Global Research

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge has posted the flight paths of the Russian aircraft according to Turkey and to Russia.

One reason is that NATO governments lie every time that they open their mouths.

A second reason is that Turkey’s claim that the SU-24 was in Turkey’s airspace for 17 seconds but only traveled 1.15 miles means that the SU-24 was flying at stall speed!  

The entire Western media was too incompetent to do the basic math!

A third reason is that, assuming Turkey’s claim of a 17 second airspace violation is true, 17 seconds is not long enough for a Turkish pilot to get clearance for such a serious and reckless act as shooting down a Russian military aircraft. If the SU-24 was flying at a normal speed rather than one that would be unable to keep the aircraft aloft, the alleged airspace vioation would not have been long enough to be noticed.  A shootdown had to have been pre-arranged. The Turks, knowing that the Russians were foolishly trusting to the agreement that there be no air to air encounters, told pilots to look for an opportunity.  In my recent article, I gave a reason for this reckless act:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/24/turkey-has-destroyed-russias-delusion-of-western-cooperation-paul-craig-roberts/

Turkey’s explanation to the UN Security Council  gives itself away as a lie. The letter states:

“This morning (24 November) 2 SU-24 planes, the nationality of which are unknown have approached Turkish national airspace. The Planes in question have been warned 10 times during a period of 5 minutes via ‘Emergency’ channel and asked to change their headings south immediately.”

As SU-24 are Russian aircraft, as Turkey is able to identify that the aircraft are SU-24s, how then can the nationality of the aircraft be unknown?  Would Turkey risk shooting down a US or Israeli aircraft by firing at an unknown aircraft? If the SU-24 takes 17 seconds to fly 1.15 miles, the SU-24s would have only traveled 20.29 miles in five minutes. Does anyone believe that a supersonic aircraft can fly at stall speed for 17 seconds, much less for five minutes?

Do not expect any truth from any Western government or from any Western media.  Governments and media know that the Western populations are uneducated, unaware, and can be relied upon to accept any preposterous story.  In the West the Matrix has a firm grip.  The Russians need to wake up to this fact.

NPR this morning confirmed that the media is a government propaganda organ.  The Diane Rehm show on NPR presented us with a group of talking heads.  Only one was informed, a professor at the Middle East Institute of the London School of Economics.  The rest of the “experts” were the typical dumbshit Americans.  They repeated all of the lies.  “Russia is attacking everyone except ISIS.”  How can there be anyone but ISIS to attack when the US general overseeing the area recently told Congress that “only 5” of our trained “rebels” remained?  Yet the myth of “moderate rebels” is kept alive by these liars.

“The refugees are fleeing the brutal Assad.”  Notice that it is always Assad who is brutal, not ISIS which has cut out opponents hearts and eaten them and routinely cuts off peoples heads and commits the most atrocious atrocities.  Here we have “experts” blaming Assad. The “experts” said that the refugees are fleeing from Assad not from ISIS.  The refugee problem is Assad’s fault, not the faut of ISIS.  It is all Assad’s fault because he doesn’t give up and turn Syria over to Washington’s ISIS henchmen.

There was no acknowledgement from the “experts” that ISIS is a Washington creation or that until the Paris attack Washington was strongly backing ISIS with both words and weapons against  the Russian air attacks that caught both Washington and ISIS off guard.  This is extraordinary considering the fact that US responsibility for ISIS was acknowledged on TV by the former head of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency.

https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

Gullible Americans who give money to NPR are supporting lies and propaganda that have resulted in the deaths and dislocation of millions of peoples and that are leading to WWIII. The Western media whores are complicit in the crimes, because they fail their responsibility to hold government accountable and make it impossible for valid information to reach people. The Western media serves as cheerleaders for death and destruction.

Russia on Wednesday confirmed the rescue of the second pilot of the downed Russian Su-24 warplane, while air defense missile systems would be deployed in Syria.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu confirmed the rescue of the second pilot by Russian and Syrian forces.

The 12-hour rescue mission ended successfully with all participants “taking great risks all night long,” Tass news agency quoted Shoigu as saying.

Two pilots ejected from the downed Su-24 on Tuesday. A senior Russian military official said Tuesday evening that preliminary reports showed one pilot was killed by ground fire in Syria.

The Russian Defense Ministry also announced that new-generation S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft missile systems would be deployed in the Hmeimim airbase on the orders of President Vladimir Putin.

Shoigu said Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser is ready at new combat duty position near Syria’s Latakia.

“We have taken the high priority measures … Moskva is ready to destroy any air target of potential danger to our aircraft,” Shoigu said.

All further operations of Russian aircraft in Syria would be conducted only under the cover of fighter jets, while all military contacts with Turkey would be frozen, Shoigu stressed.

A Russian Su-24 warplane was shot down by Turkish air force on Tuesday as Ankara claimed the aircraft violated Turkish airspace.

Turkey said two of its F-16 fighters took action after many warnings against the Su-24 while Russia has claimed that its bomber posed no threat to Turkey and had not intruded Turkey’s airspace.

Putin criticized the action as “stab in the back from accomplices of terrorists” and warned of serious consequences.

Rescued co-pilot from the downed Russian Su-24 jet said there were no visual or radio warnings issued by Turkey.

Turkey’s shooting down of the Russian anti-ISIL aircraft was an unprecedentedly direct aggression against Moscow that trumps even the tense and hostile militarism of the Old Cold War era. The world stands on edge in the immediate aftermath of this attack, with tabloid-esque commentators warning that the beginning of World War III awaits. President Putin, for his part, has been much more measured in responding to the incident, but still couldn’t contain his shock at having received this “stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists.”

The question now comes down to how Russia will respond to what happened, but perhaps even more important for observers to ponder is why the US is unofficially distancing itself from its ally’s aggression. Despite both NATO and Obama giving full backing to Turkey’s fateful decision, Reuters has quoted an anonymous American military official that purposely leaked that the Russian plane was downed while over Syrian airspace, basing the assessment on heat signature detection. This raises questions about why the US is playing both sides of the fence – on one hand, publicly supporting Turkey, while on the other, strategically releasing information that conflicts with Turkey’s official depiction of events.

The Setup:

This dichotomy is suggestive of a Machiavellian plan whereby the US manipulates both Turkey and Russia into behaving according to what it has already forecast as their most likely responses, knowing full well that these could be guided into supporting grander American strategic interests. For starters, the US likely intimated to Erdogan that not only does he have the ‘legal’ right to shoot down any Russian aircraft he chooses, but that the US would actually prefer for him to take this course of action sooner than later. This is reminiscently similar to how the US put Sakkashvili up to bombing Tskhinval and invading South Ossetia – it may not have directly issued an official, on-paper order for this to occur, but it left no ambiguity as to how it wanted its proxy to act in each situation.

According To Plan:

For the most part, this explains the public pronouncements of NATO and the US’ support for Turkey’s actions, and it also goes a long way in soothing Erdogan’s nerves and reassuring him that he did the right thing. The predicted aftereffect of the plane’s downing was an immediate deterioration of Russian-Turkish relations, with the full consequences potentially affecting the diplomatic, military, economic, and energy spheres. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cancelled his upcoming trip to Turkey and advised Russian tourists to refrain from visiting the country due to the terrorism level being similar to Egypt’s. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has spoken about the possibility of barring Turkish companies from the Russian market and cancelling planned nuclear and gas projects with the country.

All of these prospective actions are fully justifiable and grounded in the self-respect that Russia feels in not aiding what has proven itself to be a militantly hostile state no matter the economic stakes involved, but at the same time, one can’t help but wonder whether this is exactly what the US wanted. There’s no doubt that Russia would react this way, as even a cursory glance of its potential ‘response toolkit’ indicates that these are the most likely to be taken amidst any deterioration of relations. Therefore, it can’t be discounted that the US put Erdogan up to shooting down the Russian jet precisely to provoke the predictable Russian response in threatening to cancel its forthcoming energy projects with Turkey, the core of the strategic partnership between the two. If this is the case, and it certainly seems likely, then it shows exactly how far the US is willing to go to make sure that Russian energy (and subsequently, all of the soft power and multipolar advantages that come with it) doesn’t enter the Balkans through the Turkish Stream megaproject, likely because it understands the transformative impact that this would eventually have on the entire region.

The Curveball:

Thus far, everything seems reasonable and well within the realm of predictability, but the curveball comes with the Reuters revelation that an unnamed American military source is essentially saying that the Russian position is justified. Unexpectedly, it now seems as though the US is also playing to Russia’s side to an extent, and this raises questions about what it really wants. After all, it’s been proven beyond any doubt that American-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles were used to down the Russian rescue helicopter that attempted to retrieve the two pilots. With this indisputable evidence of indirect American aggression against Russia, it certainly is a curious fact that the US establishment would purposely leak a statement saying that the Turkey downed the Russian plane in Syrian airspace, and basically take Russia’s side on this behind the scenes.

Playing The Kurdish Card:

Explaining this diplomatic twist requires knowledge about the popular response that Russian citizens and global supporters worldwide are requesting to Turkey’s aggression. They quite reasonably propose that Russia intensify its arms shipments to anti-ISIL Kurdish fighters, with the wink-and-a-nod approval that some of them would be siphoned off to the PKK and be used against the Turkish military. This is an effective and pragmatic plan, and in reality, it actually doesn’t even require a policy shift from Moscow because support is already being rendered to some Kurdish groups as part of their joint cooperation in the anti-ISIL struggle. The Kurdish Insurgency hasn’t gone away since Erdogan unwittingly unearthed it this summer as an electioneering tool, and the fact that it’s still going strong even after the elections has scared him so much that he might have been the one who ordered the recent assassination attempt against pro-Kurdish HDP co-chairman Selahattin Demirtas. Thus, if Russia chooses to inflict an asymmetrical response to Turkey by beefing up its indirect support for the PKK and other Turkish-based anti-government Kurds or disrupting Blue Stream gas supplies in order to provoke an intensified rebellion, then it could certainly inflict a heavy amount of strategic damage to Erdogan and increase the likelihood either of a military coup in Turkey (explained more in detail as part of a different article accessible here) and/or the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

That being said, the US has traditionally been the out-of-regional power that has the greatest interest in Kurdistan, seeing the possible state as a ‘geopolitical Israel’ from which it can simultaneously exert influence on the rump portions of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The strategic trajectory of a theorized Kurdish state has been complicated by the anti-ISIL campaign, however, since many Kurds have shown themselves to be pragmatic in cooperating with Russia and Iran against this shared threat. The positive multipolar cooperation that each of these countries has engaged in with the Kurds challenges the US’ planned hegemony over them and their territory, and it thus means that any forthcoming independent Kurdish political entity could theoretically go either towards the multipolar or the unipolar camps. At this point in time, and given all of the dynamic military and diplomatic developments of the past couple of months, the loyalty of a future Kurdish state (no matter if its boundaries are confined only to present-day Turkey and/or Iraq) is totally up for grabs, and it’s impossible to accurately forecast which way it will go.

The strategic ambiguity that this entails means a few things to the US and Russia. For the US, it indicates that the time is now for it to bunker down and support Kurdistan’s independence before it loses the strategic initiative to Russia, which might be moving in this direction (whether formally or informally) out of grand geopolitical spite for Turkey. Moscow, as was just mentioned, seems inclined to hit Ankara where it hurts most, and that’s through supporting the Kurdish Insurgency in one way or another. However, it’s not yet known how far this would go, and whether Russia would pursue this strategy as a form of short-term vengeance or if it would resolutely go as far in recognizing Kurdish Independence if it could ever be de-facto actualized. Of course, Russia wouldn’t do anything that could endanger the territorial integrity of its Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian allies, but if the Turkish-based Kurds contained their ambitions solely within the borders of Russia’s historical rival, then it might be able to rectify itself with this reality, especially if they even refrain from legal independence and instead seek a sort of broadly de-facto independent federative or autonomous status within a unified Turkey (which could only realistically be brought about by an intensified insurgency and/or a coup in Ankara).

Joining Hands For Kurdistan:

Having explained all of this, it’s now clear that a remarkable convergence of strategic interests has developed between the US and Russia focusing on Turkish-administered Kurdistan. Understanding the changing calculations that Russia may now be having towards this topic as a response to Turkey’s aggression against it, one can’t necessarily preclude the possibility that the Reuters leak was actually a strategic overture to Russia. Washington might be sending a signal that it wants to speak to Moscow about ways to cooperate in this regard, knowing that each of them possibly have an interest now in seeing the proto-state rise to the fore of the global arena. A shared understanding has likely developed by now that a New Cold War competition for Kurdistan’s loyalty could be fought after the entity is legally formalized (whether as an independent state or a de-facto independent sub-state entity modeled off of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq), and that the two Great Powers need to put aside some of their differences in joining hands to see this happen first.

Such a strong signal could have been discretely and secretly communicated to Russia via secure diplomatic and intelligence channels, but the reason it was so publicly broadcast via Reuters, the global newswire service, is because the US also wants to send a signal to Turkey as well. Despite taking its side on the matter before the global eye, the US is also “stabbing its ally in the back”, to channel President Putin, by purposely leaking the information that the Russian jet was shot down over Syrian airspace. It’s not news that the US has been unhappy with Erdogan for not behaving more submissively in the past and refusing to blindly go along with the previous plans to invade Syria (rendered useless after Russia’s anti-terrorist military intervention there), so it might be trying to convey the message it’s had enough of his games and is now playing their own in return. Of course, the US has always been manipulating Turkey ever since it joined NATO and allowed the Americans to operate out of Incirlik airbase, but this time, the treachery is being taken to a higher level by implicitly throwing out suggestions to Russia, Turkey’s new foe (and only because the US manipulated Turkey into taking aggressive action against it), that it might want to team up in undermining Ankara’s control over its volatile southeast.

Concluding Thoughts:

It can safely be assumed that the US influenced Turkey into shooting down the Russian jet over Syrian airspace, predicting quite accurately that this would immediately lead to the deterioration of ties between the two states. An elementary forecast of the specific counter-measures that Russia may take stipulates that these will likely relate to the diplomatic, economic, and energy sectors, which is just what the US wants. Because of Turkey’s aggression against Russia, the strategic partnership between the two is now broken (although not necessarily irreversibly), and Ankara has become the fourth and perhaps most geopolitically significant member of the anti-Russian Intermarum coalition. Furthermore, Turkish Stream looks to be indefinitely put on hold, thus delaying Russia’s game-changing pivot to the Balkans. While the ‘unintended’ consequence of the crisis has been Russia’s foreseeable and absolutely legitimate decision to deploy the S-400 SAM system to Syria, this in a way also plays to the manipulated Turkish-Russian rivalry that the US wanted to produce in order to solidify the completion of the Intermarum project and simultaneously counter Russia’s growing influence in the Mideast.

The reaction that no one could have predicted, however, is the US purposely leaking comments to Reuters that support the Russian version of events, namely, that the anti-terrorist jet was shot down while flying over Syrian airspace. This completely conflicts with what the US and NATO have said in public, but it shows that the US has had enough time to game out the plane-shooting scenario well in advance, and that it’s playing a sinister divide-and-conquer game against Turkey and Russia. Put in the position where its decision makers are scrambling for responses to the unprecedented aggression against them, Russia can now more easily be led into supporting the Kurdish struggle for sovereignty (whether formally independent or de-facto so) in Turkey, which coincides with one of the US’ premier geopolitical projects.

From an American perspective, a divided Turkey is doubly useful for its grand strategic designs, as the large pro-NATO Turkish military would remain mostly intact, while the US could gain a major base for force projection (both hard and soft) right in between some of the most important states in the region. It can’t, however, go fully forward with this project unless it has the support of the diplomatic leader of the multipolar world, Russia, otherwise Kurdistan will be just as illegitimate as Kosovo is and might not even come to geopolitical fruition if Moscow and Tehran work to stop it.

Seen from the Russian standpoint, the US’ intimations actually seen quite attractive. An increase of Russian support to anti-ISIL Kurdish fighters would be a plausibly deniable but strategically obvious way to funnel weapons and equipment to anti-Turkish PKK insurgents. Weakening Turkey from within would be a strong asymmetrical response to a country that has lately been a major thorn in Moscow’s side, and it might create the conditions either for a military coup against Erdogan, a divide between him and Davutoglu (which could be used to Russia’s diplomatic advantage so long as the constitution remains unchanged and Davutoglu legally remains more powerful than Erdogan), or a weakening of Erdogan and a tempering of his anti-Russian and anti-Syrian positions.

Importantly, the emergence of an independent or semi-independent Kurdish entity in Turkey could create a tempting piece of geopolitical real estate in the New Cold War, but of course, it would then be contested between the multipolar and unipolar worlds. Still, however, it would represent a positive multipolar development in the Mideast, since under the present state of affairs, the entirety of Turkish territory is under unipolar control. If a large chunk of it suddenly became the object of competition between both blocs, then it would definitely signify a strategic advancement at the expense of unipolarity. Of equal importance, this would also significantly impact on the Turkish state and whatever government is in power by that time, and it could possibly make it more amenable to returning to the previously pragmatic relationship with Russia and perhaps even resurrecting Turkish Stream.

Therefore, Russia surprisingly has nothing to do lose and everything to gain by covertly supporting the Kurdish cause in Turkey, no matter if it’s full-out independence or relatively more restrained autonomy, and even if this is objective is shared by the US and done in semi-coordination with it. Turkey would immediately be put on the defensive (although it could try desperately responding by supporting Tatar terrorists in Crimea), the multipolar world have a chance at competing for the loyalty of an ultra-strategically positioned entity, and the consequences that this has for the Turkish government (whether it remains the same or is changed via a [military] coup) could recreate the political conditions for Turkish Stream’s feasibility.

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

Developing countries’ economies face being crushed under the double burden of climate change adaptation costs of almost $800 billion and more than twice that in economic losses every year by 2050 if pledges to cut emissions are not improved, Oxfam warned today.

In a new report released for COP21: Game-changers in the Paris climate deal, Oxfam sets out seven steps to a Paris deal that will better protect poor people from climate change.

The international agency reveals that in a world warming to 3 degrees developing countries are set to face an additional $270 billion more a year in adaptation costs by 2050, taking the total to $790 billion. That means more than 50 per cent more could be needed for developing countries to protect themselves from climate change than in a 2 degree scenario, which leaders meeting at the UN climate talks in Paris are aiming for.

Developing countries also face losing $1.7 trillion annually to their economies by the middle of the century if global average temperatures rise by three degrees. This is $600 billion more than if warming was contained to 2 degrees – four times more than rich countries gave in development aid last year.

Oxfam’s Executive Director Winnie Byanyima said: “We are seeing growing momentum for a climate deal but what is on the table so far is not enough. Our report today shows the scale of the challenge facing the world’s poorest people as a result of climate change – which they have done very little to cause.

 “World leaders need to step up. We need further cuts to emissions and more climate funding so vulnerable communities – who are already facing unpredictable floods, droughts and hunger – can adapt to survive. The human cost of climate change must be central to discussions in Paris so we get a better climate deal for poor people.”

Even now, if all of today’s public adaptation finance were to be divided among the 1.5 billion small-holder farmers in developing countries, they would get the equivalent of just $3 a year to protect themselves from floods, severe droughts and other climate extremes – the cost of a cup of coffee in many rich countries.

The pledges by more than 150 countries to cut emissions, known as INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) are expected to be the cornerstone of a Paris deal. But even if these targets are met, the world is likely to experience devastating warming of around 3 degrees. This could come despite the UN’s goal of 2 degrees, let alone the 1.5 degrees that more than 100 developing countries and Oxfam is calling for.

Currently, climate funding commitments to help poor countries adapt and develop in a low carbon way only run until 2020. At the same time, little progress has been made in agreeing how much will be available after this date, which needs to be urgently addressed in Paris.

More funding is also needed if the promise of $100 billion a year by 2020 made six years ago in Copenhagen is to be kept. More of this needs to go towards adaptation, which remains woefully short. Oxfam estimates that public climate finance was around $20 billion on average in 2013-2014 but only around $3-5 billion was dedicated for adaptation – less than the 50 per cent minimum that Oxfam says is needed.

In its new report, Oxfam shows how the international context has changed since the ‘failed’ talks in Copenhagen. This includes a US / China deal on climate change breathing new life into the talks, spectacular growth in renewables, and interventions from high profile figures like Ban Ki-moon, Pope Francis and Islamic clerics. The INDCs have also been important in shaping the deal, but it has been most of the developing countries – including India and China – that have either met or done more than their fair share in pledging to cut their emissions. The world’s richest countries need to do more.

The report also pin-points what developments are possible in Paris to make the deal a better one for poor people.  This includes:

–       Addressing the lack of finance to help countries adapt by either agreeing that at least half of all public finance should go for adaptation, or setting a fixed target of at least $35 billion by 2020 and at least $50 billion by 2025

–       New contributors of climate finance beyond the traditional rich countries need to step up, including Russia, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Singapore

–       Agreeing to a strong review mechanism that commits governments to increase the overall ambition of emission cuts from 2020, and every five years thereafter so that  runaway climate change can be avoided

–       Agreeing a long-term goal where rich countries lead the way in phasing out fossil fuels

–       Improving the predictability of scaled up climate finance so developing countries can develop adaptation and development plans knowing what funding they can expect

–       Announcing new sources of climate finance, such as the EU  Emissions Trading Scheme, to stop diverting aid to climate finance budgets

–       Provisions for loss and damage, which will ensure that poor people get the support they need where adaptation is no longer possible.

Byanyima said:

“The Paris deal needs to be a solid foundation for further global action to tackle climate change, and the more we see poor people at its heart, the stronger it will be.”

Oxfam is calling for progress on climate finance, especially for adaptation and women who need it most, and greater ambition to cut emissions.

Over the past few centuries, Western countries embarked on a road to material affluence at the expense of the environment and other peoples across the globe who were subjugated, killed or left to live in poverty. And while offering more of the same and selling unfettered capitalism to the rest of the world, Washington as the now dominant imperial power is doing all it can to destroy any rivals, not least Russia and China. It alone thinks it should be the sole beneficiary in a resource-depleting race towards a barren-wasteland finish.

Treasury bond imperialism and the petrodollar

The US is able to consume at such a level because the dollar serves as the world reserve currency, which means high demand for it is guaranteed as most international trade (especially oil) is carried out using the dollar. US global hegemony depends on it maintaining the dollar’s leading role.

The international monetary system that emerged near the end of the Second World War was based on the US being the dominant economic power – after it watched and let its rivals destroy one another – and the main creditor nation, with institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund eventually being created to serve its interests.

Since coming off the gold standard in the early seventies, Washington has been able to run up a huge balance of payments deficit by using the paper dollar as security in itself and engaging in petro-dollar recycling and treasury-bond super-imperialism. Washington has developed a system to hitch a free ride courtesy of the rest of the world.

With its control and manipulation of the World Bank, IMF and WTO, the US has been able to lever the trade and the financial system to its advantage by various means (for example, see this analysis of Saudi Arabia’s oil money in relation to African debt). Washington will not allow its global hegemony and the role of the dollar to be challenged. Given Russia’s reemergence on the global stage and China’s rise, we are witnessing a sense of urgency to destabilise and undermine both countries, especially as they are now increasingly bypassing the dollar when doing business.

US Strategic Objectives and Agribusiness

The only real alternative to avoid ecological meltdown due to the massive consumption of the planet’s finite resources and ultimately what appears to be an increasingly likely nuclear conflict with Russia (or China) is to move away from militarism and resource-gabbing conflicts by reorganising economies so that nations live within their environmental means.

Key to this involves a major shift away from the petro-chemical industrial model of agriculture and food production, not only because it leads to bad food, poor health and environmental degradation and is ultimately unsustainable but also because this model has underpinned a US resource-grabbing, food-deficit producing foreign policy agenda for many decades.

It is essential we get off the parasitical and poisonous chemical treadmill.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky illustrates point with reference to Ethiopia:

“The “economic therapy” imposed under IMF-World Bank jurisdiction is in large part responsible for triggering famine and social devastation in Ethiopia and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, wreaking the peasant economy and impoverishing millions of people. With the complicity of branches of the US government, it has also opened the door for the appropriation of traditional seeds and landraces by US biotech corporations, which behind the scenes have been peddling the adoption of their own genetically modified seeds under the disguise of emergency aid and famine relief. Moreover, under WTO rules, the agri-biotech conglomerates can manipulate market forces to their advantage as well as exact royalties from farmers. The WTO provides legitimacy to the food giants to dismantle State programmes including emergency grain stocks, seed banks, extension services and agricultural credit, etc.), plunder peasant economies and trigger the outbreak of periodic famines.” See here.

US agribusiness must be regarded as being part of the US financial-military-industrial complex (see this and this). Agriculture and agribusiness remain integral tools for US geopolitical objectives, and agribusiness is essential for colonising indigenous agriculture, whether on the back of trade deals, ‘aid’ programmes, war or indeed Washington-backed coups, as in Ukraine:

“… within two to three years, as the relevant provisions of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU go into effect, Monsanto’s lobbying efforts will transform the Ukrainian market into an oligopoly consisting of American corporations.” – Oriental Review

The ‘green revolution’ was exported courtesy of the oil-rich Rockefeller family, and poorer nations adopted agribusiness’s petrochemical-dependent agriculture that required loans for inputs and infrastructure development. This was underpinned by the propaganda that these countries would earn dollars to prosper (and repay the loans) by adopting mono-crop, export-oriented policies. It entailed uprooting traditional agriculture and trapping nations into a globalised system of debt bondage, rigged trade relations and the hollowing out and destruction of national and local economies. GMOs, the control of seeds and further corporate-controlled inputs represent the second coming of the green revolution.

From Mexico to India, we can see how traditional food production and retail sectors are being hijacked by mainly US corporate interests and can witness the subsequent impacts on health, food security, environments and farmers’ livelihoods. NAFTA set the framework for plunder in Mexico, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture is playing a similar role in India and various bilateral trade agreements will do it elsewhere.

In India, Monsanto and Walmart had a major role in drawing up the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture. Monsanto now funds research in public institutions and its presence and influence compromises what should in fact be independent decision and policy making bodies.

Its has effectively been called the modern day East India Company.

Monsanto is a driving force behind what could eventually lead to the restructuring and subjugation of India by the US. 

As alluded to earlier, the IMF and Monsanto are also working to ensure Ukraine’s subservience to US geopolitical aims via the capture of land and agriculture. The capture of agriculture (and societies) by rich interests is a global phenomenon.

Only the completely naive would believe that big agribusiness and its backers in the US State Department have humanity’s interests at heart. At the very least, their collective aim is profit. Beyond that and to facilitate it, the need to secure US global hegemony is paramount.

Although the globalized hijack of food and agriculture by powerful corporations results in poverty, dependency and food insecurity, we are deceitfully informed that we must have more of the same if we are to feed an increasing global population and eradicate poverty. We are told that the solutions for feeding a projected world population of nine billion are more technical fixes: more petrochemical-dependent agriculture, more GMOs and more unnecessary shifting of food across the planet. Such a ‘solution’ is bogus.

The current economic system and model of globalisation and development serves the interests of Western oil companies and financial institutions (including land and commodity  speculators), global agribusiness and the major arms companies. These interlocking, self-serving interests  have managed to institute a globalized system of war, poverty and food insecurity and have acted to devastate economies.

The solution

The Oakland Institute has just released research showing the tremendous success of agroecology across Africa. Instead of prioritising an inappropriate Gates-Monsanto corporate-led petro-chemical industrial model of agriculture, priority should be given to agroecology, as stated in numerous official reports in the last few years, not least the IAASTD report.

This would entail supporting and investing in highly productive (see this data on output per country) smallholder/peasant agriculture, which is the backbone of global food production but is being marginalised, criminalised and squeezed onto lessand less land.

People want solutions for hunger, poverty and conflict but are too often told there is no alternative to what exists. The solution ultimately lies in taking manipulated markets and rigged trade rules out of farming and investing in and supporting indigenous knowledge, agroecology, education and infrastructure, instead of inappropriately diverting funds to underperforming sectors. This involves rejecting big agritech’s current agenda and resisting the US strategy of using agriculture as a geopolitical tool. It involves challenging the corporate takeover of agriculture, supporting food sovereignty movements and embracing sustainable agriculture that is locally owned and rooted in the needs of communities.

On a more general level, we should also embrace what environmentalist Barry Commoner advocated: substituting green energy for fossil and nuclear fuels, substituting electric motors for the internal combustion engine, substituting organic farming for the chemical variety and using more metal, glass, wood and paper – recyclables, renewables and durables – instead of petrochemical products.

Crucially important is moving towards a system centred on the common ownership of land and capital to serve the public good, rather than elite interests.

If there is to be an alternative to capitalism, endless war and poverty, this is where it is to be found. But as A.L. Morton’s classic text ‘A People’s History of England’ indicates, at no point whatsoever will it be handed on a plate courtesy of the bloodsuckers that are bleeding us all dry. We will have to struggle for it.  

Information has come from  Syrian sources that last night (24.11) the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces struck with massive attacks on the positions of militants (including Turkomans) in the region where the Russian Su-24 was brought down.

The source reported that most likely nothing remains of the militants who shot down the Russian MI-8 .

No detailed information has arrived yet.

Meanwhile, there has appeared information that the Turks are not putting their fighters in the air after the majority of them were lit up by Russian radar (the S-300 and, according to early reports, possibly the S-400). After the statement of the Ministry of Defense of Russia, Turkey is afraid that their planes can be destroyed when approaching the border.

In this regard the Syrians reported that the Russia air-space forces can begin the full-scale destruction of camps in the border territory, and also annihilate the retreating militants and the fuel trucks which are moving towards Turkey.

Erdogan did not receive the hoped-for support from NATO. Erdogan has acknowledged that if the Russian plane even violated the border of Turkey, this was for only for 17 seconds, which means that the Turkish Air Force, on purely physical grounds, could not have reacted to it if the provocation was not prepared in advance. This figure of 17 seconds appears in NATO reports.

Members of NATO have been ambiguously treating Erdogan’s action. At present it is difficult to judge how the situation will develop. While it is obvious that Erdogan is attempting to back off, it is already too late, as Vladimir Putin gave to understand at a meeting with the king of Jordan.

Most likely Turkey did not expect such a severe reaction from Russia.

Article originally appeared at Cont.ws, translated by Caraptho-Russian exclusively for SouthFront

Make no mistake. Downing Russia’s aircraft was provocative Turkish aggression – a clear act of war against a nonthreatening nation.

It’s inconceivable that President Erdogan acted alone, unilaterally deciding to attack the Russian plane – then lying about it entering Turkish airspace, warning “10 times” (an absurdity on its face) before downing it with one or more air-to-air missiles.

Following the incident, he said he acted in accordance with Turkey’s rules of engagement. “Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident,” adding he harbors no “enmity” toward Russia.

Recep Erdogan

Washington dominates NATO policy, including appointing its secretary general and other top officials. Alliance statements reflect US interests.

After an Ankara-called “extraordinary” Tuesday meeting, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg expressed support for clear Turkish aggression, saying:

“I have previously expressed my concerns about the implications of the military actions of the Russian Federation close to NATO’s borders.”

Fact: He ignored their legitimacy in combating the scourge of terrorism – approved by the UN Security Council in urging all UN members take “all necessary measures” in fighting ISIS, explaining:

“The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security.”

Fact: US-dominated NATO maintains Alliance combat troops provocatively close to Russia’s borders, along with saber-rattling/tension-provoking military exercises in the same areas – recklessness risking direct East-West confrontation.

Stoltenberg: “As we have repeatedly made clear, we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO Ally, Turkey.”

Speaking for Washington, his statement explicitly endorsed Erdogan’s act of war on Russia – instead of condemning it unequivocally.

Longtime imperial tool UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon effectively endorsed what happened by failing to condemn it outright.

His spokesman Stephane Dujarric said he urged all parties to de-escalate tensions, adding he hopes “a credible and thorough review of the incident will clarify the events and help to prevent future recurrences.”

Fact: It’s crystal clear what happened. No ambiguity exists. One or more Turkish warplanes downed Russia’s aircraft in Syrian airspace – a double crime: aggression against Russia and violating Syrian airspace either by entering it or firing one or more missiles into its territory.

Meeting with French President Francois Hollande in Washington, Obama revealed his dirty hands, saying “Turkey, like every other country, has a right to defend itself.” He called Erdogan, expressing support, – at the same time, accusing Russia of attacking nonexistent “moderate” rebels in Syria and propping up Assad.

“If Russia (directed) its energies towards Daesh and ISIL, some of those conflicts or potentials for mistakes or escalation are less likely to occur,” he blustered.

Hollande showed which side he’s on, refusing to condemn Turkish naked aggression, urging efforts to prevent escalation.

Fact: In contrast to US-led NATO’s support for Daesh, Russia is effectively combating it, routing US foot soldiers in Syria since September 30, changing the dynamic dramatically on the ground – challenging America’s regional hegemonic objectives.

Instead of condemning Turkish aggression, British Foreign Secretary expressed support for Ankara as an “important (UK) ally. It holds the key to a number of important questions both in relation to the battle against ISIL but also in relation to the migration challenge that Europe faces, and it will remain a very important partner for this country and for the European Union,” he claimed.

In response to Erdogan’s aggression, Putin suspended military and maybe economic cooperation with Ankara. Russia’s General Staff said a Moskva guided missile cruiser off Syria’s coast was ordered to destroy any target posing a danger to Russian operations in Syria.

General Staff official Sergey Rudskoy said a Turkish warplane attacked Russia’s aircraft after illegally entering Syrian airspace. Its pilot “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 Syrian territory,” not cross-border as Ankara claimed. Henceforth “(e)very target posing a potential threat will be destroyed.”

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev blasted Erdogan, saying “Turkey’s actions are de facto protection (for the) Islamic State. This is no surprise, considering the information we have about direct financial interest of some Turkish officials relating to the supply of oil products refined by plants controlled by ISIS.”

“The reckless and criminal actions of the Turkish authorities…have caused a dangerous escalation of relations between Russia and NATO, which cannot be justified by any interest, including protection of state borders.”

Putin, Medvedev and other Russian officials know Turkey is complicit with Washington in recruiting, arming, funding, training and directing ISIS elements along with other terrorists on its territory, aiding their free movement cross-border into Syria and Iraq and back.

Moscow may cancel joint economic projects with Turkey, including a pipeline, letting it become a major transit country for Russian gas and construction of its first nuclear power plant.

Russia’s ambassador to France, Aleksandr Orlov, said Syrian forces rescued one of its two downed pilots. “One on board was wounded when he parachuted down and killed in a savage way on the ground by jihadists in the area,” he explained.

“The other managed to escape. According to the latest information, he has been picked up by the Syrian Army and should be going back to the Russian Air Force base.”

Erdogan’s reckless act, with virtually certain US support, destroys chances for East-West cooperation against terrorism – at the same time, upping the stakes for direct confrontation. The Doomsday Clock inched closer to midnight.

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.

The NATO attack on a Russian military jet on Tuesday November 24, using the Turkish air force to do its dirty work, is a dangerous act of war against Russia with very dangerous consequences for the world. The murder of one of the pilots, shot by ISIS terrorists while parachuting to the ground, is a war crime for which Turkey and the NATO countries are collectively responsible. President Putin has rightly called it a stab in the back by Turkey, a betrayal that cannot be forgiven and will forever be remembered.

If anyone ever doubted that the joint criminal enterprise called NATO was supporting and directing the terrorist groups in Syria, the same groups, they claim, that conducted the attacks in Paris and on the Russian airliner over Sinai, they now have the proof.

Can there be any doubt that this attack on Russian forces in Syria is intended to disrupt the Russian-Syrian campaign against those NATO supported terrorist groups? Can there be any doubt that if they are willing to shoot down one Russian aircraft they are willing to shoot down more? Can there be any doubt that this attack is intended to push Russia to react with counter force against Turkey resulting in a claim by NATO that it is under attack, resulting in a general war?

This attack is intended to both test Russian resolve in Syria and to provoke it into a reaction that will be used to justify further military actions by the Turkish and US military forces against the Russian forces. It was preceded by hysterical claims by NATO leaders that Russia and the Syrian government are the reasons ISIS exists and calling for action against both. It was preceded by the sudden appearance of the refugee crisis in Europe and then the attacks in Sinai and Paris and the constant fear raising alerts in Belgium, Germany, Britain and the United States.

Just days before this attack, Russia was subjected to the sabotage of the electric power lines connecting Crimea with the Ukraine electricity grid that the Kiev regime has not attempted to repair, cutting off power to Crimea at the same time as shelling of the Donbass republics increased, accompanied by a build up of Kiev forces in the region. Who would be surprised if Crimea also found itself subject to further sabotage and then shelling by the Kiev forces pushing Russia on this front as well, to react to defend its territory, again testing its resolve?

The only reaction from the NATO countries on Tuesday was to call an emergency meeting and it has to be asked if they knew this attack was coming since none of the NATO leaders has so far condemned Turkey’s action and it is logical to assume that the order for the attack came from Washington, desperate to save its terrorist proxy forces in Syria from being annihilated by the joint Syrian-Russian campaign against ISIS. No doubt the order was to seek a target of opportunity, bring it down, and see what happens, what Russia will do in response.

Whatever Russia does it will be serious but necessarily measured in order to avoid a general war in the Middle East.  But act it will.

The New York Times, the journal that speaks for the American ruling class and intelligence services on the same day as the shoot down ran an opinion piece by their former ambassador to the United Nations, the aggressive John Bolton, who clearly defined the American strategy in Syria and Iraq. He wrote:

“Today’s reality is that Iraq and Syria as we have known them are gone. The Islamic State has carved out a new entity from the post-Ottoman Empire settlement, mobilizing Sunni opposition to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and the Iran-dominated government of Iraq. Also emerging, after years of effort, is a de facto independent Kurdistan.

If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria and Iran’s puppets in Iraq, that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable. Rather than striving to recreate the post-World War I map, Washington should recognize the new geopolitics. The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state.”

And,

“Creating an American-led anti-Islamic State alliance instead of Moscow’s proposed coalition will require considerable diplomatic and political effort. American ground combat forces will have to be deployed to provide cohesion and leadership. But this would be necessary to defeat the Islamic State even if the objective were simply to recreate the status quo ante.”

And,

“This Sunni state proposal differs sharply from the vision of the Russian-Iranian axis and its proxies (Hezbollah, Mr. Assad and Tehran-backed Baghdad). Their aim of restoring Iraqi and Syrian governments to their former borders is a goal fundamentally contrary to American, Israeli and friendly Arab state interests. Notions, therefore, of an American-Russian coalition against the Islamic State are as undesirable as they are glib.

In Syria, Moscow wants to dominate the regime (with or without Mr. Assad) and safeguard Russia’s Tartus naval base and its new Latakia air base. Tehran wants a continuing Alawite supremacy, with full protection for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria.

As for Iraq, Russia and Iran want the Sunni territories returned to Baghdad’s control, reinforcing Iran’s regional influence. They may wish for the same in Kurdistan, but they lack the capability there.

Sunnis today support the Islamic State for many of the same reasons they once supported Al Qaeda in Iraq — as a bulwark against being ruled by Tehran via Baghdad. Telling these Sunni people that their reward for rising against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq will be to put them back in thrall to Mr. Assad and his ilk, or to Shiite-dominated Baghdad, will simply intensify their support for the jihadists. Why would they switch sides?

This is why, after destroying the Islamic State, America should pursue the far-reaching goal of creating a new Sunni state. Though difficult in the near term, over time this is more conducive to regional order and stability.” (emphasis added)

So there we have it, the plan by Washington and its dependencies to continue their aggression against Syria and Iraq in order to create a new state serving its interests and wrecking the strategic interests of Russia and Iran.

This is a statement of intent to carry out a war of aggression against sovereign states, members of the United Nations, in complete defiance of and contempt for the United Nations Charter, and all international law and humanity. It matters not to them how many innocents are slaughtered in the process. They know no morality, have no conscience.

The shooting down of the Russian jet, the murder of its officers is in the logic of this madness. And how long will it be before a French fighter jet shoots down a Russian jet as well, claiming it was too close to them and further escalating the situation?

Can Russia trust the French after the Mistral Affair, the refusal by the French, to deliver two naval ships bought and paid for by Russia in order to sabotage Russian strategic interests, and after they learned that the French aircraft carrier was already on its way to the region before the Paris attack; giving credence to the strong possibility that the attack in Paris, and the bombing of the Russian airliner, were Gladio style NATO operations with the blame shifted to their assets in ISIS? No one in NATO can be trusted except to commit every crime and to cut every thread that weaves civilization together.

The world watches and waits for the next phase of this war, a war which is developing with breathtaking rapidity into a world war in which all of us will suffer.  Hopes for peace in our time have vanished along with the humanity required to achieve it.  The anti-NATO, anti-war movement has not developed as we hoped and those who are engaged in the effort now risk arrest and worse as accomplices of ‘terrorism.” All I can say is prepare yourselves as best you can for what is coming, and try to resist, try to speak out, and try to hold the flame of civilization aloft as long as you can.

Paul Craig Roberts – former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, former editor of the Wall Street Journal, listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, PhD economist – wrote an article about the build up of hostilities between the U.S. and Russia titled, simply: “War Is Coming”.

Similarly, Ronald Reagan’s head of the Office of Management and Budget – David Stockman – is posting pieces warning of the dispute between the U.S. and Russia leading to World War 3.

Trend forecaster Gerald Celente – who has been making some accurate financial and geopolitical predictions for decades – says WW3 will start soon.

Investment fund manager and adviser Martin Armstrong has charted the “cycles of war” back to 600 BC … and says that we’ll have major wars between now and 2020. He has written pieces recently entitled, “Why We will Go to War with Russia“, and another one saying, “Prepare for World War III“.

Investment adviser Larry Edelson – who has long studied the “cycles of war” – recently wrote:

This year … we will also be hit by another ramping up of the related war cycles.

***

All part and parcel of the rising war cycles that I’ve been warning you about, conditions that will not abate until at least the year 2020.

Former Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner – who has made some big accurate calls, and counts major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients – says there will be “a major war”, which will drive the Dow to 5,000.

Veteran investor adviser James Dines forecast a war as epochal as World Wars I and II, starting in the Middle East.

What’s causing the slide towards war? We discuss several causes below.

Debt, Economic Collapse and Distraction

Martin Armstrong – who studies cycles, and managed multi-billion dollar sovereign investment funds – argues that war plans against Syria are really about debt and spending:

The Syrian mess seems to have people lining up on Capital Hill when sources there say the phone calls coming in are overwhelmingly against any action. The politicians are ignoring the people entirely. This suggests there is indeed a secret agenda to achieve a goal outside the discussion box. That is most like the debt problem and a war is necessary to relief the pressure to curtail spending.

Armstrong says the same thing caused Turkey to shoot down a Russian fighter jet over Syria:

This mess lies squarely in the hands of the Obama Administration and then to have the audacity to pretend Turkey had a right to defend its airspace when not being attacked is just too much. These people NEED war to distract everyone from the Sovereign Debt Crisis that is causing the collapse of governments for a system of borrowing year after year with ABSOLUTELY no intention of ever paying any debt off.

The same logic applies to Europe and other countries …

Armstrong writes:

Our greatest problem is the bureaucracy wants a war. This will distract everyone from the NSA and justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction for the economic decline that is coming.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Kyle Bass notes:

Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.

Billionaire investor Jim Rogers notes:

A continuation of bailouts in Europe could ultimately spark another world war, says international investor Jim Rogers.

***

“Add debt, the situation gets worse, and eventually it just collapses. Then everybody is looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we’re in World War II or World War whatever.”

Economist and investment manager Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:

• “The next thing the government will do to distract the attention of the people on bad economic conditions is they’ll start a war somewhere.”

• “If the global economy doesn’t recover, usually people go to war.”

Voodoo Economics

Many influential economists and talking heads hold the discredited belief that war is good for the economy.

Therefore, many are overtly or more subtly pushing for war.

Challengers Give Declining Empires “Itchy Fingers”

Historians say that declining empires tend to attack their rising rivals … so the risk of world war is rising because the U.S. feels threatened by the rising empire of China.

The U.S. government considers economic rivalry to be a basis for war. Therefore, the U.S. is systematically using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence.

Competition for Resources Is Heating Up

In addition, it is well-established that competition for scarce resources often leads to war. For example, Oxford University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics notes:

In his classic, A Study of War, Wright (1942) devotes a chapter to the relationship between war and resources. Another classic reference, Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Richardson (1960),extensively discusses economic causes of war, including the control of “sources of essential commodities.”A large literature pioneered by Homer-Dixon (1991, 1999) argues that scarcity of various environmental resources is a major cause of conflict and resource wars (see Toset, Gleditsch, and Hegre 2000, for empirical evidence).

***

In the War of the Pacific (1879–1884), Chile fought against a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru for the control of guano [i.e. bird poop] mineral deposits. The war was precipitated by the rise in the value of the deposits due to their extensive use in agriculture.

***

Westing (1986) argues that many of the wars in the twentieth century had an important resource dimension. As examples he cites the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), the Six Day War (1967), and the Chaco War (1932–1935). More recently, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a result of the dispute over the Rumaila oil field. In Resource Wars (2001), Klare argues that following the end of the Cold War, control of valuable natural resources has become increasingly important, and these resources will become a primary motivation for wars in the future.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (and many world leaders) admitted that the Iraq war was really about oil, and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And see this and this. Libya, Syria, Iran and Russia are all oil-producing countries as well …

Indeed, we’ve extensively documented that the wars in the Middle East and North Africa are largely about oil and gas. The wars in Syria and Iraq are about pipelines.  The war in Gaza may be no exception. And see this. And Ukraine may largely be about gas as well.

And James Quinn and Charles Hugh Smith say we’re running out of all sorts of resources … which will lead to war.

Central Banking and Currency Wars

We’re in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. Brazilian president Rousseff said in 2010:

The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations … it ended in world war two.

Jim Rickards agrees:

Currency wars lead to trade wars, which often lead to hot wars. In 2009, Rickards participated in the Pentagon’s first-ever “financial” war games. While expressing confidence in America’s ability to defeat any other nation-state in battle, Rickards says the U.S. could get dragged into “asymmetric warfare,” if currency wars lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty.

As does billionaire investor Jim Rogers:

Trade wars always lead to wars.

Given that China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have joined together to create a $100 billion bank based in China, and that more and more trades are being settled in Yuan or Rubles – instead of dollars – the currency war is quickly heating up.

Indeed, many of America’s closest allies are joining China’s effort … which is challenging America and the Dollar’s hegemony.

Multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

What happened to [Libya’s] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.

Senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

Indeed, some say that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking.

Runaway Inequality

Paul Tudor Jones – founder of the Tudor Investment Corporation and the Tudor Group, which trade in the fixed-income, equity, currency and commodity markets – said recently:

This gap between the 1 percent and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist.

Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars.

And see this.

War Is Destroying Our National Security, Our Democracy and Our Economy

We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet we’re now less safe after 13 years of war.

Never-ending wars are also destroying our democratic republic. The Founding Fathers warned against standing armies, saying that they destroy freedom. (Update). Perversely, our government treats anti-war sentiment as terrorism.

The Founding Fathers – and the father of free market capitalism – also warned against financing wars with debt. But according to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the U.S. debt for the Iraq war could be as high as $5 trillion dollars (or $6 trillion dollars according to a study by Brown University.)

Indeed, top economists say that war is destroying our economy.

But war is great for the bankers and the defense contractors. And – as discussed above – governments are desperate for war.

So it’s up to us – the people – to stop wider war.

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.

A 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.

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…

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.

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”.

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.

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: _________________________________

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.

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].

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/

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.

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.

#SYRIA #Rudskoy Russian Defence Ministry warns that all the potentially dangerous targets will be destroyed

— Минобороны России (@mod_russia) November 24, 2015

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.

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.

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

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 ….

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 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)

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 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)

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.

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

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:

Photo Credit: Bob Towner

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

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.

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.

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 magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.]

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). 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.

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

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 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

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 19^th 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 – 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.

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.”

#SYRIA Russian aircraft Su-24 crashed in Syria. According to the preliminary data, the pilots managed to eject from the warplane

— Минобороны России (@mod_russia) November 24, 2015

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.

#SONDAKİKA! SURİYE SINIRINDA UÇAK DÜŞTÜ BÖLDEGEKİ KAYNAKLAR: SINIR İHLALİ YAPAN UÇAĞI TÜRK JETLERİ DÜŞÜRDÜ pic.twitter.com/G4brsWSY1P

— Habertürk TV (@HaberturkTV) November 24, 2015

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.

#SONDAKİKA! Türkmen Dağı’nın yakınına savaş uçağı düştü… Uçağın düşme anını Habertürk TV ekibi görüntüledi https://t.co/PCUK9Z6RTA

— Habertürk TV (@HaberturkTV) November 24, 2015

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.

Düşen uçağın pilotları paraşütle böyle atladı https://t.co/SKKeP4vG13 pic.twitter.com/3nOmKbuwlH

— NTV (@ntv) November 24, 2015

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.

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.

One of 2 Russian pilots is dead. Russian helicopters tried to evacuate both of them but were shot at from the ground https://t.co/zIyUy2ueGN

— Yury Barmin (@yurybarmin) November 24, 2015

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

Footage of the Russian pilot killed after the Su-24 was shot down. His gear/patches all but confirm his identity. pic.twitter.com/xmdt7PmM8e

— Haidar Sumeri (@IraqiSecurity) November 24, 2015

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:

A letter by the Director of Ukrainian SpetsTechnoExport enterprise Pavlo Barbul to Ukrainian MFA with the list of Qatari delegation.

(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.”

#SONDAKİKA! SURİYE SINIRINDA UÇAK DÜŞTÜ BÖLDEGEKİ KAYNAKLAR: SINIR İHLALİ YAPAN UÇAĞI TÜRK JETLERİ DÜŞÜRDÜ pic.twitter.com/G4brsWSY1P

— Habertürk TV (@HaberturkTV) November 24, 2015

 

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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]

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”).

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]. 

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.

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”.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

They reached a deal with UkrOboronProm (a state-run Ukrainian arms trader) to purchase the modernized Air Defense Missile Complex “Pechora-2D”:

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…

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…

The hacked mails were published by Cyber Berkut on Nov 21, 2015.

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.

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/

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.
#SOAWatch2015 Tweets

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.

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.