.

Sin embargo, continúo siguiendo atentamente los acontecimientos y las reacciones de todo el mundo y del espectro político de la derecha a la izquierda. Por lo tanto estoy obligado a recordar el comentario de Fidel que me vino a la mente en forma inicial y espontáneamente el 17 de diciembre de 2014. Ese día causó una «alegría inmensa» en Cuba y a mucha gente en el mundo, y con mucha razón, así como David fue finalmente recompensado después de más de cinco décadas de una lucha persistente y heroica contra Goliat. Es esa «alegría inmensa» que a veces puede camuflar las adversidades que, en principio, se asume fueron aliviadas pero que de hecho contienen las semillas de desafíos más difíciles aun. Creo que la situación indica el concepto que «quizás en lo adelante todo sea más difícil».

Pocos días después de publicarse la entrevista, comencé a lamentar las afirmaciones previamente mencionadas. Aun cuando tuve extremo cuidado de destacar lo obvio– que no se pueden comparar los contextos de 1959 con el 17D (como los cubanos identifican al 17 de diciembre), de ninguna manera deseo citar a Fidel Castro fuera de contexto. Mi punto principal fue hacer que los lectores aprecien la agudeza del Pensamiento de Fidel Castro como se aplica hoy en día a un contexto totalmente diferente.  Con su sagacidad habitual, él pudo ver el futuro – muy distante en el futuro – y retornar a la realidad del 8 de enero de 1959, para ofrecer un contexto sobrio a largo plazo para la flamante Revolución Cubana. En este artículo, el único aspecto del pensamiento amplio y profundo de Fidel Castro consiste en examinar un paso histórico en la Revolución Cubana. La notable agudeza mental que Fidel Castro demostró el 8 de enero de 1959, le permitió analizar dialécticamente cómo los problemas enormes en el horizonte pueden camuflarse con la inmensa alegría posterior al triunfo de la Revolución. A pesar de brindar la advertencia que las condiciones de los dos periodos son completamente disímiles, la pregunta que me hice fue si pude expresar mi mensaje claramente al citar sus declaraciones de 1959 como guía para la situación actual. Aun cuando seguía todavía convencido de lo correcto de la afirmación, tenía muchas dudas. Esta incertidumbre comenzó a disiparse cuando leí, con mi interés acostumbrado, lo que escribían los académicos, los investigadores y los periodistas cubanos. Algunos, no muchos, básicamente escribieron comentarios similares a los míos. Por ejemplo, Elier Ramírez Cañedo, el joven investigador y coautor junto con Esteban Morales de un libro que marcó un hito, acerca de las relaciones entre Cuba y EE.UU. publicado en 2015, escribió un artículo de dos partes en su área de especialización. La segunda parte, a la que me refiero a continuación, fue publicada en su blog del 28 de enero de 2015, y ese mismo día fue reproducida en el blog La pupila insomne de Iroel Sánchez, seguida de una reproducción el 7 de febrero de 2015 en Cubadebate y en el periódico Juventud Rebelde de la Unión de Jóvenes Comunistas. Elier Ramírez Cañedo escribió acerca de lo que Fidel Castro declaró el 8 de enero de 1959: «que quizás en lo adelante todo sería más difícil. Creo que, incluso ahora, quizá en lo adelante todo sea más difícil en algunos terrenos, especialmente en el campo del enfrentamiento ideológico y cultural al imperialismo».

La periodista de renombre Rosa Miriam Elizalde escribió un artículo el 21 de julio de 2015 en Cubadebate con el título revelador «Cuba-EE.UU: Lo difícil viene ahora». Lo interesante es el comentario en línea que hizo un lector del artículo sobre el significado de la declaración de Fidel Castro el día 8 de enero, que dice: «El día 8 de enero de 1959, en la Habana, Fidel Castro dijo: “Que nadie piense que de aquí en lo adelante todo será más fácil, quizás de aquí en lo adelante todo sea más difícil”». En octubre de 2015, el periodista Rafael Cruz Ramos expresó en su blog, y reproducido en CubaSí, su preocupación, entre otras cosas, sobre la situación actual. Él escribe: «Razón tenía Fidel cuando aseguró que las actuales batallas son más complejas que las de la Sierra Maestra». Otros periodistas han escrito artículos similares.

En retrospectiva, pareciera que mi afirmación inicial acerca del Pensamiento de Fidel Castro sobre este tema de los pasos en la Revolución no estaban fuera de lugar, teniendo en cuenta las afinidades de algunas personas en la prensa cubana, como mencioné anteriormente, y tomados en el contexto de los acontecimientos ocurridos desde ese entonces (del 17D al otoño de 2015), que he seguido muy de cerca. Por el contrario, pienso que fue muy apropiado. Esta conclusión resultó tener ventajas e inconvenientes, dado que no es consolador reconocer que la Revolución en marcha desde 1959 puede todavía enfrentar una situación que «puede ser más difícil» ahora que en el periodo que la vio nacer. Se puede también cuestionar mi posición indicando que no existen muchos periodistas o figuras públicas que comparten esta opinión.  Esto es verdad. Sin embargo, esta aparente falta de atención generalizada es una razón más para ratificar la opinión sobre el Pensamiento de Fidel Castro. La manifiesta carencia actual de cautela de algunas personas, puede, de hecho, reflejar una cierta dosis de «inmensa alegría» relegando a segundo plano la dura realidad de las intenciones del imperialismo de los Estados Unidos.

Elier Ramírez Cañedo hace una cualificación extremadamente importante cuando afirma que el momento más difícil ahora se encuentra « especialmente en el campo del enfrentamiento ideológico y cultural al imperialismo ». Aun cuando sea un tema muy amplio, se destaca el siguiente ejemplo. Cuando estuve en La Habana, no mucho después del 17D, pude observar que la bandera estadounidense se veía en la vestimenta de la gente en las calles, prácticamente en todas partes del cuerpo, en taxímetros y vehículos particulares y en los comercios. Como soy canadienses, esto me resultó una advertencia no muy sutil. Canadá es el aliado más cercano de los Estados Unidos en el occidente y los canadienses visitan frecuentemente a su vecino sureño. Sin embargo, no se hace una exhibición casi carnavalesca de la bandera de Estados Unidos en Canadá. De hecho muchos canadienses detestan tal fanfarria dado que el sentimiento nacionalista en Canadá contra el imperialismo de Estados Unidos, aunque no de los más altos en el mundo, es suficiente para marcar límites. Este sentimiento negativo acerca de la proliferación de la bandera de Estados Unidos en las calles de La Habana, fue confirmada e incluso destacada por la serie del periodista Luis Toledo Sande, sobre el tema de la bandera, en tres artículos con fotos publicado en Cubadebate y en blogs. En mi opinión, esas tendencias y muchas otras corroboran la inquietud de Elier Ramírez Cañedo «especialmente en el campo del enfrentamiento ideológico y cultural al imperialismo » como secuela del 17D.

El bloqueo de EE.UU. contra Cuba es ahora más que nunca objeto de debate en Cuba y en otras partes, especialmente en los EE.UU. El 27 de octubre de 2015, en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, los EU.UU. fue rotundamente derrotado en una votación record de 191 votos a favor de la resolución de Cuba de levantar el bloqueo y solo dos votos– Estados Unidos y su aliado político y militar más cercano, Israel, apoyaron el mantenimiento del bloqueo, y con 0 abstención. Se ha escrito mucho en Cuba y en EE.UU. sobre el bloqueo, tanto por ambos gobiernos y por expertos de ambos lados. Estos debates se enfocan principalmente en las medidas que han sido, y pueden ser todavía, implementadas por el presidente Obama mientras siga aplicándose el bloqueo con toda su fuerza por el poder ejecutivo y la legislatura, el Congreso, del gobierno de los Estados Unidos. Las condiciones principales del bloqueo son prerrogativas del Congreso. Algunos comentaristas señalan que existen contradicciones e incompatibilidades en la política de la administración de Obama en lo relacionado al bloqueo. La narrativa es que el presidente de los EE.UU. no está haciendo lo que se espera de él basado en su aparente oposición al bloqueo y el uso de sus opciones ejecutivas para restringir al máximo los efectos del bloqueo. Puede que me equivoque, pero es posible, de hecho, que no haya contradicciones e incompatibilidades.

Sin embargo, si se examinan cuidadosamente los documentos oficiales, la Casa Blanca y el Departamento de Estado de los EE.UU. parecen protegerse a si mismos dejando la puerta abierta para continuar el bloqueo y restringir al mínimo la acción de Washington  Las declaraciones de los EE.UU. hablan por si mismas. Tanto sea o no que la administración del presidente Obama sea realmente equilibrada en sus palabras a favor del levantamiento del bloqueo, no es del todo claro, como podemos ver ahora. Es preferible estar en el lado seguro y no albergar ilusiones, y seguir presionando al gobierno de los Estados Unidos. En la declaración del presidente Obama del 17 de diciembre de 2014, él mencionó una serie de puntos que desea abordar en relación a Cuba, como democracia y derechos humanos, viajes tipo «pueblo a pueblo» (people-to-people) y envío de remesas de estadunidenses al «sector privado emergente en Cuba», representado por 500.000 trabajadores cuentapropistas. Presidente Obama concluyó diciendo que «a medida que estos cambios se desarrollan, espero poder involucrar al Congreso en una discusión seria y honesta sobre la eliminación del embargo»  En otras palabras, pareciera que la condición para confrontar la mayoría de los republicanos en el Congreso es la evolución del cambio en Cuba según los estándares de los EE.UU.. Su posición no parece ser una exigencia incondicional de principio de que el Congreso derogue el bloqueo. John Kerry, el Secretario de Estado, se refirió a este enfoque diciendo:

«Fíjate, no puedo decirte cuándo se levantará el embargo, porque este depende realmente, en gran medida, de las decisiones que tomen los cubanos. Tienen que hacer lo posible para que se levante el embargo. Hay como ha de entenderse fuerte preocupación en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos por los derechos humanos, la democracia, la capacidad de la gente para expresar lo que piensa, la posibilidad de congregarse y de hacer cosas. Y quisiéramos ver – no pedimos que haya un cambio de la noche de la mañana, pero queremos ver un cambio de dirección en Cuba, y tenemos la esperanza de que así será». (El énfasis es el mío)

La impresión difundida en algunos medios de prensa en el mundo es que el presidente Obama hizo un llamado el 28 de septiembre de 2015 para el levantamiento del bloqueo en su alocución en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. De hecho, lo que expresó, refiriéndose a los derechos humanos en Cuba y los viajes tipo «pueblo a pueblo» (people-to-people) entre Cuba y EE.UU., fue: «a medida que esos contactos rindan frutos, tengo la confianza que nuestro Congreso levantará inevitablemente el embargo, que no tendría que estar en vigor». (El énfasis es el mío)

El imperialismo de EE.UU. hace uso de palabras y de la semántica en formas muy engañosas. Utiliza palabras que parecieran tomar una posición justa, pero de hecho, camuflan el verdadero carácter de sus tácticas y estrategia. Tomemos como ejemplo el golpe de estado militar en 2009 en Honduras orquestado por EE.UU. y la expulsión del presidente Mel Zelaya que fue elegido constitucionalmente. Al principio, tanto el presidente Obama como Hillary Clinton, la Secretaria de Estado no usaron la palabra golpe. Enfrentando la indignación de toda América Latina, finalmente, usaron la palabra golpe, pero no golpe de estado militar. El uso de esta expresión ofrecería una base legal para restringir la ayuda militar a los golpistas, que el gobierno en Washington no tiene intención de hacer. Similarmente, enfrentando la presión internacional, Obama y Clinton dijeron que estaban de acuerdo con el retorno de Zelaya a Honduras. Sin embargo, en las dos ocasiones que Zelaya intentó ingresar a Honduras, EE.UU. se opuso, argumentando que su retorno tendría que efectuarse con la plena participación de EE.UU. y sus aliados. Por lo tanto, las palabras de que estaban de acuerdo con el «retorno de Zelaya», de hecho, no tenían ningún valor, tal como lo fueron a su supuesta oposición al golpe de estado.

Similarmente, la semántica de apoyar el levantamiento del bloqueo tiene poco valor, teniendo en cuenta que parece estar condicionada a que Cuba «haga más», «se abra» y cosas por el estilo. La diplomacia burda anterior ha cambiado después del 17D a intentos de usar el «poder blando» para influenciar desde adentro. Esto se lleva a cabo hasta cierto punto como programas de «promoción de la democracia» por los EE.UU. Presidente Obama dijo refiriéndose a Cuba que los EE.UU. ya no se ocupa de hacer cambios de régimen, aun cuando los programas de cambio de régimen continúan. Por lo tanto, no se pueden tomar en serio las palabras saliendo de la boca del poder imperial y merecen ser escudriñadas.

Es bien conocido, y la administración de Obama lo ha dejado bien explícito, que la posición de los EE.UU. hacia Cuba el 17D es meramente un cambio de tácticas, como por ejemplo, el restablecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas y la reapertura de las embajadas en ambos países. Sin embargo, la estrategia principal de los EE.UU. sigue siendo el derrocamiento de la Revolución Cubana o cambiarla desde su interior para que no haya similitudes a los años previos al 17D. Es necesario explicar en más detalle el concepto de la estrategia.

Se debe recordar que el presidente Obama llegó a su nueva posición sobre Cuba debido a que, entre otros puntos, cómo él y otros han admitido en varias ocasiones, que la política estadunidense hacia Cuba estaba aislando a los EE.UU. de América Latina y el Caribe. Las reuniones Cumbre de las América, lideradas por EE.UU. y que se realiza cada pocos años, incluye, en principio, a todos los países de la América del Sur, Centro, del Caribe y de América del Norte. Sin embargo, Cuba había sido excluida sistemáticamente a dichas reuniones.  En la VI Cumbre de las Américas en Cartagena, Colombia, en abril de 2012, cuando Cuba todavía no había sido incluida, el conflicto entre el sur y el norte de las Américas había llegado a un punto crítico. Toda la América del Sur exigía la inclusión de Cuba, amenazando con el colapso de la próxima reunión si no se incluía a la isla. La VII Cumbre de las Américas en Panamá se llevó a cabo en abril de 2015. Si Obama no hubiera cambiado inmediatamente sus tácticas, los Estados Unidos, no Cuba, hubieran sido culpados de la ruptura de la reunión Cumbre en Panamá.

Un corolario a la estrategia de Obama para Cuba es la estrategia de los EE.UU. para América Latina de derrotar los movimientos y gobiernos progresivos y de izquierda como Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador e incluso de países moderados como Argentina y Brasil.  De hecho, la estrategia de EE.UU. para Cuba es parte intrínseca de la estrategia para América Latina. No es casualidad, entonces, que mientras se proyecta una imagen de que EE.UU. ha  moderado su actitud hacia Cuba, y finalmente recobrado su sentido común, han existido esfuerzos desestabilizadores, asistidos y apoyados por los EE.UU, en todos los países mencionados anteriormente. Si estos esfuerzos lograran éxito, tanto sea parcial o totalmente, sería un serio revés para toda la región, incluyendo Cuba. También sería una derrota para el mundo, dado que América Latina y el Caribe es la región más prometedora para el progreso socioeconómico y político. La región cuenta ahora con una base firme para crear un mundo multipolar que dejaría atrás el mundo unipolar basado en la hegemonía de EE.UU.

Por lo tanto, lo sagaz de la afirmación de Fidel Castro del 8 de enero de 1959, tiene relevancia hoy en día, dado que, la situación puede ser más difícil en el futuro. Este punto puede ser cuestionado por algunas personas, y se comprende que así sea, explicando que en 1959 Cuba estaba sola, mientras que ahora Cuba es parte de este nuevo bloque regional, cuyos miembros, generalmente, se apoyan mutuamente.  Sin embargo esta nueva América Latina ha sido forjada con muchos sacrificios y luchas, como es el caso de Venezuela desde la elección de Hugo Chávez en 1998 como presidente.  Toda derrota importante en América Latina puede causar, como lo desea EE.UU., un efecto dominó en la región. La situación hoy en día es más difícil que en 1959 dado que los pueblos tienen mucho más que perder. Yo creo, sin embargo, es EE.UU. que perderá nuevamente. Por ejemplo, aun cuando ocurriera en Venezuela una derrota temporaria o un estancamiento en las próximas elecciones, la Revolución Bolivariana se ha convertido, y sigue creciendo, una fuerza material en la sociedad venezolana. Una vez que el pueblo tenga conciencia, esta fuerza material puede derrotar a largo plazo al enemigo más acérrimo.

Desde EE.UU., y sus blogueros norteamericanos asesorando a algunos blogueros cubanos, la imagen de los disidentes está pasando de ser desacreditados como mercenarios de los Estados Unidos a otra imagen de estar compuesta de jóvenes. La nueva cosecha de disidentes da la impresión que no están interesados en los fondos para el cambio de régimen. No son fáciles de detectar. La disidencia se está renovando en el contexto del 17D, y es, en mi opinión, un cáncer que trata de carcomer la sociedad cubana en su interior, apuntando especialmente a los jóvenes, los artistas, los intelectuales y los periodistas.

La sagacidad del pensamiento de Fidel Castro, como se aplica al 17D es que «quizás en lo adelante todo sea más difícil», en mi opinión, es ratificada teniendo en cuenta la discusión precedente y el hecho que la sociedad cubana ha acumulado problemas en las décadas pasadas.

Sin embargo, como en el caso de Venezuela y del resto de América Latina, no tengo dudas que Cuba superará esta situación tan difícil y complicada. En julio de 2015 se realizó el Congreso de la Unión de Jóvenes Comunistas. A diferencia de la desinformación diseminada por los medios de prensa más influyentes de los EE.UU. sobre la censura y la prensa en Cuba, era posible ver en la televisión cubana todos los debates y deliberaciones de dicho Congreso consistente de 600 delegados. Quedé muy impresionado con las numerosas intervenciones espontáneas y no escritas de antemano, de contenido muy profundo, de los cubanos en este tipo de actividades. Tengo la certeza que muchos de ellos podrán ser futuros líderes en Cuba. Aun cuando las condiciones presentes son muy diferentes y puedan ser más difíciles y especialmente complicadas que las del periodo previo a la Revolución, las nuevas generaciones se preparan para continuar el legado de la Revolución, en el contexto de desafiar la situación actual. La nueva generación de disidentes, cuya disidencia está siendo reciclada para adaptarse a las condiciones del 17D, no es un rival para los jóvenes revolucionarios cubanos.

Además, aquellos en los EE.UU. que apuestan a que los cuentapropistas drenen completamente a Cuba desde su interior subestiman la conciencia política/ideológica y el patriotismo de la vasta mayoría de los cubanos. El pueblo cubano está inmerso en esta tradición. El presidente Raúl Castro lo dejó bien claro en sus declaraciones del 17 de diciembre de 2014. Él comenzó su alocución manifestando lo siguiente:

«Desde mi elección como Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros, he reiterado en múltiples ocasiones, nuestra disposición a sostener con el gobierno de los Estados Unidos un diálogo respetuoso, basado en la igualdad soberana, para tratar los más diversos temas de forma recíproca, sin menoscabo a la independencia nacional y la autodeterminación de nuestro pueblo.

Esta es una posición que fue expresada al Gobierno de Estados Unidos, de forma pública y privada, por el compañero Fidel en diferentes momentos de nuestra larga lucha, con el planteamiento de discutir y resolver las diferencias mediante negociaciones, sin renunciar a uno solo de nuestros principios».

Cuba ha atravesado largos años de luchas revolucionarias y patrióticas. En mi opinión, el primer periodo es desde 1868 a 1898, durante las guerras patrióticas contra el colonialismo español y a favor de la independencia y de una sociedad más justa. El segundo periodo histórico fue negativo debido a la dominación de los Estados Unidos desde 1898 a 1959. El tercer periodo se inició el 1 de enero de 1959, forjado en la acción del Cuartel Moncada en 1953 y del programa subsiguiente como base de la Revolución. Cuba ha estado atravesando esta era desde 1959 hasta el presente. La fecha 17D no es histórica en ese sentido, pero es otro capítulo en el periodo actual con sus promesas así como, quizá, con más dificultades y retos, en circunstancias completamente diferentes que en el periodo previo a la victoria de la Revolución Cubana el 1 de enero de 1959.

Arnold August

Arnold August, periodista y conferencista canadiense es el autor de Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections y más recientemente, Cuba y sus vecinos: Democracia en movimiento, disponible en Cuba. Los vecinos de Cuba son los Estados Unidos, Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador. Siga a Arnold en Twitter @Arnold_August.

 

Original Tomado de Global Research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cuba-us-relations-and-the-perspicacity-of-fidel-castros-thinking/5488367

Versión en español Tomado de CubaDebate:

http://www.cubadebate.cu/opinion/2015/11/22/relaciones-entre-cuba-y-eeuu-la-perspicacia-del-pensamiento-de-fidel-castro/#.VlOm8piFN3c

 Traducción: Franklin Curbelo del original en inglés

 

 

 

 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Relaciones entre Cuba y EEUU: la perspicacia del Pensamiento de Fidel Castro

NATO has called an emergency meeting after Russian Su-24 jet was downed over the Turkish-Syrian border.

The NATO ambassadors will meet in Brussels at 5 pm (4 pm GMT).

“The meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be held at 5 pm (4 pm GMT) at Turkey’s request,” the NATO representative said.

NATO is monitoring the situation closely, the representative added. The Alliance is in close contact with the Turkish government.

The Russian jet crashed in Syria earlier on Tuesday with two people aboard. The plane was most likely downed by a ground missile, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

According to initial ministry information, both pilots were able to eject from the airplane. Their current condition and whereabouts have not been released.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Calls Emergency Meeting After Russian Su-24 Downed Over Syria

Hace una semana (el pasado 16 de noviembre), las máximas autoridades francesas declararon que Francia se encuentra en guerra (ver texto del  discurso  de su Presidente ante ambas Cámaras del Poder Legislativo reunidas en “Congreso”): en su alocución, se lee, entre otras cosas, que: “Francia está en guerra. Los actos cometidos viernes por la noche en París y cerca del Stade de France, son actos de guerra. Han causado la muerte de al menos 129 personas y numerosos heridos. Constituyen una agresión contra nuestro país, contra sus valores, contra su juventud, contra su modo de vida”  (Traducción libre al español de “La France est en guerre. Les actes commis vendredi soir à Paris et près du Stade de France, sont des actes de guerre. Ils ont fait au moins 129 morts et de nombreux blessés. Ils constituent une agression contre notre pays, contre ses valeurs, contre sa jeunesse, contre son mode de vie“).

Aspectos de forma

Desde la perspectiva política, esta declaración del Presidente de Francia respondía a la emoción suscitada en la sociedad francesa por la violencia de los ataques realizados el 13 de noviembre pasado en París, su grado de coordinación, y por el impacto causado por la cobertura en cuanto a imágenes, testimonios, fotos (tanto en medios de prensa como en redes sociales): la sociedad francesa se encuentra profundamente conmocionada.

Ahora bien, desde la perspectiva jurídica, los atentados del 13 de noviembre están dando lugar al uso de términos raramente usados en el pasado por parte de las autoridades francesas para calificar actos muy similares en cuanto a su naturaleza, lo cual, merece ser señalado:

–       en primer lugar, asistimos a una peculiar interpretación del concepto tradicional de “guerra”, la cual supone un enfrentamiento bélico entre dos o más Estados: un Estado se declara en guerra contra otro Estado (y no contra un ente no estatal). Desde el punto de vista jurídico, una declaración de esta naturaleza obliga a  considerar la aplicación de las reglas del derecho internacional humanitario en materia de conflictos armados. Esta última, como bien se sabe,  fue descartada por Estados Unidos en su “guerra contra el terrorismo” iniciada en el 2001, mediante la cuestionable – y cuestionada – noción de “combatientes ilegales”, y la creación de una verdadera “zona de no derecho” en el 2002 (la base naval de Guantánamo). Declararle la “guerra” a una entidad no estatal  es reconocer de manera implícita a un grupo privado algunas prerrogativas que ostenta un Estado. Desde la perspectiva del contrincante (y tomando en consideración el hecho que en Siria, y más generalmente, en Oriente Medio, son varios los grupos terroristas que se disputan el liderazgo), es posible que esta declaración francesa de “guerra” contribuya a consolidar el liderazgo de ISIS (también conocido como EI – Estado Islámico – o Daech) sobre las demás organizaciones.

–       más llamativo aún, debido a la importancia de este término en la misma Carta de las Naciones Unidas, la noción de “agresión” está igualmente dando lugar a una muy peculiar interpretación (a nuestro juicio, riesgosa, como lo veremos a continuación): el recurrir, por parte de un Estado a usar la palabra “agresión” responde a una motivación particular que los especialistas en derecho internacional conocen bastante bien. Esta motivación adquiere un significado particular cuando un Estado califica como “agresión” un acto cometido por una entidad no estatal.

A diferencia de lo que ocurrió después del 11 de setiembre del 2001, período en el que Estados Unidos  buscó la manera de justificar jurídicamente su reacción interpretando a su manera los conceptos de “guerra”, de “agresión” y de “legítima defensa” (y recurriendo a inventar nociones tal como la de “combatiente ilegal”), hoy se cuenta con una definición del término de “agresión” debidamente consensuada por la comunidad internacional: se trata de la definición adoptada en el 2010 en Kampala (ver  texto  oficial en los seis idiomas oficiales de Naciones Unidas) por parte de los Estados Partes a la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI). La revisión minuciosa del texto – a cuya elaboración participaron los delegados de Francia, y de unos 120 Estados más – indica que quedan excluidos de la noción de “agresión” los actos cometidos por entidades no estatales. La definición, acordada 9 años después del 11 de setiembre del 2001, se lee en los siguientes términos, y nos permitimos reproducirla en toda su extensión:

“Artículo 8 bis. Crimen de agresión:

1. A los efectos del presente Estatuto, una persona comete un “crimen de agresión” cuando, estando en condiciones de controlar o dirigir efectivamente la acción política o militar de un Estado, dicha persona planifica, prepara, inicia o realiza un acto de agresión que por sus características, gravedad y escala constituya una violación manifiesta de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas.

2. A los efectos del párrafo 1, por “acto de agresión” se entenderá el uso de la fuerza armada por un Estado contra la soberanía, la integridad territorial o la independencia política de otro Estado, o en cualquier otra forma incompatible con la Carta de las Naciones Unidas. De conformidad con la resolución 3314 (XXIX) de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, de 14 de diciembre de 1974, cualquiera de los actos siguientes, independientemente de que haya o no declaración de guerra, se caracterizará como acto de agresión:

a) La invasión o el ataque por las fuerzas armadas de un Estado del territorio de otro Estado, o toda ocupación militar, aún temporal, que resulte de dicha invasión o ataque, o toda anexión, mediante el uso de la fuerza, del territorio de otro Estado o de parte de él;

b) El bombardeo, por las fuerzas armadas de un Estado, del territorio de otro Estado, o el empleo de cualesquiera armas por un Estado contra el territorio de otro Estado;

c) El bloqueo de los puertos o de las costas de un Estado por las fuerzas armadas de otro Estado;

d) El ataque por las fuerzas armadas de un Estado contra las fuerzas armadas terrestres, navales o aéreas de otro Estado, o contra su flota mercante o aérea;

e) La utilización de fuerzas armadas de un Estado, que se encuentran en el territorio de otro Estado con el acuerdo del Estado receptor, en violación de las condiciones establecidas en el acuerdo o toda prolongación de su presencia en dicho territorio después de terminado el acuerdo;

f) La acción de un Estado que permite que su territorio, que ha puesto a disposición de otro Estado, sea utilizado por ese otro Estado para perpetrar un acto de agresión contra un tercer Estado;

g) El envío por un Estado, o en su nombre, de bandas armadas, grupos irregulares o mercenarios que lleven a cabo actos de fuerza armada contra otro Estado de tal gravedad que sean equiparables a los actos antes enumerados, o su sustancial participación en dichos actos”.

Hemos revisado si la versión oficial en francés de esta misma definición acordada en el 2010 añade algún acápite adicional o usa términos distintos a los de la versión en español: para tranquilidad de nuestros lectores y de los especialistas en la materia, se mantiene sin añadido alguno. En otras palabras, no hay cómo sostener jurídicamente que actos cometidos por entidades no estatales califiquen como una agresión contra un Estado en el derecho internacional vigente.

Como visto, estos atentados perpetrados en París están dando lugar al uso de calificativos inusuales en declaraciones de autoridades francesas para referirse a actos terroristas: el cambiar el calificativo para referirse a situaciones idénticas o muy similares puede responder a un ejercicio que vaya mucho más allá de lo estrictamente emotivo.

Una motivación apenas perceptible

Al revisar esta definición del término de “agresión” acordada en el 2010, a la cual concurrieron los Estados Partes al Estatuto de Roma, la actual motivación de Francia con relación al uso del término de “agresión” para calificar los atentados del 13 de noviembre se deja entrever con mucha mayor claridad.  No es casualidad que el único Estado que se haya apresurado en apoyar a Francia a la hora de calificar estos atentados ocurridos en París como “acto de guerra” fue Estados Unidos (ver  nota  de prensa): en su momento, Estados Unidos también le declaró la “guerra” al terrorismo, con todas las implicaciones que ello conllevó para justificar posteriormente su actuar.

Cabe recordar que, pese a formar parte de la “Coalición contra ISIS” lanzada en setiembre del 2014 por Estados Unidos (la cual reúne a más de 60 Estados – ver listado en esta nota del Departamento de Estado – con la única participación de Panamá por parte de América Latina), los primeros bombardeos aéreos realizados por aviones de Francia en el territorio de Siria tuvieron lugar hace unas pocas semanas, durante la mañana del domingo 27 de setiembre del 2015 (ver  nota  de Le Monde y esta  nota  de La Nación). El día siguiente, 28 de setiembre, en su alocución ante la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, (ver  texto ) el Presidente de Francia precisaba (sin referise expresamente a los bombardeos aéreos del día anterior) que: « la lutte contre le terrorisme va être poursuivie, amplifiée autant qu’il sera nécessaire, dans le respect du droit, dans le respect  aussi de ce qu’est la souveraineté des Etats car nous ne nous trompons pas lorsque nous agissons, nous le faisons toujours dans le respect des principes des Nations Unies ». Es de notar que en este mismo discurso el Presidente de Francia abogaba por la necesidad de excluir a las actuales autoridades de Siria de las negociaciones sobre el futuro de Siria (ver  artículo  de Le Monde):

Nous nous soutenons, la France, l’opposition syrienne, l’opposition démocratique. Nous la considérons comme la seule représentante légitime du peuple syrien. Et là-dessus, nous ne transigeons pas et nous ne faisons aucun compromis parce qu’il y aurait menace. Le régime de Bachar Al-Assad mérite tout autant d’être condamné car il est complice de ce qui s’est produit en Syrie depuis trois ans, 200 000 morts et combien de personnes déplacées“.

Por su parte, Rusia condenó de manera vehemente, a través de su portavoz, estas acciones militares francesas indicando que este ataque aéreo contra ISIS – o Estado Islámico (EI) -, sin la autorización de las autoridades sirias ni la del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, constituían “el exterminio del derecho internacional ante los ojos” del mundo (según se lee en este  cable  de la agencia EFE reproducido en El Comercio). Como bien se sabe, el uso de la fuerza por parte de un Estado contra otro Estado es terminantemente prohibido en derecho internacional, y esta prohibición ha sido jurídicamente consagrada en la misma Carta de las Naciones Unidas adoptada en 1945. La única excepción a esta regla la constituye la acción militar realizada en el ejercicio de legítima defensa, en respuesta a una agresión;  o bien en el marco de una acción militar debidamente autorizada por parte del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas.

Se considera que una acción militar que cuente con el consentimiento previo e informado del Estado cuyo territorio es objeto de operaciones militares es de igual forma válida, desde la perspectiva jurídica. La diferencia entre los ataques aéreos a ISIS en Irak y en Siria consiste en que en el caso del primero, este consentimiento existe: la carta enviada por Irak el 20 de setiembre del 2014 al Consejo de Seguridad (ver  texto ) expresamente indica que: “Es por todas estas razones que, de conformidad con el derecho internacional y lo dispuesto en los acuerdos bilaterales y multilaterales pertinentes, y respetando debidamente la soberanía nacional más absoluta y la Constitución, hemos solicitado a los Estados Unidos de América que ataque los lugares donde se encuentra el EIIL y sus bastiones militares, con nuestro expreso consentimiento. El objetivo de esos ataques es poner fin a la amenaza constante para el Iraq, proteger a los ciudadanos iraquíes y, en última instancia, armar a las fuerzas iraquíes y permitirles recuperar el control de las fronteras del Iraq”. En el caso de Siria, este consentimiento es inexistente, razón por la cual Rusia ha considerado desde los primeros bombardeos realizados en setiembre del 2014 en Siria por Estados Unidos y sus aliados que estos violaban el derecho internacional (ver nota de prensa).

Una justificación cuestionable

El jefe de la diplomacia de Francia justificó las acciones aéreas militares del 27 de setiembre del 2015 haciendo referencia al artículo 51 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas (que prevé la figura de la legítima defensa), y lo hizo en los siguientes términos: “Nous avons frappé, il y a quelques jours et nous continuerons à le faire dans le cadre de la légitime défense de l’article 51 de la Charte des Nations unies. Il faut mener ces actions militaires et je dirai que de ce point de vue là un bilan lucide de ce que nous avons fait les uns les autres depuis maintenant plusieurs mois amène sans doute à des améliorations” (ver  texto   del discurso pronunciado el 29/09/2015 durante una cumbre sobre el terrorismo).

Estos primeros bombardeos franceses de setiembre del 2015, que se justificaron con base en una interpretación bastante peculiar de la noción jurídica de legítima defensa colectiva, fueron antecedidos por los realizados por aviones de Australia, el 15 de septiembre (ver  nota  de The Guardian) y el primer bombardeo por parte del Reino Unido desde un dron, realizado el 7 de septiembre (ver  nota  del NYTimes): las autoridades británicas confirmaron que de los tres fallecidos, dos eran nacionales del Reino Unido sospechosos de combatir en la filas de ISIS (ver  nota  de prensa). La eliminación física desde un dron de sospechosos de nacionalidad británica en Siria  – no se registra, salvo error de nuestra parte, eliminación física desde un dron de sospechosos de pertenecer a ISIS en Londres o en suelo británico… – fue justificada por sus autoridades con base en otra (muy propia) interpretación de la noción de legítima defensa individual de un Estado: se lee en la nota precitada que “It was necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the UK“. En una carta enviada al Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas el mismo 7 de septiembre del 2015 relacionada a un ataque similar en territorio de Siria del mes de agosto (ver  texto ), Reino Unido justificó su accionar con razones similares: “On 21 August 2015 armed forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland carried out a precision airstrike against an ISIL vehicle in which a target known to be actively engaged in planning and directing imminent armed attacks against the United Kingdom was travelling. This airstrike was a necessary and proportionate exercise of the individual right of self-defence of the United Kingdom“: la “iminencia” de un ataque armado (“imminent armed attacks“) por parte de un grupo terrorista, justifica, según los diplomáticos del Reino Unido, el recurrir a la noción de legítima defensa. Ello recuerda la “amenaza” que representaban para Estados Unidos los talibanes en Afganistán, y posteriormente Saddam  Hussein en Irak, y la noción de “legítima defensa preventiva” defendida por el Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos a partir del 2001 para justificar sus acciones militares “anticipadas” en su denominada “guerra global contra el terrorismo“.

El riesgo actual para el derecho internacional

Con relación a las operaciones militares realizadas en Siria, asistimos a interpretaciones un tanto antojadizas de algunos principios muy básicos del derecho internacional, que sostienen el ordenamiento jurídico internacional desde 1945: estas interpretaciones son realizadas por varios Estados ante el silencio de gran parte de los demás. Lo que podríamos denominar un sutil “glissement sémantique” al que ha procedido Francia en días recientes responde en gran medida a la necesidad de justificar (de manera retroactiva)  sus bombardeos del 27 de setiembre y los realizados después del 13 de noviembre. El representante francés en Naciones Unidas el pasado viernes 20 de noviembre fue muy explícito al respecto, después de aprobada una resolución por parte del Consejo de Seguridad: “Nos actions militaires, dont nous avons informé le Conseil de sécurité dès l’origine, étaient justifiées par la légitime défense collective.  Elles peuvent désormais se fonder également sur la légitime défense individuelle, conformément à l’Article 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies », a expliqué M. Delattre » (ver comunicado de prensa oficial del 21/11/2015 de Naciones Unidas). Es de notar que la referencias a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas incluidas en la resolución 2239 (2015) adoptada de forma unánime por el Consejo de Seguridad el pasado 20 de noviembre (ver texto en francés al final de este  enlace ) se deben a las enmiendas propuestas por Rusia al texto original propuesto por Francia: se acota en el mismo comunicado que ”M. Churkin s’est cependant félicité de ce que des amendements apportés à la demande de sa délégation, notamment les références à la Charte des Nations Unies, figurent désormais dans le texte”.  En un  artículo  de Le Monde sobre el voto de esta resolución se precisa que: “Concrètement, la résolution 2249 ne donne pas d’autorisation légale à agir militairement en Syrie et en Irak, puisqu’elle n’est pas placée sous le chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations Unies qui prévoit l’usage de la force. Mais le langage employé dans le texte, qui stipule que « toutes les mesures nécessaires » sont permises pour combattre l’EI, laisse la place à l’interprétation, selon les diplomates français».

Pese a la prontitud con la que los delegados de Francia han intentado justificar desde el punto de vista jurídico sus acciones militares en Siria – obviando el hecho que la resolución adoptada no refiere expresamente a las acciones militares, las cuales solamente pueden ser las previstas en el Capítulo VII de la Carta –  otros Estados mantienen sus reservas con relación al hecho de bombardear un territorio sin contar con el consentimiento de un Estado.  La dudosa legalidad de estos bombardeos aéreos en Siria llevo, por ejemplo, a las nuevas autoridades electas de Canadá a poner un término a estas operaciones en Siria, así como también en Irak (ver nota de The Guardian) el pasado 21 de octubre del 2015. Autores canadienses habían estudiado la presunta legalidad de estos ataques aéreos realizados por Canadá  (ver  artículo ) con relación a las reglas vigentes y a la jurisprudencia de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ), llegando sin titubeos  a conclusiones que, en nuestro modesta opinión, aplican de igual manera para los demás Estados que han procedido a acciones de este tipo en territorio sirio sin consentimiento de Siria: “However, there is a further legal hurdle for Canada to overcome. Unless Canada can attribute ISIS’ attacks in Iraq to Syria, then the question becomes whether Canada may lawfully target ISIS, as a nonstate actor in Syria’s sovereign territory, using the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine to prevent ISIS’ extraterritoriality attacks against Iraq. This justification moves significantly away from the Nicaragua, Congo and Israeli Wall cases’ requirement for attribution. There appears to be a lack of consensus on whether opinion juris and state practice have accepted the “unwilling or unable” doctrine as customary international law. There is no escaping: the conclusion that Canada’s air strikes on Syria are on shaky, or at least shifting, legal ground”.

Algunas voces en Francia han señalado en días recientes que este tipo de acciones militares en sí no resuelven mayormente la situación y pueden agravarla, debido a los daños a las poblaciones civiles que conllevan: se señala en un  artículo  de Le Monde que «pour gagner la guerre en France, il faut gagner la paix au Moyen-Orient », remarque le sociologue Edgar Morin, qui rappelle que les forces occidentales sèment également la désolation sur le théâtre des opérations avec leurs drones, bombardements et leurs cohortes de dommages collatéraux“.  A este respecto, vale la pena recordar que los primeros bombardeos de Francia del 27 de setiembre en Siria mataron a 12 “niños soldados” (ver  cable  de la BBC titulado “IS conflict: French raid in Syria ‘kills 12 child soldiers’ ” y  artículo publicado en el Huffington Post).

Desde el punto de visto jurídico, en el mes de setiembre del 2014, un connotado especialista belga ya señalaba en un artículo (cuya lectura recomendamos), la similitud de los argumentos esgrimidos por Estados Unidos en el 2001 y en el 2014 con relación a intervenir militarmente en el territorio de otros Estados, bajo el pretexto de luchar contra el terrorismo. Su  artículo  se titula precisamente ” De la doctrine Bush à la doctrine Obama: le retour des guerres préventives“.

Como bien se sabe, en materia de seguridad y de prevención, Estados Unidos y algunos de sus aliados como Israel, tienen una lectura muy peculiar de algunas reglas básicas del derecho internacional. La primera operación militar registrada aduciendo oficialmente actuar en “legítima defensa preventiva” fue el bombardeo por parte de Israel de un reactor nuclear en Irak en 1981 (la central de Osirak, construida con ayuda y asistencia técnica de Francia): en aquella época, el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas, en su resolución S/RES/487  (ver  texto ) de forma unánime  “condenó enérgicamente el ataque de Israel que viola claramente la Carta de Naciones Unidas y las normas del comportamiento internacional” exigiendo además a Israel que “se abstenga en el futuro de cometer actos de esta clase o amenazar con cometerlos”.  En el continente americano, otro aliado de Estados Unidos, Colombia, se refirió a la legitima defensa para intentar justificar ante la comunidad internacional su operación comando en Ecuador en marzo del 2008 (denominada “Operación Fénix”).

Decisiones recientes en Francia

En lo que respeta a Francia, permanece la duda de saber si sus autoridades evaluaron de manera rigurosa los riesgos de bombardear posiciones de ISIS en Siria el pasado 27 de setiembre del 2015; y si al hacerlo, aumentaron significativamente la vigilancia y la seguridad en su propio territorio ante las posibles (y previsibles) represalias que se tomarían en su contra. Tres días después de estos primeros bombardeos realizados el 27 de setiembre, un juez especialista en la lucha antiterrorista advertía en una entrevista en Paris Match (ver  cita hecha en este artículo de Le Monde ) que: “« J’ai acquis la conviction que les hommes de Daech [Etat islamique] ont l’ambition et les moyens de nous atteindre beaucoup plus durement en organisant des actions d’ampleur, incomparables à celles menées jusqu’ici. Je le dis en tant que technicien : les jours les plus sombres sont devant nous. La vraie guerre que l’EI entend porter sur notre sol n’a pas encore commencé ».

El grado de coordinación de los atentados del 13 de noviembre indica que, pese a algunas medidas tomadas por las autoridades francesas, estos actos tomaron desprevenidas a varias unidades adscritas a la lucha antiterrorista y a los servicios secretos franceses. Para dar con la pista de los miembros de ISIS autores de los atentados, Francia obtuvo información proporcionada por los servicios secretos marroquíes (ver nota de prensa).

El mismo día en que el Presidente de Francia se declaraba en “guerra”, el sindicato de la magistratura francesa externaba su preocupación con relación a las medidas de excepción solicitadas por el Poder Ejecutivo: en su comunicado del 16/11/2015 (ver  texto ), precisa que: “Mais les mesures tant judiciaires qu’administratives qui seront prises ne feront qu’ajouter le mal au mal si elles s’écartent de nos principes démocratiques. C’est pourquoi le discours martial repris par l’exécutif et sa déclinaison juridique dans l’état d’urgence, décrété sur la base de la loi du 3 avril 1955, ne peuvent qu’inquiéter ». En el transcurso de la semana pasada, Amnistía Internacional también denunció la peligrosa deriva de las autoridades francesas al declarar medidas de excepción de todo tipo en su lucha contra el terrorismo. En su comunicado del 19/11/2015 (ver  texto ), leemos que: ”A medida que pasen los días y que los cuerpos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley tanto en Francia como en toda la región trabajen con diligencia para llevar a los responsables ante la justicia y evitar amenazas inminentes, será preciso reevaluar cuidadosamente la necesidad de unos poderes de emergencia que se apartan del derecho ordinario y conculcan derechos humanos. Resulta paradójico suspender derechos humanos para defenderlos”.

A modo de conclusión

En respuesta a los atentados de París, el pasado 15 de noviembre, Francia procedió a nuevos bombardeos en Siria contra ISIS. El 16 y 17 de noviembre una segunda y tercera oleada de bombardeos aéreos de Francia tuvieron lugar en Siria (ver  nota  de Le Figaro). Nuevamente, Rusia fustigó el hecho que estos ataques se hagan sin contar con el consentimiento de Siria (ver nota de El Pais).

El hecho que el primer canciller en visitar personalmente al Presidente en el Palais de Elysée después de los atentados (ver nota) fuera el Secretario de Estado norteamericano y que, muy probablemente, el primer viaje en el exterior del Presidente de Francia después de los atentados, sea a Estados Unidos para encontrarse con el Presidente Obama ya no debe sorprender: según todo pareciera indicar, la estrategia de Estados Unidos en su lucha contra los autores del 11/S cuenta ahora con entusiastas adeptos en Francia.

Nicolás Boeglin

 

Nicolás Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR).

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Francia en guerra: breves apuntes desde la perspectiva del derecho internacional

When it was realised that a police Belgian Shepherd by the name of Diesel had perished at the end of a last act of defiance in St. Denis by suspected ISIS militants, social media, allied to the sentimental industrial complex, took over. Extensive coverage scrolled across the screens, powered by such hashtags as #JeSuisChien.  According to Jean-Michel Fauvergue, who led the assault, there was “little doubt that she saved the lives of police officers.” 

The political chance to exploit this death was too good to miss, and canine solidarity was met in kind by a Russian gesture from the Interior Ministry to provide a puppy in turn.  Dobrynya was duly described as the dog that melted French hearts.

Such animals duly suffered the indignity of anthropomorphic depiction.  “Diesel,” it is noted, “had a distinguished career with the police and had been decorated with service medals.”  Headlines featured the rather cynical suggestion that dogs “around the world” were paying their “own tribute to hero police canine killed in siege.”

Various dog owners, without a second thought, posted pictures on various media platforms featuring dogs on hind legs, sporting a French flag. One beagle was given to chewing on a sheet with Diesel’s name written on it, covered in tricolour love hearts.  Other “dogs of war,” also made their photographic, and photogenic appearance across the media.  They, it is suggested, must have known what this was all about.

Such behaviour sent sparks of rage through areas of the world where the focus on such animal feats was seen as less important as human fates. Boko Haram had been heavily involved in a campaign, replete with suicide attacks, on civilian targets.  As the fate of Diesel was reaching Twitter pitch, Nigeria was still recovering from attacks which left some 2000 dead were registering a relative murmur.

Some critics saw this as a disturbing revelation.  Regular RT pundit Catherine Shakdam suggested that, “Much can be said about a society when it cries over a police dog more than its own on account of geography and ethnicity.” Ben Norton, writing in a similar vein for Salon, felt that the appreciation for a French police dog’s life said more about a pressing loss of humanity than anything else.

Empathy and proportionate grief are never equally distributed. Horrors are a matter of unequal parcelling out, and reflection. The human conscience is never capable of focusing on more than a few matters at a time, and such a focus is culturally and contextually limited.  Your neighbour’s fate is probably more relevant than a suffering African child, though an illusion is often given that African lives matter. As suffering victims, perhaps; as full human beings, less so.

In canine friendly societies, dog lives count.  The domestication of the animal eventually saw it becoming unquestioning companion and servant.  In literature and art, the dog would come to represent steadfast fidelity to often brutish masters.

Former President of France, Charles de Gaulle, would remark that, as he got to know men better, the more he found himself loving dogs.  Sigmund Freud, bringing his sometimes skewed psycho-analytic eyes to bear upon the issue, saw dogs as unconditional in love to friends while biting enemies, “quite unlike people, who are incapable of pure love and always have to mix love and hate.”

The fate of a police dog, aligned with security forces, was bound to deliver a few throbbing heart aches to a situation that had already been saturated with Parisian reflection. It may seem callous and even misdirected, but such historical acts of commemoration for animals caught in the line of fire have caused bouts of fixation.

Leaving aside the seeming geographical and ethnic selectiveness in Dieselmania, a thought should be spared for countless millions of animals who have served in the folly of humanity’s wars and conflicts.  They were hardly asked to be bombed, shelled, or killed in conflicts even their human counterparts can barely understand.  In a sense, the other side of this saccharine episode serves to cloak the enormous, untold casualties that are suffered by other members of the animal kingdom when their biped masters get busy killing each other.

A genuine concern about the reaction to Diesel’s fate should centre on the way his life has been used to serve a patriotic end.  This commemorative instinct has found form before, supposedly to overcome the insensitivity shown by humans to their fellow warrior species in conflict.  But this tendency provides its own dangers, sanctifying conflict even as it appropriates animals to that end.

“Patriotism,” argues Steven Johnson in a rather neat piece in the Political Research Quarterly (2012), “poses a threat, not just to democracy, but also to life itself.”  Turning his thoughts to discussing the sacrifices of the animal kingdom, Johnson notes that such a threat “finds expression in a new species of civic memorial dedicated to animals.”

Johnson poses a reversal that needs to be taken seriously.  Animals are enlisted to die for patriotic human ends, not theirs. Massacred, maimed and consumed, they are the silent sufferers who end up being revered in sentimental tributes.  In this case, they are made to pose as conscious agents in the name of their own species.  “In wartime, the animal world, including dogs, horses, elephants, and mules, is forced to serve.”  That service reduces them to disposable servants in the name of country “not despite the patriotic love professed for them, but precisely because of it.”

For the dog Diesel, pity the war, and pity his fate.  He was not a sentient human, with all those faults, sent to war in the service of a nationalistic or patriotic creed of which he had no understanding.  It might be argued, convincingly, that he was its most exalted victim.  There may well be plaques – and a statue.  But dogs, as former veterinarian and war veteran William W. Putney noted, do not build monuments to their dead.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Animals in Conflict: Police Belgian Shepherd Diesel, Dobrynya and Sentimental Security

The Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, has released a grateful video, where they openly thank the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which the US has touted as a “moderate opposition group”, for supplying them with US-made anti-tank TOW missiles (“Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided”).

A recently released video shows an Al-Nusra Front field commander thanking the FSA commanders for giving his forces TOW missiles, according to a report released by the Iranian news agency FARS.

The agency reminds readers that the two groups, the Al-Nusra and the FSA, formed an alliance in March, the Army of Conquest, or Jaish al-Fatah in Arabic, to fight against the forces of President Assad.Since then, they have fought together “at almost every single battle in Aleppo, Lattakia, Hama, and Idlib Governorates of Syria.”

Through this alliance several militant groups like the Al-Nusra Front and the Ahrar al-Sham movement have been given access to FSA’s US-made heavy weaponry, which has been supplied to the militant group by the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

According to the agency’s estimates, Saudi Arabia sent 500 TOW missiles to Al-Nusra directly last month.

The US, however, claims that it is just supplying aid and weapons to FSA or the so-called moderate militant groups in Syria.The BGM-71 TOW is one of the most widely-used guided anti-tank missiles. The weapon is used in anti-armor, anti-bunker, anti-fortification and anti-amphibious landing roles.

TOW missiles are used by the armed forces of more than 40 countries and are integrated in over 15,000 ground, vehicle and helicopter platforms worldwide.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria’s Al Nusra Terrorists Thank Washington for Providing them with US-Made TOW Missiles

Ban is a US-appointed imperial tool, complicit with US-led NATO and Israeli high crimes against peace.  He obeys orders from Washington, breaching his UN Charter pledge under Chapter XV, Article 100 “not (to) seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization.”

From the just concluded ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, he said ISIS must be “defeated in the name of humanity.”

“(W)e we need to unite. We need to show global solidarity to address the common enemy of ISIL, Daesh, some other extremists and terrorist groups.”

He urged Russia to cooperate with America in combating terrorism. He ignored US support for ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist elements it created and continues backing while pretending otherwise.

His call for US-Russian “unit(y)” and “solidarity” was code language for wanting Moscow to support Washington’s hegemonic objectives in the name of combating terrorism.

When sworn in as UN Secretary General in December 2006, Ban pledged to strengthen the UN’s three pillars: “peace, development and human rights,” to be a “harmonizer and bridge-builder.” He promised to work for nuclear disarmament, advancing global health, sustainable development, education, saving lives, promoting democracy, supporting justice, championing human rights, and “creating a new dimension for the responsibility to protect.”

Throughout his tenure, US-led imperial wars raged in multiple theaters, still ongoing, escalating post-Paris attacks. Ban did nothing to condemn them or urge world unity opposition against destructive US hegemonic aims. He continues supporting them through silence or duplicitous rhetoric.

Gideon Polya compiles “body count” data on “global avoidable mortality since 1950.”

His most recent post-9/11 estimate is “27 million Muslim avoidable deaths” – from violence and imposed deprivation.

“Avoidable death, avoidable mortality, excess death, excess mortality, premature death, untimely death, death that should not have happened is the difference between the observed deaths in a country, and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently governed country,” he explains.

US obsession for world dominance bears full responsibility for the vast majority of Muslim deaths and mass displacement since declaring ongoing war on Islam – for fostering post-9/11 Islamophobia, again after the Paris attacks, raging throughout Europe, America, Canada and elsewhere, against decent people harming no one.

Nonthreatening US citizens Maher Khalil and Anas Ayyad were prevented from boarding a Southwest Airlines Chicago to Philadelphia flight – after being overheard speaking Arabic, both gentlemen humiliated in the process.

The flight was delayed. After questioning by airport security, they got permission to board. Other similar incidents occurred after the Paris attacks. Khalil told NBC News Chicago: “We’re American citizens just like everybody else.” He and Ayad were disgracefully treated like terrorist threats.

In New Territory, TX, Clayton Alexander Cansler was arrested after threatening to shoot up a mosque. He claimed wanting to do it for everyone he loves.

A passenger threatened to kill a Charlotte, NC cab driver for looking like a Muslim. Christian Ethiopian immigrant Samson Woldemichael said “(h)e told me he was going to shoot me right in the face or strangle me.” He then repeatedly punched Woldemichael in the face.

An unidentified pregnant San Diego woman, wearing a traditional Muslim headscarf, was accosted with racial threats by a man following her.

Bullet holes were found in an Orlando, FL Muslim home, lodged in a dresser in the Elmasri family’s bedroom. An Omaha, NB mosque was vandalized – an Eiffel Tower image spray-painted on an exterior wall.

University of Connecticut student Mahmoud Hashem’s dorm room door was vandalized – the words “killed Paris” written under his name tag. Bullets were fired into an empty Meriden, CT mosque.

Post-Paris attacks, anti-Muslim incidents increased significantly in France, including assaulting women dressed in traditional head scarfs. Hateful graffiti proliferated.

France’s National Observatory of Islamophobia head Abdallah Zekri said incidents spiked dramatically in the first week after the incident. He expects continued ones ahead – an excuse for “ultranationalist (hate) groups” to target Muslims.

Five million French Muslims comprise Europe’s largest community, about 8% of the nation’s population – now living in fear of being attacked for praying to the wrong God.

Since November 13, Scotland police reported dozens of racially or religiously motivated hate crimes, including a mosque arson attack and numerous death threats. In London, an unidentified man pushed a Muslim woman in front of an approaching underground train. She survived the incident.

A Quebec man was arrested for releasing a video threatening to kill area Muslims. A Toronto Muslim woman picking up her children at school was assaulted by two men, told to “go back to her country” while trying to rip off her hijab. A Peterborough, Ontario mosque was set ablaze. No injuries were reported.

Council on American-Islamic Relations executive director Ahmed Rehab stresses: “The threshold for ‘see something, say something’ is meant to apply to suspicious behavior, not personal prejudices against minorities engaging in non-suspicious behavior.”

US-led war on Islam bears full responsibility for what’s happening – Islamophobia resulting from its rage for world dominance.

It bears repeating. Ban Ki-moon’s call for Moscow to support Washington’s hegemonic campaign in the name of combating terrorism effectively urges Putin to become part of its war on humanity while sacrificing Russia’s sovereign rights for America’s.

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.”
 
 
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.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ban Ki-moon Urges Russia to Unite with “America’s [Fictitious] War against ISIS”

The problem with America’s “anti-ISIS coalition” is not a matter of poor planning or a lack of resources. It is not a matter of lacking leadership or military might. The problem with America’s “anti-ISIS coalition” is that it never existed in the first place. There is no US-led war on ISIS, and what’s worse, it appears that the US, through all of its allies, from across the Persian Gulf to Eastern Europe and even within Washington itself, are involved in feeding ISIS, not fighting it.

Going from Syria itself, outward according to geographical proximity, we can trace ISIS’ support all the way back to Washington itself. And as we do, efforts like the “talks” in Vienna, and all the non-solutions proposed by the US and its allies, appear ever more absurd while the US itself is revealed not as a stabilizing force in a chaotic world, but rather the very source of that chaos.

In Syria

Within Syria itself, it is no secret that the US CIA is arming, training, funding and equipping militant groups, groups the US now claims Russia is bombing instead of “ISIS.” However, upon reading carefully any report out of newspapers in the US or its allies it becomes clear that these “rebels” always seem to be within arms reach of listed terrorist organizations, including Jabhat al Nusra.

Al Nusra is literally Al Qaeda in Syria. Not only that, it is the terrorist organization from which ISIS allegedly split from. And while the US has tried to add in a layer of extra plausible deniability to its story by claiming Nusra and ISIS are at odds with one another, the fact is Nusra and ISIS still fight together on the same battlefield toward the same objectives.

And while we’ll get to who is propping up these two terrorist groups beyond Syria’s borders, it should be noted that the US and European media itself has reported a steady flow of weapons and fighters out from its own backed “rebel” groups and into the ranks of Nusra and ISIS.

Articles like Reuters’ “U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave equipment to Nusra: U.S. military” give at least one explanation as to where ISIS is getting all of its brand new Toyota trucks from:

Syrian rebels trained by the United States gave some of their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage, a U.S. military spokesman said on Friday, the latest blow to a troubled U.S. effort to train local partners to fight Islamic State militants. 

The rebels surrendered six pick-up trucks and some ammunition, or about one-quarter of their issued equipment, to a suspected Nusra intermediary on Sept. 21-22 in exchange for safe passage, said Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, in a statement.  

Before this, defections of up to 3,000 so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) “rebels” had been reported, even by the London Guardian which claimed in its article “Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra” that:

Abu Ahmed and others say the FSA has lost fighters to al-Nusra in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib and Deir al-Zor and the Damascus region. Ala’a al-Basha, commander of the Sayyida Aisha brigade, warned the FSA chief of staff, General Salim Idriss, about the issue last month. Basha said 3,000 FSA men have joined al-Nusra in the last few months, mainly because of a lack of weapons and ammunition. FSA fighters in the Banias area were threatening to leave because they did not have the firepower to stop the massacre in Bayda, he said. Advertisement 

The FSA’s Ahrar al-Shimal brigade joined al-Nusra en masse while the Sufiyan al-Thawri brigade in Idlib lost 65 of its fighters to al-Nusra a few months ago for lack of weapons. According to one estimate the FSA has lost a quarter of all its fighters. 

Al-Nusra has members serving undercover with FSA units so they can spot potential recruits, according to Abu Hassan of the FSA’s al-Tawhid Lions brigade.

Taken together, it is clear to anyone that even at face value the US strategy of arming “moderate rebels” is a complete failure and that to continue proposing such a failed strategy is basically an admission that (in fact) the US seeks to put weapons and trained fighters directly into the ranks of Al Nusra and other hardcore terrorist groups.Of course, in reality, that was the plan all along. So even before our journey leaves Syria, we see how the US is feeding, not fighting terrorism, completely and intentionally.

Turkey

And of course, before many of the fighters even reach the battlefield in Syria, they have spent time training, arming up and staging in Turkey and Jordan. There has been a lot of talk in Washington, London and Brussels about establishing safe havens in Syria itself for this army of rebel-terrorists, but in reality, Turkey and Jordan have served this purpose since the war began in 2011.  All the US and its allies want to do now is extend these safe havens deeper into Syrian territory.

But before that, a steady stream of supplies, weapons and fighters have been pouring over the border, provided by the Persian Gulf monarchies (Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular) and with the explicit complicity of the Turkish government.

German broadcaster Deutsche Welle videotaped hundreds of trucks pouring over the Turkish border, bound for ISIS in Syria as part of its story, “ISIS and Turkey’s porous borders” (video here). It was not a scene one would describe as “smuggling” behind the back of Turkish authorities, but rather a scene reminiscent of the Iraq War where fleets of trucks openly supported the full-scale invasion of Iraq by America’s military.

Turkey’s borders aren’t merely porous, they are wide open, with the Turkish government itself clearly involved in filling up the fleets of supply trucks bound for ISIS on a daily basis.

In recent days, as Russia has begun decimating fleets of these trucks, and in particular, oil tankers that, instead of bringing supplies into Syria, are stealing oil for export beyond Syria’s borders, there has been talk about just who this oil is being sold to. Turkey’s name comes up yet again.

Business Insider in its article “Here’s How ISIS Keeps Selling So Much Oil Even While Being Bombed And Banned By The West” reveals:

Most of the oil is bought by local traders and covers the domestic needs of rebel-held areas in northern Syria. But some low-quality crude has been smuggled to Turkey where prices of over $350 a barrel, three times the local rate, have nurtured a lucrative cross-border trade.

And if some readers don’t find the argument that ISIS sustains itself from within Turkish territory entirely convincing, perhaps a direct admission from the US State Department itself might help. Its Voice of America media network recently reported in an article titled “US, Turkey Poised for Joint Anti-ISIS Operation, Despite Differences” that:

Some have even suspected the Turkish government of cooperating with IS, making allegations that range from weapons transfers to logistical support to financial assistance and the provision of medical services. The Cumhuriyet daily this week published stories that alleged Turkish Intelligence was working hand-in-hand with IS. A former IS spy chief told the paper that during the siege of the Syrian city of Kobani last year, Turkish Intelligence served McDonald’s hamburgers to IS fighters brought in from Turkey. 

Some analysts say the pending border operation could help silence some of the criticism.

That the US is still working openly with Turkey despite increasing evidence that Turkey itself is sustaining ISIS in Syria, indicates that the US itself is also interested in perpetuating the terrorist group’s activities for as long as possible/plausible.

Eastern Europe

2342333Those nations in Eastern Europe who have either joined NATO or now aspire to, also appear to be directly involved. The large torrent of weapons needed to sustain ISIS’ terrorism within Syria cannot, as a matter of managing public perception, appear to be coming entirely from US arsenals themselves (though hundreds of TOW missile systems and M16s do regularly show up in the hands of Nusra, ISIS and other terrorists organizations). Instead, Soviet bloc weapons are needed and to get them, the US has tapped NATO members like Croatia and aspiring NATO member Ukraine to help arm its ISIS legions.

In 2013 it was revealed by the New York Times in their article Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. that:

Although rebel commanders and the data indicate that Qatar and Saudi Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey to the opposition since early and late 2012, respectively, a major hurdle was removed late last fall after the Turkish government agreed to allow the pace of air shipments to accelerate, officials said. 

Simultaneously, arms and equipment were being purchased by Saudi Arabia in Croatia and flown to Jordan on Jordanian cargo planes for rebels working in southern Syria and for retransfer to Turkey for rebels groups operating from there, several officials said.

One wonders how many of these weapons “coincidentally” ended up in Nusra or ISIS’ hands.

More recently, the NATO-installed junta in Ukraine has been implicated not in supplying weapons to ISIS by proxy, but supplying them to ISIS much more directly after a high-profile bust was made in Kuwait implicating Kiev.
International Business Times reported in its article “Ukraine Weapons To ISIS? Kiev Denies Charge After Islamic State Terrorists Caught In Kuwait” that:

The Ukrainian military has denied knowledge of how its weapons made it into the hands of Islamic State group terrorists. Lebanese citizen Osama Khayat, who was arrested this week in Kuwait with other suspects, said he purchased arms in Ukraine that were meant to be delivered to the militant group in Syria via smuggling routes in Turkey.

Perhaps readers notice a pattern. Washington is using its vast global network and allies to arm and fund terrorists in Syria, supported by massive logistical networks flowing through Turkey and to a lesser extent, Jordan. Everyone from America’s allies in Kiev and Zagreb, to Riyad and Doha, to Ankara and Amman are involved which goes far in explaining just how ISIS got so powerful, and why it still remains so powerful despite its widening war on what appears to be the entire world.

The United States 

And all of this brings us back to Washington itself. Surely Washington notices that each and every single one of its allies is involved in feeding, not fighting ISIS. When each and every one of its allies from Kiev to Ankara are involved in arming and supplying ISIS, Washington not only knows, it is likely orchestrating it all to begin with.

And proving this is not a matter of deduction or mere implications. Proving this requires simply for one to read a 2012 Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) report (.pdf) which openly admitted:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

If, at this point, one is unclear on just who these “supporting powers to the opposition” are, the DIA report itself reveals it is the West, NATO (including Turkey) and its allies in the Persian Gulf.

This Salafist (Islamic) principality (state), or ISIS for short, was not an indirect consequence of US foreign policy, it was (and still very much is) a concerted conspiracy involving multiple states spanning North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It could not exist otherwise.

While Russia attempts to reach westward to piece together an inclusive coalition to finally put an end to ISIS, it is clear that it does so in vain. Washington, Brussels and their regional allies in the Middle East have no intention of putting an end to ISIS. Even today, this very moment, the US and its allies are doing everything within their power to ensure the survival of their terrorist armies inside of Syria for as long as possible before any ceasefire is agreed to. And even if a peace settlement of some sort is struck, all it will do is buy Syria time. No matter how much damage Russia and its own, genuine coalition consisting of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon deal ISIS within Syria, the networks that fed it from Turkey, Jordan, the Persian Gulf, Eastern Europe and Washington itself remain intact.

One hopes that these networks can be diminished through the principles of multipolarism within the time being bought for Syria through the blood, sacrifice and efforts of Syrian soldiers and Russian airmen.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s “Anti-ISIS Coalition” Never existed. There is No “US-led war on ISIS”

Refugees as “Weapons” in a Propaganda War

November 24th, 2015 by Eric Draitser

In the wake of the horrific terror attacks in Paris, world attention will once again be focused on the issue of refugees entering Europe. While much of the spotlight has been rightly pointed at Syrian refugees fleeing the western-sponsored war against the Syrian government, it must be remembered that the refugees come from a variety of countries, each of which has its own particular circumstances, with many of them having been victims of US-NATO aggression in one form or another. Syria, Afghanistan and Libya have of course been targeted by so-called ‘humanitarian wars’ and fake ‘revolutions’ which have left the countries fractured, divided, and unable to function; these countries have been transformed into failed states thanks to US-NATO policy.

What often gets lost in the discussion of refugees however is the fact that a significant proportion of those seeking sanctuary in Europe and the US are from the Horn of Africa: Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea primarily. While there is some discussion of this issue in western media, it is mostly ignored when it comes to the first three countries as news of fleeing Sudanese, Somalis, and Ethiopians does not bode well for Washington’s narrative as the US has, in one way or another, been directly involved in each of those countries.

However, in the case of Eritrea, a fiercely independent nation that refuses to bow to the diktats of the US, the country is presented as a seemingly bottomless wellspring of refugees fleeing the country. Were one to read solely the UN reports and news stories, one could be forgiven for thinking that Eritrea has been mostly depopulated as hordes of Eritrean youth flee the country in droves. But that narrative, one which is periodically reinforced by distorted coverage in the media, is quickly being eroded as increasingly the truth is coming out.

Countering the Eritrean Refugee Propaganda

The popular understanding of Eritrea in the West (to the extent that people know of the country at all) is of a nation, formerly ruled by Ethiopia, which has become the “North Korea of Africa,” a systematic violator of human rights ruled by a brutal dictatorship that uses slave labor and tortures its citizens. As such, Eritrea is immediately convicted in the court of public opinion and, therefore, becomes a convenient scapegoat when it comes to migration. In fact, it seems that the propaganda against Eritrea has been so effective, with the US and Europe so keen to take in anyone fleeing the country, that it has become the stated country of origin for thousands upon thousands of refugees from a number of countries. It seems that African refugees, regardless of their true country of origin, are all Eritreans now.

Take for instance the comments by the Austrian ambassador to Ethiopia who unabashedly explained that, “We believe that 30 to 40 percent of the Eritreans in Europe are Ethiopians.” Depending on who you ask, the numbers may actually be even higher than that. Indeed, being granted asylum in Europe is no easy feat for African refugees who, knowing the political agenda of Europe and its attempts to isolate and destabilize Eritrea through promoting the migration of its citizens, quickly lose their passports and claim to be Eritreans fleeing political persecution.

But who can blame these people when the US itself has established specific policies and programs aimed at luring Eritrean youths away from their country? As WikiLeaks revealed in a 2009 diplomatic cable from the US Embassy entitled “Promoting Educational Opportunity for Anti-Regime Eritrean Youth,” the former US ambassador to Eritrea Ronald K. McMullen noted that the US:

…intends to begin adjudicating student visa applications, regardless of whether the regime is willing to issue the applicant an Eritrean passport and exit visa …With an Eritrean passport and an F1 visa in a Form DS-232, the lucky young person is off to America. For those visa recipients who manage to leave the country and receive UNHCR refugee status, a UN-authorized travel document might allow the young person to travel to America with his or her F1 in the DS-232.…Due to the Isaias regime´s ongoing restrictions on Embassy Asmara, [the US] does not contemplate a resumption of full visa services in the near future. However, giving young Eritreans hope, the chance for an education, and the skills with which to rebuild their impoverished country in the post-Isaias period is one of the strongest signals we can send to the Eritrean people that the United States has not abandoned them…

Using the twin enticements of educational scholarships and escape from mandatory national service, the US and its European allies have attempted to lure thousands of Eritreans to the West in the hopes of destabilizing the Asmara government. As the Ambassador noted, the US intention is to usher in a “post Isaias [Afewerki, president of Eritrea] period.” In other words: regime change. And it seems that Washington and its European allies calculated that their policy of economically isolating Eritrea through sanctions has not effectively disrupted the country’s development.

And it is just such programs and guidelines which look favorably on Eritrean migrants which have motivated tens of thousands of Africans to claim that they all come from the relatively small Eritrea. The reality however is that a significant number of these refugees (perhaps even the majority) are actually from Ethiopia and other countries. As Eritrea-based journalist and East Africa expert Thomas Mountain noted in 2013:

Every year for a decade or more a million Ethiopians, 10 million and counting, have left, or fled, their homeland… Why, why would ten million Ethiopians, one in every 8 people in the country, risking their lives in many cases, seek refuge in foreign, mostly unwelcoming, lands? The answer lies in the policies of the Ethiopian regime which have been described by UN investigators in reports long suppressed with words such as “food and medical aid blockades”, “scorched earth counterinsurgency tactics”, “mass murder” and even “genocide”…Most of the Ethiopians refugees are from the Oromo nationality, at 40 million strong half of Ethiopia, or the ethnic Somalis of the Ogaden. Both of these regions in southern Ethiopia have long been victims of some of the most inhumane, brutal treatment any peoples of the world have ever known.

There is little mention of this Ethiopian exodus which, for a variety of reasons, is suppressed in the West. Many of the refugees simply claim to be Eritrean knowing that they stand a far greater chance of being admitted into Europe or the US if they claim origin from a blacklisted country like Eritrea, rather than an ally such as Ethiopia, a country long seen as Washington’s closest partner in the region.

In fact, Ethiopia is consistently praised as an economic success story, with the World Bank having recently announced that the African nation is the world’s fastest growing economy for 2015-2017. Despite this alleged ‘economic miracle,’ Ethiopia is still hemorrhaging population as citizens flee in their thousands, providing further evidence that outside the glittering capital of Addis Ababa the country remains one of the most destitute and violent in the world.

The same can be said of South Sudan, a country created by the US and Israel primarily, and which has now descended into civil war sending more than 600,000 refugees streaming out of the newly created country, with another 1.5 million internally displaced. Somalia remains a living nightmare for the poor souls unfortunate enough to have been born in a country that is a nation-state in name only. According to the UN, Somalia boasts more than 1.1 million internally displaced refugees with nearly 1 million refugees located outside the country. Taken in total, Ethiopian, South Sudanese, and Somali refugees comprise a population greater than the entire population of Eritrea.

However, Somalia, Ethiopia, and South Sudan are all strategic allies (read clients) of the United States and its western partners; Eritrea is considered persona non grata by Washington. This fundamental fact far more than anything else accounts for the completely distorted coverage of the refugee issue in Eritrea. Put another way, refugees and human trafficking are a convenient public relations and propaganda weapon employed by the US to demonize Eritrea, and to tarnish its project of economic and political self-reliance.

Refugees as Pretext, Independence Is the Real Sin

Eritrea has been demonized by the US and the West mainly because it has refused to be subservient to the imperial system. First and foremost among Eritrea’s grave sins is its stubborn insistence on maintaining full independence and sovereignty in both political and economic spheres. This fact is perhaps best illustrated by Eritrean President Afewerki’s bold rejection of foreign aid of various sorts, stating repeatedly that Eritrea needs to “stand on its own two feet.” Afewerki’s pronouncements are in line with what pan-Africanist leaders such as Thomas Sankara, Marxists such as Walter Rodney, and many others have argued for decades: namely that, as Afewerkie put it in 2007 after rejecting a $200 million dollar “aid” package from the World Bank, “Fifty years and billions of dollars in post-colonial international aid have done little to lift Africa from chronic poverty… [African societies] are crippled societies…You can’t keep these people living on handouts because that doesn’t change their lives.”

Of course, there are also other critical political and economic reasons for Eritrea’s pariah status in the eyes of the so called “developed world,” and especially the US. Perhaps the most obvious, and most unforgiveable from the perspective of Washington, is Eritrea’s stubborn refusal to have any cooperation, formal or informal, with AFRICOM or any other US military. While every other country in Africa with the exception of the equally demonized, and equally victimized, Zimbabwe has some military connections to US imperialism, Eritrea remains stubbornly defiant. I suppose Eritrea takes the notion of post-colonial independence seriously.

Is it any wonder that Afewerki and his government are demonized by the West? What is the history of US and European behavior towards independent African leaders who advocated self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist ideology? The answer is self-evident. Such ideas as those embodied by Eritrea are seen by Washington, London, and Brussels as not only defiant, but dangerous; dangerous not only because of what they say, but dangerous because they’re actually working.

Naturally there are legitimate concerns to be raised about Eritrea and major strides still to be made in the political and economic spheres. Social progress is an arduous process, especially in a part of the world where nearly every other country is racked with violence, genocide, famine, and a host of other existential crises. But the progress necessary for Eritrea will be made by and for Eritreans; it cannot and must not be imposed from without by the same forces that, in their humanitarian magnanimity, rained bombs on Libya and systematically undermined, destabilized, and/or destroyed nations in seemingly every corner of the globe.

Refugees should be treated with dignity and respect. Their suffering should never be trivialized, nor should they be scapegoated as terrorists. But equally so, their tragedies should not be allowed to be cynically exploited for political gain by the West. The flow of refugees is an outgrowth of the policies of the Empire – the same Empire that continues to transform this crisis into a potent weapon of destabilization and war.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Refugees as “Weapons” in a Propaganda War

From Princeton and Georgetown to Detroit African Americans take to the streets

Over the last two weeks anti-racist demonstrations largely led by African American students have swept the country.

Beginning at the University of Missouri at Columbia, African American football players and their supporters went on strike demanding that the campus administrators seriously address the problems of institutional racism. President Tim Wolfe was forced to resign after he refused to take the demands as an immediate concern to be acted upon, therefore prompting the coach and other faculty members to threaten further actions.

The incident at U-M Columbia illustrated the real priorities of the higher educational system in the United States. Sports competition brings in tremendous revenues through government grant funding, advertising during media coverage of games as well as receipts collected from audiences.

A shutdown of a football program during the season would also trigger fines from the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). African Americans through their skills are a main source of interests in several major college sports competitions.

Later at Georgetown and Princeton, African Americans and other anti-racist forces demanded the changing of names of building dedicated in honor of slave owners and ideological racists. Woodrow Wilson, a former president of the U.S. during World War I, has left a legacy of open advocacy falsely claiming the inherent inferiority of African people.

At Georgetown the school of public policy is named after Wilson who re-instituted segregation in Washington, D.C. Others suggest that his philosophy on race relations was in line with the Ku Klux Klan of the times. He was reported to have hosted a screening of the notorious racist 1915 film by D.W. Griffith, “The Birth of a Nation” based on a novel by Thomas Dixon, Jr. entitled “The Clansman.”

Other actions across the country include protests at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln where a leading newspaper reported that “On Thursday afternoon (November 19), hundreds of students, faculty and community members gathered outside the school’s student union for a Black Lives Matter Rally to protest police brutality, racial injustice, and to raise awareness of white privilege, according to the event’s Facebook page. Holding signs that read, ‘Stop telling people of color their experience is an illusion,’ ‘When we say #BlackLivesMatter, we aren’t asking you,’ ‘White Silence is Violence’ and more, people spoke about their experiences with racism, from being stopped by police officers without probable cause to hearing fellow students shout the n-word as they walked by on campus.” (USA Today, November 20)

This same article also reports “students at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., marched to the Oregon State Capitol on Thursday, demanding the removal of Mississippi’s Confederate flag displayed in an adjacent park, and government accountability for eradicating ‘state-sanctioned racism.’” In addition, Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts was the scene of a demonstration at  on November 18 when hundreds of students disrupted classes and other normal campus activity to make an announcement saying “I am leaving to participate in a national walkout in solidarity with students at Mizzou who have been facing racism on their campus. Please join me.”

These anti-racist demonstrations have led to a backlash among the racists. Threats were made online targeting students in Missouri who initiated the wave of protests.

At the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana approximately 300 people gathered for a rally on November 18 sponsored by the Black Students for Revolution. The rally featured speakers, poets and hip-hop artists who expressed their solidarity with University of Missouri students in the struggle against racism within the higher education system.

A social media page was created after the rally calling itself the Illinois White Student Union characterizing the Black Lives Matter movement as an act of “terrorism”. Some have anticipated that these reactionary white responses could lead to some racist violence in retaliation against the organizing efforts of the African American students.

Connecting the Campuses to the Communities

These actions have enhanced the protests and rebellions against police violence in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Detroit, Lansing, etc. The efforts are not only attacking continued racist behaviors but their historical and ideological underpinnings.

At Michigan State University in East Lansing, students blocked the entrance to a speech being delivered by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. With the campaign of Hillary Clinton aimed at capturing the Democratic Party nomination for president, it is important to remind the country of the legacy of the former administration in regard to mass incarceration, globalization, imperialist military interventions, and police brutality.

People in Minneapolis took to the streets for days after the police shot to death Jamar Clark while he was down on the ground and handcuffed, according to one key witness. African American youth and their allies blocked streets, held demonstrations outside the police station and fought law-enforcement officers who sought to remove them from the areas they were occupying.

In Detroit a serial abusive white cop was convicted in the brutal beating of UAW worker Floyd Dent after mass protests resulted in his firing earlier in the year. Hundreds of people had demonstrated at the police headquarters in Inkster, a majority African American suburb near Detroit.

The policeman who was fired earlier, and subsequently put on trial for abuse, has a long history of accusations of misconduct while he served as a cop in Detroit many years ago. This conviction of William Melendez is a rare occurrence in the U.S. where law-enforcement personnel routinely get away with abuse and murder of African Americans and Latinos.

On November 19, militant City of Detroit retirees blocked the entrance to a gala celebration honoring key players in the bankruptcy at the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA). Detroit is the largest per capita African American populated major municipality in the U.S. and the imposed emergency management, bankruptcy–and later first white corporate-oriented mayor in forty years–is seen by many as a blatant denial of due process and the right to self-determination.

The organizers of the DIA demonstration have formed a new organization called the Detroit Active Retirees and Employees Association (DAREA). Bill Davis, the president of DAREA, said that the pension and healthcare benefits of the municipal retirees were stolen, leading to huge cuts in their monthly checks and the cancellation of their health insurance benefits.

Two of the federal judges who provided legal cover for the abandoning of at least $6.5 billion in pension and healthcare obligations, along with the transferal of billions of dollars more in public assets to private interests, Gerald Rosen and Steven Rhodes, were being toasted at an event held at the DIA. Gross misrepresentations of the actual impact of the changes in pension benefits, which were guaranteed by the Michigan state constitution and overturned with the stroke of a pen by Rhodes, is now even being reported on by the corporate media. (See Detroit Free Press, November 15)

These actions taking place around the U.S. illustrates a rising intolerance of racism and class oppression. Despite two terms in office served by President Barack Obama, the actual conditions of African Americans and other oppressed groups have worsened.

The Obama administration has maintained the position that it cannot directly intervene in these struggles. Several Department of Justice investigations have been launched to determine if federal laws have been violated in a rash of police killings of African Americans such as in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York City, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

Yet in the aftermath of these investigations, many of which have been called for by community organizations, no indictments have been handed down against the police or other local and state governmental agencies which continue to violate the fundamental civil and human rights of tens of millions of people.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Student and Community Struggles Escalate in Response to Racism in America

Do We Really Want a “Pre-emptive” World War with Russia?

November 24th, 2015 by F. William Engdahl

Washington continues making an international fool of herself by her inability to effectively counter the impression around the world that Russia, spending less than 10% of the Pentagon annually on defense, has managed to do more against ISIS in Syria in six weeks than the mighty US Air Force bombing campaign has done in almost a year and half. One aspect that bears attention is the demonstration by the Russian military of new technologies that belie the widely-held Western notion that Russia is little more than a backward oil and raw material commodity exporter.

Recent reorganization of the Russian state military industrial complex as well as reorganization of the Soviet-era armed forces under Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu’s term are visible in the success so far of Russia’s ISIS and other terror strikes across Syria. Clearly Russian military capabilities have undergone a sea-change since the Soviet Cold War era.

In war there are never winners. Yet Russia has been in an unwanted war with Washington de facto since the George W. Bush Administration announced its lunatic plan to place what they euphemistically term “Ballistic Missile Defense” missiles and advanced radar in Poland, Czech Republic, Romania and Turkey after 2007. Without going into detail, BMD technologies are the opposite of defensive. They instead make a pre-emptive war highly likely. Of course the radioactive ash heap in such an exchange would be first and foremost the EU countries foolish enough to invite US BMD to their soil.

Then came the highly provocative US-instigated coup d’etat in Ukraine in February 2014, installing a cabal of gangsters, neo-nazis and criminals who launched a civil war against its own citizens in east Ukraine, an ill-conceived attempt to bring Russia into a ground war across her border. It followed two UN Security Council vetoes by Russia and China of US proposals for No Fly zones over Syria as was done to destroy Qaddafi’s Libya. Now Russia has surprised the West by accepting the request of Syrian President Bashar al Assad to help eliminate the terrorism that has ravaged the once-peaceful country for over four years.

What the Russian General Staff has managed, since the precision air campaign began September 30, has stunned western defense planners with Russian technological feats not expected. Two specific technologies are worth looking at more closely: The Russian Sukoi SU-34 fighter-bomber and what is called the Bumblebee hyperbaric mortar weapon.

Sukhoi SU-34 ‘Fullback’ fighter-bomber

The plane responsible for some of the most damaging strikes on ISIS and other terror enclaves in Syria is manufactured by the Russian state aircraft industry under the name Sukhoi SU-34. As the Russian news agency RIA Novosti described the aircraft,

“The Su-34 is meant to deliver a sufficiently large ordnance load to a predetermined area, hit the target accurately and take evasive action against pursuing enemy planes.”

The plane is also designed to deal with enemy fighters in aerial combat such as the US F-16. The SU-34 made a first test flight in 1990 as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the Yeltsin years caused many delays. Finally in 2010 the plane was in full production.

According to a report in US Defense Industry Daily, among the SU-34 features are:

• 8 ton ordnance load which can accommodate precision-guided weapons, as well as R-73/AA-11 Archer and R-77/AA-12 ‘AMRAAMSKI’ missiles and an internal 30mm GSh-301 gun.

• Maximum speed of Mach 1.8 at altitude.

• 3,000 km range, extensible to “over 4,000 km” with the help of additional drop tanks. The SU-34 can also refuel in mid-air.

• It can fly in TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) mode for low-level flight, and has software to execute a number of difficult maneuvers.

• Leninets B004 phased array multimode X-band radar, which interleaves terrain-following radar and other modes.

Now new EW technologies

Clearly the aircraft is impressive as it has demonstrated against terrorist centers in Syria. Now, however, beginning this month it will add a “game-changer” in the form of a new component. Speaking at the Dubai Air Show on November 12, Igor Nasenkov, the First Deputy General Director of the Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) announced that this month, that is in the next few days, SUKHOI SU-34 fighter-bombers will become electronic warfare aircraft as well.

Nasenkov explained that the new Khibiny aircraft electronic countermeasures (ECM) systems, installed on the wingtips, will give the SU-34 jets electronic warfare capabilities to launch effective electronic countermeasures against radar systems, anti-aircraft missile systems and airborne early warning and control aircraft.

KRET is a holding or group of some 95 Russian state electronic companies formed in 2009 under the giant Russian state military industry holding, Rostec.

Russia’s advances in what is euphemistically termed in military jargon, Electronic Counter Measures or ECM, is causing some sleepless nights for the US Pentagon top brass to be sure. In the battles in eastern pro-Russian Ukraine earlier this year, as well as in the Black Sea, and now in Syria, according to ranking US military sources, Russia deployed highly-effective ECM technologies like the Krasukha-4, to successfully jam hostile radar and aircraft.

Lt. General Ben Hodges, Commander of US Army Europe (USAREUR) describes Russian ECM capabilities used in Ukraine as “eye-watering,” suggesting some US and NATO officers are more than slightly disturbed by what they see. Ronald Pontius, deputy to Army Cyber Command’s chief, Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon, told a conference in October that, “You can’t but come to the conclusion that we’re not making progress at the pace the threat demands.” In short, Pentagon planners have been caught flat-footed for all the trillions of wasted US taxpayer dollars in recent years thrown at the military industry.

During the critical days of the March 2014 Crimean citizens’ referendum vote to appeal for status within Russia, New York Times reporters then in Crimea reported the presence of Russian electronic jamming systems, known as R-330Zh Zhitel, manufactured by Protek in Voronezh, Russia. That state-of-the-art technology was believed to have been used to prevent the Ukrainian Army from invading Crimea before the referendum. Russian forces in Crimea, where Russia had a legal basing agreement with Kiev, reportedly were able to block all communication of Kiev military forces, preventing a Crimean bloodbath. Washington was stunned.

USS Donald Cook…

Thereafter, in April, 2014, one month after the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation, President Obama ordered the USS Donald Cook into the Black Sea waters just off Crimea, the home port of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, to “reassure” EU states of US resolve. Donald Cook was no ordinary guided missile destroyer. It had been refitted to be one of four ships as part of Washington’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System aimed at Russia’s nuclear arsenal. USS Donald Cook boldly entered the Black Sea on April 8 heading to Russian territorial waters.

On April 12, just four days later, the US ship inexplicably left the area of the Crimean waters of the Black Sea for a port in NATO-member Romania. From there it left the Black Sea entirely. A report on April 30, 2014 in Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta Online titled, “What Frightened the American Destroyer,” stated that while the USS Donald Cook was near Crimean (Russian by that time) waters, a Russian Su-24 Frontal Aviation bomber conducted a flyby of the destroyer.

The Rossiyskaya Gazeta went on to write that the Russian SU-24 “did not have bombs or missiles onboard. One canister with the Khibin electronic warfare complex was suspended under the fuselage.” As it got close to the US destroyer, the Khibins turned off the USS Donald Cook’s “radar, combat control circuits, and data transmission system – in short, they turned off the entire Aegis just like we turn off a television by pressing the button on the control panel. After this, the Su-24 simulated a missile launch at the blind and deaf ship. Later, it happened once again, and again – a total of 12 times.”

While the US Army denied the incident as Russian propaganda, the fact is that USS Donald Cook never approached Russian Black Sea waters again. Nor did NATO ships that replaced it in the Black Sea. A report in 2015 by the US Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office assessed that Russia, “does indeed possess a growing EW capability, and the political and military leadership understand the importance…Their growing ability to blind or disrupt digital communications might help level the playing field when fighting against a superior conventional foe.” Now new Russian Khibini Electronic Counter Measure systems are being installed on the wingtips of Russia’s SUKHOI SU-34 fighter-bombers going after ISIS in Syria.

Killer Bumblebees

A second highly-advanced new Russian military technology that’s raising more than eyebrows in US Defense Secretary ‘Ash’ Carter’s Pentagon is Russia’s new Bumblebee which Russia’s military classifies as a flamethrower. In reality it is a highly advanced thermobaric weapon which launches a warhead that uses a combination of an explosive charge and highly combustible fuel. When the rocket reaches the target, the fuel is dispersed in a cloud that is then detonated by the explosive charge. US Military experts recently asked by the US scientific and engineering magazine Popular Mechanics to evaluate the Bumblebee stated that, “the resulting explosion is devastating, radiating a shockwave and fireball up to six or seven meters in diameter.” The US experts noted that the Bumblebee is “especially useful against troops in bunkers, trenches, and even armored vehicles, as the dispersing gas can enter small spaces and allow the fireball to expand inside. Thermobarics are particularly devastating to buildings — a thermobaric round entering a structure can literally blow up the building from within withoverpressure.”

‘Status-6′

We don’t go into yet another new highly secret Russian military technology recently subject of a Russian TV report beyond a brief mention, as little is known. It is indicative of what is being developed as Russia prepares for the unthinkable from Washington. The “Ocean Multipurpose System: Status-6” is a new Russian nuclear submarine weapons system designed to bypass NATO radars and any existing missile defense systems, while causing heavy damage to “important economic facilities” along the enemy’s coastal regions.

Reportedly the Status-6 will cause what the Russian military terms, “assured unacceptable damage” to an adversary force. They state that its detonation “in the area of the enemy coast” (say, New York or Boston or Washington?) would result in “extensive zones of radioactive contamination” that would ensure that the region would not be used for “military, economic, business or other activity for a long time.” Status-6 reportedly is a massive torpedo, designated as a “self-propelled underwater vehicle.” It has a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers and can operate at a depth of up to 1,000 meters. At a November 10 meeting with the Russian military chiefs, Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would counter NATO’s US-led missile shield program through “new strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defenses.” Presumably he was referring to Status-6.

US Defense Secretary Carter declared on November 8 in a speech that Russia and China are challenging “American pre-eminence” and Washington’s so-called “stewardship of the world order.” Carter added that, “Most disturbing is Moscow’s nuclear saber-rattling,” which in his view, “raises questions about Russian leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons…”

Not surprisingly, Carter did not mention Washington’s own very loud nuclear saber-rattling. In addition to advancing the US Ballistic Missile Defense array targeting Russia, Carter recently announced highly-advanced US nuclear weapons would be stationed at the Büchel Air Base in Germany as part of a joint NATO nuclear program, which involves non-nuclear NATO states in Europe hosting more than 200 US nuclear warheads. Those NATO states across Europe, including Germany, have just become a potential Ground Zero in any possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Perhaps it’s time for some more sober minds to take responsibility in Washington for restoring a world at peace, minds not obsessed with such ridiculous ideas of “pre-eminence.”

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Do We Really Want a “Pre-emptive” World War with Russia?

The Irish Supreme Court in Dublin on 23 November ruled that the State had a case to answer in a public interest petition first entered in 2009 on questions on abridgement of citizens’ rights in the holding of the second Lisbon Treaty referendum that year following the rejection of the Treaty by the Irish people in 2008.

Since the State didn’t bother to send any representatives to the hearing this morning, the Judges, Chief Justice Ms Susan Denham, Mr Justice Hardiman and Mr Justice Charlton, ordered that the State immediately deliver all relevant documents in their possession to the petitioner and further ordered that the State prepare a case to answer the concerns of the petitioner in three weeks’ time from today’s date.

This is a profound shock to an arrogant State bureaucracy which has consistently ignored concerns for citizens’ rights in the continuous power grabs by the Brussels dictatorship in various treaties culminating in the Lisbon Treaty which is now the basic legal document of the EU having consolidated all previous treaties into the Lisbon provisions.

Panic has broken out in official circles as the international implications of a ruling against the State on the validity of the Lisbon 2 referendum in the full hearing in three weeks time are profound. If the Irish Treaty referendum is ruled void, the legal basis of the entire EU ceases to exist and the Euro ceases to exist as a legal currency according to legal opinion here.

GR Editor: This  was a decision of the Irish Supreme Court, it was not a judgement.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Decision of Irish Supreme Court regarding EU Sponsored Abridgement of Citizens’ Rights

policestateThe Criminalization of the State. The Roadmap to a Police State

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 23 2015

This article first published by Global Research in February 2004 examines the relationship between terrorist attacks (resulting in the tragic loss of life) and the transition in Western countries towards a totalitarian police State.

petrasDemocratic Party Primaries: U.S. “Progressives” as Political Contraceptives

By Prof. James Petras, November 23 2015

The whole history of Democratic Party ‘progressives’  is one of deceit, hypocrisy and betrayal of millions of workers, minorities and other oppressed and excluded groups.

The Dirty War on Syria: The Basics 

By Prof. Tim Anderson, November 23 2015

Infographic on the ongoing Western-sponsored war on Syria.

air defenseWho is Behind the Air Defense System To “Protect ISIS” against Russian Strikes?

By Oriental Review, November 23 2015

The sponsors of the ISIS are certainly committed to acquire and supply to the jihadist brigades the air defense systems efficient enough to at least hamper the activities of the coalition in the Syrian sky.

The Hague NL International criminal court -ICCTime to “Defund” the International Criminal Court, Should the ICC be Disbanded?

By Dr. David Hoile, November 23 2015

At face value, far from increasing the budget for the ICC, the Assembly of State Parties [the International Criminal Court’s management oversight and legislative body] should be demanding a refund.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Causes and Consequences of State-Sponsored Terrorism

Over two dozen killed at hotel in Bamako

Despite the presence of French and United States Special Forces inside Mali, the siege of the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako on November 20 has resulted in the deaths of over two dozen people.

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) leader Army General David Rodriguez continues to maintain that the purpose of Washington’s military policy on the continent is to assist nation-states in their efforts to enhance the security capacity of various governments. AFRICOM identifies its purpose as working with African states in the so-called “war on terrorism.”

Nonetheless, the “war on terrorism” is a by-product of successive failed imperialist interventions from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. The so-called “Islamist extremist” organizations were nurtured, funded and coordinated since the early 1980s when the administration of President Jimmy Carter worked vigorously to overthrow the socialist government in Afghanistan which was supported by the former Soviet Union.

With the overthrow of the government of President Saddam Hussein in Iraq, these same strains of Islamic organizations were strengthened spreading their influence into the Syrian situation which began during the early months of 2011. The outbreak of the Syrian war coincided with the destruction of Libya that subsequently brought unrest and instability throughout North and West Africa, right across the Mediterranean into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe.

Rodriguez was quoted as saying by the Department of Defense news agency that “The major thing they need and want is training and understanding how to operate in the environments they are working in. They usually need help in the same type of areas — command and control and communications, [and] intelligence — we do a tremendous amount of intelligence training throughout the African continent. They need help in logistics and mobility. They need help in specialty skills anti-mine or IEDs.” (November 20)

Another key aspect of this policy is the molding of African military officials into the image of the Pentagon. Rodriguez stresses “For their militaries and institutions, the most important thing for them is to grow leaders and select the right people and build the systems that sustain their efforts for the long run.”

This purported selection of correct leaders resulted in a military coup over three years ago. The elected head of state in Mali, Amadou Toumani Toure, was overthrown on March 23, 2012 by military officer Capt. Amadou Sanogo. After regional pressure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU), Sanogo turned over the ostensible reigns of power to an interim government headed by parliamentary leader Dioncounda Traore.

Sanogo was a student of the Pentagon as a participant in the International Military Education and Training program where he received instruction in Georgia and at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, which specializes in counter-terrorism education. The former officer also studied English at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

With specific reference to the recent attacks in Bamako, at least two gunmen walked into the hotel, which is a mainstay for diplomatic personnel and business interests from the international community, opening fire on staff and guests taking approximately 130 people hostage.

It was reported that Malian, French and U.S. soldiers stormed the building ending the siege. At present it is not clear whether the hostages were killed by the gunmen or by the security and military forces allied with the Malian government during the retaking of the hotel.

Two Organizations Claim Responsibility

Two Islamist groups operating in Mali and Algeria have claimed responsibility for the attacks through the Al Akhbar website based in neighboring Mauritania. Both Algeria and Mali have waged wars against such organizations with the latter being the latest to face the seizure of its territory in the north during 2012-2013.

The Al Akhbar site hosted a recording saying “We, in the group of the Mourabitoun, in cooperation with our brothers in Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the great desert area, claim responsibility for the hostage-taking operation in the Radisson hotel in Bamako.” This statement apparently issued during the siege suggested that an end to hostilities was “predicated on the release of the all the imprisoned mujahedeen in the prisons of Mali and the cessation of the aggression against our people in the north and center of Mali.” (November 20)

In 2012, a secessionist movement based among the Tuaregs, the MNLA, declared an independent state in the north of the country. However, other groups entered the fray prompting greater French and U.S. military intervention.

The main identifiable organizations involved in the struggle for control of Mali include Ansar Dine – which is Arabic for Defenders of Faith – and two other groups, AQIM and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), whom were originally allied to the MNLA, but have appeared to have been operating independently since the French invasion of January 2013.

The French government deployed its air force and 3,000 troops in 2013 in the north of the country at the request of the newly installed president, Dioncounda Traoré. Labelled as “Operation Serval,” the occupation continued through July 2014 when the French military forces were reassigned as the major elements within a broader offensive expanding across large swaths of the Sahel region. The United Nations mandated force, MINUMSA, has been operational since April 2013 now numbering approximately 10,000 troops.

Pentagon air support was critical in this occupation of Mali. With the U.S. already well established within the military inside the country, it was poised to carry out logistical flights transporting personnel and equipment to the French forces and their allies.

Pentagon and NATO Occupation Has Not Brought Stability

French forces occupied Mali nearly three years ago with Pentagon assistance after the collapse of the security situation in the north and central regions of the country due in part to the unresolved regional issues stemming from colonial rule by Paris. It is important to note that the seizure of substantial portions of Malian territory took place in the aftermath of the March 2012 military coup led by the Pentagon-trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo.

Many analysts have cited the war of regime-change engineered and waged by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Pentagon and NATO against the former Jamahiriya system under the leadership of Col. Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, as being a major contributing factor to the destabilization of northern Mali. Members of the Tuarag nationality in Mali were living in Libya during the Gaddafi era where some participated in the defense of the country during the counter-revolution in 2011.

The fleeing of many Tuaregs from Libya and the conclusion of the bombing campaign by western imperialist states and their allies, found them inside northern Mali where unresolved inter-ethnic conflicts have reappeared since national independence in 1960.

AFRICOM and other allied forces are already planning further deployments in the so-called “war on terrorism.” Nearly two years ago the Obama administration announced the deployment of 3,500 troops to nearly three dozen African states.

The largest AFRICOM base in the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti contains thousands of U.S. and French troops at Camp Lemonier. This base has also been utilized in the Pentagon-supported bombing campaign by the Saudi Arabia and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) coalition that has ravaged Yemen since March.

There appears to be no change in U.S. relations towards Africa and the Middle East with both Democratic and Republican candidates for president during 2016 saying nothing about the failure of these policies as it relates to instability spreading throughout the region. It will be up to a future regenerated anti-war movement in the U.S. and Western Europe to take up these issues within the broader struggles for social justice and peace.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In the Wake of The Mali Terrorist Attacks: Escalation of U.S. and French Military Interventions in Africa?

The Dirty War on Syria: The Basics

November 23rd, 2015 by Prof. Tim Anderson

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dirty War on Syria: The Basics

GR Editor’s Note 

A word of caution: While the authenticity of the documents released by Cyber Berkut in this report are not corroborated by other sources,  we have however been able to confirm that Qatar was among the countries represented at the Ukraine Arms and Security Expo. The heads of armament and procurement of the Qatari Minister of Defense were present at the venue.

What this suggests is that the Qatar delegation was examining the possible purchase of Ukraine weapons systems. 

What is significant is that the representatives from Qatar’ Ministry of Defense held bilateral talks with the Deputy minister of Defense of Ukraine.

UkrOboronProm was also among the registered companies at the Kiev Expo.

http://www.iec-expo.com.ua/en/arms-and-security-2015/list-of-participants-arms-2015.html

Among other honored guests of the exhibition – representatives of 7 foreign delegations: Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Kazakhstan (headed by the Deputy Minister of Defense of Kazakhstan); defense agencies of Pakistan (consisting of – armament Director of General Staff), State of Qatar (consisting of – head of Armament Departament, head of defense procurement of Qatar Ministry of Defence), Ministry of National Defense of Poland, representatives from the General Staff of Georgia, defense enterprises from Italy, the NATO International Secretariat (headed by the Deputy Director of Defence Investment, NATO International Secretariat – Deputy Assistant Secretary General).

On the stand of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine were held a bilateral meetings of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Lieutenant – General Pavlovsky I.V. with the representatives of mentioned foreign delegations. Military attaches from 29 countries were working during the show, the Land Capability Group Land Engagement within NATO Conference of National Directors on armament of 30 representatives. During four days the exhibition was attended in total by more than 13,000 professionals.

http://www.iec-expo.com.ua/en/arms-and-security-2015.htmlmain page: 

Also find below a video of  Air Defense Missile Complex “Pechora-2D”  produced by Ukraine: 

Michel Chossudovsky, GR Editor, November 23, 2015

*     *    *

Who is Behind the Air Defense System To “Protect ISIS” against Russian Strikes?

by Oriental Review

The fact that the ISIS infrastructure in Syria and Iraq is absolutely vulnerable to the airstrikes of the international coalition is undoubtful. During the last week only the Russian Air Force and Navy hit  around 826 ISIS targets (training camps, munition and explosives plants, depots, oil refinery and transport objects) causing critical damage to the terrorist groups and its revenue sources. The sponsors of the ISIS are certainly committed to acquire and supply to the jihadist brigades the air defense systems efficient enough to at least hamper the activities of the coalition in the Syrian sky.

Back in September 2015, being aware of the Russian plans to launch anti-terrorist air campaign, a Qatari delegation from the Ministry of Defense came to Kiev to take part in the Arms and Security Expo, September 22-27, 2015:

A letter by the Director of Ukrainian SpetsTechnoExport enterprise Pavlo Barbul to Ukrainian MFA with the list of Qatari delegation to attend Arms and Security Expo (Kiev, September 22-27, 2015)

A letter by the Director of Ukrainian SpetsTechnoExport enterprise Pavlo Barbul to Ukrainian MFA with the list of Qatari delegation.

They reached a deal with UkrOboronProm (a state-run Ukrainian arms trader) to purchase the modernized Air Defense Missile Complex “Pechora-2D”:

21112111

Pavbo Barbul writing to the Deputy Head of the Ukroboronservice that his enterprise is about to deliver Pechora-2D systems to the Armes Forces of Qatar.

On Sept. 30 Volodimir Kuruts, the Trade Councellor of the Ukrainian Embassy in Qatar, writes to his business contact in Cyprus Vasyl Babytskiy, director of the  Blessway Ltd:

Thank you for Morocco and Saudi contacts. It was right in time. 
The locals have been to Kiev at the Expo, are about to buy “Pechora” and something more serious. The issue of delivery is pending. Our side will not able to do that. You have a chance to make good money. 
Try to talk to the military guys. The probability is high as the yankees agreed. Bulgarians and Turks are aware, the route is the same…

0212121

Take note that it is the same Vasyl Babitskiy who resold 265 outdated Poland-made anti-aircraft autocannons to Saudi Arabia (eventually to the same ISIS), originally dedicated for the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior.

The revealed information clearly indicates that the Qatar Ministry of Defense is arranging supplies of the Ukrainian air defense systems to Syria-based terrorist organizations via Bulgaria and Turkey. The US officers in Qatar have approved the deals. Taking into account that “Pechora 2D” system is able to strike the aircrafts at the heights up to 21 km, the investigation of the A321 Metrojet downfall over Sinai may receive an unexpected turn…

1385422854_pechora-2m

The hacked mails were published by Cyber Berkut on Nov 21, 2015.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who is Behind the Air Defense System To “Protect ISIS” against Russian Strikes?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration just approved the sale of genetically modified salmon – the first GM animal allowed on the market.

The FDA says that AquaBounty’s product will not require special labeling because it is nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon, though this has not been proven.

It should be no surprise that the parent company of AquaBounty, Intrexon Corp, saw stock shares rise by 7.3% to $37.55 in afternoon trading. Unless we fire everyone in the FDA immediately, and ban all salmon, the company has essentially blackmailed us all into eating GM fish.

This recent approval is an especially-big deal when we consider the possibility that the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act could soon go through Congress and strip GMO labeling from all foods completely.

Imagine going through the grocery store and having no idea whether the food you’re buying has been genetically modified. This, despite poll after poll showing that Americans want GMO labeling.

Now that we have proof that industrial agriculture will stop at nothing to force-feed the world chemicals and seed that could ruin human health and the environment, it becomes even more transparent that the FDA is doing the dirty business of regulating a genetically modified world.

GM soy, sugar beets, canola, cotton, and maize have already taken over the millions of acres of arable land, but now we will be forced to eat GM salmon, and it won’t be labeled. So you won’t even know if the fish you are dining on was caught in the ocean, or grown on a GM farm, or a combination of the two, since genetically modified salmon has been gene-edited to grow four times faster than regular salmon, and will be grown without proper measures to keep it from contaminating non-GM salmon through cross-breeding.

Only Alaska requires a label for GM salmon at present, so as GM salmon is shipped to your state, and served up in restaurants, sold in grocery stores, and even grown in local fisheries, you’ll have no way to avoid it  – unless of course, you just stop eating salmon.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on FDA Has Approved Genetically Modified (GM) Salmon for Consumption, and It Won’t Be Labeled

Closing the Door to America: US Politics and the Refugee Debate

November 23rd, 2015 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

If I err, it will be on the side of not having another Paris, France. – Tennessee State Rep. Glen Casada, Nov 19, 2015

Even in the face of expert warnings and reassurances; even in the face of those who spoke with assuring conviction that the border screening of refugees coming to the United States was credible and thorough, House bill HR 4038 still passed.

The House measure, passed with 289 votes to 137 on Thursday, was intended to provide a temporary block on refugees from Syria and Iraq seeking entry into the United States in light of the Paris attacks. The Senate has not officially indicated if it will follow suit, while President Barack Obama has made it clear he will veto it should it make it to his desk.

Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina noted a sentiment that crossed the political aisles. “Republicans and Democrats have come together in a veto-proof majority to respond to the will of the American people and do our primary job to keep them safe.”[1] According to the House speaker, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, “it will take longer than six months… to put these kinds of security” measures into place.

Within the United States, Governors of over two dozen states, heavily representing the GOP, have decided to do their little bit in making sure that refugees do not get through their state doors, ignoring the basic fact the attacks in Paris did also allegedly feature European nationals such as Belgian-born Salah Abdeslam. (A review of the visa-waiver program which features many European countries has been floated in some circles on the Hill.)

It should also be placed in perspective that the United States, historically sensitive to accepting immigrants in number, is scheduled to receive a paltry 10,000 Syrian refugees next year as part of a resettlement program that is looking more troubled by the day. All this, despite the 18 to 24 month vetting process in place prior to giving the green light for entry into the country.

It started with Gov. Rick Snyder from Michigan. Despite calling himself “the most pro-immigration governor in the country” he has not let compassion get in the way of paralytic caution. He insists, despite conversations with the White House, FBI, State, Homeland and Security and counter-terrorism officials, on an answer to a letter he dispatched to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry. Respond, he suggested, “that you’re confident that we have the appropriate response in place”.[2]

Some state law makers are going so far as to revive memories of detention and expulsion of “aliens” from other episodes of US history. A Tennessee legislative leader has insisted that refugees already in his state should suffer a fate similar to that of Japanese Americans during World War II, calling for the National Guard to assist in rounding up Syrians.

House GOP Caucus leader Glen Casada is certainly not unique in that regard, feeding a growing tendency in that state dating back to the proposed Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act of 2011, to combat the perceived problems such arrivals cause.[3]

The pearl of gory revelation on the refugee settlement program had to come from GOP presidential contender Ben Carson. To last week’s debate, he added a well directed if unfathomable zinger at a campaign event in Mobile, Alabama: “If there is a rabid dog running around your neighbourhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog.”[4]

Placing the refugee debate in the context of canine rabidity is admirably astonishing, and something that other GOP contenders probably wish they had come up with. In a more disturbing sense, Carson’s sentiments are resonating across the electorate in various degrees of coarseness.

A Bloomberg Politics national poll on Wednesday found that 53 percent of US adults surveyed wanted the country to stop letting in Syrian refugees, fearing terrorist infiltration.[5] Only 28 percent agreed with continuing “the plan to settle 10,000 refugees without religious screening.” Such figures suggest an attitude of closure and restriction, the policeman’s innate suspicions for humans who just might turn at any given moment.

Even CNN has been doing its bit to clean the stables of restraining critique, suspending journalist Elise Labott for tweeting in the wake of HR 4308’s passage that the “Statue of Liberty bows head in anguish.”

Leaving aside Labott’s mild form of “editorializing,” claims by anchors on the same network that French Muslims were somehow directly responsible for the onslaughts in Paris did not land them in the soup.[6] Ditto the increasingly militant behaviour on the part of some journalists to step up efforts to combat the Islamic State. The closing society, from across Europe, to the United States, is upon us.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-18/house-democrats-said-to-mull-alternative-bill-on-syria-refugees

[2] http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456713306/governor-who-started-stampede-on-refugees-says-he-only-wants-answers

[3] http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/21/islamaphobia-threatens-tennessees-tradition-accepting-refugees/76102686/

[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-usa-election-carson-idUSKCN0T82TJ20151120#43PyVcgKYlqUCefm.97

[5] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-18/bloomberg-poll-most-americans-oppose-syrian-refugee-resettlement

[6] https://theintercept.com/2015/11/20/cnns-punishment-of-refugee-defending-journalist-highlights-media-abdication/

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Closing the Door to America: US Politics and the Refugee Debate

We have to take an honest look at the violence the United States is exporting all over the world. If we don’t do that, nothing is going to change.

Thousands of activists and dozens of peace groups converged this weekend in Georgia to call for the closure of the School of Americas (SOA or WHINSEC), a controversial training facility for Latin American soldiers, and the nearby Stewart Immigrant Detention Center.

Hundreds protested outside SOA’s gates in Fort Benning, calling it the “School of Assassins,” while others marched through the town of Lumpkin to hold a vigil outside of Stewart’s facilities. A handful of protesters were arrested and later released after they crossed onto the grounds of the detention center, where organizers say approximately 1,800 migrants are being held in inhumane conditions as officials prepare to deport them en masse.

The weekend of action also included testimonies from victims of torture, who held up images of civilians murdered by death squads trained at SOA. Others spoke out about their experiences as families of disappeared persons.

Annual actions organized by the grassroots movement SOA Watch are being held throughout the weekend to speak out against militarization and demand accountability and reform of the U.S.’s foreign policies toward Latin America.

“Despite a shocking human rights abuse record, the School of the Americas continues to operate with US taxpayer money. Closing the SOA would send a strong human rights message to Latin America and the world,” said SOA Watch founder Father Roy Bourgeois.

Ahead of the actions on Friday, SOA Watch national organizer Hendrik Voss told local media, “We have to take an honest look at the violence the United States is exporting all over the world. If we don’t do that, nothing is going to change.”

“We say we are standing in solidarity with people of Latin America,” Voss told the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer on Saturday. “When those people are forced from their home country because of SOA violence, they are being mistreated. We extend our solidarity with them.”

The weekend of action expanded its focus to include Stewart Immigrant Detention Center about nine years ago. “We have to address the root causes of migration, which to a major part lie in the deplorable economic and military policies, which the United States has imposed on Latin America,” Borgeois said.

For many activists, SOA has become a notorious symbol of U.S.-backed human rights abuses in Latin America. The taxpayer-funded school now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation educated several dictators from the region, as well as their military officials, and included torture, extortion, and execution in its curriculum. Yet as SOA Watch points out, despite evidence of human rights abuses connected to the school’s graduates, “no independent investigation into the facility has ever taken place.”

Follow the action on Twitter under the hashtag #SOAWatch2015.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “School of Assassins”: Protests Demand Closure of Notorious School of the America’s Training Camp

Translated by J. Arnoldski

On the sidelines of the G20 summit in Turkey, the leaders of Western countries agreed to extend sanctions against Russia for another six months until July, 2016. Reuters reported this citing a senior diplomatic source in the EU.

According to Reuters, the president of the US, Barack Obama, the chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, the prime ministers of Great Britain and Italy, David Cameron and Matteo Renzi, as well as the foreign minister of France, Laurent Fabius, participated in the meeting. The decision to extend sanctions was taken to keep up the pressure on Russia on the eve of local elections in Donbass. “Elections in Ukraine – this is a complex task. We have the change to get what we want if play the sanctions card. Financial sanctions should remain in force until the end,” the source said.

On this note, Reuters noted that sanctions will be continued despite calls for closer cooperation with Russian president Vladimir Putin in the fight against the Islamic State.

On November 18, The Wall Street Journal reported EU and US plans to extend and expand sanctions against Russia. The measures and activities which they want to prolong include restrictions on cooperation with Russian defense and energy companies.

Sanctions are in effect against Russia by a number of countries, particularly the US and EU states. Restrictive measures began to be introduced against the background of the annexation of Crimea to Russia in March 2014 and in connection with the conflict in Eastern Ukraine in which, according to numerous statements by Moscow, it is not participating. One hundred and fifty individuals (both Russians and Ukrainians) as well as companies, organizations, and associations (in particular, Crimean, and, according to the EU, “separatist” ones) are on the black list of the EU.

The Minsk measures adopted as a result of the meeting of the leaders of the “Normandy Quartet” countries (Ukraine, Russia, Germany, France) in February, 2015, provide for the establishment of a ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the contact line, constitutional reform (to enter into force by the end of 2015 with a new constitution), legislative recognition of the special status of separate districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and the holding of local elections.

According to the 12 point document, issues regarding local elections should be discussed and agreed upon with representatives of designated districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Elections themselves should be conducted in compliance with the relevant standards of the OSCE and monitored by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on No Appeasement in East-West Relations: “New Cold War” Sanctions against Russia Prevail, Extended to July 2016

More Paris Puzzles. Did the Suicide Bombers Blow Themselves Up?

November 23rd, 2015 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Some people who are not inclined to believe the official story of the Paris attack are troubled by the question why Muslim suicide bombers would blow themselves up for a false flag attack. The answer to this question is very simple. But first we should dispose of the question whether suicide bombers did blow themselves up. Is this something that we know, or is it part of the story that we are told? For example, we were told that during 9/11 passengers in hijacked airliners used their cell phones to call relatives, but experts have testified that the technology of the time did not permit cell phone calls from airliners at those altitudes.

To dispose of the question whether we have or do not have any real evidence that suicide bombers blew themselves up, I will assume that they did.

So we have suicide bombers blowing themselves up.

Now turn to the question that troubles some doubters: Why would suicide bombers blow themselves up for the sake of a false flag attack?

As I said, the answer is simple: Why assume that the suicide bombers knew who was organizing the attack? There seems to be abundant evidence that ISIL is a US creation, one that is still dependent on US active or passive support—thus the conflict between Putin and Washington over attacking ISIL. ISIL seems to be what Washington used to overthrow the government in Libya and afterward was sent by Washington to Syria to overthrow Assad. Obviously, Washington has ISIL infiltrated. Washington has long proven is ability to use Islamic extremists. As Washington used them in Afghanistan against the Soviets and in Libya and Syria against independent governments, Washington used them in Paris. By my last count, the FBI on 150 occasions has successfully deceived people into participating into FBI orchestrated “terror plots.”

Now let us move to some bigger questions. Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims. In past years on several occasions I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrortists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat free as birds.

How believeable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has sent military forces to murder Muslims, was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?

Now let us turn to questions of identification of the alleged “Paris terrorists.” Is it realistic to suppose that the millions of refugees from Washington and its European vassals’ wars in the Middle East have passports? Were these millions of refugees expecting to be driven by White Civilization’s Bombs out of their countries and thus had prepared themselves with passports in order to flee?

Did they write on their passport applications that they were going to be visiting Europe?

Was the beleaguered country, their homeland, under full military assault, able to process all these millions of passports?

What sort of dumbshit Western media goes along with the passport story — a media well paid to lie for Washington’s hegemony and crimes?

One final question for skeptics. Where are the photographs of the terrorists during their terrorizing? Surrounding the scenes of violence there were not only abundant security cameras, but also hundreds, even thousands, of people with cell phones that have cameras. With all of these photos, how is it possible that the authorities do not know if some terrorists escaped, and if so, who they are and what they look like? Why are the authorities relying on fake passports for photos of the terrorists?

Terrorism has been unleashed in the Western World, and it is the terrorism of Western governments against Western peoples.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More Paris Puzzles. Did the Suicide Bombers Blow Themselves Up?

In a certain way, I feel a certain unease since the entire Greek Left has some form of responsibility for the fact that Greece is not currently a laboratory of hope; rather it is a reason for despair. What I am going to say should be taken as a form of self-criticism rather than a declaration. I consider myself part of the problem…

The problem is that in the country where the most aggressive experiment in neoliberal social engineering was met with the most massive, almost insurrectionary sequence of struggles, where the political crisis was the closest to a crisis of hegemony Western Europe has seen since the ‘Fall of the dictatorships’, where a relatively small left-wing party was catapulted to power, where a defiant people refused the blackmail of the European Union in the July 5 referendum, Syriza has accepted neoliberal reforms that would make even the infamous ‘Chicago boys’ blush, from an overhaul of the pension system to privatizations and mass foreclosures and evictions, after winning an election where the rest of the Left failed to challenge the left-wing version of ‘there is no alternative’ that set the tone of the electoral debate.

Was there another road possible for Greece? Or should we accept the premise that a small country in the European South was not in a position to answer the blackmail of the EU? I strongly disagree. The moment of the referendum was optimal for a strategy of rupture: end of negotiations, stoppage to debt payments, nationalization of the banking system, beginning of the process of a return to national currency, as the starting point for a broader process of transformation. The obvious initial difficulties, arguably not much greater than what we are facing now in Greece and surely lesser that the ones we are going to face in the years to come, could be dealt with by the tremendous political potential of the referendum result and the degree of popular mobilization and international solidarity. However, there was no preparation from the part of Syriza leadership even to think the possibility of a strategy of ruptures, leading to a series of disastrous concessions and compromises, even before the January 2015 election. This absence of preparation for any eventuality other than compromise within the Eurozone was not the result of a lack of time. Rather, it was the result of the conscious choice that a rupture was impossible, choice that came as a combination of a compulsive Europeanism along with the attempt to build alliances with segments of the Greek bourgeoisie.

Reopen the Debate on Strategy

Is This the end of the Story? I suggest we oppose this temptation. The economic crisis and the crisis of the failed project of European Integration with its authoritarian disciplinary neoliberalism continue to fuel a social crisis without precedent in the European South. The political crisis, as detachment of the subaltern classes from the party system, as inability of the capitalist classes to articulate a hegemonic project other than the logic of the ‘special economic zone’, and as potential crisis of the state as a result of the EU induced limited sovereignty, is still a determining aspect and the current ‘static equilibrium’ as a result of the Syriza victory is far from stable.

However, this does not mean that we should expect mass social explosions or a rapid collapse of Syriza as a new opportunity for the radical Left to take the initiative. Indeed, Syriza will face sooner or later its own ‘winter of discontent’. However, the entire cycle of mass mobilization in 2010-12, then expectation of an electoral breakthrough, then patience in face of the first compromises, then collective defiance at the referendum, then the feeling of desperation and defeat after the capitulation, then having to choose between abstention or the lesser evil and now watching the government implement one reform after the other, has had a disintegrating effect and has led to a growing disbelief in the possibility of alternatives.

So we need to reflect upon the open questions facing us, and to reopen the debate on strategy.

First, there was more fantasy than reality in conception of a progressive governance, that will put an end to austerity, restore growth and mild redistribution, re-instate working class rights, without challenging a country’s inclusion into processes of capitalist internationalization and integration such as the European Union and without confronting banks and corporations, accustomed to wage deflation, flexible labour, and pillage of public assets. The Greek case tragically exemplifies that this is impossible within the Eurozone. There can be no ‘change from within’ of the EU. ‘Europeanism’ is the royal road to disaster for the European Left.

At the same time, it is not enough to just think about a progressive government that will proceed with a stoppage to debt payments, exit the Eurozone and implement an aggressive increase to public spending. A breath of sanity in comparison to the illusions about progressive governance inside the Eurozone, nevertheless it can work much better in countries with strong export sectors and an opening to global markets such as Argentina. In countries that have been subjected to the pervasive restructuring and de-industrialization the European integration induces, it could reach an impasse, unless it rapidly transforms into an alternative growth paradigm in a socialist direction.

Moreover, even in the most advanced examples of radical left governance in Latin America we have seen certain limits: the dependence on an extractivist economy; the contradictory co-existence of increased social protection with international competitiveness; the conflicts caused by the attempt to integrate in the State the terrain of autonomous movements.

Anti-Politics

Now, can the anti-politics of insurrection, or the celebration of the riot, be the antidote to this? From Alain Badiou to the interventions of the Invisible Committee, there has been an emphasis on the return of mass politics in the streets, the violent confrontation with the police, the direct re-appropriation of the commons. Here strategy is replaced by the desire to prolong the ‘moment’ of the mass riot.

Unfortunately, historical experience shows both the catalytic and indispensable aspect of the insurrectionary sequence and the difficulty to initiate a process of transformation afterwards: mass civil unrest can lead to a regime crisis, but then the question is what comes next.

Nor is the answer the imaginary ‘October’ of a supposedly Leninist insurrectionary sequence, which is the definition many tendencies of the anticapitalist Left propose for a revolution for which conditions are never ripe enough. Here, strategy is replaced by an anti-capitalist verbalism that feels more comfortable with failure, since this justifies the position that from the beginning it was determined that nothing could change.

Of course, enumerating problems is not a substitute for an answer to open questions. This can only be a collective process of reflection and self-criticism. However, we can discuss some starting points for a rethinking of revolutionary strategy today.

First point: Popular sovereignty is important. The European experience shows that today reduced and limited sovereignty is a basic mechanism for the imposition of austerity and the erosion of democracy. As Jean-Claude Juncker has said ‘there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.’ The same can goes for the exposure of national banking systems to the international money markets and the series of Treaties aiming at safeguarding investments against environmental concerns or labour rights. Sovereignty as recuperation of a democratic control against the systemic violence of internationalised capital becomes a class issue and the basis of a new internationalism based at ‘breaking links from the chain’ and setting examples for movements in other countries.

We all know the possible associations of sovereignty with nationalism, racism and colonialism. However, here we are talking about a form of sovereignty that is based upon the common condition of the subaltern classes. It is an attempt to rethink both the people and the nation in a ‘post-national’ and post-colonial way as the emerging community of all the persons that work, struggle and hope on a particular territory, as the emergence of a potential historical bloc for socialist transformation, what Gramsci referred to when he talked about the “Modern Prince […] creating the terrain for a subsequent development of the national-popular collective will toward the realization of a superior, total form of modern civilization.”[1] Similarly, Deleuze’s notion of the becoming-people points to the fact that the ‘people’ is not a preconstituted entity or ‘majority’ but the result of a complex and overdetermined process of struggles.

Such a recuperation of popular sovereignty also requires an elaborated anticapitalist narrative not just an aggregation of anti-austerity demands. However indispensable a ‘left-Keynesian’ macroeconomic condition is, in the form of reclaiming monetary sovereignty and increasing public spending, it is not enough. We must think of ‘productive reconstruction’ not as ‘return to growth’ but as a process of transformation and intense confrontation with capital, based upon public ownership, self-management, and forms of workers control. It has to be a process of experimentation and learning. Contemporary forms of solidarity, of self-management, of alternative non-commercial networks of distribution, of open access to services, the discussions on how to use the public sector or how to run public utilities are not only ways to deal with urgent social problems. They are also experimental test sites for alternative forms of production and social organization, based upon the ‘traces of communism’ and collective inventiveness and ingenuity in contemporary resistances and everyday gestures of solidarity – something exemplified in the myriad acts of solidarity in Greece now during the refugee crisis.

The State

What about the state, since we know that not only is the state not identified with government, but also that every attempt to ‘simply use’ it will confront the internalization of the prerogatives of capital and the international markets. The state is indeed the condensation of a relation of class forces, as Poulantzas has stressed, but it is a material condensation not a contingent articulation, producing strategies, knowledges, and discourses, as Foucault has stressed. From the justice system to the forces of order and para-state of intelligence, to enclaves fully controlled by the EU or big business, there are mechanisms that can counter-attack and cannot be just ‘used’ to a better purpose.

We need a fresh conceptualization that combines the question of government with something close to a permanent dual power strategy. Dual power in this reading is not a question of catastrophic equilibrium and antagonistic coexistence of two competing state forms. Rather, it refers to the new forms of popular power, self-management, worker’s control, solidarity and coordination that are resisting the counterattacks of state apparatuses and capital even after the arrival of the left to government. A war of position is necessary both before and after the seizure of power, as a continuous process of struggles, collective experimentation, forms of power from below, new social configurations, along with deep institutional changes, in the form of a Constituent Process. In this reading dual power is not only about worker’s councils or soviets. It is also about self-managed enterprises, and solidarity clinics and popular assemblies. It is about looking carefully at the new forms of organization that have emerged in movements like 15M or the ‘Squares’ as collective political forms that in certain aspects transcend the social/political division.

In such a perspective there is no ‘moment’ of passage from ‘radical governance’ to ‘socialist transformation’, only an uneven and contradictory process that will face counter attacks and perhaps also what Georges Labica called the ‘impossibility of ‘non-violence’.

This means that we also face what it means ‘doing politics’. A great part of the contemporary European Left is immersed in traditional bourgeois practice of politics, based upon the dichotomy between parliamentary or ‘national’ politics and everyday struggles, along with the professionalization of politics.

New Practice of Politics?

We need a new practice of politics. Any attempt toward radical transformation must base itself upon the short-circuit between politics and economics that Etienne Balibar suggests is at the heart of the Marxian project, treating the economy as terrain of political intervention and experimentation, insisting that movements representing the working classes have a say in politics, initiating novel forms of democracy from below.

This also includes what Lenin described as a cultural revolution, or Gramsci as ethico-political reform, the emergence of new forms of mass political intellectuality and a new collective ethos of participation. Again, we can start by the formative and learning experiences in the movements, the ways they have facilitated the emergence of new forms of thinking and new ethics of solidarity and resistance.

At the same time, we are facing the crisis of the traditional model of the revolutionary organization and the crisis of the model of the broad front and party that could act as the meeting point of various movements and political tendencies. The example of Syriza is emblematic. I am not referring only to the political turn toward austerity and capitalist restructuring. I am referring also to how gradually Syriza stopped being democratic and how in the name of going toward a more unified party the leading group was detached from the rest of the party.

Rebuilding the United Front cannot be a repetition. Nor can it be simply a regroupment. We need an ‘epistemological break’ in our thinking of both the front and party. The Modern Prince can only be the result of a process of recomposition and profound transformation, learning also from the experiences of political self-organization in contemporary movements.

We have to learn from our mistakes and be profoundly self-critical avoiding all forms of arrogant know-all mentality, bureaucratic thinking, and theoretical laziness. So far, we have failed to create the kind of laboratory of a new politics that was needed, that kind of democratic political process, non-sectarian dialogue, collective experimentation, creative militancy. Regarding the Greek case, we can see the beginning of the problem in the inability of the forces of the Left that realised the necessity of rupture regarding debt and the Eurozone, to initiate in 2010-11 a process of a new front incorporating the new forms of organization emerging from the movement.

We must confront this task of recomposition, transformation and experimentation because otherwise the elements, practices, experiences that could be part of potential new historical block will remain dispersed and disintegrated.

Antonio Gramsci has always insisted that historical changes take the form also of molecular changes. The notion of the ‘molecular’ refers to the multifarious, complex, over-determined, non-teleological and non-deterministic character of historical process.

Gramsci’s famous ‘Autobiographical Note’ from Notebook 15, is not only a personal meditation on molecular transformation – contemplating his own life in prison, the choice he made not to flee the country, and how disaster can affect one person – but also a small treatise on molecular changes in periods of defeat, the small changes that in the end lead to a new relation of forces. His observations have, I think, a certain resonance in countries like Greece:

“the truth is that the person of the fifth year is not the same as in the fourth, the third, the second, the first and so on; one has a new personality, completely new, in which the years that have passed have in fact demolished one’s moral braking system, the resistive forces that characterised the person during the first year.”[2]

This means that any process of recomposition of the radical Left must be attentive to this molecular aspect.

New forms of movement organization, especially in relation to social strata that lack any form of representation (unemployed, precarious etc), new democratic practices in movements, forms of political self-organization, new forms of coordination and solidarity, expanding the experimentation with forms of self-management, creating alternatives forms of (counter)information, organizing new forms of militant research are more urgent than ever. They also enable us to rethink political organization under this prism of a necessary molecular recomposition, of collective democratic processes for the elaboration of alternatives, of a collective new practice of politics.

Communist or revolutionary politics are in the last instance about subterranean currents that came to the surface only in critical moments, because they are dispersed, fragmented, ruptured, the results of encounters that did not last. The challenge is exactly to have the ‘slow impatience’ to learn from defeat, to regroup, to experiment, to rethink all aspects of the conjuncture, from the molecular to the ‘integral’, to ‘organize good encounters’ (Deleuze) and bring these subterranean currents to the surface.

The tragic defeat of the Greek Left, opens a period of necessary self-criticism, reflexion and experimentation with new forms of political fronts, organizations and coordination along with all the necessary effort to rebuild the resistance to the new wave of neoliberal reforms, fight collective despair and resignation and bring back confidence to the ability to change things. It is will not be easy and it will be like trying to build a ship when you are already out in rough sea.

However, it is the only way to continue to say NO. No to pessimism, no to surrender, no to defeat.

As the poet C.P. Cavafy wrote many years ago:

“He who refuses does not repent. Asked again, he’d still say no.”

Panagiotis Sotiris teaches social theory and social and political philosophy at the Department of Sociology of the University of the Aegean. This text is based on his presentation at the Historical Materialism Conference in London (5-8 November 2015), and first published at salvage.zone.

 

Notes:

1. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Prison Notebooks, edited and translated by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971, pp. 132-33.

2. Antonio Gramsci, Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited and translated by D. Boothman, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1996, p. lxxxvi.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Realism of Audacity: Was There Another Road for Greece? Rethinking Revolutionary Strategy Today

Paris Terrorists Operated “in plain sight”

November 23rd, 2015 by Patrick Martin

Numerous media reports over the past several days have revealed that most of the Islamists who engaged in the suicide attacks in Paris that killed 130 people, as well as the reputed organizer of the attacks, were known to the French and Belgian security services well before November 13. But no intelligence or police agency took action against them to prevent the murderous rampage.

Remarkably, these accounts come from American media outlets that themselves have close ties to the intelligence agencies—the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN—as well as the official Voice of America and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

In an accompanying editorial, the New York Times noted,

“Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers lived only hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists.”

The Washington Post summed up the situation as follows:

“Belgian authorities had close contact with some of the men believed to be behind the bloody terrorist attacks in Paris last week, a pattern that raises questions about how the suspects could slip through the fingers of law enforcement officials.”

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, said that several of the Paris attackers were on no-fly lists, indicating they were well-known to US intelligence as well.

Most of the accounts note that the US, Turkey and Iraq all warned France in advance of the November 13 attacks of plots under way, while Turkey actually supplied the name of one of the operatives involved, Ismael Omar Mostefai, who was himself known to the French authorities from 2010. Mostefai traveled to Syria in 2013 despite having a “fiche S,” a police dossier marking him as a security concern, and returned to France the following year. He was one of the gunmen who massacred nearly 100 people at the Bataclan theater before killing himself.

Another gunman at the Bataclan, Samy Amimour, was detained by French police in October 2012 on charges of terrorist conspiracy. According to theTimes:

“Suspecting he was planning to go to Yemen to fight, the authorities confiscated his passport and placed him under judicial control, meaning he was barred from traveling and had to report regularly to the authorities. Nevertheless, a year later Mr. Amimour managed to make his way to Syria undetected.”

The French daily Le Monde reported last December that Amimour was in monthly Skype contact with his family and that his father had traveled to Syria to try to convince him to return home. The police did not interview the father upon his return, and Amimour returned to Paris undisturbed sometime this year.

Bilal Hadfi, a suicide bomber at Le Stade de France, was known to Belgian authorities after a teacher in his class in a Brussels school reported his comments supporting the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He then went to Syria, a Justice Ministry spokeswoman told the Post, from where he posted comments on Twitter denouncing pro-Western forces as “infidels” and warning that the countries intervening in Syria “should no longer feel safe, not even in their dreams.”

“We knew Hadfi had traveled to Syria and had come back,” a Belgian police spokeswoman told the Post. After his return to Belgium, “For two weeks, the security services tapped the phone line of the house where he lived in Molenbeek,” the newspaper reported. Hadfi was well known as an Islamist radical who had fought in Syria, appearing on lists maintained by a police advisory group and by a Belgian journalist. In November he drove to Paris and took part in the assault.

Ibrahim Abdeslam was one of the suicide bombers at a Paris café. He was also Belgian, and known to have attempted to reach Syria in February 2015, although he was reportedly detained and turned back by Turkish authorities. He was known to police as a longtime associate of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the top ISIS figure in Belgium. His young brother Salah, 26, who is believed to be the only surviving attacker, was stopped three times by French police while driving back from Paris to Belgium the night of November 13-14. Each time he was let go.

Then there is the case of the alleged principal organizer of the attacks, Abaaoud, who was killed in a shootout with French police in the early morning hours of November 19, along with an as yet unidentified man and a woman, his cousin. Abaaoud was a well-known public voice of ISIS, interviewed in the February issue of its online magazine Dabiq under the name Abu Umar al-Baljiki.

In the interview, as described by Voice of America, Abaaoud “boasted about how he could operate in plain sight in Belgium and never get caught.” He added, “My name and picture were all over the news, yet I was able to stay in their homeland, plan operations against them, and leave safely when doing so became necessary.” At one point he was stopped by police, but they let him go, supposedly not recognizing him. Yet he was so notorious that a Belgian court sentenced him to 20 years in prison, in absentia, for recruiting Belgian youth to fight for ISIS.

While Abaaoud attributed his seeming invisibility to divine intervention on the side of Islamic fundamentalists, there is a simpler explanation. During much of the time that Abaaoud was active in ISIS, the group was working as part of the anti-Assad campaign in Syria backed by the United States, France, Belgium and the other imperialist powers.

Until June 2014, when ISIS militants crossed the border into Iraq and seized control of Mosul, threatening the US-backed regime in Baghdad, the group’s activities were tolerated, even encouraged. Even after Mosul, the US-backed “coalition” conducted a notably desultory bombing campaign, suggesting that ISIS was still considered a potential imperialist asset, at least in Syria.

This continues the pattern that goes back as far as the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001: the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their innumerable offshoots, have their origins in the covert operations of imperialist intelligence agencies, particularly those of the United States.

Al Qaeda arose from the Arab forces involved in the US intervention to topple the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan in the 1980s, while the war in Iraq created the forerunner of ISIS, and the US-backed campaign of subversion in Syria turned the group into a powerful force holding territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border.

There is another pattern as well: terrorist attacks undertaken by groups created and armed by the imperialists become the pretext for a further expansion of the powers of the national security state. In the wake of the Paris attacks, the intelligence services of the imperialist powers, and particularly the American CIA, NSA and FBI, have launched a furious campaign to profit from the atrocity.

Top US security officials have made a series of speeches blaming the latest terrorist outrage on the revelations of Edward Snowden, on built-in encryption provided by the manufacturers of smartphones and other communications equipment, and on the handful of legal restrictions on government spying.

The bogus character of these arguments is shown by examining the actual events in Paris. French police recovered one of the cellphones used by the attackers and found unencrypted text messages and GPS data that enabled them to locate Abaaoud and others who allegedly formed part of the support network for the attacks. There is no evidence that any of the attackers used encrypted communications, or that they needed to, given the effective green light they had for their operations.

It is not possible, with the limited information so far made available, to give a full and definitive account of what took place in Paris on November 13, 2015, let alone its origins in the murky world where intelligence operations intersect with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Two conclusions are inescapable, however: (1) Official propaganda about this and other terrorist attacks, aimed at stampeding public opinion behind the state and the intelligence services, are based on half-truths and lies. (2) The imperialist governments, whose savage wars for oil and geopolitical advantage in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia have created the conditions for the rise of Islamist terror organizations, with which they have collaborated, are once again using a terrorist atrocity as the pretext to implement longstanding plans for military escalation abroad and the abrogation of democratic rights at home.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Paris Terrorists Operated “in plain sight”

Americans Irrationally Fear Terrorist Attacks

November 23rd, 2015 by Stephen Lendman

Most people don’t think or reason. They react, often irrationally. Chances of being struck by lightning are much greater than becoming a terrorist attack victim.

Death by auto accident, preventable diseases, violence at home by one family member against another, alcoholism or excessive use of harmful legal drugs is infinitely higher – what media propaganda never explains.

Media hyped fear convinces most people of nonexistent dangers. Early November Gallup data showed only 3% of Americans called terrorism the nation’s top problem – polling done before the Paris attacks, compared to 46% in October 2001. Expect a much higher fear level when new polling results are available.

Four earlier 2015 Gallup measures “showed an increased (public) concern about terrorism” – from 39% last year to 51% in 2015.

Opinions on 15 issues were polled. A possible future terrorist attack was the third-ranked public concern after the “availability and affordability of healthcare” and “the economy.”

Nearly half of Americans fear they or a family member will be victimized by terrorism at some future time. The highest level recorded was 59% post-9/11 – people not realizing their fears were and continue to be entirely unjustified.

In June, Gallup found only two-thirds of Americans expressed confidence in Washington protecting them from a future terrorist attack – “the lowest level of trust recorded in the history of this trend question (first asked) in late 2001.”

Gallup attributes the low figure to the public’s lack of “confidence in the government in general.” Americans call ISIS and international terrorism overall “critical threats to the vital interests of the United States” – the greatest one on a list of eight possible ones, including the “military power of Russia” and “economic power of China.”

By a two-to-one margin, Americans want terrorism confronted without sacrificing civil liberties – as compared to the months post-9/11 when they were split on this issue around 50 – 50.

Polling data didn’t reveal public ignorance about state-sponsored terrorism. Propaganda works, convincing most people about nonexistent threats, including ISIS possibly invading their communities.

Gallup data showed 43% of Americans favor “sending (US) ground troops to Iraq and Syria” to fight ISIS, unaware it’s a US creation.

A post-Paris attack Washington Post/ABC News poll showed increased public fear of terrorist attacks, greater willingness to use US combat troops in the Middle East, opposition to admitting refugees, and willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for security.

81% of Americans believe a future terrorist attack on US soil is likely, large numbers of lives lost. Most respondents don’t think  government can stop it.

Over 70% want federal action against possible terrorist threats, even if it means personal privacy intrusions.

60% support use of US combat troops against ISIS – 73% back more airstrikes. Americans are easy marks to dupe into favoring what demands opposition.

The late Michael Mandel’s important book, titled “How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage, and Crimes Against Humanity” discussed its lawless enterprise, its fabricated humanitarian intervention claims, and by implication how easy it is to convince most people to support what harms their welfare and self-interest.

Polling data confirm it. Most Americans are chumps. No matter how many times they were fooled before, deceiving them again is easy. Propaganda works.

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.”
 
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.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Americans Irrationally Fear Terrorist Attacks

Image: Professor James Petras

Over the past few decades, insurgent mass movements reflecting political discontent with the domestic economy and imperialist foreign policy have emerged to challenge the leadership and policies of the Democratic Party (DP).  There are good reasons for this:  The Democratic Party in power in Congress and the White House presided over

(1) the deepening of inequality between labor and capital;

(2) the decline of real wages;

(3) the approval of repressive legislation;

(4) the reduction of trade union membership by two-thirds;

(5) deepening inequality between the races,

(6) a trillion dollar (and counting) bailout of the banks and Wall Street;

(7) mortgage foreclosure against millions of homeowners;

(8) endless ‘police state’ abuses by federal and local police;

(9) deregulation of the financial system and

(10) the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and service employment.

Over the same period, the Democratic Party has supported wars and invasions against Indo-China, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and scores of ‘clandestine’ military operations – including the recent and current proxy-wars in Georgia and Ukraine.

Popular movements have emerged and mass public opinion has expressed hostility toward both major parties.  Hence, the third parties struck a responsive note among the electorate to which the Democratic Party leadership felt threatened by a possible defection by wage and salaried voters, especially to supporting Ralph Nader.

Yet in the end, nothing came of the discontent.  Despite large-scale and deeply felt anger and popular outbursts of protests, including the million-strong street demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, the Democratic Party continued to dominate the ‘progressive’ electorate or relegated it to demoralized abstention.

  This essay addresses the following questions:

(1)  Why have mass movements and genuinely disaffected progressive voters and activists been unable to break with the Democratic Party, despite its consistently abominable record on foreign and domestic policy.

(2)  How was the pro-Wall Street, pro-imperialist Democratic Party able to retain the support of an electorate, which overwhelmingly polls in favor of health care reform via a national, single-payer health plan, a living minimum wage, the end to police-state surveillance and against serial wars and invasions?

From Protest to Political Hostages

American mass movements have been successful in mobilizing hundreds of thousands in opposition to Washington’s support of the South African apartheid regime, Central American dictators, wars in the Middle East and racist legislation.  Progressives have educated and organized millions to oppose Wall Street and the Democratic Party’s more recent bailout of banks.

Without fail every time mass movements and the popular electorate have opted for independent social action outside of the Democratic Party, a ‘dissident’ politician has emerged from within the Party  mouthing many of the criticisms and demands of the social movements and the critical electorate.

These Democrat ‘dissidents’ organize ‘grass roots’ campaigns in popular venues, soliciting small scale contributions and making promises to put an end to ‘Big Money and Big Business’ domination of the electoral process.

Such Democrat ‘dissidents’ round up millions of votes and hundreds of delegates to the Democratic Convention and then…they inevitably lose to the Party machine and meekly submit...reasserting their loyalty to the ‘greater good’ against the ‘greater evil’.

The radical rhetoric used during the campaign is consciously designed to obscure the ‘dissidents’ fundamental loyalty to the Democratic Party, its military machine, its billionaire fundraisers and its Wall Street economic policy strategists.

 The pre-ordained primary campaign defeat of the Democrat ‘dissidents’ is not the real issue here:  The essential political consequence is that the “dissidents” channel mass social disaffection back into the Democratic Party thereby undermining any independent political initiative capable of breaking the duopoly stranglehold.  In animal husbandry, they are like the handsome goat who tricks the flock into entering the big slaughter-pen of their social and political aspirations.

 By endorsing the crowned Party nominee, these ‘dissidents’ discredit the very critical ideas and social programs they claimed to promote.  They demoralize and depoliticize important segments of the electorate. They demobilize and disorient the social activists who had worked for the social transformation promised by their campaign program.

Most important, by reorienting the peace and justice movements and the neighborhood and anti-racism community organizations into Democratic Party electoral politics, they empty the streets, neighborhoods and workplaces of effective activists.

A brief survey of presidential campaigns over the past thirty-five years confirms this analysis.

Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Hustle:  1984 and 1988

 Jesse Jackson was an important leader-activist in the civil rights movement.  Based in Chicago, he helped organize tens of thousands of Afro-Americans and develop ties with other minorities, white progressives and trade unions.

 Jackson opposed President Reagan’s assault on the trade unions, especially the firing of thousands of air controllers. Jackson’s opposition to Apartheid South Africa and Reagan’s invasion of Grenada and the escalation of military spending gained him credibility in the peace movement.

Millions looked to Jesse Jackson for political leadership and a new political direction.  He negotiated with the bosses of the Democratic Party for his entry into the primaries.  The deal was that he would compete with the traditional politicians, but immediately submit to the leadership if he lost the nomination.

Jackson mobilized hundreds of thousands of activists from the northern ghettos to the Ivy League college campuses and from the textile factories of North Carolina to the cotton fields of Mississippi.  He rolled out the rhetoric about social justice, raising the minimum wage, a single payer (Medicare for All) national health plan and a massive transfer of public funds from the Pentagon to domestic social programs.

He secured an impressive 18% of the vote in the 1984 Democratic primaries.  Upon defeat,  he immediately capitulated and endorsed the Wall Street Cold Warrior Walter Mondale.  He campaigned for Mondale with the promise that the ‘Rainbow Coalition’ would influence the campaign and subsequent Mondale presidency.  Nothing of the sort happened.  Mondale lost.  Reagan was re-elected.  The ‘rainbow coalition’ was as ephemeral as its namesake.

Four years later, a recycled Jesse Jackson trotted out the same rhetoric, the ‘grass roots’ organizing,  the ghetto gab, the poverty hustle and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow coalition with white and black togetherness… to the amusement of the party bosses and corporate funders.

It was ‘All hands on deck’:  The street movements shifted from concrete local struggles to door-to-door voter registration for the Democrats.  Trade union locals were attracted to Jackson’s ‘save American jobs’ rhetoric.  Middle class progressives were attracted to Jackson’s promise to cut the military budget.

Jackson received a substantial 29% of the Democratic primary vote.  Michael Dukakis won the nomination and, as promised,  Jesse Jackson endorsed the party’s choice and instructed all the civil rights, social justice and peace activists and anti-Wall Streeters to work for his election.  Dukakis was resoundingly defeated by George Bush Sr. in the 1988 election.

At the end of the ‘rainbow’ and over a demoralized and de-politicized peace movement, the Bush Administration led the US into the First Gulf War.  The wreckage from the popular movements- turned- electoral machines offered little resistance.

Confused by Jackson’s double discourse, the disaffected masses fractured.  Four years later, the few pieces were picked up by Wall Street flunky “Bill” Clinton.  Once in office and after tooting his victorious saxophone, President ‘Slick Willy’ proceeded to decimate welfare programs, roll back the Glass-Stiegel Laws and deregulate the banks, launch a merciless ninety day war to break up Yugoslavia and maintain ten years of bombs and starvation sanctions against Iraq – causing the deaths of 500,000 children and many more adults.

Cowboy Dennis Kucinich and the 2004 Primaries:  Keeping Progressive Livestock in the Democratic Party Corral

Just when disgust at the consequences of Clinton’s rotten policies and peccadilloes and George Bush, Jr’s grotesque wars were beginning to unite the disaffected, Dennis Kucinich popped up ‘from nowhere’ to launch a white working class version of the Jesse Jackson ‘Rainbow Coalition’ in the Democratic Party primaries of 2004.  Saving a lot of money on placards, he re-cycled the same slogans about a national health system, minimum wage boost, higher taxes for the rich, anti-Wall Street rhetoric and public ownership of utilities – from the Jacksonites.

Since there was still a substantial strong anti-war movement, he called for the impeachment of President Bush (Jr.) for lying to the American people about Iraq.  He criticized Congressional Democrats for supporting the fabricated pretexts to invade Iraq and called for the withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East.

His presidential primary campaign within the Democratic Party attracted a small army of disaffected voters and contributors who otherwise would have bolted from the party for the Greens and their candidate, Ralph Nader.  In the Democratic Party Convention, Dennis (looking more like ‘Alfred E. Newman’ than any righteous working class leader) petered out with nary a mumble.  He lost the nomination to the Uber-militarist and upper class hero, John Kerry, without even a floor-fight or speech.  He endorsed the obnoxious crown prince of the Democratic bosses, Kerry, an ardent pro-war, member of the billionaire class and defender of the US Constitution-shredding Patriot Act.

Kucinich managed to corral the anti-war and anti-Wall Street Democrats into submission, seriously undermining the anti-Bush mass movements, especially the anti-war activists, and the rising tide of Americans who openly favored the Single Payer National Health program – an extension of Medicare for All.

Kucinich ran again in 2008 but he was already damaged goods.  His ‘belly crawl’ performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention had alienated most of his backers.  But even more important in relegating Dennis to the dustbin was the emergence of a new, slicker and infinitely more persuasive con-man :  Barack Obama, the Hawaii-raised, Ivy-league polished and Chicago-crowned chameleon of many colors, cadences and clichés, who burst on the scene playing every instrument in the band!

Barack Obama:  The Ultimate  Progressive Rabble Rouser and Master of Deceit

Barack Obama’s con-job far surpassed any previous effort by Jackson or Kucinich.  His mind-boggling ascension on rhetorical bubbles left rival Hillary Clinton, long used to the cant of ‘Slick Willie’, literally pop-eyed and slack jawed.  During the 2008 primary he embraced the progressive demands of the anti-war movement, promising to end the Iraq war, bring home the troops from Afghanistan and close the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay.  He promised to finally develop a national health plan (hinting broadly at a Medicare-for-All model) and regulate Wall Street’s unbridled swindles and speculation.

Easily seeing through his fluffy rhetoric, the Democratic Party’s Wall Street backers secured hundreds of millions from billionaires with which to finance a real ‘grass roots movement- in style’  defeating an astonished Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and swamping the mega-millionaire Republican candidate ‘Mitt’ Romney in the general election.

The Zelig-like Obama adopted the Baptist minister’s deep and musical cadences in front of black audiences while savaging and disowning his militant black religious mentor from his Chicago ‘community-organizing’ day, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who had condemned the war in Iraq in frank Biblical terms and alienated his Chicago Zionist financial backers and Israel-centric inner council.  No longer useful, the good Reverend was effectively ‘thrown under the bus’ – an object lesson on introducing Ivy League graduates into mass community struggles and enabling their ambitions.

In office, Obama allocated a trillion dollars to bailout Wall Street while letting two million American householders sink under mortgage debt and foreclosures.

He expanded on-going wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and went on to launch new wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen.  He supported the violent coups against popularly elected governments (‘regime changes’) in Honduras, Ukraine and Egypt.

The re-cycled and bamboozled anti-war leaders, who backed his candidacy and lies, were discredited, the remaining “movement” fractured.

Initially upward of 80% of US public opinion expressed support for the anti-Wall Street ‘Occupy Movement’ but they had no mass-based political organization to sustain the struggle after many of their leaders swam and ultimately sank, tied to the lies of Obama.

Under Obama more American blacks have been murdered by police with complete impunity; more abortion providers assassinated and clinics bombed than under any white Republican president.  As for ‘humanitarian intervention’: In Libya, tens of thousands of ethnic sub-Saharan Africans (contract workers and Libyan citizens) died in the post-Kaddafi ethnic cleansing of Libya by the racist warlords unleashed by Obama’s air assault.

 The bewitched progressives were befuddled by the Ivy League’s ‘black’ president and didn’t notice that social inequalities had deepened at an alarming rate.  As for access to health care, the American people were forced to ‘buy private insurance plans’ (many of which were worthless), meanwhile deductibles and co-pays skyrocketed forcing all but the well-salaried to forego necessary medical care.  The notion that ‘access to health insurance’ was equivalent to having effective health care has been one of the biggest shams of the Obama era:  Life expectancy for large segments of the low income rural and small town Americans has dropped – an unimaginable development in previous eras.

During Obama’s Presidency, the political climate turned rabid rightwing and  the progressives turned tail and ran.  Right wing extremists swept the Republican Party and then seized control of the Congress and the Senate.

After 7 years of failures, frustration and futility under Obama, progressives found themselves without a movement or prospects.  Over 92% of US private sector workers were unorganized and faced continued decline in their standard of living.  Black, Chicano and Asian neighborhoods were subject to large-scale, brutal police raids and the extra-judicial killing of minority youth, the homeless, mentally ill and the poor continued with impunity.  Over 2 million immigrant workers were incarcerated and expelled.  Tens of thousands of young immigrant and refugee mothers and their children were held in private prison camps.

The Republicans promised to extend Obama’s reactionary agenda without the smiling blackface mask.  They assured greater tax handouts to Wall Street, with none of the embarrassing rhetorical flourishes, and more wars, without the sanctimonious ‘humanitarian’ cant.

Against this expanding panorama of social deterioration and war-weariness, (a backdrop, which would normally open up the possibility for alternative politics…), Bernie appeared.  Bernie Sanders was to incarnate the Fourth Coming of the progressive Democratic primary campaigner-messiah and scupper any real movement to the left.

Bernie Sanders:  After the Black Con-Artist Bring out the Jewish House Radical!

By 2015, US society was deeply polarized.  After 7 years of Wall Street pillage, under Democratic President Obama, the mass of working people were looking for an alternative.  On the horizon there was only more of the same promised from the rabid right which ran the Republican Party.  Massive voter abstention had propelled the Republicans to power in ‘both Houses’ in the elections of 2010, 2012 and 2014.  Terror-mongering, the so-called “Global War on Terror”, no longer cut any ice with a population terrified of losing their miserable jobs or getting bankrupted by an illness in the family.  The Pentagon resorted to paying unemployed actors to stage ‘spontaneous’ displays of patriotism at huge sporting events – dressing up as veterans and running about on the fields with huge flags.  There has been a big drop in healthy young Americans willing to ‘sign up’ and fight in overseas wars despite the continued prospect of being mired in poverty-wage jobs in the so-called ‘recovered domestic economy’.  The mass of disaffected working people were not flocking to the Democratic Party’s plutocrat-of-choice, Hilary Clinton, the war monger, Wall Street favorite and pro-Israel candidate par excellence.  The stage was now set for mass voter abstention and a resounding electoral defeat for a deflated Democratic Party with a disgusted electorate.  As a presidential candidate Hillary would have to fight tooth and nail to meet the challenge of even the most marginal lunatic candidate from the increasingly bizarre Republican Party – because the Democrat’s disaffected voter base would stay home.

Behold!  A raspy rabble rouser, a ‘democratic socialist’, floated in on a cloud of self-righteousness, conjuring up the illusion of a movement with promises of ‘profound (and even profounder) changes’.

Like Jackson and Kucinich before him, Sanders launched right into The Rant:  Against Wall Street, for a National Health Plan and a reduction of military spending (but not too much…).  He added a few new planks about cancelling student debt, lowering tuition, ending the cap on the social security tax and greater regulation of Wall Street.

Early polls have given Sanders 25% of the Democratic preferences.

Bernie assured his worried Democratic Party handlers that should Madame Clinton win the primaries, Bernie (and his followers) would immediately and unconditionally support the Party’s war mongering, Wall Street  candidate of choice.

What are we to make of his promises and his radical program, if from one day to the other he can easily make a 180 degree turn to support the most discredited dregs of the Democratic Party – those largely responsible for the country’s social and economic decline?

Conclusion

The whole history of Democratic Party ‘progressives’ is one of deceit, hypocrisy and betrayal of millions of workers, minorities and other oppressed and excluded groups.

They rant and rave, till the votes are counted and then they dissolve their electoral organization and push their supporters into the Party electoral campaign!

They do not continue the struggle outside of the corrupt party – they simply go belly up, ‘graciously conceding defeat’ and waging their tails hoping for a reward (like some inconsequential, toothless position within the administration) if the Democrats win.

After every one of the ‘radicals’ defeats, their supporters are left adrift.  Indeed, they are worse off than before because their movements had been diverted into the Democratic primaries and away from the communities.  The historical record is clear:  After Jesse Jackson lost, the Rainbow Coalition fell apart; civil rights movements were weakened; police violence against blacks continued and even worsened.

After Kucinich ran and lost, his grass roots supporters within the trade unions had no mechanism to block the relocation of auto, steel and textile plants overseas.

After Obama conned progressive Americans, the peace and justice movement virtually disappeared.  The church, trade union, neighborhood alliances who celebrated Barack Obama’s ‘historic victory’ have in reality experienced historical retreats.  The only things “historic” about Obama’s terms in office  have been (1) the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street, (2) the number of simultaneous wars  waged by the Pentagon, (3) the millions of people of color slaughtered in Libya, Syria, and Yemen (4) the thousands of minorities killed in  cities, big and small of the USA (5) and the tens of thousands lost to premature deaths in  economically devastated rural and small town America.

The current “Bernie” Sanders road-show is just recycling the past, right down to the same rhetorical and inconsequential promises of his predecessors’ .

Some of his gullible followers  claim that he is important for “raising issues” – when in fact he will just raise them and then demoralize their advocates.

Other pundits claim he is ‘challenging’ the Democratic Party ‘from the left’  when in fact he is doing everything possible to prevent millions of disaffected ex-Democratic voters, mostly workers and minorities, from rejecting the Democrats and joining or forming alternative political movements.

The key to understanding why millions of Americans, fed up with 30 years of declining living and health standards, deepening inequalities and perpetual wars, do not form an ‘alternative party’ is that they have been repeatedly conned and corralled in the Democratic Party by the “house radicals.

Jackson, Kucinich, Obama and Sanders promised radical changes in the primaries and then have gone on to hand their supporters, mostly disaffected workers, over to the Party oligarchs, abandoning them without their past social movements or future hope:  like cast-off condoms.  Is there any wonder why so many abstain!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Democratic Party Primaries: U.S. “Progressives” as Political Contraceptives

A Letter to the Western Youth on Islam. Why are People Frightened?

November 23rd, 2015 by Sayyid Ali Khamenei

This Letter was first published on January 21, 2015 in the immediate wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris

The recent events in France and similar ones in other Western countries have persuaded me to speak to you directly about them. I address you, the youth, not because I disregard your parents; rather, it is because I see the future of your peoples and nations to lie in your hands and the quest for truth to be more alive and conscious in your hearts. I do not address your politicians and statesmen either, because I believe that they have deliberately separated politics from honesty and truth.

I would like to talk to you about Islam, in particular the image of it that has been portrayed to you. Many attempts have been made over the past two decades—since about the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union—to depict this magnificent religion as a terrifying and hostile force.

Unfortunately the instigation and exploitation of fear and hatred has a long history in Western politics. Here, I do not wish to go over all the different “phobias” with which Westerners have been inculcated up until now. By just taking a cursory glance at recent critical studies of history, you will clearly see that in the revised histories, Western powers have been criticised for their insincere and deceptive treatment of other peoples and cultures.

If the history of America and Europe could self-reflect, it would be ashamed of its slavery, guilt-ridden by the colonial period, and embarrassed by its oppression of people of colour and non-Christians. Your academics and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodshed wrought in the name of religion between Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during the First and Second World Wars. This in itself is commendable.

Moreover, by recounting here only a part of this long history, I do not intend to condemn it; rather, by it I would like you to ask your intellectuals as to why it is that the public conscience in the West awakens and comes to its senses only after a lag of several decades, or sometimes even centuries. Why should this revision within the collective conscience apply only to the distant past and not to contemporary issues? Why is it that attempts are made to prevent public awareness regarding an issue as important as the manner in which Islamic culture and thought have been treated?

You know well that humiliation and spreading hatred and imaginary fear of the “other” have been the common stock of all those oppressive exploitations. But now, I would like you to ask yourself this: Why is it that the old policy of spreading “phobia” and hatred has targeted Islam and the Muslims with an unprecedented intensity? Why do the powers that be in today’s world seek to marginalise and pacify Islamic thought? What ideas and values in Islam disturb the stratagems of the super powers, and what interests of theirs are safeguarded by misrepresenting Islam?

Hence, my first request is that you question and probe the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam.

My second request is that in response to the overwhelming prejudices and propaganda at hand, try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion. Basic reason dictates that at the least you understand the nature of what it is that they are frightening you about and distancing you from.

I do not insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is this: Do not allow this vital and transformative reality in today’s world to be introduced to you based on ulterior and dubious motives. Do not allow them to guilefully introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam.

Receive knowledge of Islam from original and firsthand sources. Become acquainted with Islam through the Qur’an and the life of its great Prophet. I would like to ask you whether you have directly referred to the Qur’an of the Muslims. Have you studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his humane, ethical doctrines? Have you ever received the message of Islam from any source other than the media?

Have you ever asked yourself how and on the basis of which values did this very same Islam, through many centuries of its history, cultivate the greatest scientific and intellectual civilization of the world and produce the most distinguished scientists and intellectuals?

I would like you not to allow the derogatory and despicable misrepresentations to create an emotional gulf between you and the truth, taking away the possibility of an impartial judgment from you. Now that modern means of communication have effectively allowed you to break through geographical boundaries and fences, do not allow them to besiege you within imaginary boundaries and fabricated fences.

Although no one can single handedly narrow the rifts that have been created, each one of you can construct a proverbial bridge of ‘fair thought’ so as to enlighten yourself and those around you [about what lies on the other side]. While this staged confrontation between Islam and you, the youth, is not a pleasant affair, it can serve to bring about new questions in your inquisitive minds. Attempts to find answers to these questions will provide you with valuable opportunities to discover new truths.

Therefore, do not miss the opportunity to gain a proper and unbiased understanding of Islam so that perhaps, due to your sense of responsibility towards the truth, future generations will write about this period of history of the interaction between Islam and the West with less aggravation and with a clearer conscience.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Letter to the Western Youth on Islam. Why are People Frightened?

The “War on Terror” Made us Unsafe

November 23rd, 2015 by Jamal Kanj

On a Thursday night, terrorists blew themselves up in the streets of Beirut. The next day, co-ordinated terrorist attacks in des rues of Paris. The same perpetrators targeted Muslims and Christians in the two different capitals. 

Just a month ago, it was a moving scene watching European women and men holding signs welcoming refugees arriving at train stations. Thus, the horrific attacks would become even more appalling if there was any truth to the news these terrorists might have hid among refugees to reach France. Especially since refugees found better reception in Europe than anywhere else, including many of the Arab and Muslim countries. And for these terrorists to exploit that hospitality is neither Arab nor a Muslim value.

There could be no rationalisation to the terrorist attacks in Paris or the atrocious murders in Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus or Nigeria. Putting aside our virtuous indignation, however, we mustn’t forget the so-called Islamic State (IS) was the illegitimate child of George Bush’s “birth bangs of democracy.” The misguided US-led Western interventionist policies created the environment that gave birth to the refugees and terrorists.

A programme was designed for Israel by Zioncons’ appointees in the dens of the US State Department and the Pentagon.

Lasting conflicts and fragmentations of the Arab world were envisioned more than 30 years ago by former Israeli foreign ministry official Oded Yinon. In a 1982 treatise in Kivunim (Directions), the official journal of the World Zionist Organisation, Yinon argued that the future priorities for the “Jewish State” (JS) are “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq … into ethnically or religiously unique areas.” Almost 30 years earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett proposed the same for Lebanon.

IS and JS have a shared strategy: A perpetual conflict between Islam and the West is critical for their respective survival.

IS gets its oxygen from US and Western powers’ unchecked diplomatic and financial support for JS. IS ideology flourishes on Western pandering to JS as an exceptionalist state beyond reproach, defying UN resolutions with complete impunity. Following Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington, Israel is in line to be rewarded, again, for its intransigence and attempts to derail the nuclear deal between the West and Iran.

Israeli planned and Western executed “dissolution of Syria and Iraq,” Lebanon, Yemen and Libya into ethnic or religious entities have become fertile grounds for dissention. Offering Islamist’s demagogues the perfect recipe to manipulate feeble minded individuals to rally around “IS” believing they were avenging their religion.

Alas, all of this was already predictable; a known consequence and anticipated outcome by US intelligence agencies.

In August 2002, CIA analysts authored a study ‘The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq.’ It predicted the breakup of Iraq, regional instability, and surge of global terrorism.

In a pre-war briefing, the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was presented with two intelligence assessments warning that the Iraq invasion would lead to anarchy and rise of terrorism. In January 2003 the National Intelligence Council think-tank issued an assessment forecasting that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists.

Despite the red flags, the Bush administration opted to heed the advice of Israeli advocates. Ideologues who were trained at the offices of America Israel Public Affairs Committee and Israeli think-tanks in Washington. After election, large donors from the winning party recommend them to occupy policy making positions in the Pentagon and the State Department.

The Zioncons redirected the war compass from Al Qaeda to fight Israel’s wars. According to a Bush administration insider’s book during a policy discussion, Israeli firster Paul Wolfowitz advocated, “We don’t have to deal with Al Qaeda … We have to talk about” Iraq.

Just one day before the Iraq invasion, US Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech, which was likely prepared, or at least proofed by Zioncon and Chief of Staff Scooter Libby where Cheney foolishly claimed “we will … be greeted as liberators” in Iraq.

Today it’s not enough to mourn Paris or Beirut’s victims. We must also remember the estimated 1.3 million people who were banished directly and indirectly by the deviated “war on terrorism.” For the Zioncons’ conceived war has offered more than 1.3m reasons to recruit terrorists.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “War on Terror” Made us Unsafe

From the horse’s mouth: For fear of upsetting readers, the paper silenced any commentary in the first days after the Paris attacks that might have suggested there was a causal relationship between western foreign policy in the Middle East and those events.

Instead, writes the Guardian reader’s editor Chris Elliott, the paper waited several days before giving some limited space to that viewpoint:

On the Opinion pages, one factor taken into consideration was timing – judging when readers would be willing to engage with an idea that in the first 24 hours after the attacks may have jarred. The idea that these horrific attacks have causes and that one of those causes may be the west’s policies is something that in the immediate aftermath might inspire anger. Three days later, it’s a point of view that should be heard.

In other words, the liberal Guardian held off offering a counter-narrative about the attacks, and a deeply plausible one at that, until popular opinion had hardened into a consensus manipulated by the rightwing media: “the terrorists hate us for our freedoms”, “we need to bomb them even harder”, “Islam is a religion of hatred” etc.

Excluding legitimate analyses of profoundly important events like those in Paris when they are most needed is not responsible, careful journalism. It is dangerous cowardice. It is most definitely not a politically neutral position. It provides room for hatred and bigotry to take root, and allows political elites to exploit those debased emotions to justify and advance their own, invariably destructive foreign policy agendas.

In the paragraph above, Elliott happily concedes that this is the default position of mainstream liberal media like the Guardian.

Notes:
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Silencing of Readers’ Commentary: British Media Admits its Cowardice over Paris Terror Attacks

Similar to a heroin addict, Western nations have a destructive addiction which they are so dependent on, they appear unwilling to give it up.  Funding radical terror organisations is the modus operandi of many prominent nations in NATO, with the US, UK and France, playing a prominent role. From the Afghan Mujahideen to the so-called Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS), extremist groups have been used as geopolitical tools by the West for decades.

Over 120 people dead and hundreds injured, the tragic scenes in France have shocked many people in Europe. ISIS has claimed responsibility for terror attacks in other regions of the globe recently, including in Lebanon, where at least 44 people were brutally killed. Dabiq, the magazine of ISIS, has also just published a photo of parts of a homemade bomb that they claim was used in the atrocious terrorist attack on the Russian passenger plane in the Sinai Peninsula, which killed over 220 people.

The West is Complicit in the Paris Attacks

 Despite all the grandstanding and rhetoric from the French President and Western leaders, a critical point that needs to be emphasised is that Western governments are complicit in the Paris attacks and any future terror attacks (there will be more). If we put aside for a second the thesis that the Paris attack was a false flag operation or that French intelligence simply allowed it to happen, what can’t be disputed is that Western foreign policy has directly resulted in the rise of terrorism globally, most notably the rise of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra.

These groups would not have the resources and global reach to launch any attacks in the West if they had not been armed, trained and let loose on the Syrian government by NATO members in collusion with regional allies. For those who have been following the proxy war in Syria and the nefarious and insidious policies of the West, this latest attack comes as no surprise.

Here’s just some of the plethora of evidence that Western nations – or the terror pushers – have been supporting extremists to overthrow the Syrian government:

  • ‘The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,’ was the assessment of the opposition by the Defense Intelligence Agency in their declassified intelligence report from 2012.
  • The French government delivered vast sums of money to the Syrian rebels in 2012, which was used to buy guns and ammunition.
  • French President Francois Hollande confirmed in 2014 that France had delivered arms to the Syrian rebels to fight Assad.
  • The UK has been pouring millions into the Syrian opposition for years, with reports from 2013 claiming Britain was involved in an operation with other European states and the US to provide the Syrian rebels with 3,000 tons of weapons, sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb in Croatia, to the rebels.
  • Roland Dumas, the former French minister of Foreign Affairs, , revealed that the war in Syria was ‘prepared, preconceived and planned’ at least ‘two years before the violence’ erupted in 2011. Dumas said he was approached in the UK by ‘top British officials’ to see if he would participate in “organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria”.
  • In 2015, a Swedish national called Bherlin Gildo was accused of fighting for Syrian rebel groups – including Jabhat al-Nusra (read al-Qaeda in Syria) – but the case was quickly dropped after his lawyer’s cleverly argued that British intelligence was involved in arming and providing non-lethal aid to the very same terrorist groups he was allegedly fighting for.
  • The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael T. Flynn, revealed in a recent interview that the Obama administration took the ‘willful decision’ to support the rise of the Syrian rebels in 2012, even though Washington knew the opposition was composed of extreme terror groups.
  • As Tony Cartalucci reported earlier this year, an ISIS mercenary confessed to Pakistani authorities that he received fundsthat were routed through the US in order to ‘recruit young people to fight in Syria’.
  • The CIA has been shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels for years, whilst selling the practice to the public under the auspices of only supplying (phantom) ‘moderate’ groups.

Considering the policy of NATO in Syria, does anyone actually believe that the strategists in London, Paris, Brussels and Washington, did not foresee blowback from their strategy?  It’s hardly rocket science to figure out that if you fund and arm a bunch of crazed terrorists to overthrow a secular government in the Middle East, they are going to carry out terror attacks in other parts of the world.

This leads to the question: Do Western leaders welcome more attacks? Europe has literally created the perfect climate for terror attacks by funding and arming radical groups in Syria, and then flooding Europe with refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa – which of course allows terrorists to enter with ease alongside the innocent people displaced by imperial Western wars and proxy wars. Obviously, the only viable solution to the refugee crisis is the stabilization of the Syrian state and the wider region, meaning the West has to abandon its drive to overthrow Assad and balkanize the nation. 

Terror Attacks Fuel the Totalitarian Surveillance State 

It is clear that Western countries have been using the hoax of the ‘war on terror’ as a justification to impose totalitarian control domestically, in addition to using it to mobilize public opinion for imperial wars abroad. The US, UK and France, can’t justify a dystopian surveillance state without terror attacks, and these attacks allow the government to impose policies that the population would have never have accepted prior to the crisis. As the Mayor of Chicago and former White House Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel,stated in 2008:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that: it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.

Prior to 9/11, the majority of people in the West would find a pervasive, expensive, illegal and pernicious surveillance state to be a severe violation of their basic rights – including the right to privacy and the rule of law. After 9/11, the majority of people in the West appear to be willing to live in Nazi Germany to supposedly stop these Western-created terrorists from attacking, even though surrendering all your basic rights to the government does not give you safety or security.

Snooping by the National Security Agency (NSA) has intensified dramatically in the US over the past 14 years. According to high-level NSA whistleblower, William Binney, the objective of the agency is ‘total population control’. The surveillance state in the UK hasexpanded at an alarming rate since 2001, and has accelerated since the 7/7 bombings in London. Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks at the beginning of the year in Paris, the French parliament has passed a surveillance bill which allows intelligence agencies to ‘circumvent the need for judicial warrants’. Many privacy advocates have rightly dubbed this the ‘French Patriot Act’, and we can expect the French government to demand even more 1984-style surveillance powers after the latest attacks.

Will the West Halt this Abhorrent Strategy in Syria?

 In recent days there have been a few signs that some Western nations may be finally coming to their senses in regards to Syria at least, as European powers appear to be edging towards more rational dialogue. Reports suggest that the UK and Russia may begin to cooperate more closely in regards to Syria after the G20 summit, with Vladimir Putin stating that there is ‘some upturn’ in otherwise frosty relations between the two countries. General Sir David Richards, the former Chief of Defense Staff, also recently urged Britain to work with Assad to defeat ISIS, since attempting to overthrow Assad whilst simultaneously (supposedly) fighting ISIS, is not a ‘plausible’ strategy.

Additionally, Francois Hollande seemed to refrain from outright demonizing the Syrian President in a recent statement, stating that ISIS is the ‘enemy’ in Syria, although his comments are slightly ambiguous. As Sputnik reported, the French President said during an emergency meeting at the French parliament:

In Syria, we’re looking for the political solution to the problem, which is not Bashar Assad. Our enemy in Syria is ISIL.

Certain forces in Washington are one of the major obstacles to peace in Syria, as the US has not seriously been targeting the group they helped create, and are still trying to annihilate the legitimate, secular Syrian government. Russian Foreign Minister,Sergey Lavrov, recently stated that the US-led airstrikes against ISIS were ‘hitting selectively, I would say sparingly, and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army.’ He added that Washington’s position ‘seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state.’ 

Considering the destructive role that the US, Britain and France, have played in Syria and the wider region, it is difficult to believe these countries will truly implement rational and sane policies anytime soon. These powers are just as likely to exploit the recent tragedy to further their belligerent drive for regime change in Syria, and bomb Syrian infrastructure under the guise of fighting ISIS. Hopefully Russian leadership in the world will encourage the West to move in the direction of sanity however.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Terror Junkies and the Paris Attacks: The ISIS and the West’s “Addiction” to Funding Radical Groups

The Assembly of States Parties is meeting this month in The Hague to review the work of the International Criminal Court and to discuss the ICC’s budget. The ASP is the International Criminal Court’s management oversight and legislative body. The Assembly also elects the judges and prosecutors and decides the Court’s budget. The court’s proposed budget for 2016 amounts to €153.32 million, representing an increase of €22.66 million, or 17.3 per cent, over the 2015 approved budget. At face value, far from increasing the budget for the ICC, the Assembly of State Parties should be demanding a refund.

Established in 2002, the ICC is an impotent billion euro white elephant. 2015 has been a particularly bad year for the court. It has botched the Kenyan cases it has undertaken and its continuing alienation from Africa was centre-stage internationally when South Africa, previously a keen member, publicly ignored ICC arrest warrants and appears on the verge of withdrawal from the organisation – something seen by observers as a death knell for the court.

The International Criminal Court has self-evidently failed across the board. In 2010 the ICC-friendlyEconomist had already found it necessary to publish an article about the ICC entitled “International justice: Courting disaster?” Things have worsened considerably since then. The ICC has consumed more than a billion euros in its 13-year existence and has only secured two deeply questionable convictions. The ICC’s claims to international jurisdiction and judicial independence are institutionally flawed and the court’s reputation has been irretrievably damaged by its racism, blatant double standards, hypocrisy, corruption and serious judicial irregularities. The Assembly of State Parties should also accept that it has grotesquely neglected its responsibility to manage the court. The ASP has turned a blind eye to systemic failure on the part of the ICC.

While the ICC pretends to be the world’s court this is simply not the case. Its members, however, represent under one-third of the world’s population: China, Russia, the United States, Pakistan and Indonesia are just some of the many countries that have remained outside the court’s jurisdiction. India, the world’s largest democracy, has chosen not to join the ICC because the court is subordinate to the United Nations Security Council and because it does not criminalise terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons. The United States has forcefully pointed out that the ICC is a kangaroo court, a travesty of justice open to political influence, and has said that no American citizen will ever come before it. That said, Washington is perfectly happy when it suits American foreign policy objectives to demand that black Africans appear before a deeply flawed court peddling sub-prime justice.

The ICC pretends to be independent. Far from being an independent and impartial court, the ICC grants special “prosecutorial” rights of referral and deferral to the UN Security Council – by default its five permanent members (three of which are not even ICC members). The court is also inextricably tied to the European Union which provides over 60 percent of its funding. The ICC has come to be seen within Africa very much as a European-funded and directed instrument of European foreign policy.

The Office of the Prosecutor, for example, has to date received approximately 9,000 complaints about alleged crimes in 139 countries. From these almost nine thousand alleged instances of serious abuses of human rights, the ICC has acted in eight African “situations”, and indicted 39 Africans, to the exclusion of any complaints implicating white Europeans and North Americans or their protégés. The ICC has turned a blind eye to self-evident human rights abuses well within its jurisdiction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an ICC member state. As a result the court can investigate alleged war crimes committed by citizens of any country, ICC Member State or not, within its borders. Tens of thousands of civilians have died and well over one hundred thousand have been injured in the conflict in Afghanistan, many of them at the hands of NATO and US forces. The ICC has however ignored any allegations of war crimes by NATO, US or EU citizens in Afghanistan.

The ICC promised “swift justice” but took several years to bring the first accused to trial for allegedly using child soldiers. The Nuremberg trials, which addressed infinitely more serious charges, were over and done within a year. The ICC pretends to be victim-centred yet Human Rights Watch has publicly criticised the ICC’s ambivalence toward victim communities. The court promised to usher in a new era of gender justice. Women’s rights specialists such as Professor Louise Chappell have noted that the ICC’s record in this respect “has been partial and inconsistent”, and that “The ICC’s legitimacy is fragile.”

Despite having consumed more than one billion euros the ICC has also shown itself to be stunningly dysfunctional. The court’s proceedings thus far have often been questionable where not simply farcical. At the heart of any judicial process is testimony provided by witnesses. The court has produced witnesses who recanted their testimony the moment they got into the witness box, admitting that they were coached by non-governmental organisations as to what false statements to make. In its first trial, that of Thomas Lubanga, a process that lasted seven years, the judges found all but one of the alleged former child soldiers presented as witnesses by the Prosecution to be unreliable. Dozens of other “witnesses” have either been similarly discredited or disavowed their “evidence”. This hallmark of incompetence continues to this day. Most recently the ICC prosecutor had to admit that one of its own star witnesses in its case against Kenyan Vice-President Ruto was “thoroughly unreliable and incredible”. In reality it is the Office of the Prosecutor that has been revealed to be thoroughly unreliable and unprofessional.

There have been scandalous examples of prosecutorial misconduct, not least of which the ICC Chief Prosecutor hiding hundreds of items of exculpatory evidence, which should have ended any trial because they would have compromised the integrity of any legal process. The ASP has simply stood by doing nothing.

That the International Criminal Court is corrupt is also self-evident. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionarydefines “corrupt” as “destroyed in purity, debased; vitiated by errors or alterations.” The Assembly of State Parties is responsible for the appointment of judges to the ICC. It is in the selection of judges that the ASP and ICC have been at their most corrupt. ICC judges – some of whom have never been lawyers, let alone judges – are the result of grubbily corrupt vote-trading within the Assembly of State Parties amongst member states and delegates. The relationship between appointments to the ICC and vote trading between states is an open secret. Selecting International Judges: Principle, Process, and Politics, a ground-breaking study of international judicial appointments, written by Professor Philippe Sands QC, and others as part of Oxford University Press’ International Courts and Tribunals Series, concluded that “the evidence leads unequivocally to the conclusion that merit is not the main driving factor in the election processes.” The study also revealed that “[m]any individuals who participate in the ICC process believe it to be even more politicized than other international judicial elections.” The sheer corruption of the process aside, the reality is that vote-trading results in mediocre judges which in turn leads to a dysfunctional, politicised court.

It is clear that the both the Assembly of States Parties and the International Criminal Court are simply unfit for purpose. Far from granting the ICC yet more money, both the ASP and the ICC should be defunded and disbanded.

Dr David Hoile is the Director of the Africa Research Centre and author of Justice Denied: The Reality of the International Criminal Court, a 610-page study of the ICC. The book is available to read or download at www.africaresearchcentre.org. The author can be contacted by email at[email protected].

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Time to “Defund” the International Criminal Court, Should the ICC be Disbanded?

A U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” in Syria and Iraq is expected to be adopted in the next few days

Russia’s resolution for the creating of an international anti-ISIS coalition has been tabled by the U.N. Security Council because it calls for cooperation with Assad (which of course is “unacceptable”). But France has now proposed a similar resolution, and it’s likely to pass

World powers are poised to forge a single resolution at the United Nations Security Council to declare a common war against Isis and “eradicate” jihadists in Iraq and Syria, The Independent understands.

The attacks in Paris as well as the downing of the Russian jet over the Sinai Peninsula have galvanised a hitherto divided Security Council. And a new reality exists: with its alleged execution this week of a Chinese national, Isis has now slaughtered citizens of all five permanent Security Council members.

French officials said they were formally submitting a draft resolution to the Security Council, pushing aside a competing draft offered by Russia earlier this week. It could be adopted as early as Friday or over the weekend.

The French manoeuvre reflected confidence that its resolution would not provoke Russian or Chinese vetoes and would thus win approval.

The text, shared with the The Independent, calls on member states “with the capacity to do so” to “take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of Isil [Isis] in Syria and Iraq, 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 in Iraq and Syria”.

We are in favor of any international, multilateral effort to erradicate psychos with guns. But if this resolution passes, will the U.S. stop “accidentally” delivering weapons to ISIS? Curious minds want to know.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Security Council Resolution Tabled by Russia: The Creation of an Anti-ISIS Coalition “Authorizing All Necessary Measures” Against The Islamic State, Will the US Comply?