•  The US, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the Gulf monarchies have all in the recent past supported al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State (ISIS) with arms, money, and/or manpower.
• The first example of this was in 1979 when the United States began covert operations in Afghanistan, six months before the Russians arrived, promoting Islamic fundamentalism across the southern tier of the Soviet Union against “godless communism”. All the al-Qaeda/Taliban shit then followed.
• In addition to Afghanistan, the United States has provided support to Islamic militants in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, the Caucasus, and Syria.
• The United States overthrew the secular governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and is trying to do the same with Syria, thus giving great impetus to the rise of ISIS. Said Barack Obama in March of this year: “ISIS is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”
• More than a million refugees from these wars of Washington are currently over-running Europe and North Africa. God Bless American exceptionalism.
• The Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish Kurds have all fought against ISIS, but Turkey – close US ally and member of NATO – has fought against each of them.
• Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanese factions have each supported the Syrian government in various ways in Damascus’s struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups, including the (much celebrated but seldom seen) “moderate” ones. For this all four countries have been sharply criticized by Washington.
• The United States has bombed ISIS in Syria, but has used the same occasions to damage Syria’s infrastructure and oil-producing capacity.
• Russia has bombed ISIS in Syria, but has used the same occasions to attack Syria’s other enemies.
• The mainstream media almost never mentions the proposed Qatar natural-gas pipelines – whose path to Europe Syria has stood in the way of for years – as a reason for much of the hostility toward Syria. The pipelines could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant source of energy.
• In Libya, during the beginning of the 2011 civil war, anti-Gaddafi rebels, many of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO in “no-fly zones”.
• US policy in Syria in the years leading up to the 2011 uprising against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, which began the whole current mess, was designed to promote sectarianism, which in turn led to civil war with the goal of regime change.
• US Secretary of State John Kerry declared on October 22 that in resolving Syria’s civil war the country “should not be broken up, that it must remain secular, and that Syrians should choose their future leader.” (All of which actually describes Syria under Assad.) Then Kerry said: “One thing stands in the way of being able to rapidly move to implement that, and it’s a person called Assad, Bashar Assad.”

Why does the government of the United States hate Syrian president Bashar al-Assad with such passion?

Is it because, as we’re told, he’s a brutal dictator? But how can that be the reason for the hatred? It would be difficult indeed to name a brutal dictatorship of the second half of the 20th Century or of the 21st century that was not supported by the United States; not only supported, but often put into power and kept in power against the wishes of the population; at present the list would include Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, Qatar, and Israel.

The United States, I suggest, is hostile to the Syrian government for the same reason it has been hostile to Cuba for more than half a century; and hostile to Venezuela for the past 15 years; and earlier to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; and to Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Chile; and so on continuing through the world atlas and history books.

What these governments have had in common can be summarized in a single word – independence … independence from American foreign policy; the refusal to be a client state of Washington; the refusal to be continuously hostile to Washington’s Officially Designated Enemies; insufficient respect and zeal for the capitalist way of life.

Democratic Socialism

The candidacy of Bernie Sanders, a “democratic socialist”, for the US presidency has produced an unprecedented barrage of discussion in the American media about just what is this thing called “socialism”. Most of the discussion centers around the question of government ownership and control of the economy versus private ownership and control. This is, of course, a very old question; the meat and potatoes of the Cold War ideological competition.

What’s markedly different now is that a few centuries of uninhibited free enterprise have finally laid painfully bare the basic anti-social nature of capitalism, forcing many of even the most committed true believers to concede the inherent harm the system brings to the lives of all but the richest.

But regardless of what the intellects of these true believers tell them, they still find it very difficult emotionally to completely cut the umbilical cord to the system they were carefully raised to place the greatest of faith in. Thus, they may finally concede that we have to eliminate, or at least strictly minimize, the role of the profit motive in health care and education and maybe one or two other indispensable social needs, but they insist that the government should should keep its bureaucratic hands off everything else; they favor as much decentralization as possible.

The most commonly proposed alternative to both government or private control is worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Sanders has expressed his support for worker-owned cooperatives.

There is much to be said about such systems, but the problem I find is that they will still operate within a capitalist society, which means competition, survival of the fittest; which means that if you can’t sell more than your competitors, if you can’t make a sufficient net profit on your sales, you will likely be forced to go out of business; and to prevent such a fate, at some point you may very well be forced to do illegal or immoral things against the public; which means back to the present.

You cannot follow the mass media without being confronted every day with story after story of one corporation or another trying to swindle the public in one way or another; the latest egregious case being that of the much revered Volkswagen, recently revealed to have manipulated the measurement of the car’s pollution emission. The fact that half of the company’s Supervisory Board – responsible for monitoring the Management and approving important corporate decisions – consists of employee representatives elected by the employees did not prevent this egregious fraud; the company is still obliged to strive to maximize profit and the firm’s stock-market value. It’s the nature of the corporate beast within a capitalist jungle.

Only removal of the profit motive will correct such behavior, and also keep us from drowning in a sea of advertising and my phone ringing several times each day to sell me something I don’t need and which may not even exist.

The market. How can we determine the proper value, the proper price, of goods and services without “the magic of the marketplace”? Let’s look at something most people have to pay for – rent. Who or what designed this system where in 2015 11.8 million households in the US are paying more than 50 percent of their income to keep a roof over their head, while rent is considered “affordable” if it totals some 30 percent or less of one’s income.  What is the sense of this? It causes more hardship than any other expense people are confronted with; all kinds of important needs go unmet because of the obligation to pay a huge amount for rent each month; it is the main cause of homelessness. Who benefits from it other than the landlords? What is magical about that?

Above and beyond any other consideration, there is climate change; i.e., survival of the planet, the quality of our lives. What keeps corporations from modifying their behavior so as to be kinder to our environment? It is of course the good old “bottom line” again. What can we do to convince the corporations to consistently behave like good citizens? Nothing that hasn’t already been tried and failed. Except one thing. Unmentionable in a capitalist society. Nationalization. There, I said it. Now I’ll be getting letters damning me as an “Old Stalinist”.

But nationalization is not a panacea either, at least for the environment. There’s the greatest single source of environmental damage in the world – The United States military. And it’s already been nationalized. But doing away with private corporations will reduce the drive toward imperialism sufficiently that before long the need for a military will fade away and we can live like Costa Rica. If you think that would put the United States in danger of attack, please tell me who would attack, and why.

Most Americans, like other developed peoples, worship the capitalism they were raised with. But do they? See the chapter in my book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower: “The United States invades, bombs, and kills for it but do Americans really believe in free enterprise?” Written in 2000/2005, the examples given in the chapter may need some updating, but the ideas expressed are as valid as ever.

Nationalization, hand-in-hand with a planned society, would of course not preclude elections. On the contrary, we’d have elections not ruled by money. What a breath of fresh air. Professor Cornel West has suggested that it’s become difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic society, without great concentrations of corporate power, would look like, or how it would operate.

Who are you going to believe? Me or Dick Cheney?

I’ve spent about 30 years compiling the details of the criminal record of US foreign policy into concise lists, and I’m always looking for suitable occasions to present the information to new readers. The new book by Dick Cheney and his adoring daughter is just such an occasion.

“We are, as a matter of empirical fact and undeniable history, the greatest force for good the world has ever known. … security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on America’s military, economic, political, and diplomatic might.” – Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney, “Why the world needs a powerful America”

Well … nothing short of a brain and soul transplant would change the welt anschauung of Dr. Strangelove and his carefully-conditioned offspring, but for all of you out there who still live in a world of facts, logic, human rights, and human empathy, here’s the ammunition to use if you should happen to find yourself ensnared in the embrace of the likes of the Cheney reptiles (including mother Lynne who once set up a website solely to attack me and seven others for holding a teach-in on September 18, 2001 in which we spoke of US foreign policy as the main provocation of what had happened exactly a week earlier.)

These are the lists:

Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

• Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
• Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
• Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
• Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
• Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
• Plus … although not easily quantified … more involved in the practice of torture than any other country in the world … for over a century … not just performing the actual torture, but teaching it, providing the manuals, and furnishing the equipment.

Open Letter to the War Politicians of the World

Jürgen Todenhöfer is a German journalist and former media manager; from 1972 to 1990 he was a member of parliament for the Christian Democrats (CDU). He was one of Germany’s most ardent supporters of the US-sponsored Mujahideen and their guerrilla war against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Several times he traveled to combat zones with Afghan Mujahideen groups. After 2001 Todenhöfer became an outspoken critic of the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has published several books about visits he made to war zones. In recent years he twice interviewed Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and in 2015 he was the first German journalist to visit the ‘Islamic State’.

Dear Presidents and Heads of Governments!

Through decades of a policy of war and exploitation you have pushed millions people in the Middle East and Africa into misery. Because of your policies refugees have to flee all over the world. One out every three refugees in Germany comes from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. From Africa comes one out of five refugees.

Your wars are also the cause of global terrorism. Instead of some 100 international terrorists like 15 years ago, we now are faced with more than 100,000 terrorists. Your cynical ruthlessness now strikes back at us like a boomerang.

As usual, you do not even consider to really change your policy. You care only about the symptoms. The security situation gets more dangerous and chaotic by the day. More and more wars, waves of terror and refugee crises will determine the future of our planet.

Even in Europe, the war will one day knock again at Europe’s door. Any businessman that would act like you would be fired or be in prison by now. You are total failures.

The peoples of the Middle East and Africa, whose countries you have destroyed and plundered and the people of Europe, who now accommodate the countless desperate refugees, have to pay a high price for your policies. But you wash your hands of responsibility. You should stand trial in front of the International Criminal Court. And each of your political followers should actually take care of at least 100 refugee families.

Basically, the people of the world should rise up and resist you as the warmongers and exploiters you are. As once Gandhi did it – in nonviolence, in ‘civil disobedience’. We should create new movements and parties. Movements for justice and humanity. Make wars in other countries just as punishable as murder and manslaughter in one’s own country. And you who are responsible for war and exploitation, you should go to hell forever. It is enough! Get lost! The world would be much nicer without you.

– Jürgen Todenhöfer

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

The annual vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the resolution which reads: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” was just held. This year set a new record for “yes” votes, with the addition of the Marshall Islands and Palau (heretofore each voting “no” or abstaining) and Micronesia (heretofore abstaining). All three countries had established diplomatic relations with Cuba earlier this year, which of course the United States had also done, but without any change in Washington’s vote. Here is how the vote has gone in the past (not including abstentions):

Each fall the UN vote is a welcome reminder that the world has not completely lost its senses and that the American empire does not completely control the opinion of all other governments. The real reason for Washington’s eternal hostility toward Cuba has not changed since the revolution in 1959 – The fear of a good example; the fear of an alternative to the capitalist model; a fear that has been validated repeatedly over the years as many Third World countries have expressed their admiration and gratitude toward Cuba.

How the embargo began: On April 6, 1960, Lester D. Mallory, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in an internal memorandum: “The majority of Cubans support Castro … The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. … every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” Mallory proposed “a line of action which … makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted its suffocating embargo against its everlasting enemy.

Nothing of any real importance has changed recently. Guantánamo Prison still exists in all its imperialist beauty and torture. The US has not renounced its “regime-change” policies toward Cuba. Not a penny of Cuba’s near-trillion-dollar lawsuit for compensation has been paid. Washington has recently threatened to revoke the tax exempt status of IFCO/Pastors for Peace, one of the most respected and experienced Cuba advocacy groups. I still can’t go to Cuba as a tourist, or to present a book of mine at a Cuban Book Fair (for which I’ve been blocked in the past). And the United States still does not relax its death grip on the embargo, including continuing to prohibit the sale of medicines to Cuba.

A note to readers

A number of you have remarked to me about Killing Hope being unavailable in stores and, usually, from Amazon, and often from myself. This is because one of the book’s publishers, Common Courage (Maine), and its editor Greg Bates, have blocked publication and distribution of the book by a new US publisher. Common Courage is essentially out of business but refuses to face up to the fact. Bates stole a royalty payment sent to me by my British publisher via Common Courage. This theft, among other things, nullified my contract with Common Courage. It’s complicated, but I feel obliged to offer some explanation to those of you who have been unable to find a copy of the book.

Notes

1. The Independent (London), March 18, 2015
2. The Wikileaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015), Introduction by Julian Assange, chapter 10
3. Newsweek, September 21, 2015
4. William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (2005), Chapter 18
5. See Jürgen Todenhöfer’s Facebook and website. Some minor corrections to spelling and grammar have been made.
6. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba(1991), p.885

A secret application has been made to India’s GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) for a new variety of GMO mustard to be released for cultivation.

If accepted, this would be the first GMO variety to be approved in India – and could open the way for many more such applications for other major crops including staple foods like rice, wheat and chickpeas.

According to India’s Business Standard magazine, Deepak Pental, developer of the ‘Dhara Mustard Hybrid 11’ (DMH11) mustard seed at Delhi University, said that he had sent the proposal to the GEAC in mid-September. The GEAC is expected to meet again next week to consider the application.

The GEAC, part of the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, is the statutory authority that appraises proposals for field trials and commercial sale of GM crops. The final decision rests with the Union environment, forests and climate change minister.

The official website of the GEAC makes no mention of this or any other recent application – indeed the entire website appears to be many years out of date and unmaintained. The most recent ‘status of pending projects’ reports dates from March 2007. No minutes of meetings have been posted since April 2012.

India’s Economic Times also reported on 3rd September that a secret meeting of the GEAC had been called that day to discuss 17 applications for field trials of six GMO including varieties of cotton, corn, brinjal, chickpea, rice and wheat.

“The GEAC did meet today and certain decisions were taken. However, they cannot be shared at this stage as minutes have to be made and the minister’s approval is required as well”, an unnamed “senior official from the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF)” told ET, which added:

The decisions taken at the GEAC were kept absolutely wrapped in secrecy at the Environment ministry. The members of the GEAC whom ET spoke to refused to share any information on the decisions taken at the meeting.

The DMH11 GMO mustard, developed by Delhi University, embodies transgenic technology designed to facilitate hybridisation. Deepak Pental also claims the variety delivers a 30% yield increase.

A veil of secrecy over GMO deliberations

Prominent campaigner Aruna Rodrigues, who in 2013 challenged the Indian government over its “reckless promotion” of GMO crops in India’s Supreme Court, has denounced the secrecy surrounding the current round of GMO applications.

Consistent with the total absence of any recent information on the GEAC website, she argues that official regulators have hidden all data about the GM mustard from the public and the independent scientific community – in the process violating constitutional provisions and the orders of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 2008 had ordered that biosafety data be placed in the public domain when petitioners argued that unless the toxicity and allergenicity data are made known to the public, the applicants and concerned scientists in the country would not be in a position to make effective representations to the concerned authorities.

Rodrigues believes that the mandatory rigorous biosafety protocols required by law have not been carried out and the data pertaining to DMH11 therefore needs to be concealed.

According to Rodrigues, the secrecy surrounding GM mustard exemplifies the appalling state of regulation and smacks of corruption. She concludes the Indian government is using underhand means to introduce GM crops into Indian agriculture and that there appears to be no place for science or transparency in this process.

Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), has also been seeking biosafety data for DMH11 GM Mustard without success. “GEAC is functioning in a highly secretive fashion”, she complains.

And while the nation does not know what is happening inside the regulatory institutions with applications like this GM mustard, biosafety data is being repeatedly declined by the regulators. What are the regulators hiding and whose interests are they protecting?

She goes on to ask: “Why should the regulators be trusted for their safety assessment when in the case of both Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee (SC TEC) which took up a sample biosafety analyses in 2013 showed that the regulators were wrong in concluding the safety of these GMOs? …

This current Government seems to be keen to conduct regulatory processes in a secretive fashion. Our past requests to meet with the Environment Minister to share our concerns met with no success. As the government gets more secretive and opaque around regulation, the public has a right to know what are they afraid of, if everything is safe and scientific?

Four expert reports conclude: India is not ready for GMOs

The proposed approval of DMH11 also flies in the face of four official reports that recommend against introducing GMOs to India due to the lack of integrity, independence and scientific expertise in assessing GMO risk:

• The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal, overturning the apex Regulator’s approval to commercialise it;
• the ‘Sopory Committee Report’ (August 2012);
• the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012);
• and the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (June-July 2013).

The latest TEC report recommends an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops until the government devises a proper regulatory and safety mechanism.

The Coalition for a GM Free India is therefore demanding that the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, immediately intervene to stop the processing and approval of this GM mustard and makes public all the information regarding the safety tests of the GM Mustard.

Rajesh Krishnan, Convenor of Coalition for a GM-Free India, says the government’s intention is to speed through a raft of GMO applications: “This GM mustard is also a backdoor entry for various other GM crops in the regulatory pipeline.

While herbicide tolerance as a trait has been recommended against by committee after committee in the executive, legislative and judiciary-based inquiry processes in India related to GM crops, this GM mustard uses herbicide tolerance.

Non GMO options are already proven to work

Krishnan also argues that, more importantly, there are non-GM agro-ecological options like ‘System of Mustard Intensification’ yielding far higher production than the claimed yields of this GM mustard of Delhi University:

Contamination is inevitable of all other mustard varieties, while India is the Centre of Diversity for mustard. This is clearly one more GMO that is unwanted and unneeded and is being thrust on citizens in violation of our right to choices, as farmers and consumers.

He adds that the GM mustard hybrid has been created mainly to facilitate the seed production work of seed manufacturers – even though farmers already have a choice of non-GM mustard hybrids in the market, in addition to high yielding mustard varieties.

The claim is that GM mustard will provide yield increases of 25-30%. However, Rodrigues argues that higher yields are not the result of these particular transgenes but rather a direct result of hybridisation of normal crop genes.

This is basically a case of deception, she says: the use of high-yielding hybrids is a deliberate ploy to camouflage the yield attributable to the hybrid and assign it to the GM crop instead. She says that this is precisely the story that ensued with Bt cotton (which is now having disastrous consequences for many farmers) and that thread wove its way through Bt brinjal and now, openly for mustard.

Rodrigues says that the fraud is unprecedented and the case surrounding GM mustard in India is evidence of unremitting regulatory delinquency. The secrecy and regulatory delinquency that Rodrigues talks of is integral to the speeding up of the wider agenda of restructuring Indian agriculture for the benefit of an increasingly impatient Western agribusiness cartel.

These companies are pushing an unsustainable and poisonous industrialised model of farming on India based on a never-ending stream of petro-chemical inputs, commodity crops and corporate (GM) seeds. This is already impoverishing farmers and driving them out of agriculture and will ultimately have tremendously negative consequences for the nation’s food sovereignty, health and security.

An indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal (eggplant) in India in 2010. Regulators sought public feedback on that particular food crop and the Government of India took up public consultations before taking a final decision on Bt brinjal’s commercial cultivation fate in India.

But they now appear to be abandoning that precedent and moving ahead with DMH11 mustard – and other crops essential to India’s food security – without even a pretence at consultation or release of essential scientific information.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

This article is an extended version of one written by Colin Todhunter with additional reporting by Oliver Tickell.

First we heard about the epidemic of sexual crimes being committed by US soldiers against women in our armed forces several years ago with over 26,000 cases reported in 2011 alone. Even such pristine, honorable institutions as our US service academies traditionally producing America’s top leaders are blatantly guilty. The Air Force Academy where supposedly this nation’s “cream of the crop” are educated apparently harbors more rapists than any other college in America. And that fact speaks volumes since last year’s headlines across the country uncovered the appalling statistics of a rape epidemic occurring on the campuses of America’s finest colleges and universities. Up to one in three women can expect to be raped at some point in her life. And now a just released  AP finding reports that a thousand police officers lost their badges as “protectors” of our community for various incidents involving sexual misconduct.

If we can’t trust men at our leadership bastions like the prestigious US service academies or our military men in uniform sworn to defend and protect our nation, or our best and brightest attending America’s finest institutions of higher learning, and now also those wearing blue uniform whose designated purpose is to “protect and serve” our communities whose salaries are paid for by our hard-earned tax dollars, then who can we trust? Definitely not either our government officials in the halls of Washington nor our men of cloth like Catholic priests as both our highest political and spiritual authority figures have even longer histories of sex crimes, both notoriously off the charts for their high profile sex scandals in recent decades.

The arrest and highly suspected murder to silence the so called DC Madame Deborah Palfrey underscores the looming infestation of sex crime scandals so historically embedded at America’s top power echelons. The bottom line is that Americans cannot actually trust any of their public servants, either elected or in uniform. This startling, highly unsettling fact reflects just one more glaring sign among many of the crumbling civil and moral breakdown now rampantly plaguing American society.

This latest headline comes from a yearlong investigation by Associated Presscompiling statistics from 41 out of the 50 United States involving state and local law enforcement personnel who lost their jobs over the six year period from 2009-2014 for sexual misconduct charges. Sarasota Florida Police Chief Bernadette DePinoadmits that these sexual offenses go largely underreported, adding “It’s happening probably in every law enforcement agency across the country.” The various crimes in this investigation include rape, sodomy, sexual assault, child pornography possession, propositioning citizens while on-duty ad well as engaging in consensual sex while on-duty.

With the “thin blue line” that is infamous for police protecting their own misconduct, and so many cases never reported, charged or convicted, yet 1000 cases found on the books in only 41 states with the biggest states conspicuously not included, police getting away with sex crimes in the US is exponentially greater than the 1000 who ended up losing their jobs. This investigation didn’t even include statistics from the two most populous states in America – California and New York – where criminal misconduct from abusively militant, trigger-happy police departments are the most pervasive in the country. With no help from law enforcement data, of those total number of Americans killed by police (464) in the first five months of 2015, The Guardian found that blacks are over twice as likely to be killed when unarmed as whites. The Guardian also determined that police are killing Americans at twice the rate calculated by the US government’s official public record of police homicides.

In the same way that for all too obvious reasons America’s law enforcement purposely fails to track police shooting unarmed citizens in any systematic or accurate way, least of all black males being inordinately murdered, no doubt California and New York conveniently do not collect statistics of its police officers losing their jobs over sexual misconduct for the same reason. The truth is simply too self-incriminating. The nine states along with the District of Columbia omitted in theAP study either do not decertify police officers (administrative process of revoking law enforcement licenses) for sexual misconduct or are not required to track the numbers of police rapists at all. This systemic hiding of sinister truth behind the badge is a serious enough problem to be considered criminal in and of itself. Also conspicuously absent from this investigation were members of federal law enforcement agencies since only records from states were included.

The estimate of rape cases that remain unreported amongst the general population at-large are at least 9 out of 10. But the number of women raped by police who are understandably too afraid to then go to the same police agency responsible for raping them has to be way more than 9 out of 10 who choose not to report. The severe reprisals and harassment that so often result after women do report sexual assault especially when committed by police officers is atrocious since the thin blue line of tightly sealed police protection diabolically kicks in. Police Chief DePino who worked with the International Association of Police Chiefs to compile the data, illustrates this “thin blue line” with the following point:

It’s so underreported and people are scared that if they call and complain about a police officer, they think every other police officer is going to be then out to get them.

Just maybe so many people think that because to some extent it’s all too true.

It was found that even among the 41 states that were included in these findings, some of those 41 states reported no officers lost their jobs at all which belies both newspaper headlines and court reports documenting specific rape cases involving police in those states. Thus in some cases, states actually falsely denied rape amongst its police ranks indicating yet more institutionalized protection at either the state governing level or law enforcement level.

Despite the negative publicity covered extensively in recent years of police brutality and use of excessive force on unarmed US citizens, until now police raping US citizens has largely remained under the media’s radar. Reasons? A “patchwork” of laws, “piecemeal” reporting and victims too traumatized and fearful to register complaints and charges. Plus one third of the cases where 1000 cops lost their jobs involved assault victims 17 years old or younger. Most of the victims of police misconduct are poor, often have drug problems or have had some prior run-ins with the law. Thus, predatory cops who rape consciously select their victims amongst those who are most unlikely and least powerful to try and ever hold them accountable.

This investigation also determined that similar to the heinous reshuffling of known predatory priests by religious higher-ups from the pope on down who swept their endemic problem under the rug enabling and protecting criminal clergy to continue raping in other assigned communities, law enforcement leaders are also known to allow guilty police personnel to quietly resign thereby retaining certification to then be hired by other law enforcement communities to rape yet more victims elsewhere… more criminal concealment of liability.

The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics tasked with collecting police data doesn’t even track officer arrests, nor are states mandated to collect or share that information. All this built-in, layered, self-protective deception only emphasizes that the number of US cops raping citizens must actually dwarf the 1000 AP reported, making the true numbers well into thousands upon thousands of police rapists who are systemically allowed to rape and continue getting away with their evil crimes. With recidivism rates for rapists relatively high, higher than even child molesters, rapists often continue to rape until they ultimately are caught and put behind bars. And in prison they likely only continue acting out their pathology with same sex victims.

The breakdown of criminal behavior that caused 1000 police officers to lose their job for sexual misconduct is as follows: 550 police were fired for incidents involving sexual assault that included rape and sodomy, sexual shakedowns where citizens were forced into performing sexual acts to avoid arrest or subjected to gratuitous pat-downs. The other 440 cops engaged in child pornography, voyeurism, sexting juveniles or having on-duty intercourse. The guilty ex-cops who lost their jobs were employed state and local police, sheriff’s deputies, prison guards or school security personnel. The victims in the AP investigation were most often female motorists stopped by police, schoolchildren ordered to lift up their shirts or pull down their pants in bogus drug searches, police interns who were taken advantage of, exploited women with legal problems who were promised help in exchange for performing sexual acts and prison inmates forced to have sex with prison guards.

Both this AP finding and other related research have consistently conferred that police sexual misconduct is among the biggest citizen complaints. A Bowling Green University study examining news articles from 2005 to 2011 determined that 6,724 arrests were made against over 5,500 police officers. Sexual offenses accounted for the third largest number causing police to be arrested behind police violence and profit-motivated crime. Right behind use of excessive force is sexual misconduct in a Cato Institute report from 2010 and 2011 that examined the most common police complaints. As a consequence of the militarization of America, abuse of police authority manifests at its worst through both extreme physical violence and brutal sexual violence perpetrated against those fellow American citizens deemed the most defenseless.

The devastating impact that sexual perpetrators protected by their all-powerful badge have on their victims is nearly incomprehensible. Severe sexual trauma leads to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders, drug addiction and even suicide when victims remain paralyzed for years, too afraid and powerless to seek justice, often alone suffering in silence without support or professional treatment. Few victims especially if underage juveniles, poor, or prostitutes dare even report police sex crimes.

Moreover, police officers frequently know and are friends with lawyers working at the local district attorney’s office. So in addition to the protection they receive from their fellow law enforcement officers, rapist cops are also sheltered from accountability by the corrupt judicial system that also maintains complicity with its own conflict of interest. These latest grim findings confirm that power of abuse is running rampant at all levels in America and, as is so often the case, the least powerful amongst us are the most egregiously victimized.

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

In the wake of last week’s CNBC-sponsored Republican presidential debate – and its alleged “gotcha questions” – the GOP and the Right are reviving their treasured myth of the “liberal media,” a claim that has been politically significant but almost entirely fictitious. There is not now nor really was there ever a “liberal media.”

Generations back, Americans understood that the major newspapers were owned by very rich men and generally represented their class interests. The wealthy owners would deploy their media properties to advance their mostly conservative – and pro-business/anti-labor – viewpoints.

There were always exceptions to this rule, but few Americans in the 1940s, for instance, would have considered the press “liberal,” with President Franklin Roosevelt garnering less than a quarter of newspaper endorsements in his last two races and President Harry Truman getting only about 15 percent in 1948.

The modern myth of the “liberal press” originated in the 1950s when many reporters in the national news media displayed sympathy for the idea that African-Americans deserved equal rights with white people.

Image: Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh

Though some prominent journalists and many newspapers (especially but not solely in the South) supported racial segregation, many reporters (principally but not only from the North) wrote critically about Jim Crow laws and racist attitudes. A negative media spotlight was cast on the lynching of black men, brutality toward civil rights activists and violence by whites to keep black children out of previously all-white schools.

Northern reporters, for example, descended on Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, for the trial and acquittal of two white men for the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black youth who supposedly had flirted with a white woman. The critical coverage led the state’s whites to plaster their cars with bumper stickers reading, “Mississippi: The Most Lied About State in the Union.” [For more on the media’s coverage of the civil rights movement, see David Halberstam’s The Fifties. Or Taylor Branch’s Parting the Waters.]

In the 1960s, the U.S. mainstream media largely favored the Vietnam War, but skeptical reporting about U.S. tactics – from burning down villages and saturation bombing campaigns to the use of Agent Orange defoliants, assassinations under the CIA’s Operation Phoenix and the massacre at My Lai – angered war supporters who viewed such journalism as undercutting the war effort.

By the late 1960s, the white backlash against racial integration gave rise to Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy and his Silent Majority’s resentment of critical coverage of the Vietnam War strengthened Nixon’s political hand. Nixon personally had a huge chip on his shoulder about what he regarded as hostile press coverage, so he helped infuse the Republican Party with contempt for the “liberal media.”

The 1970s and 1980s

The landmark media events of the 1970s – the publication of the Pentagon Papers secret history of the Vietnam War, investigation of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, and revelations about the CIA’s “Family Jewels” secrets – pretty much sealed this image of a “liberal” press corps that would not reliably defend the actions of the U.S. government.

But this news coverage that so infuriated the Right and many Republicans was not “liberal”; it was accurate. It was a fleeting moment when American journalists were doing what the Founders had in mind with the First Amendment, informing the people about actions by their government so the people could have a meaningful say in controlling what the government was doing.

Nevertheless, the Right’s “liberal media” myth proved to be a powerful ideological weapon, wielded against reporters who uncovered unflattering information about right-wing policies and politicians. These reporters were deemed “unpatriotic,” “un-American,” a “blame-America-firster,” or just “liberal” for short.

I witnessed how this phenomenon played out in the 1980s. Contrary to the “liberal media” myth, the senior executives of news organizations that I dealt with were almost universally conservative or neoconservative.

At the Associated Press, its most senior executive, general manager Keith Fuller, gave a 1982 speech in Worcester, Massachusetts, hailing Reagan’s election in 1980 as a worthy repudiation of the excesses of the 1960s and a necessary corrective to the nation’s lost prestige of the 1970s. Fuller cited Reagan’s Inauguration and the simultaneous release of 52 U.S. hostages in Iran on Jan. 20, 1981, as a national turning point in which Reagan had revived the American spirit.

“As we look back on the turbulent Sixties, we shudder with the memory of a time that seemed to tear at the very sinews of this country,” Fuller said, adding that Reagan’s election represented a nation “crying, ‘Enough.’ …

“We don’t believe that the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation. We don’t believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics. We don’t really believe that a simple prayer or a pledge of allegiance is against the national interest in the classroom.

“We’re sick of your social engineering. We’re fed up with your tolerance of crime, drugs and pornography. But most of all, we’re sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs.”

Fuller’s sentiments were not uncommon in the executive suites of major news organizations, where Reagan’s reassertion of an aggressive U.S. foreign policy was especially welcomed. At The New York Times, executive editor Abe Rosenthal, an early neocon, vowed to steer his newspaper back “to the center,” by which he meant to the right.

There was also a social dimension to this journalistic retreat. For instance, The Washington Post’s longtime publisher Katharine Graham found the stresses of high-stakes adversarial journalism unpleasant. Plus, it was one thing to take on the socially inept Richard Nixon; it was quite another to challenge the socially adroit Ronald and Nancy Reagan, whom Mrs. Graham personally liked.

The Graham family embraced neoconservatism, too, favoring aggressive policies against Moscow and unquestioned support for Israel. Soon, The Washington Post and Newsweek editors were reflecting those family prejudices.

I encountered that reality when I moved from AP to Newsweek in 1987 and found executive editor Maynard Parker, in particular, hostile to journalism that put Reagan’s Cold War policies in a negative light. I had been involved in breaking much of the Iran-Contra scandal at the AP, but I was told at Newsweek that “we don’t want another Watergate.” The fear apparently was that the political stresses from another constitutional crisis around a Republican president might shatter the nation’s political cohesion and would not be “good for the country.”

Building a Right-Wing Media

Still, the notion of a “liberal media” persisted, getting even more absurd as the years went by. Under President Reagan, the recurring complaint on the Right about the “liberal media” gave rise to an overtly right-wing media – a vertically integrated structure from newspapers, magazines and book publishing to talk radio, TV networks and later the Internet.

By the 1990s, this right-wing media was arguably the most important political force in the United States, with talk-show host Rush Limbaugh working as a national precinct chairman for the GOP, rallying conservatives behind various causes and candidates. When the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, they made Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.

The same was true in the upper reaches of corporate media. Collaborating directly with Republican politicians since the 1980s, Rupert Murdoch built a massive media empire based on newspapers (including now the Wall Street Journal), magazines (such as The Weekly Standard), book publishing (HarperCollins) and TV (most notably Fox News).

But Murdoch was far from the only network chieftain to be an ardent Republican. On Election Night 2000, General Electric Chairman Jack Welch revealed a favoritism for George W. Bush while visiting the election desk of GE’s NBC News subsidiary. In front of the NBC staff, Welch rooted for a Bush victory, asking apparently in jest, “how much would I have to pay you to call the race for Bush?” according to witnesses.

Later, after Fox News declared Bush the winner, Welch allegedly asked the chief of the NBC election desk why NBC was not doing the same, a choice NBC did make and then retracted. Though premature, the pro-Bush calls colored the public impression of Bush’s entitlement to the presidency during the month-long Florida recount battle. Welch denied pressuring NBC to call the race for Bush and defended his other behavior as a reaction to younger NBC staffers who Welch thought were favoring Vice President Al Gore.

Pro-Republican bias did not stop with Murdoch and Welch, as columnist Joe Conason has noted. “So was Larry Tisch when he owned CBS. So are Richard Parsons and Steve Case of CNN (and Time Warner AOL),” Conason wrote at Salon.com. “Michael Eisner (Disney ABC) gave to Bill Bradley and Al Gore, but he gave more to Bush and [John] McCain – and he supported Rick Lazio for the Senate against Hillary Clinton.”

Meanwhile, many of the publications that were denounced by the Right as “liberal” bastions (the likes of The New York Times and The Washington Post) shifted fully into neoconservatism – hawkish on foreign policy though more tolerant on cultural issues such as gay marriage and more accepting of science on topics like global warming.

Both the Times and Post advanced President George W. Bush’s bogus claims about Iraq’s WMD as a justification for invading Iraq in 2003. Today, both newspapers toe the neocon line when it comes to aggressive U.S. policies regarding Russia and Syria. Neither makes any effort to conceal their hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and other foreign leaders who are singled out for U.S. demonization.

From the news columns to the op-ed pages, the Times and Post have presented deeply biased coverage that favors more aggressive U.S. interventions abroad. On economic issues, they are generally centrist, favoring “free trade” deals and “reform” of Social Security – neither position shared by most “liberals” or “progressives.”

Most modern media is owned by large corporations or, in a few cases, wealthy families. So, it continues to make sense that these outlets would share the prejudices and interests of the rich, as in the old days of FDR and Truman. Indeed, CNBC, the cable network that has prompted the recent right-wing ire, is famously pro-business and anti-government.

CNBC is dedicated to the proposition that “the market” knows all, except when there is an urgent need for the U.S. government to bail out the major investment banks after they tanked the economy in 2008 and crashed Wall Street stock values. Then, the government’s trillions of dollars were deemed essential, though the bank executives still bristled at any political criticism or suggestions that their compensation should be restrained.

The Tea Party Rise

In the first month of Barack Obama’s presidency, CNBC was on the front lines of promoting this arrogance of the super rich, attacking the new president even as he was confronting the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with millions of Americans losing their jobs and millions more losing their homes.

Yet, while the huge Wall Street bank bail-out under President George W. Bush was popular with the CNBC crowd – all the better to reverse the plunge in stock prices – there was a fury against Obama’s plans to restrict executive compensation and help stanch the surge in joblessness and home foreclosures.

On Feb. 19, 2009, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli took to the trading floor of the Chicago commodities exchange and fumed about Obama’s plan to help up to nine million Americans avoid foreclosure. Santelli suggested that Obama set up a Web site to get public feedback on whether “we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages.”

Then, gesturing to the wealthy traders in the pit, Santelli declared, “this is America” and asked “how many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills, raise their hand.” Amid a cacophony of boos aimed at Obama’s housing plan, Santelli turned back to the camera and said, “President Obama, are you listening?”

Though Santelli’s behavior in a different context – say, a denunciation of George W. Bush near the start of his presidency – would surely have resulted in a suspension or firing, Santelli’s anti-Obama rant was hailed as “the Chicago tea party,” made Santelli an instant hero across right-wing talk radio, and was featured proudly on NBC’s Nightly News.

Santelli’s rant against helping “losers” inspired the Tea Party movement, which tapped into the populist frustrations of many alienated whites but was largely funded by rich right-wingers, including the Koch Brothers, who viewed it as a way to advance their own anti-regulatory agenda and promote more tax cuts for the rich.

That CNBC would now be attacked as a bastion of the “liberal media” shows how far this myth has slid from reality. CNBC is now part of NBCUniversal, which is co-owned by Comcast (51 percent), a major international media conglomerate, and General Electric (49 percent), a founding member of what President Dwight Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex.

So, the notion that CNBC is a hotbed of leftist journalism is delusional. But that is what the Republican Party and many of its top candidates are selling to their “base.”

‘Gotcha’ Complaints

The complaints from last Wednesday’s debate have focused on alleged “gotcha” questions, such as challenges to Dr. Ben Carson, one of the GOP frontrunners, about whether his budget proposals add up and what was his relationship with a shady nutritional supplement company called Mannatech.

While such queries would seem relevant to business reporters, the questions became the target of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and other candidates who won the audience’s cheers for lambasting the “liberal media.”

The “liberal media” accusations prompted the Republican National Committee to suspend its relationship with NBC regarding future debates. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, even added a button at his Internet site for his supporters to “stand against the liberal left media.”

That CNBC would become the new faux standard bearer for the “liberal left media” might be considered comical, but the furor is indicative of how millions of Americans have accepted the Right’s decoupling from the real world and have surrendered their political judgment to demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and corporate masters of the universe like Rupert Murdoch.

How this happened is, of course, complicated and includes the failure of the mainstream press to defend the times when it has fought on behalf of the American people to keep them informed with important information so they can do their job as citizens in a democracy.

Instead, the mainstream media seems significantly disengaged from the public, treating Americans like a commodity to be manipulated rather than the “We the People” owners of the democratic Republic to be respected and served.

Given the arrogance and elitism of many top news personalities, there is an understandable distrust and disdain for the major media. But that populist revulsion toward the overpaid talking heads has been exploited by skillful right-wing media figures who have rallied millions of confused Americans to become foot soldiers in an ideological army that marches to defend a wasteland of false and factually flimsy information.

The answer to this dilemma must be a recommitment among journalists to get back to the basics — providing citizens with information that they need to do their job — and to take on the powers-that-be in the name of the people.

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

Palestine is a war zone, pitting an Israeli aggressor against millions of defenseless Palestinians. State-sponsored terror continues unabated.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) reported at least 2,617 Palestinians shot with live fire or potentially lethal rubber or plastic coated steel bullets in October, used indiscriminately – around 760 struck with live fire, 1,857 with rubber bullets often causing injuries, some serious or fatal.

Another 5,400 needed treatment for toxic tear gas inhalation. An 8-month-old infant was suffocated to death from exposure. Through Sunday, 72 Palestinians were murdered in cold blood, around 8,300 injured.

Video evidence in some cases showed premeditated assassinations, knives then planted beside victims to claim attempted stabbing incidents – Big Lies blaming them for Israeli cold blooded murder.

October was the deadliest month in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the Second Intifada – from September 2000 to February 2005.

Its horrific toll included:

• 4,166 Palestinians killed, including 886 children and 271 women;

• 554 extra-judicial assassinations, including 253 bystanders;

• 3,530 Palestinians disabled, maimed, or otherwise horrifically injured;

• 8,600 imprisoned, including 288 children and 115 women;

• 576 students killed, including 199 university-level ones and 32 academics;

• another 4,713 students injured and 1,389 detained;

• 2,329,659 dunums of land confiscated;

• another 73,613 dunums razed plus 1,355,290 uprooted trees; and

• 7,761 demolished homes plus 93,842 others damaged.

Conditions are much worse now under Netanyahu than then under Sharon. Whether years of committed resistance met by Israeli atrocities lie ahead remain to be seen.

Extreme brutality, including extrajudicial assassinations, reflect official Israeli policy – with full support and encouragement from Washington, generously funding its killing machine, partnering in its wars of aggression.

Ramallah-based Birzeit University Political Science Professor Saeed Nimer told Press TV Palestinians are being “killed just on suspicion and without threatening even the Israeli soldiers.”

“They think if they face the Palestinians with more aggression that will bring down the Intifada while it is to the contrary.”

“The more killing every day by the Israelis and the more atrocities by the Israeli occupation, will bring the Palestinians even more and more and aggravate the Palestinians and give them the ability to fight back against the Israeli occupation.”

“We know the Israelis do not want peace…They left the Palestinians with nothing…Palestinian factions are supporting the Intifada but it is quite clear that on the streets the youngsters are managing themselves so far, and we cannot see that there is a clear leadership…in a political way.”

A combination of justifiable pent up anger against a ruthless occupier, spontaneity, and young people wanting freedom they’re denied drives the resistance.

It’s heroic by any standard – met by Israeli viciousness continuing into November, another Palestinian death reported on Sunday, one more on Monday so far, the total now 74.

Eight Israeli deaths are known, the last one on October 18 – only two from stabbing incidents. Daily claims of knife wielding Palestinians are Big Lies, blaming victims for Israeli high crimes.

Overnight Saturday, soldiers stormed Qusra village south of Nablus, invaded Mayor Hussein Abu Reida’s home, ransacked it, then arrested him and his son, Tariq.

Palestinian officials often are arrested and imprisoned for belonging to the wrong political parties. On October 20, Hamas affiliated lawmaker Hassan Youssef was arrested at home in a pre-dawn raid.

Four PLC members are currently imprisoned, all for political reasons, including Khalida Jarrar, targeted for her courageous activism. A previous article discussed her persecution.

The Addameer prisoner support group called her arrest and imprisonment “vengeful, arbitrary and political, with an aim to punish her for her political opinions and activism for Palestinian human rights.”

One-sided Israeli media reports feature daily fabricated stabbing incidents, including sensationalist commentaries like from right-wing columnist David Horowitz saying to Abbas “you need to tell (your people) to stop stabbing us.”

Not a word about premeditated assassinations of Palestinians threatening no one – legitimately resisting a brutal occupier. Nothing about indiscriminate use of live fire, potentially lethal rubber bullets and toxic tear gas, as well as Palestinians being bludgeoned by batons and rifle butts.

Israel is a ruthless apartheid regime, Palestinians on their own, heroically struggling for freedom, deserving universal support.

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 unprecedented electoral success of Poland’s Law and Justice Party (Pis) has given the country its first majority government since 1989 and handed all positions of power to the ruling party.

The logical consequence of this is that it’s paved the way for “Gray Cardinal” Jaroslaw Kaczynski to streamline his vision for Poland, the de-facto reincarnation of Pilsudski’s Intermarium vision.

In the context of contemporary EU geopolitics, this has the potential to expand the American-controlled ‘bipolarity’ between Germany and France to include the more loyal and pro-American Poland, which would serve to divide Western Europe from Russia in the event of a détente between the two. European “tripolarity” is the perfect structural innovation in perpetuating the US’ control over the continent and catalyzing a ‘decentralizing’ chain reaction where other pro-American poles of power take on increased strategic significance, such as the Swedish-led Viking Bloc and the comparatively weaker albeit still existing Black Sea Bloc between Romania and Bulgaria.

The research starts off by describing the contemporary strategic context in the continental EU before seguing into an explanation of what exactly constitutes the Intermarum. Afterwards, the historical basis of this concept is touched upon before moving along to describing some of its finer details. The second part of the article talks about the resistant bloc that’s forming in the Central Balkans as a result, and concludes with a study of the three “squeaky hinges” that could slam the door shut on the Intermarum.

American-Supervised “Bipolarity” And The “Decentralization” Development

The present situation in Europe can be described as American-controlled bipolarity. In this structure, the US leverages its relations with Germany and France in order to disseminate its influence throughout the entire continent by proxy. It’s generally assumed that Berlin’s sway extends throughout Northern, Eastern, and Central Europe, whereas Paris’ is most prevalent in the Mediterranean areas of Southern Europe. This division can clearly be seen when it comes to each respective side’s respective disagreements over austerity, which has become an extraordinarily divisive point in the EU. With Germany leading one group of states and France the other, US influence over each of them amounts to continental rule by proxy, to say nothing of the direct control it exerts through NATO.

All Great Powers seem to understand this relationship, both between patron and proxy and in terms of each pole’s geographic sphere of influence in the EU, and they thus approach their diplomacy according to this two-track policy. When Germany and France are in agreement on a certain matter, then it’s all but assured that the rest of Europe will stand behind it, but when they differ on something, then the continental divide on the said issue widens and it’s difficult for progress to be made. When the US finds it ‘appropriate’, it interferes in the bilateral relations between these two poles in order to literally divide and rule, but sometimes things don’t work out quite like the US originally planned. The case in point that immediately comes to mind is the Minsk Agreement, where both Germany and France repelled American influence in sabotaging the initiative and instead threw their full diplomatic weight behind it.

This unprecedented insubordination to the US compelled Washington accelerate its preexisting plans for European “decentralization”, or in other words, militant NATO-led regionalism in order to shift the continental momentum east towards the US’ most loyal proxy states. The US fears that Germany, France, and the French satellite state of Italy, together the top three economies in continental Europe, could one day enter into a non-American-advised détente with Russia, thus slipping out of Washington’s control and endangering the US’ proxy rule over Europe. In response to the lingering unease that the US has over this scenario, it announced that its bloc of military subordinates would be setting up six regional command centers in the Baltics, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria to emphasize Washington’s new focus on the so-called “frontline states”.

A New Constellation

It’s understood that this is happening at the expense of the US’ relations with its traditional European allies of Germany and France, but that’s the entire point – the US is demonstrating that although those states remain important in the overall sense of things via their American-managed “bipolarity” over the EU, “New Europe”, as Donald Rumsfeld so boorishly called it over a decade ago, is on the verge of replacing it in terms of American strategic priorities. The concept here is to embolden regional leaders in Northern and Eastern Europe, Sweden and Poland respectively, to take on increased responsibilities via the Lead From Behind strategy of “unipolar multipolarity”.

Sweden:

It doesn’t matter in this case that Sweden isn’t (yet) a NATO member because it already behaves as one of the bloc’s leading advocates, so it’s actually a moot point whether it even needs to de-jure join the organization. The same can be said for Finland, since it’s obviously abandoned the policy of “Finlandization” that was earlier named after it and is now an aspiring partner of the US. Swedish historical influence over Finland has plainly extended to the present political realm, since Stockholm has used its privileged ties with Helsinki to rapidly bring both of these non-NATO-member states solidly under the bloc’s wing. Including Norway, Iceland, and Denmark, “Greater Scandinavia” under Swedish leadership has become the US’ proxy fighting force in Northern Europe, the Viking Bloc.

Poland:

Directly south on the plains of Eastern Europe is Poland, which has exploited the New Cold War in order to arguably become the loudest proponent of NATO’s eastward surge. Warsaw is seeking to centralize as much NATO attention onto itself and its ambitions in order to achieve the multilateral ‘jump start’ that it needs in order to bring back the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This Neo-Commonwealth, as the author has previously called it, refers to the expansion of Polish kinetic and potential influence over the lands of its prior empire, especially over Belarus and Western Ukraine, which are the general targets here. Only Poland has the demographic and economic capability of pulling this off and achieving some sort of mild success, hence why the US encourages it to ‘call the shots’ in the region and become the ‘mascot’ of “New Europe”.

Romania/Bulgaria:

The third leg of this North-South ‘new’-NATO constellation is Romania and Bulgaria, two equally poor and weak states that nevertheless have been cultivated to become diehard NATO proponents. By themselves, these states can’t do anything of military worth, but in cooperation with and under the guidance of the US, they could become regional nuisances in the western Black Sea region. The US is attracted to Romania because of the potential that it has in triggering destabilization in Moldova on demand, as well as the possibility for its interference in Northern Bukovina amid any large-scale Ukrainian state breakdown. Although definitely in the long term, there’s also the possibility of Romania building (or buying) a modest navy with heavy American financial and technical support, which despite never being able to compete with its Russian counterparts, could at the very least prove to be a nuisance if outfitted with anti-missile technology.

Bulgaria appears to be a lot more useless than Romania on the surface of things, but in reality, it could play a crucial role in destabilizing Macedonia in the event that the Balkan Stream pipeline is completed. The Black Sea state has historically behaved in an imperial fashion towards its neighbor because it refuses to recognize that the country, ethnicity, and language even exist, believing them instead to be sub-sectors of Bulgaria and its identity. These ideas are no longer recognized on the official level, but they’re still wildly popular in society and among the country’s decision makers, which constantly try to position themselves as a “big brother” to Macedonia. This patronizing attitude is indicative of the ulterior motives that the Sofia elite harbor towards the people that they last occupied during World War II, and it’s an overlap of “natural” interest for the US to cooperate with Bulgaria in destabilizing Russia and China’s chokehold gateway into Europe.

Returning To The Historical Blueprint

Background:

What the US is pursuing in linking together Northern, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe into an anti-Russian alliance isn’t exactly a novel idea, since it was first attempted by interwar Polish leader Jozef Pilsudski through what he called the Intermarum, or “between seas”. This vision sought to integrate the countries straddling the Baltic and Black Seas into a unified strategic alliance under Polish leadership. It eventually fell apart owing to the divergent foreign policies of the prospective member states, as well as Poland’s geopolitical bullying of interwar Lithuania (occupying and annexing its historic capital, threatening war, etc.), which served to push its former ally as far away as possible from it and therefore isolate the rest of the Baltic States from Polish influence. While nothing more than an on-paper theoretical conception, the idea itself was attractive enough to future American and Polish strategists so as to warrant a second attempt when the opportunity sprung.

The Domino Effect Of Opportunism:

The post-Cold War environment proved extremely fertile for the US in expanding NATO and incorporating all of the projected Intermarum states besides Belarus and Ukraine. This advantageous state of affairs provided the US and its regional allies with the institutional capital to actualize Pilsudski’s dead dream, but all that was needed was the appropriate spark to set all the gears in motion. This was conveniently manufactured by the American-conceived EuroMaidan urban terrorist insurrection that resulted in the predictable New Cold War that was needed to ‘justify’ the Intermarum. Once the process was initiated, all of its members wanted in on it and in the most comprehensive manner possible. The domino effect of opportunism that began has created a frenzy among all of the participating states, as their governments (despite the indignation of certain segments of their populations) literally beg for as much of a NATO military presence as possible. The perceived benefit that they gain is strictly ideological and intangible, and in reality, it’s really an ironic welcoming of one military occupation in order to stave off a feared and extremely unlikely one from someone else.

Organizing The Intermarium

The below map is Europe’s forecasted military-political layout:

Key

* Black – Albania and the UK, the most direct instruments of the American military in Europe

* Pink – “Old NATO”, the member-states that will not partake in the Intermarum’s anti-Russian games

* Blue – The Viking Bloc

* Red – The Neo-Commonwealth

* Green – The Black Sea Bloc

* Brown – St. Stephen’s Space

* Yellow – The Central Balkans

* Gold – Russia, Belarus, and Donbass

What follows is an explanation of the key areas in the Intermarum:

The Baltics:

The international arena and global context have changed since the interwar years, and accordingly, the blueprint for the Intermarum has as well. As previously described, there are three central foci in this bloc, and they’re Sweden, Poland, and Romania, with Warsaw being the gravitational center holding it all together. The Baltic States are no longer seen as independent governments in their own right, but as nothing more than landlords with ‘legal’ right to ‘rent’ out their territory to any given military, most recently the US and UK. However, the current number of foreign military occupants isn’t sufficient to satisfy the paranoid fears of the host states, and it’s anticipated that there will eventually be an attempt made to draw them into the Viking Bloc and Neo-Commonwealth orbits. More than likely, Estonia and Latvia will sway towards Sweden, whereas Poland will try to lure Lithuania (but with uncertain success, as will be described later).

Ukraine:

It’s basically a fait accompli that Ukraine has become the military property of NATO, albeit minus the presence of formalized bases. The joint Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian brigade is a strong symbol of the Neo-Commonwealth’s stake over this territory, and given the historical connotations behind this move, it’s a given that Poland wants the country to become its premier stomping grounds in the future. Like with the Baltics, the only permanent NATO presence outside of the Neo-Commonwealth will probably remain the US and UK, even if they never make it official (due to the legal ‘loophole’ of rotating their forces for an unlimited number of times).

Moldova:

Similar to how Poland lays ‘stake’ to Ukraine via its historical legacy, Romania has done the same thing for Moldova, although the latter is arguably less closer to NATO than Ukraine is (although it’s still on a pretty cozy footing). Still, the potential for internal conflict is definitely there, be it through a Color Revolution, a Continuation War in Transnistria, or an outright annexation (be it through ballot or bullet) by Romania. For this reason, the geostrategic territory remains a flashpoint, but one which for the most part is under heavy influence from Bucharest (except, of course, for Transnistria).

St. Stephen’s Space:

This is the name of an emerging sub-bloc centered on Hungary, named for the famous King from that country. Right now it lays dormant, but there’s a strong possibility that it could be activated as the other Intermarum nodes rush to consolidate their spheres of influence. In that case, Budapest can be expected to extend is umbrella of historical influence over Croatia, which in turn will do the same to the Croat-Muslim portions of Bosnia. Much to the dismay of the locals and their government, Hungary may also try to exert itself over Slovakia, although it remains questionable whether or not it will succeed in this. Squeezed between Poland and Hungary, Slovakia might opt for the choice of the “devil it knows” and go with Hungary in some type of institutional cooperative framework (perhaps using the Visegrad Group as a forerunner for this). The overall scenario of St. Stephen’s Space becomes more probable if an even more right-wing government than Viktor Orban enters into power such as Gabor Vona’s Jobbik, which in that case might even try to leverage its influence over the Hungarian minority in Romania to blackmail Bucharest into submitting to its aspiring hegemony. It might also unintentionally provoke a crisis between the two states that could lead to unpredictable consequences, perhaps even including the strategic neutralization of both blocs following an Intermarum “civil war” between these two sides.

To be continued…

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

Spokesman of Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Battalions) popular forces Jafar al-Hosseini disclosing that captured ISIL leaders have acknowledged receiving logistical backup and intelligence support from the US.

“As the ISIL commanders captured in Iraqi popular forces’ recent military operations have confessed, the US supports for the terrorist groups are not limited to the dispatch of logistical support,” Al-Hosseini told FNA on Sunday.

He reiterated that the US has provided the ISIL with intelligence about the Iraqi forces’ positions and targets.

“ISIL commanders trusted the US officials who had assured them that the Iraqi forces would not attack Fallujah because the US had urged the Iraqi government to prevent the popular forces from entering Fallujah and raid Beiji instead; hence the terrorists left Fallujah for Beiji to stay on the alert in there,” Al-Hosseini added.

Al-Hosseini had also stated on Wednesday that his forces plan to win back the city of Ramadi only after expelling the American forces from Anbar province.

“Our forces have two operations underway; first seizing Ramadi from ISIL and second keeping away the American forces from Anbar province,” al-Hosseini told FNA.

He underlined that preventing the US forces from getting close to Anbar province will expedite operations for winning back the province, specially after the military operations in Salahuddin province that led to the liberation of the city of Beiji.

Iraqi officials have on different occasions blasted the US and its allies for supplying the ISIL in Syria with arms and ammunition under the pretext of fighting the Takfiri terrorist group.

Earlier this month, the Iraqi army and volunteer forces discovered US-made military hardware and ammunition, including anti-armor missiles, in terrorists’ positions and trenches captured during the operations in the Fallujah region in Al-Anbar province.

The Iraqi forces found a huge volume of advanced TOW-II missiles from the Takfiri terrorists in al-Karama city of Fallujah.

The missiles were brand new and the ISIL had transferred them to Fallujah to use them against the Iraqi army’s armored units.

On October 10, the Iraqi forces discovered US-made military hardware and ammunition from terrorists in Beiji.

“The military hardware and weapons had been airdropped by the US-led warplanes and choppers for the ISIL in the nearby areas of Beiji,” military sources told FNA.

In February, an Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that the US airplanes still continue to airdrop weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists.

“The US planes have dropped weapons for the ISIL terrorists in the areas under ISIL control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIL control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi told FNA.

He noted that eyewitnesses in Al-Havijeh of Kirkuk province had witnessed the US airplanes dropping several suspicious parcels for ISIL terrorists in the province.

“Two coalition planes were also seen above the town of Al-Khas in Diyala and they carried the Takfiri terrorists to the region that has recently been liberated from the ISIL control,” Al-Jaberi said.

Also in February, a senior lawmaker disclosed that Iraq’s army has shot down two British planes as they were carrying weapons for the ISIL terrorists in Al-Anbar province.

“The Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee has access to the photos of both planes that are British and have crashed while they were carrying weapons for the ISIL,” Head of the committee Hakem al-Zameli said.

He said the Iraqi parliament has asked London for explanations in this regard.

The senior Iraqi legislator further unveiled that the government in Baghdad is receiving daily reports from people and security forces in al-Anbar province on numerous flights by the US-led coalition planes that airdrop weapons and supplies for ISIL in terrorist-held areas.

The Iraqi lawmaker further noted the cause of such western aids to the terrorist group, and explained that the US prefers a chaotic situation in Anbar Province which is near the cities of Karbala and Baghdad as it does not want the ISIL crisis to come to an end.

Also in February, a senior Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that US and Israeli-made weapons have been discovered from the areas purged of ISIL terrorists.

“We have discovered weapons made in the US, European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL’s control in Al-Baqdadi region,” the Al-Ahad news website quoted Head of Al-Anbar Provincial Council Khalaf Tarmouz as saying.

He noted that the weapons made by the European countries and Israel were discovered from the terrorists in the Eastern parts of the city of Ramadi.

Meantime, Head of Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli also disclosed that the anti-ISIL coalition’s planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL in Salahuddin, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces.

In January, al-Zameli underlined that the coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.

“There are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition’s military aid to ISIL terrorists through air(dropped cargoes),” he told FNA at the time.

He noted that the members of his committee have already proved that the US planes have dropped advanced weaponry, including anti-aircraft weapons, for the ISIL, and that it has set up an investigation committee to probe into the matter.

“The US drops weapons for the ISIL on the excuse of not knowing about the whereabouts of the ISIL positions and it is trying to distort the reality with its allegations.”

He noted that the committee had collected the data and the evidence provided by eyewitnesses, including Iraqi army officers and the popular forces, and said, “These documents are given to the investigation committee … and the necessary measures will be taken to protect the Iraqi airspace.”

Also in January, another senior Iraqi legislator reiterated that the US-led coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.

“The international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons,” Jome Divan, who is member of the al-Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament, said.

He said the coalition’s support for the ISIL is now evident to everyone, and continued, “The coalition has not targeted ISIL’s main positions in Iraq.”

In Late December, Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission MP disclosed that a US plane supplied the ISIL terrorist organization with arms and ammunition in Salahuddin province.

MP Majid al-Gharawi stated that the available information pointed out that US planes are supplying ISIL organization, not only in Salahuddin province, but also other provinces, Iraq TradeLink reported.

He added that the US and the international coalition are “not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month”.

Gharawi added that “the US is trying to expand the time of the war against the ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces.”

Salahuddin security commission also disclosed that “unknown planes threw arms and ammunition to the ISIL gunmen Southeast of Tikrit city”.

The Russian Air Force’s support allowed the Syrian forces to liberate more than 50 settlements. Following the reports, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence can conclude that only Russian airstrikes killed 400-600 militants since the start of the military operation.

Pro-government forces are advancing in the Aleppo, Latakia, Idlib, Hama and Damascus provinces. Despite the efforts on the ground and in the air, terrorists are holding their positions in a number of areas which have been turned in heavily protected points since the start of the Syrian war. Furthermore, and al-Nusra and ISIS have already united their military efforts in the Hama province.

Transcript

Separately, some al-Nusra units joined to the Ahrar ash-Sham group which Western media and officials call “moderate rebels”. Some other terrorist groups are also seeking to rebrand themselves in order to argue that the Russian anti-ISIS coalition fights against “moderate opposition” instead of terrorists.

On October 26, the Jund al-Aqsa militant group leaved the Army of Conquest (Jaish al-Fatah) military operations coalition. The official reason was that another member of the Army of Conquest, Ajnad al-Sham suggested to fight ISIS. According to reports, ISIS executed about 200 militants tried to join al-Nusra. Militants wanted to change the terrrorist group because ISIS is a primary target of the Russian Air Force in Syria.

There is unconfirmed information that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have a plan to supply SAM-8 and SAM-9 antiaircraft  systems to the Syrian terrorists through Ukraine.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) supported by Hezbollah and the National Defense Forces (NDF) imposed full control over the Ahad Mountains after a series of intense firefights with ISIS on November 2. According to the field reports the SAA and Hezbolalh also advanced north of the Ahad Mountains in order to control the remaining ISIS combatants that are entrenched along the Khanasser-Ithriya Highway that leads to the provincial capital of the Aleppo Governorate.

Over the weekend, the Syrian Arab Army’s Central Command issued a statement inferring that the Khanasser-Ithriya Highway could be reopened as soon as Tuesday. However, this will not be an easy task due to the ISIS forces pushing north from their stronghold of ‘Aqaybat, which is located east of Al-Salamiyah and south of Sheikh Hilal.

Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) advanced against the militants in the vicinity of al-Houl town towards the village of al-Bahra in al-Hasaka countryside on Monday, reports said.

ISIS has killed 12 children, aged 12 to 16, recruited in Iraq’s northern city of Mosul apparently because they had tried to desert. The children were receiving training at Ashti military camp in Mosul.

In their latest advance against ISIS militants, Iraqi army troops backed by volunteer forces have entered the city of Ramadi, which is currently under the control of the terrorist group. The Iraqi military advanced into the city center after crossing the strategic bridge of Albu Faraj, north of Ramadi. Reports said earlier in the day that Iraqi forces had killed a senior ISIS member, known as Abu Masab, in the northern part of the city.

The new US Department of Defense Law of War Manual is essentially a guidebook for violating international and domestic law and committing war crimes. The 1,165-page document, dated June 2015 and recently made available online, is not a statement of existing law as much as a compendium of what the Pentagon wishes the law to be.

According to the manual, the “law of war” (i.e., the law of war according to the Pentagon) supersedes international human rights treaties as well as the US Constitution.

The manual authorizes the killing of civilians during armed conflict and establishes a framework for mass military detentions. Journalists, according to the manual, can be censored and punished as spies on the say-so of military officials. The manual freely discusses the use of nuclear weapons, and it does not prohibit napalm, depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs or other indiscriminate weapons.

The manual might have more properly been titled A Manifesto for Total War and Military Dictatorship.

The manual is an expression of the incompatibility of imperialist militarism and democracy. In the 25 years since the liquidation of the USSR, and especially over the 14 years since the launching of the so-called “war on terror,” the United States has been almost perpetually at war, seeking to offset its economic decline by threats and military violence around the world.

The same government that orchestrated a coup led by fascists in the Ukraine, that backs a military dictatorship and repression in Egypt, and that supports mass killings and destruction in Gaza can hardly be expected to remain true to the rule of law and democratic principles at home.

Through both the Bush and Obama administrations, the “war on terror” has been accompanied by a steady abrogation of democratic rights within the United States, including a barrage of police state legislation such as the Patriot Act, unrestricted spying on the population by the National Security Agency and other agencies, the militarization of the police, and the establishment of precedents for the detention and assassination of US citizens without charges or trial.

In this context, the Pentagon manual is a significant milestone in the drive to establish the framework of a police state.

In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned about the dangers posed by the “military-industrial complex.” But America’s current military-corporate-intelligence establishment has metastasized far beyond anything Eisenhower could have imagined. Bloated with unlimited cash, dripping with blood from wars of aggression, it boldly announces its independence, its hostility to democracy and the rule of law, and its readiness to carry out war crimes and other atrocities at home and abroad.

The Pentagon manual reflects international imperialist tendencies. Its authors state that it “benefited from the participation of officers from the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and the Australian Royal Air Force on exchange assignments with the US Air Force.” They continue: “In addition, military lawyers from Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia reviewed and commented on a draft of the manual in 2009 as part of a review that also included comments from distinguished scholars.” (P. v)

The manual, which “reflects many years of labor and expertise,” applies to the entire Department of Defense, which includes the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, four national intelligence agencies including the NSA, and numerous other subordinate departments and agencies, totaling 2.13 million active duty personnel and 1.1 million reservists. The manual notes, “Promulgating a DoD-wide manual on the law of war has been a long-standing goal of DoD lawyers.” (P. v) The new document supersedes various policy documents that had accumulated piecemeal within different sections of the military and intelligence agencies.

It is the outcome of a continuous effort through both Democratic and Republican administrations over a long period, including the Bush and Obama administrations. It was issued at the highest levels of the state, having been prepared by a “Law of War Working Group” that “is chaired by a representative of the DoD General Counsel and includes representatives of the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the offices of the General Counsels of the Military Departments; and the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” (Pp. v-vi)

The Pentagon general counsel is Stephen W. Preston. Preston was general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2009 to 2012, during which time the CIA covered up its own war crimes and obstructed efforts to investigate its illegal torture program. It is unclear to what extent the manual has been reviewed or approved by any civilian authority.

The significance of Nuremberg

The Law of War Manual is replete with references to the Nuremberg proceedings, a complex and significant event in the history of the post-World War II period and the history of international law. The manual opens with this tribute:

Image: Nuremberg tribunal

“After World War II, US military lawyers, trying thousands of defendants before military commissions, did, in the words of Justice Robert Jackson, ‘stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of law’ in ‘one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.’ Reflecting on this distinctive history, one chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff observed that ‘[T]he laws of war have a peculiarly American cast.’ And it is also true that the laws of war have shaped the US Armed Forces as much as they have shaped any other armed force in the world.” (P. ii)

The Pentagon of 2015 paying tribute to the Nuremberg precedent is like the world’s top-polluting corporation expressing appreciation for efforts to protect the environment. If the precedent of Nuremberg were applied impartially today, it would be necessary to arrest and prosecute all of the top officials in the Pentagon, the world’s leading perpetrator of illegal aggression. After the triumph of the Allies over Germany and Japan in the Second World War, the victorious powers convened international tribunals to prosecute major war criminals of the defeated powers. The most famous trial took place from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946 in Nuremberg, Germany and featured the prosecution of Hermann Göring, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop and other leading Nazis.

There was an undeniable component of “victors’ justice” in the proceedings. The same week in August 1945 that the United States, the USSR, Britain and France forged an agreement to establish the International Military Tribunal, the United States committed some of the most heinous crimes of the war: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nonetheless, the democratic legal positions espoused at Nuremberg stand in sharp contrast to the corrupt and lawless American political establishment of today, which asserts the right to abduct or assassinate any person without charges or trial anywhere on earth, attack any country “preventively,” and spy on the entire world’s population.

At the time of the Nuremberg tribunals, a majority view emerged among the major Allied governments rejecting calls to execute leading Nazis summarily on the basis of a “political decision.” Instead, the defendants were offered a full and fair trial, during which they were permitted to call witnesses, present evidence and argue in their own defense.

The most important principle that emerged from the Nuremberg proceedings was the concept that the decision to launch a war of aggression is the fundamental crime from which all other war crimes flow. While the Nuremberg prosecutors exposed some of the greatest crimes in human history, they maintained that the primary crime was the decision by Hitler and his close associates to launch the war in the first place.

The chief US prosecutor was Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. His assistant, Telford Taylor, emphasized in a memorandum to Jackson that the underlying motivations and aims of the Nazis were not the decisive legal questions: “The question of causation is important and will be discussed for many years, but it has no place in this trial, which must rather stick rigorously to the doctrine that planning and launching an aggressive war is illegal, whatever may be the factors that caused the defendants to plan and to launch.”

In other words, launching a war of aggression is a criminal act—a crime against peace—no matter what arguments or policies are invoked to justify it.

Similarly, the Nuremberg prosecutors rejected the argument that those who committed crimes were justifiably “following” or “relaying” orders. Nuremberg Principle IV reads, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility…provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

These were powerful democratic conceptions that reverberated long after the trials. During the Vietnam War, as Taylor himself noted in his memoir, “thousands of young men contended…that under the Nuremberg principles they were legally bound not to participate in what they regarded as the United States’ aggressive war.”

More recently, on July 12, 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden invoked the Nuremberg principles to justify his refusal to conceal evidence of illegal spying.

“I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945,” he said. “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore, individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”

Image: Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg

The Nuremberg precedent expressed the confidence of the United States as the dominant imperialist power emerging out of the Second World War. The American ruling class felt that it could afford, under the circumstances, not only to assert democratic principles, but to declare that these principles were universal, applying to all countries, including the United States itself.

Thus, on July 23, 1945, Jackson told the International Conference on Military Tribunals, the inter-allied body that prepared the trials,

“If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” [1]

Seventy years later, America’s leaders have much less in common with jurists like Jackson and Taylor than they do with Nuremberg’s defendants. While the Pentagon pays tribute to the Nuremberg precedent, a partial list of the countries subjected to US military violence since the liquidation of the USSR includes Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Nigeria and Yemen.

If launching a war of aggression is illegal, arrest warrants should be forthcoming for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, James Clapper, John Ashcroft, Joe Biden, John Kerry and their criminal co-conspirators. All of these individuals should be in the dock, right where Göring and company sat, on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.

Ample evidence exists for indictments. One powerful exhibit in such a trial, for example, would be a November 27, 2001 memorandum by Donald Rumsfeld that contemplates various phony justifications for a war of aggression against Iraq. Under the profoundly incriminating headline “How start?” Rumsfeld ponders the possibilities:

“Saddam moves against Kurds in north? US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks? Dispute over WMD inspections? Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

Rumsfeld’s memorandum is one of many proofs that there was a conspiracy to launch the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the basis of lies and pretexts. As a result of this illegal aggression, hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives, if not more, and millions have been turned into refugees. An entire society has been devastated, leading to the rise of movements such as ISIS, and trillions of dollars worth of property have been destroyed or wasted.

The Nuremberg trials featured similar exposures of the criminal Nazi conspiracy to invade Poland based on false pretenses. To provide a casus belli for the war they had already decided to launch, the Nazis staged a provocation known as the Gleiwitz incident. During the Nuremberg proceedings, this incident was exposed as a staged attack on a German radio station by German forces posing as Poles. Hitler had boasted to his generals: “Its credibility doesn’t matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth.”

Do as I say, not as I do

Notwithstanding its repeated invocations of the Nuremberg precedent, the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual features a strong element of “do as I say, not as I do.”

For example, on the subject of aggressive war, the document declares, “Aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force… Initiating a war of aggression is a serious international crime.” (P. 44) This is a plain statement of the Nuremberg precedent.

However, as one reads further, it emerges that this principle applies only to countries other than the United States. The manual notes that the US has refused to recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC), under which the US could be prosecuted for crimes of aggression.

The document states, “The United States has expressed the view that the definition of the act of aggression in the Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute does not reflect customary international law.” (P. 45) The US also expressed “concerns regarding the possibility of the ICC exercising jurisdiction over the crime of aggression without a prior determination by the Security Council that a State has committed an act of aggression.” (P. 1,112) Such a Security Council determination, of course, would be subject to a US veto.

The refusal of the United States to recognize the authority of the ICC has deep historical significance. The United States played a leading role in establishing the Nuremberg precedent, but now refuses to submit to its enforcement. This amounts to an admission that if the United States were subject to an impartial application of the Nuremberg precedent today, virtually all of official Washington would have to be transported to jail. It exposes as fraudulent all of America’s posturing as a kind of self-appointed “world policeman” with the authority to sanction and attack other states that allegedly violate international law.

Similarly, the Pentagon manual declares that torture is illegal: “For example, it would be unlawful, of course, to use torture or abuse to interrogate detainees for purposes of gathering information.” (P. 309) But the document fails to explain how the CIA came to implement a systematic and sadistic torture program with the integral participation of high-level officials in the White House, for which nobody has ever been held accountable.

The manual is full of caveats, disclaimers and weasel words. For example: “This manual is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.” (P.1) In other words, the law of war does not apply to us, only to you. Passages like this reveal that the “law of war” manual does not represent “law” as such, but policies determined unilaterally by the Pentagon.

The Pentagon’s hypocrisy (and sometimes plain incoherence) on the subjects of torture and aggression is an expression of the crisis of bourgeois rule in the United States and the contradictions of American foreign policy. On the one hand, the US constantly seeks to dress up its imperialist projects in the costume of international legality. To justify the first Gulf war (1991), America denounced Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as illegal “aggression.”

Just last year, American political leaders were denouncing Russian “aggression” in Ukraine. After the United States orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, and while American commandos and dollars were pouring in, John Kerry accused Russia of violating Ukraine’s “national sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.” Obama declared, “There is a strong belief that Russia’s action is violating international law.”

On the other hand, notwithstanding all the talk about international law, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity, America invades and bombs anywhere it sees fit, without any regard for such considerations. Where the United States can obtain international legal approval for its aggression, it does so, but otherwise the aggression takes place anyway.

The manual states,

“[T]he authority to take actions under the law of war would be viewed as emanating from the State’s rights as a sovereign entity rather than from any particular instrument of international law.” In other words, the United States can freely ignore treaties and conventions and other “instruments of international law”

—such as the Geneva Convention of 1949, which the United States announced in 2002 that it would not follow—while still claiming to adhere to its own version of international law.

At the Nuremberg trials, Jackson characterized the Nazi regime as essentially a monstrous criminal enterprise, a giant illegal conspiracy that invoked “law” only in the most tendentious, cynical and self-serving manner. The defendants, Jackson declared,

“are surprised that there is any such thing as law. These defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored and defied all law… International Law, natural law, German law, any law at all, was to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do.”

These words apply with full force to the Pentagon and its manual.

The manual explicitly gives the Pentagon a green light at any future time to repudiate the principles it ostensibly lays down. Its authors write that the document does not “preclude the Department from subsequently changing its interpretation of the law.” (P. 1)

To be continued

Notes:

[1]: See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack44.asp.

Funding from the imperialist states will inevitably prevent genuine peace and security

A military exercise by 5,400 troops from various African Union (AU) member-states in South Africa is aimed at the creation of a continental-wide African Standby Force (ASF) designed to engage in peacekeeping and stabilization projects.

A preparation process began in late October and continued through the first week of November in the Northern Cape at Lohatlha.

This peacekeeping force was mandated by the AU for the purpose of deployment in states during civil wars and other forms of instability in order to eliminate the rationale for western intervention into Africa’s internal affairs.

In the Southern Times published in Namibia described the military exercise as Amani Africa II, which in the previous year involved numerous countries along with the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) and other NATO troops.

This report says

“The troops are being drilled to be part of the new 25,000-strong multinational force, which will be mandated to intervene in African countries rocked by genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It is expected to be fully operational by early 2016. The force will be made up of five brigades formed by Africa’s economic groupings including the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS), East African Community ( EAC), North African Regional Capability (NARC), Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and Southern African Development Community (SADC). Its logistics headquarters will be located in the Cameroon city of Douala after an agreement was signed to that effect last week.” (Oct. 26)

These efforts require a tremendous amount of financial and material resources. In addition, defining which states are in need of intervention, and under what circumstances, will without a doubt, become a highly politicized process.

The Southern Times in the same above-mentioned report notes “Africa’s evolving security challenges have further inspired the urgency for the operational readiness of the ASF and Rapid Deployment Capacity (RDC). Although the continent has witnessed a steady decline in the number of armed conflicts and intra-state conflicts, transnational security threats such as terrorist attacks from militant groups like Boko Haram have persisted in some parts of the continent.”

Post-independence Legacy of International Intervention

Such stabilization and peacekeeping efforts have been taking place in Africa since 1960 with mixed results. Many of the armed forces that have been sent into these troubled states have originated from the same regions within the continent, while others have been more broad-based.

After the independence of the former Belgian Congo on June 30, 1960, the paramilitary Force Publique, that was trained and led by colonial authorities, mutinied leading to a breakdown of social order. The newly-elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba appealed to the United Nations to deploy a peacekeeping force which proved to be a disaster for the country and its revolutionary leader.

With the assistance of the UN force, Lumumba was overthrown, placed under house arrest, and denied access to the media, eventually resulting in his kidnapping and assassination at the aegis of several imperialist governments including Belgium, the U.S. and Britain. Congo was plunged into decades of division and instability although the exploitation of mineral resources inside the country reaped billions in profits for the multi-national corporations.

Other peacekeeping efforts have enjoyed success such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone during the late 1990s and early 2000s, which after years of setbacks brought about some semblance of stability in these states.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) during 1998-2003, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) sent thousands of troops from Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia halting a U.S.-backed invasion by the armed forces of Uganda and Rwanda aimed at overthrowing the government of Joseph and later Laurent Kabila.

The Role of the Imperialist States in Peacekeeping Operations

Nonetheless, there are political problems associated with the plans to establish an African Standby Force due to the fact that the most serious interventions today revolve around the role of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM). It was AFRICOM which led the destabilization and bombing campaign that destroyed Libya fostering instability throughout North and West Africa.

Since the war of regime-change against Libya, the imperialist scheme to institute a neo-colonial client-regime has created the major source for human trafficking internationally. Hundreds of thousands of people are smuggled through Libya and across the Mediterranean which has resulted in over 2,000 deaths just this year alone, with no end in sight.

The acquisition and budgeting of financial resources for the ASF is also a major issue with declining prices for export commodities from Africa resulting in a myriad of economic, political and social problems. Even states such as Nigeria and Ghana which have been hailed for their phenomenal growth over the last few years are now facing industrial actions over non-payment of salaries, inflation due to in part to declining currency values as well as growing class divisions.

Funding and logistical support from the imperialist states would immediately compromise the political character of the ASF creating the potential for the military units of becoming a surrogate army for the Pentagon and NATO. Numerous western research centers, think-tanks and periodicals have highlighted the central role of the former colonial and neo-colonial countries as the primary source for funding of the continental military command.

According to Reuters, “Since 2004, the European Union has committed more than 1.3 billion euros to African peace operations, including 225 million euros in 2014 for missions to Somalia, the Central African Republic and Mali. In all, more than 90 percent of AU peace and security efforts are funded by the likes of the EU and United States, although AU member states have pledged to provide a quarter of the funding for operations by 2020.” (Oct. 29)

Consequently, these funding sources would automatically have a determining role in which countries are targeted for intervention. For example, with Pentagon-NATO-EU funding would these entities support an effort by the ASF to come to the assistance of a state or group being attacked by imperialist interests, such as in Libya and Ivory Coast during 2011?

Even Reuters stressed that “Underlining the problem, the EU is even bankrolling this month’s exercises, casting a shadow over the ‘African solutions for African problems’ mantra espoused by politicians in national capitals and the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa. ‘The external support for defense spending in Africa is, in my view, a major foreign policy handicap,’ said David Anderson, professor of African history at Britain’s University of Warwick.” (Oct. 29)

Anderson went on to say “African states will truly own their defense and security when they pay for it themselves. There is no greater marker of sovereignty and independence than security and defense.”

This approach to continental military cooperation is a departure from what Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of the Republic of Ghana, envisioned when he advanced the idea in 1960 amid the Congo crisis. In his book entitled “Africa Must Unite” published in 1963, Nkrumah emphasized that any African military force must be independent of NATO and its allies.

A continuation of this idea was supported by the Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the former leader of Libya, who hosted the Sirte conference of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the AU in 1999. The Sirte Declaration drafted at the conference called for the formation of the ASF when the AU was formally initiated in 2002.

Both Nkrumah and Gaddafi were overthrown at the instigation and coordination of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) working at the behest of imperialism. Nonetheless, their formulations were correct and only when Africa can establish its own independent military force will there be any hope for genuine peace and stability on the continent.

Washington has been quite successful in its wicked embrace of Syria over the last few weeks. Just imagine, Kerry, in a propaganda-painted gesture of goodwill, forges the Vienna Peace Conference, this past Friday, 30 October. The results are inconclusive, but on to more talks in Geneva; no longer ‘Assad must go’, but rather the concession that “Assad is going to be part of any transitional governing body.” – Why a foreign imposed transition? Transition seems to become a propaganda indoctrinated fait accompli.

Then suddenly like changing the subject and the world’s attention – a Russian airliner exploding in the air over the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula; and Erdogan making a stunning, unexpected election comeback— and the NATO Live Exercise from 21 October to 6 November in full swing – while all the way Russia is confirming and enhancing its dominance in the war against terror in Syria and soon in Iraq too – ISIS/L-Daesh, and against all the CIA-NATO trained, funded and armed ‘good-boys’, the so-called ‘moderates’ meaning rebels that have no teeth – is what the mainstream media would like the MSM-audience to believe.

An entire kaleidoscope of events is seemingly coincidentally happening all at the same time. It could also be many tentacles of the world dictator put in action at once. Let’s be sure that we understand one point clearly: As long as Washington is alive, meaning economically still ticking, heavily breathing, but still ticking – as long as this is the case, the command center of corporate and military operations, Washington-Pentagon, will not let go of Syria, Iran, Iraq – and the rest of the larger Middle East and North Africa – in short the MENA – area.

It is part of the Zionist-think tank(s) designed PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) that have put themselves in charge of deciding US foreign policy – something they have been doing at least since WWII, and that unobstructedly and thanks to generous AIPAC flows of money to the US Congress continues relentlessly.

This has been said before, but it cannot be repeated enough for peoples at large around the globe to understand that nothing short of self-destruction can stop the monster-killing machine, an amalgam of huge globalized corporate, financial and military interests, seemingly directed by Zionist-Washington, from advancing to Full Spectrum Dominance – meaning a ONE WORLD ORDER – to dictate over humanity, controlling all the world’s natural resources, energy, food, populations (who shall live and who shall die). That’s the objective we are confronted with. No killing, no atrocity will be too much. It is estimated that US-led and instigated wars and conflicts around the globe have killed 35 to 40 million people since WWII; 10 to 12 million alone since 9/11. See also Oliver Stone’s excellent documentary, “The Untold History of the United States” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_0S80jMeg0 .

Back to the Future – and Syria.

Kerry managed against all odds to pull off a new round of “Syria Peace Talks” in Vienna on 30 October allegedly to stop the bloodshed of the civil war. So the story goes. Participating in this international charade were the U.S., UK, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, the European Union, France, Italy, Germany and the United Nations. Iran was invited by Russia against the objections of Washington. Amazingly, though, the country whose future was supposedly discussed, Syria, was absent. Not invited. – How can that be? How can an international conference discuss the fate of a country which is not even invited to participate? – A slap in the face of democracy, of human rights, of any sovereign nation – a slap in the face of any common sense. That only shows, our world order has lost all senses of common sense. – The UN was asked to preside over the event, so it will appear legitimate. Of course, we know, the UN voice is a no-voice – it’s just parroting the Big Dictator’s orders.

These illustrious ministers and other dignitaries just agreed to disagree. They thought it was the UN’s job to bring the current legitimate government and its opposition to the same table, starting an ‘inclusive and credible’ process leading to a new constitution, new elections and a ‘transition government’, but disagreed about Bashar Assad’s future. – As Vladimir Putin repeatedly pointed out – the future of Syria, and of any other nation around the globe for that matter, is to be decided solely by the people of the country concerned, in this case Syria.

The idea was to continue with Geneva Peace Talks III already this coming Friday – but the opposition found some objections which puts the next peace meeting in Geneva on hold.

Why this farce at all? – Washington hopes for a cease fire as an interim solution – making the Russian stop fighting so that the Master, NATO and their puppets may regroup and think up (sic) new strategies – and of course, so that ISIL / Daesh et all can breathe a breath of fresh air and be resupplied. Russia will not buy it. The ‘Peace Talks’ may drag on for years, as they did with Iran for the nuclear talks – on a made-believe nuclear threat that never was. The result for Syria may become a shabby agreement that can be broken any time at the whim and will of the US global dictatorship.

Why would President Assad agree with some conclusions reached in his absence? And why should he be forced to hold new elections – when he was reelected just 16 months ago with a resounding majority?

At the same time, NATO’s Trident Juncture 2015 exercise is going on. It started officially on 19 October in NATO’s Trapani air base in Sicily, is being hosted by Italy, Spain and Portugal. One wonders why the countries that have most suffered from the western imposed EU economic crisis and the ensuing debt burden were sponsoring this event of aggression against Russia. Was it voluntary, a sign of gracious submission in the hope of perhaps some future goodwill with debt-relief, or was it coercion?

Trident Juncture is looking very much like a Cold War II scenario covering the Mediterranean and Black seas, making Russia the target of the exercise. It is the largest and most ambitious of its kind in over a decade with 36,000 troops, more than 140 aircraft and 60 ships from over 30 nations. The NATO nations will be joined by such far-away places like Australia, but also Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Macedonia, Sweden — and even Ukraine. – To intimidate and provoking Russia? – Russia will not be intimidated, nor provoked. The west should have taken its lesson, observing the diplomatic calmness with which Putin handled the US-EU-NATO instigated Ukraine fiasco.

Despite Russia’s headways in the fight against western spread terrorism, Washington’s objectives have not changed – putting the entire MENA region into disarray, Syria next, to resemble Libya and Iraq – all with oil and gas riches.

The crux of the matter is not dominance of the region solely for oil’s or dominance’s sake – but for economic reasons. Syria is a crucial link for pipelines to supply Europe and southern Asia with energy from Iran – and with energy that is not to be billed in US Dollars but in Euros, Rubles, Yuans – or any other currency the participating trading partners may wish to use. Trillions of dollars now in need and in circulation will become superfluous.

That would make more than a dent into the already vastly indebted and otherwise overburdened US economy– real US unemployment hovering around 22%, inflation about 10%, poverty rampant with 40 million people depending on food aid with 50 million children going to bed hungry every night – and a US-wide infrastructure crumbling beyond repair.

Losing the MENA battle would mean an even faster decline into oblivion of the US hegemony. It’s not just oil, gas and dominance – “it’s the economy, stupid!” – As in Bill Clinton’s 1992 successful campaign strategy.

Simultaneously in Turkey – surprisingly Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (Turkish: AKP) has won in the November 1st snap elections a stunning comeback majority with 49% to the only 40% of the June 2015 votes, putting Erdogan fully in the driver’s seat. He can almost do what he wants – except for changing the Constitution for which he would have needed an absolute majority – to give himself even more power.

But wait a minute – can pre-election polls be that wrong? – Was there no foul play? – Western observers nod in consent with the election results. Do they have anything to do with the result? Does Mme. Merkel’s recent agreement with Mr. Erdogan – ‘you get 3 billion euros, but you take all the refugees and keep your borders closed – we may then reconsider a place for you in the EU’ – have anything to do with the election victory; or the fact that Erdogan supports the US position on ‘Assad must go’ – and cosponsors the ISIS / Daesh mercenary terrorists against the legitimate Syrian government, providing them with supply lines and money?

Another quasi simultaneous event is the crash of the Russian airliner Airbus 321 on Sunday, 1 November, over the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Flight KGL 9268 took off from Sharm El Skeik in direction St. Petersburg with 224 people aboard, all Russians, most of them allegedly tourists, early Sunday morning, reaching in an amazing 23 minutes a cruising altitude of 9,500 m – that’s when the plane disappears from radar, apparently disintegrated in mid-air, spreading its wreckage over a 15 km2 area. Experts are wondering what could be the reason for a mid-air explosion – a hit from outside, or one from inside. – A missile or a bomb?

ISIS was quick in claiming credit for the blast. According to the British Guardian translation their statement reads:

Downing of Russian airplane, killing of more than 220 Russian crusaders on board. 

Soldiers of the Caliphate were able to bring down a Russian plane above Sinai Province with at least 220 Russian crusaders aboard.

They were all killed, praise be to God. O Russians, you and your allies take note that you are not safe in Muslims lands or their skies.

The tragic event smells of false flag – all over. Why would ISIS anger Russia even more? To show the world who is the master? – Wouldn’t Israel and Washington have  a wider interest in punishing and intimidating Russia into submission and leaving the battle field – at least during the time of a possible ‘cease fire’, so that the terrorists could be resupplied and the Zionist-Washington think tanks (sic) can brew up new strategies on how to destroy Syria and sow havoc? – Mossad and CIA have always been excellent collaborators.

Is security at Sharm-el-Skeik tight enough to prevent some hired operatives to place a bomb on board? – Hard to say – but it would be a dumb – and highly criminal – attempt to hurt Russia into submission. On the other hand, dumb and criminal is right in the western monster’s bailiwick.

Apropos ‘false flags’ – Washington’s Neocon think tank (sic), the “Washington Institute for Near East Policy” – bluntly suggests the use of false flag operations to achieve political goals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk.

Why would they be shy continuing applying the same diabolical tactics to achieve their objective in Syria – and ultimately over the whole MENA region – and the entire world? – Washington has a horrendous track record on false flags, including the Gulf of Tonkin and the Bay of Pigs, let alone 9/11.

Not to despair. Russia will not give up, let alone surrender. There is much at stake for Russia too. Beyond supporting sovereignly elected Bashar Assad, the Syrian port of Latakia is a main Mediterranean “homeport” of the Russian Navy. It would be lost if Syria were to go the way of Libya and Iraq. That may not happen. Russia’s leader is a first-class statesman, diplomat – and an excellent chess player.

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 News, 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

“Russia is presented in the West as a kind of dictatorship or tyranny country with just one guy running every show, which is total nonsense. First of all, it’s technically impossible, and if you take real dictatorships they are not organized this way.

It’s very much a kind of Hollywood or rather… it’s not even Hollywood, it’s a Disney kind of presentation.” -Boris Kagarlitsky, October 1, 2015. (See video below)

–

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the end of the Soviet Union, Russia has had to contend with a steady encroachment by an emboldened U.S. and its NATO allies.

In the July/August 2014 edition of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Lukin, Vice President of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, writes of the West’s broken promise not to expand NATO Eastward. Over the course of the last two decades under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, NATO added 12 new members proximate to Russia and established new bases on its frontier. [1]

Lukin contends that the Eastward push by NATO is “tearing apart the countries on Russia’s borders” including Muldova, Georgia and now Ukraine. When the threat of NATO forces appearing in Crimea appeared on the horizon, a certain line was crossed, leading to Russia’s quick moves to annex the strategic territory. [2]

In recent weeks, we have seen Russia unexpectedly align itself with the Syrian government and coordinate an effective bombing campaign against not only the Islamic State, but all the terrorist rebels challenging the territorial integrity of Assad’s Syria. [3]

When one reflects on Vladmir Putin’s effectiveness in preventing the U.S. from commencing a ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Syria along the lines of its previous ‘errand of mercy’ in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya in 2011, one can appreciate the Russian President’s genius in frustrating the designs of Western imperialists like Zbigniew Brzezinski. [4] [5]

Despite Russia’s relative military weakness compared to Obama’s America, Putin’s nation has so far avoided containment, survived sanctions, and not gotten embroiled in a quagmire. [6]

This week’s Global Research News Hour focuses on the challenges facing Russia from the West and how it is prevailing over efforts to exclude the one time superpower from the geo-strategically significant terrain of the Middle East and Central Asia.

The first interview is with Boris Kagarlitsky, Director of the Moscow-based Institute for Globalization and Social Movements, a leading leftist think tank. Kagarlitsky discusses the unique characteristics of Russian political power structures, the class dynamics in the current upheaval in Ukraine, and how Canada should position itself to mitigate the violence and bloodshed unfolding in Ukraine.

Boris Kagarlitsky, from a recent talk in Toronto

In the second interview, we speak with Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based political commentator. He has written a four part series about the ‘New Middle East’ unfolding in the wake of Russia’s moves against US/NATO’s proxies in Syria. He explains the dynamics of this new transformation, the fate of US proxies Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the re-emergence of Iraq, Syria and Iran, and the geo-strategic significance of the massive refugee flows.

Links to Andrew Korybko’s “New Middle East” series:

“The New Middle East”: Russian Style

“The New Middle East”: Russian Style. The Resistance Arc is Reborn

“The New Middle East”: Russian Style. The Saudis are Running Scared

“The New Middle East”: Russian Style. Analysis of Geopolitical Scenarios

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:12)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

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

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

 Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CFUV 101. 9 FM in Victoria. Airing Sundays from 7-8am PT.

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

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

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

 Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the  North Shore to the US Border. It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

Notes: 

1. Alexander Lukin (June 16, 2014), Foreign Affairs, July/August 2014 Issue, “What the Kremlin Is Thinking: Putin’s Vision for Eurasia”; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-06-16/what-kremlin-thinking
2. ibid
3. http://www.mail.com/int/news/us/3858296-russia-defends-military-action-syria.html
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/15/cameron-sarkozy-libya-leader-tripoli
5. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-putin-analysis/
6. http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2015/09/americas-latest-foreign-policy-fiascos.html#more

I earlier reported that in an interview with Spanish newspapers published October 31st, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon condemned U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be removed from office, and Moon said: “The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people.” However, it turns out (and I didn’t know this at that time) that he also said the same thing in a separate  forum on October 31st: a news conference at the U.N. in Geneva, held jointly with the head of the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross. The present news-report integrates both of those statements from Ban. (This has not been done before, but should be; so, part of this article will repeat from that earlier one.)

The U.N. headlined, “Ban Ki-moon (UN Secretary-General) and Peter Maurer (ICRC) on the world’s humanitarian crises – Media Stakeout (Geneva, 31 October 2015).” The 23-minute news-conference video there included him saying (13:50): “I believe that the future of Syria, or the future of the peace talks, … should not be held up by an issue of the future of one man. I believe that it is up to the Syrian people who have to decide the future of President Assad.”

This assertion by the U.N. Secretary General directly contradicts the repeatedly stated position of U.S. President Barack Obama, who insists that Assad must be removed from office and promptly be replaced by someone whom the President of the United States finds to be acceptable to serve as Syria’s leader — that this be done even before the war against ISIS is won. (Is Obama perhaps hoping that ISIS will help Obama to take down Assad? Is he perhaps actually viewing ISIS as being an ally?)

Here is the entire quotation of the similar statement that Mr. Ban made that day to Spanish newspapers and which was quoted at El Pais (translated by the author):

“The future of President Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. Now, I do not want to interfere in the process of Vienna, but I think it is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of a person [diplomatese here for: U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Assad be removed from the Presidency of Syria] to paralyze all this political negotiation. This is not acceptable. It’s not fair. The Syrian government insists that Assad should be part of the transition. Many Western countries oppose the Syrian government’s position. Meanwhile, we lost years. 250,000 people have been killed. There are 13 million refugees or internally displaced. Over 50% of hospitals, schools and infrastructure has been destroyed in Syria. You must not lose more time. This crisis goes beyond Syria, beyond the region. It affects Europe. It is a global crisis.”

The U.N. Secretary General is here implicitly blaming all of this — lots of blood and misery — on U.S. President Obama, and (in the Spanish newspaper interview) on the “many Western countries” who ally with him and have joined with him in demanding regime-change in Syria.

Mr. Ban’s U.N. press conference also, just like the Spanish-newspapers’ interview published the same day, showed him saying (16:15): “We are deeply concerned about the disrespect on international humanitarian law.” He cited there two specific examples, as back-up for his claim of illegality: the U.S. attack on a hospital in Afghanistan, and the Saudi attack on a hospital in Yemen. (The U.S. is allied with the Sauds, who are using U.S. bombs to destroy their neighbor Yemen. The U.S. is additionally allied with the Sauds against Syria, Iran, and Russia.) “That’s a crime against humanity,” Ban asserted. He urged that there be internationally credible independent investigations performed of those events, and that the guilty parties then must face justice for their “crime against humanity.”

Of course, as I noted when first reporting this matter of Ban’s statement on Syria (the statement in El Pais), the position of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been, and is, to the exact contrary of Obama’s: namely, that only an election by the Syrian people can determine whom Syria’s President should be. The U.N. Secretary General is here — twice in one day, moreover — agreeing with Putin, and rejecting Obama’s demand, that the matter be determined instead by non-Syrians, and by non-democratic means (which is basically like George W. Bush did in Iraq, and like Barack Obama did in Libya).

And the U.S. pretends to be a ‘democracy’, and accuses Russia’s government of being anti-democratic.

Suckers in the West fall for the Western aristocracies’ line that Putin and not Obama is wrong on this and is the cause of the dragged-out Syrian war. Such fools don’t even ask themselves whether in this dispute it is Obama, or instead Putin, who is supporting the most basic democratic principle of all: self-rule by the people. But the average individual is that manipulable: so manipulable as to think that black is white, and white is black; that good is bad, and bad is good. Totally manipulable.

For example, in a reddit discussion of my earlier news story on this matter, a typical reader-comment was ad-hominem against the website: “This site is trash.” Then, he seconded someone else’s asserting “that the Spanish media is Jewish controlled.” That was both anti-Semitic and also ad-hominem against the newpaoper, El Pais, which quoted Ban there. Another reader-comment was instead ad-hominem against the author: “I don’t know if he’s (Zuesse) Zionist or not but his other articles and books scattered across the web show a demonstrable liberal bias.” (As if Zionism isn’t far-right, not  ‘liberal’ at all. And as if I’m even relevant to this news-report, at all.) Obviously, neither reader possessed the intelligence to click onto the article’s links and to check to see whether its sources are reliable and were accurately represented in the news-report that they were supposedly commenting upon there. It’s easy to make suckers of lots of people, if lots of people have never learned how to think — but only what  to think. And that’s precisely the type of ‘education’ one should expect to prevail in a dictatorship (such as the U.S. now is).

The Ban interview was buried by Spanish newspapers, because the Spanish government is allied with the United States. For example, the most prominent Spanish newspaper to publish even quotations from this interview is El Pais, and their headline for the story was “Catalonia is not among the territories with the right to self-determination.” Even there, the headline was false. What Ban actually said instead, on that issue of the Catalonian independence movement, was: “The Catalan question is a very delicate matter and, while the UN Secretary General, I’m not in a position to comment on that because it is a purely internal matter.” Lies and distortions in the Western ‘news’ media are that routine: so obvious, sometimes, virtually any intelligent reader can easily recognize that he’s reading lies and propaganda (like in that ‘news’ story).

El Pais  actually buried the part about Assad and Obama (the blockbuster in their entire story) near the end, but not at the very end, of its report, because one of the standard things that ‘news’ media do when they want to de-emphasize a particular point is to bring the matter up near the end but not at the end. To place it at  the end, would emphasize, instead of de-emphasize, the given point: it’s not the professional way to bury news. Knowledge of how to bury news is important for the managers of any ‘news’ medium, because such knowledge is essential in order to make the medium achieve the objectives of the medium’s owner, the propagandistic function, which is the main reason why wealthy people buy major ‘news’ media, and why major corporations chose to advertise in (and thereby subsidize) these media (which increases that given ‘news’ medium-owner’s income).

As to why the managers (including editors) of El Pais wanted their ‘reporter’ to misrepresent Ban as being opposed to Catalan independence, the reason is that the owners of El Pais are opposed to Catalan independence. It’s not only in the editorials. With very few exceptions, a newspaper’s editorials and its ‘news’ reporting are slanted the same way. However, sometimes, for particular reasons, the editorial position is instead slanted the opposite way from the ‘news’ ‘reporting.’ Public relations, or PRopaganda, is a science, not for amateurs. And a major function of management is to apply that science so as to maximize value for the medium’s owners. It’s like any business, but the press is also part of the business of government: moulding the public’s opinions so as to serve the needs of the aristocracy that owns the vast majority of the nation’s wealth. The idea of ‘the free press’ is itself PRopaganda. In reality, the press is far from free.

Anyway, Ban ki-Moon took a rare courageous position here, and did it twice on one day, concerning the same issue; so, he must feel very strongly about this particular matter. What he said was correct, though it’s virtually unmentionable in the West. For example: how widely is this news-report being published? Like its predecessor (which was published only at washingtonsblog, RINF, smirkingchimp, russia-insider, zerohedge, greanvillepost, and liveleak), this report is being submitted to virtually all national news-media in the U.S. and in several other Western countries. You can google the headline, “Twice in One Day, Ban Ki-Moon Condemned Obama’s Actions on Syria,” to find out how many (and which ones) are actually publishing it.

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

There is a real danger that US Special Forces deployed in Syria and embedded with the new Arab-Kurdish force will coordinate the tactics and strategy of the terrorists (also known as “moderate rebels”) on the ground, US geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser told Sputnik.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Once  upon a time, a dental or medical exam was an opportunity to read a book.  No more.  The TV blares. It was talking heads discussing whether a football player had been sufficiently punished.  The offense was unclear.  The question was whether the lashes were sufficient.

It brought to mind that punishment has become a primary feature of American, indeed Western, society.  A baker in Colorado was punished because he would not bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage.  A county or state clerk was punished because she would not issue a marriage license for a homosexual marriage. University professors are punished because they criticize Israel’s inhumane treatment of Palestinians.  Whistleblowers are punished—despite their protection under federal law—for revealing crimes of the US government.  And children are punished for being children.

But not by their parents.  Police can slam children around and seriously injure them.  But parents must not lay a hand on a child.  If a child gets spanked, as everyone in my generation was, in comes the Child Protective Services Gestapo.  The child is seized, put into “protective custody,” and the parents are arrested.  The CPS Gestapo receives a federal bonus for every child that they seize, and they want the money.

About all parents can do today is to restrict TV or video game playing time.  Even this is dicey, because the kids are taught at school to report abusive behavior of parents.  For many kids being told what to do by parents is abusive behavior. Kids have learned that they can pay back parents for disciplining them by reporting the parents to teachers or by themselves calling CPS. Kids who retaliate in this socially approved manner do not realize that they run a high risk of ruining the lives of their parents as well as their own and ending up in foster care where the risk of sexual abuse is present.

As society has made it possible for kids to prevail over parents, the kids think this right also applies to teachers, school administrators, and School Resource Officers, psychopaths with police badges who maintain  discipline with force and violence.  The kids quickly discover,as Shakara discovered in her encounter with Ben Fields, that whereas parents are constrained from using corporal punishment, School Resource Officers are not. Shakara’s desk was overturned as she sat in it.  She was slammed onto the floor, dragged across the floor and handcuffed.  Any parent who did that would be facing jail time.

Schools are no longer places of learning. They are places of punishment. Kids are punished for the most absurd reasons.  Nothing more than behaving as a child brings on punishment.  As

Henry Giroux has written, schools have become places of control, repression, and punishment.

17,000 American public schools have a police presence.  All common sense has long departed.

Five and six year-olds who get into a shoving match are arrested and carried off in handcuffs. Police issue tickets and fines to students for what was ordinary behavior in my school days.  Suspensions result as do police records that hamper a child’s prospect of success.

The violence that Ben Fields used against Shakara is routine. Mother Jones reports that a Louisville goon thug, Jonathan Hardin punched a 13-year old in the face for cutting into the cafeteria line and of holding another 13-year old in a chokehold until the student became unconscious. A dispute over cell phone use resulted in a Houston student being hit 18 times with a police weapon.

The police violence extends beyond the schools.  Any American unfortunate enough to have a police encounter risks being tasered, beaten, arrested, and even murdered.

Protesters, war and otherwise, are beaten, tear gassed, arrested.  The American police state is working hard to criminalize all criticism of itself. Violence has become the defining hallmark of the United States.  It is even the basis of US foreign policy.  In the 21st century millions of peoples have been killed and displaced by American violence against the world.

With our public schools and police forces working overtime to teach the children who will comprise the future generations that violence is the solution and submission is the only alternative, expect the United States to be unliveable at home and an even worse danger to the rest of the world.

How many times have we heard US officials and go-along media accuse Putin of “Russian aggression,” “hybrid” or non-traditional warfare, “cyberwar,” invading Ukraine using (nonexistent) “little green men,” and engaging in other destabilizing, hostile acts.

Obama earlier called ebola, Russia and ISIS America’s greatest threats, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter saying Moscow is a “very, very significant threat,” and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph (“Fighting Joe”) Dunford calling Russia’s “behavior…alarming…an existential threat.”

Big Lies repeated ad nauseam get most people to believe them. Propaganda wars rage because they work. America is the greatest threat to world peace and stability,

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley is another top US official to bash Russia. Last July, he told Senate Armed Services Committee members its activities are “very, very stressful.”

It’s “the only country on earth that retains a nuclear capability to destroy the United States, so it’s an existential threat.”

On Monday, addressing the Defense One summit in Washington, he repeated the baseless accusation – citing nonexistent Russian “aggressi(on), adversarial to the interests of the United States (as well as) aggressive” ground, air and naval exercises.

He failed to mention they’re all within its own territory, unlike US-led NATO ones provocatively near its borders.

“Russia bears close watching,” Milley warned. He urged contesting nonexistent “Russian aggression” with sanctions and NATO exercises – at the same working with Moscow on matters of mutual interest.

Former US Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs/Deputy NATO Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow runs things, Jens Stoltenberg a Pentagon-controlled front man.

Vershbow is extremely hawkish, calling Russia “more an enemy than partner.” On October 28, he addressed a NATO conference in Madrid, updating participants on the Alliance’s show of strength – including ongoing Trident Juncture exercises.

They’re NATO’s largest since 2002, involving around 35,000 troops, over 140 aircraft and 60 naval vessels from 30 participating countries – a major anti-Russian provocation, unrelated to protecting European security as claimed.

Vershbow repeated the long ago discredited Big Lie, claiming NATO and allied nations “face a newly assertive Russia.” Ignoring Washington’s coup, replacing democrats with fascists in Kiev, he called Ukraine a “wake-up call.”

“The world woke up to Russia’s actions when it took Crimea by force early last year, denying the actions of its ‘little green men’ every step of the way until the peninsula was firmly under its control,” he blustered like he’s done before.

“Since then, it has supported separatist fighters in the east of Ukraine with men and with arms – including heavy weaponry – and now effectively controls those forces on the battlefield while implausibly denying that Russian forces are there, hiding in plain sight.”

Fact: The whole world knows Crimeans voted overwhelmingly on their own by referendum to rejoin Russia, correcting a long overdue historic mistake.

Fact: No forceful seizure occurred. No “little green men” invaded Ukraine. No Russian troops are there now.

Fact: No evidence suggests Moscow supplied Donbass freedom fighters with heavy or other weapons. Hard facts show it continues supplying generous amounts of humanitarian aid – defying Washington and Kiev wanting it blocked.

Vershbow: “Moscow seems to think that Russia can only be secure if its neighbors are unstable, or even dismembered.”

Fact: America prioritizes endless wars of aggression, instability, and chaos globally. Russia is  a force for world peace, stability and mutual cooperation among all nations.

Vershbow: “Now Russia has turned its attention to Syria.  But rather than fighting ISIL alongside the US-led coalition of regional countries and NATO Allies, Russia is focussing its firepower on shoring up the position of its client, the regime of President Assad.”

“In theory, Russia has an opportunity to help destroy ISIL and to end the war in Syria, bringing much needed stability to the region.  But in reality, its actions are only prolonging the war and exacerbating the suffering of its people.”

Fact: Syria is Obama’s war, US aggression against a nation threatening no others, using imported proxy terrorist foot soldiers.

Fact: America’s air campaigns in Syria and Iraq support ISIS and other takfiris, targeting infrastructure and other government targets in both countries, supplying heavy weapons to terrorists on the ground.

Fact: Russia is waging real war on ISIS and other terrorist groups. It supports Syria’s sovereign independence and right of its people to decide who’ll lead them.

Fact: Washington’s agenda is polar opposite, raping and destroying another country it wants dominion over, responsible for millions of deaths and vast destruction post-9/11 alone.

Vershbow lied saying US-dominated NATO’s “primary aim (is) collective defense.” Naked aggression is Washington’s main strategy to achieve unchallenged global dominance, ravaging one country after another, recklessly confronting Russia and China, risking nuclear war if not stopped.

Clearly, America is Russia’s greatest threat. To his credit, Putin doesn’t stoop to fear-mongering.

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 the announcement of US special forces joining Western-backed militants on the ground in Syria, many still appear confused as to exactly what the implications of this move are. As if to assure the public that indeed, the move is to use the so-called Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a pretext to invade and occupy Syrian territory, the Washington Post has published  an article explaining the move in detail titled, “Obama has strategy for Syria, but it faces major obstacles.”

In it, it states openly that ISIS is being supplied via Turkey. It states specifically that:

They will increase air operations in northern Syria, particularly in the Turkish border area to cut the flow of foreign fighters, money and materiel coming in to support the Islamic State. 

Of course, it should be noted that Turkey itself has been a NATO member since the 1950’s, with a US airbase located on Turkish territory at Incirlik for nearly as long. Since the war started in Syria in 2011, the US has admittedly operated along the Turkish-Syrian border. The New York Times and the Washington Post itself has reported on numerous occasions regarding the US Central Intelligence Agency steering weapons to militant groups across this very border.

Image: For months – if not years – those looking at ISIS and Al Qaeda territory in Syria can see, flowing like a river, their support has originated in NATO-member Turkey. The most recent Washington Post article all but admits that is the case, but claims it can only be stopped by holding Syrian territory. It is clear however, that NATO, Turkey, and the US possess the ability but intentionally lack the will to stop this flow before it enters Syria – specifically to create a pretext to invade.

There are also multi-billion dollar refugee camps built in a joint effort between Western governments and nongovernmental organizations and the Turkish government itself along the border, as well as US-run training camps for “moderate rebels.”

The question becomes then, if ISIS is receiving the summation of its “foreign fighters, money, and materiael” from Turkey, and the US is operating all along the Turkish border, why isn’t it being interdictedbefore it reaches Syria? Washington Post answers that too, but in the way of a denial from an unnamed Pentagon official:

This step is not to be considered “the start of a no-fly zone or a creeping no-fly zone. That’s just not the intent,” the Pentagon official said.

But of course it should be considered the start of a creeping no-fly-zone – because that is precisely why ISIS was created to justify in the first place, and that is precisely what is materializing before the world’s eyes. And the Washington Post elaborates on just what this no-fly-zone will lead to amid this feigned fight with ISIS:

Defeating the Islamic State in Syria, under Obama’s strategy, rests on enabling local Syrian forces not only to beat back Islamic State fighters but to hold freed territory until a new central government, established in Damascus, can take over.

There already is a central government in Damascus, that should ISIS supply lines flooding out of NATO territory be cut, could easily reestablish control over this “freed territory” the Washington Post refers to. But the Post is careful to mention the term, “new central government,” or in other words, a government hand-selected by the US and its regional partners, affiliated with the terrorists that have laid waste to Syria since 2011.

Invading Syria with US special forces-backed militants, and taking and holding Syrian territory is verbatim the plan laid out by US foreign policymakers from various corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks, and more specifically the Brookings Institution.

As reported during the initial US announcement of “boots on the ground,” the plan to create “safe zones” to then expand further within Syria with the ultimate goal being the toppling of Damascus, has been ongoing since at least 2012.

In the March 2012 Brookings Institution”Middle East Memo #21″ “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated specifically that (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The plan to use US special forces to take and hold Syrian territory was also specifically laid out  in a June 2015 Brookings document literally titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war.” In it, it stated that (emphasis added):

The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the presence of special forces as well. The approach would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack through a combination of technologies, patrols, and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.

Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal of the outside special forces, he would be likely to lose his air power in ensuing retaliatory strikes by outside forces, depriving his military of one of its few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.

The Washington Post’s recent article confirms that this is precisely what is being done in Syria – the execution of long-laid plans obvious since at least June of 2014, but documented in detail since June of this year.

Image: Russia is already legally operating in Syria, under invitation by the Syrian government itself. The US has no such authorization from Syria, or the UN, and its activities in Syrian airspace and on Syrian soil are illegal. As such, the Russians and their Syrian counterparts have no obligation to avoid operating in areas the US is attempting to create defacto “no-fly-zones” and “safe zones” in. Furthermore, could Syria and Russia marshal further support from a wider front of allies, their own international force could enter and permanently occupy these areas targeted by the US to prevent America’s illegal occupation.

The only question left regarding this obvious, long-stated plan is, since it has been so openly and transparently pursued, what has Syria and its allies, particularly Russia who is now engaged militarily in Syria, going to do to expose and confound it?

Nearly 100,000 refugees in Gaza face a second winter without proper housing, with just one of their homes rebuilt since being damaged or destroyed in Israel attack last year, said a United Nations agency that provides assistance in the region.

Families are living under tarpaulins, in animal shacks or with relatives and last winter, at least three children froze to death, said a spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, known as UNRWA. “As the winter approaches, one shudders how these people are going to survive,” the UNRWA spokesman, Christopher Gunness, said in an interview, Reuters reported on Friday.

The agency helps some 5 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. “What these people need is proper homes,” he said. Reconstruction in the enclave of 1.8 million people is hindered partly because of a lack of funds and partly because of a blockade that restricts goods entering and leaving Gaza, Gunness said.

During last year’s 50-day war, Israeli airstrikes and shelling hammered the densely populated Gaza Strip causing widespread destruction of homes, schools, hospitals and factories. More than 2,100 Palestinians were killed, mostly civilians. Israel put the number of its dead at 67 soldiers and six civilians. “The underlying dynamics that saw the war in 2014 are still there,” Gunness said. “Indeed they’ve probably got worse because in 2014 there weren’t 13,000 families whose homes were uninhabitable.

“Even if Gaza was reconstructed magically tomorrow morning, unless Gaza is allowed to function economically, then it’s hard to see how the instability is going to go away.” The World Bank said in May that blockades, war and poor governance have strangled Gaza’s economy and the unemployment rate is now the highest in the world. It stands at 43 percent, rising to 68 percent among people ages 20 to 24, the World Bank said. There have been no significant exports from Gaza since 2007. Israel maintains tight controls on the movement of goods and people in and out of the territory.

Currently, 90 percent of water in Gaza is undrinkable, and the population relies almost completely on a coastal aquifer which could become unusable next year, UNRWA said. Most Gazans consume between 70 and 90 liters a day, below the World Health Organization standard of 100 liters per person per day, the agency said. The number of people receiving UNRWA food aid has risen to 860,000 from 80,000 in 2000, Gunness said. They will become reliant on water aid as well as supplies dwindle, he said.

Meanwhile, the continued silence from Britain, the EU and the US, becomes ever louder notwithstanding that Israel is now murdering unarmed Palestinians daily.  Death toll last week stood at 72, including 12 children, two infants and a pregnant woman

‘Tension has surged amid resentment over Israeli settlements and the incursions into Al-­Aqsa Mosque compound, the third holiest site for Muslims.

Rights groups have slammed Israel for its harsh measures as it continues to crack down on Palestinians.’ This week, Amnesty International warned Israeli forces to end its “pattern of unlawful killings. In some cases, Israeli forces appear to have ripped up the rulebook and resorted to extreme and unlawful measures,” the group said. “They seem increasingly prone to using lethal force against anyone they perceive as posing a threat, without ensuring that the threat is real.”

The root cause of the violence is Israel’s continuing illegal occupation and settlement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and the violent dispossession of the indigenous population by armed troops and settlers.

The international community needs to apply pressure on Israel to conform to international law and repatriate all its settlers back to their own homes in Israel, if there is ever going to be peace. Failing which, the world will need to accept that there will eventuality be an uprising that will inevitably escalate to a much wider conflict that will impact Europe as well as the Middle East.

That will be the tragic consequence of the current appeasement policy, by the European Union, of Binyamin Netanyahu’s illegal colonisation agenda and of the supply of yet more arms to the Israeli government, which colludes in enforcing the illegal occupation.

Notes:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel­murdering­defenceless-palestinian­youths­and­children/5486068

This incisive article was first published by Global Research in September 2013

The civil war which has raged in Syria for a period exceeding a two year mark has now entered what will be its decisive phase. This will determine whether the government headed by Bashar al Assad will prevail or be dislodged.

It will also determine whether any military action undertaken by the United States will meet a response of critical counter measures by Russia; the nature of which could put both nations on to the dangerous path of a possible confrontation.

It will finally determine whether the conflict will lead to a full blown regional war; the denouement of which will reveal the viability of the continued existence of Syria as a nation state.

The key to understanding this particular conflict and its significance is to keep in mind what ultimately lies at its root: the confrontation between the United States and its old adversary, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

While grievances, dissatisfactions, and dissenting sentiments did exist among segments of the civil population over the decades-long authoritarian tendencies of the incumbent rulers who are largely drawn from the minority Alawite group, the extent of the current insurrection -some would proffer that it should be more accurately labelled an invasion- could not have attained this level of magnitude without the active manipulations of foreign state actors; each with a vested interest in ensuring the effective neutralisation and overthrow of the Assad government and even, ultimately, the dismemberment of the Syrian state.

Turkey, for over a decade under the ‘soft-Islamist’ governance of the Justice and Development Party led by Recep Erdogan, has exhibited foreign policy inclinations which some have interpreted as harking back to its Ottoman past, while the conservative Sunni Kingdoms on the Arabian peninsula led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar are keen on curtailing what is seen as the surgent power and influence of Shiadom.

This power and influence as articulated through the respective roles of Iran, Syria and the Lebanese organisation Hezbollah, has often been referred to as the ‘Shia Crescent.’ It is an alliance which poses a threat not only to the aforementioned Sunni Kingdoms but also to the United States and to the state of Israel.

American antagonism towards Iran of course dates back to 1979 with the assumption to power of the Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini in the period which followed the revolution that overthrew the rule of the American-backed Shah.

Iranians in turn recalled that the first democratically elected government in Iran; that of Mohamed Mossadegh, was in 1953 overthrown by a coup d’etat which was orchestrated by America’s Central Intelligence Agency.

This animus continued through the Iran hostage crisis when American embassy staff were seized by Iranian revolutionary guards and held hostage and continued during the 1980s during US intervention in the Lebanon as well as the 8-year Iraq-Iran War in which the Americans backed Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who was the aggressor in that conflict.   

This mutual hostility has persisted right to the present day and although the major enemy following the September 11 attacks of 2001 was the Sunni-created al Qaeda which established a presence in Iraq during an insurgency by Sunnis, by 2006, the administration of President George W. Bush had reconfigured its priorities to clandestinely work with and enhance the capabilities of Sunni militant groups in both Lebanon and Syria with the aim of weakening Hezbollah, the Assad government and ultimately Iran.

This premise, that the fall of Syria under the control of the Baathist government of Assad has been a foreign policy objective of the United States has found expression in a number of policy documents and think-tanks including, most notoriously, that produced by the Project for the New American Century.

This neo-conservative group proposed that the United States needed to take advantage of a post-Cold War world in which a vacuum had been left by the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

In shaping the global framework to its advantage, the United States needed to bolster its military expenditure and resolutely “challenge” regimes which were hostile to its “interests and values”. Featured among the list of hostile states were Iraq, Syria and Iran.

The election of George W. Bush brought neo-Conservatives to influential positions and ensured the beginning of a process which is continuing to the present.

Retired General Wesley Clarke, the former supreme commander of NATO, would later describe how on a visit to the Pentagon after the September 11^th attacks, former colleagues had alerted him to the existence of a memorandum spelling out how the United States was going to “take out seven countries in five years.” These he revealed to be Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and “finishing off” with Iran.

There are increasingly many who are disinclined to subscribe wholeheartedly –if at all- to the reasons given for United States-led or backed interventions under the guise of the phenomena styled respectively as the ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘Arab Spring’.

While overtly predicated on issues related to countering terrorism or protecting populations or spreading democracy, each operation has had either an ascertainable economic motive or is one based on the long term national objective of effecting the downfall of a regime identified as been “hostile” to American interests.

By exploiting the apparently genuinely peaceful civil demonstrations which had developed in early 2011 while the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ was in full bloom through covert support for the contrived opposition ‘Free Syrian Army’, the Syrian conflict has brought the Arab world to the precipice of a potentially catastrophic clash between Sunni and Shia denominations of the Islamic faith.

But if the eventuality of a regional sectarian confrontation was not among the desired outcomes envisaged by the policy-makers of the United States, it is safe to assert that the deliberate exacerbation of ethnic-religious tensions within a nation of which affairs the United States is attempting to influence has become a time-honoured technique utilized by its intelligence agencies.

It was a tactic which was employed with brutal finesse via Shia-dominated police death squads in Iraq which were trained and funded to aid in the neutralisation of the Sunni-led anti-American insurgency as well as in the training and arming of the Islamist and tribally-motivated rebels who succeeded in overthrowing the government of Muamar Gaddafi.

While Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided logistical points for the transport of arms, the provision of the mercenary component of the anti-Assad forces and funding, the United States has served as an overseer.

For instance, in March of this year, a number of Western newspapers reported the shipment of several thousand tonnes of weapons from Zagreb to conduit nations in aid of what were referred to as “Syrian militants”.  This transaction was said to have been paid for by the Saudis and Qataris at the behest of the United States.

Ever mindful of the humiliations and other depredations potentially attendant to direct interventions, this sort of discreet, ‘at-arms-length’ operation is one favoured by the United States government as a ploy that is aimed at flagrantly circumventing domestic legislation geared towards restraining foreign entanglements through the funding and training of external belligerents.

But the camouflage which worked in the endeavour to overthrow Libya’s Gaddafi has failed to work in the case of Syria. The difficulty of achieving this was quietly acknowledged right at the onset of the conflict.

For one, the strength of the Syrian armed forces in terms of manpower and weaponry rendered any attempt at undermining its government an altogether different proposition from that of Colonel Gaddafi who purposely maintained a smaller, relatively lightly armed army as a strategy for lessening the chances of a successful military putsch from among the ranks of his soldiers.

Secondly, both the Russians and Chinese who felt deceived by consenting to what they were led to believe was intended to be a vastly more limited form action under the United Nations ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine in Libya, have remained unyielding in blocking American attempts to give NATO a UN-stamped green light to embark on a direct form of intervention.

Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that the US-led coalition of anti-Assad nations made undisclosed time-based projections that the pressures caused by covertly building up the capabilities of the Syrian opposition forces, an expected mass defection from the ranks of the Syrian military, as well as an intensification of sectarian animosities leading to the mass estrangement of the majority Sunnis from the national government would have by now led to the fall of Assad.

The frustration at failing to achieve this end has revealed itself in a number of incidents which bore the hallmarks of having been opportunely stage managed.

In June of 2012, the shooting down by a Syrian anti-aircraft battery of a Turkish air force jet which was manoeuvring on the border of both countries and which had likely strayed into Syrian airspace appeared designed to serve as a means of invoking Article 5 of NATO’s constitution which provides that an attack on one member state is considered as an attack against all.

Again the media debate which followed the explosion back in April of a weapon believed to contain chemical agents and the subsequent vigorous examination of President Barack Obama’s previous enunciation that the use of such weapons would represent the crossing of a ‘red line’ which would necessitate the use of American military power appeared to represent an aggressive surge to facilitate public approval for intervention.

With the drift of the conflict swaying decisively in favour of the Assad army, which with a contingent force of Hezbollah fighters scored a decisive victory in June over the opposition at the Syrian-Lebanese border town of Qusair, the stakes became much higher.

The waning of the opposition which itself is bedevilled by the al Qaeda affiliations of the Jabhat al Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq as well as allegations of and the confirmed instances of perpetrated atrocities effectively put the pressure on the United States to intervene.

This is why the nerve agent attack on Ghouta, a community to the east of Damascus on August 21^st which killed anything from 350 to over a thousand people, has come at a time which can only be described as been particularly propitious.

Why, many have asked, would the ascendant forces of the Assad government resort to the use of chemical weapons given that the advantage is with them? Why would they use them when in full knowledge that the United States would seize upon such use as a justification for finally intervening in a direct manner?

In many ways the conflict has built up to this moment. The failure of the efforts to destroy the Assad government has forced the hand of the United States to intervene based on an event which was either a tragedy staged with the specific purpose of blaming the Syrian government for using chemical weapons or even if the Assad regime was responsible, is an intervention based on an uncertain aspect of international law.

For while the Geneva Convention does outlaw the use of chemical weapons there is not an unequivocally concomitant provision entitling foreign intervention by means of invasion or using punitive measures to deal with transgressors.

The evidence proffered by the Obama administration has not been particularly convincing; amounting to little more than “only the Assad government was capable of deploying and using such weapons.”

Evidence indicates that this is not true.

For instance, last May, there were reports from the Turkish media indicating that the authorities had found a 2 kilogram cylinder of sarin nerve gas after searching the homes of Islamist Syrian guerrillas.

There is no great mystery or complexity about the adaptation of chemicals to weaponry which can come pre-packaged and be loaded onto an array of conventional guns or rocket launchers.

There is the allegation, based on interviews conducted by an AP-affiliated journalist, that the nerve agents which were used in Ghouta had been supplied by Saudi Arabian intelligence. And in August, Syrian state television broadcast footage of soldiers finding chemical agents in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar.     

Further, the Syrian ambassador to the UN has called for a United Nations investigation into three alleged chemical weapons attacks against its soldiers which occurred in August. The United States, it needs reminding, has never stipulated any measures that it would take against the opposition if it resorted to chemical warfare.

Although sound in principle, the idea of striking out at those who use chemical weapons in order to serve as a deterrence is one which is not strictly proportionate in terms of the damage inflicted on humans by other forms of weapons which have been used by the armed forces of the United States, Russia and Israel.

In Iraq, babies continue to be born deformed as a result of the agents contained in American bombs used during the Gulf War. There were no red lines drawn when Israel used phosphorous agents and depleted uranium shells in Lebanon and in Gaza.

There are those who also assert that the United States policy on chemical weapons as been inconsistent if not reeking of hypocrisy given that the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons with impunity against Iranian soldiers during the war in which it had sponsored Saddam.

It would be remiss not to mention the role of Israel as a key party with a huge interest in the fate of the Assad government and of the future of Syria itself. The impression which has been given by much of the media is that Israel has been somewhat passive over the conflict raging inside one of its neighbours and that it is unsure of which side it would prefer to prevail.

Although much of the analysis has portrayed an attitude of studied weariness over the outcome; with many assuming that it would prefer Assad to remain in power as it is “better the devil you know than the one you don’t know”, such conclusions amount to a gross misreading of the situation.

Here, an understanding of history and the fundamental precepts which have shaped and guided the longstanding attitudes and policies of the Zionist state are critical.

It was of course the New Zionist Revisionism as enunciated by Ze’ev Jabotinksy through his Iron Wall Doctrine which asserted that the viability and the sustenance of a nascent Jewish state nestled among hostile Arab neighbours could only be accomplished by foregoing notions of compromise and instead adopting a bullish and brutal military culture which would crush the will of those who would offer resistance.

Part of the strategy of dealing with the challenge associated with surrounding Arab nations was that the Zionist state must assume a position of undisputed hegemony which would be accomplished not only by force of arms but by exploiting the differences between and the disagreements among her neighbours.

And as the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire would serve as a pre-condition for the establishment of a state of Israel, so it was argued that its survival would be better assured by the weakening of successor artificially constructed Arab states, which should be broken down into smaller, weaker mini-states.

In other words, the existence of large Arab nation states from the Maghreb to the Levant would always represent a potential threat to Israel which should be neutralised when opportunities arise.

This line of thinking was at the heart of David Ben Gurion’s policies in the 1950s which sought to exacerbate tensions between Christians and Muslims in the Lebanon for the fruits of acquiring regional influence by the dismembering the country and the possible acquisition of additional territory. It formed the basis of his vehement objections to Charles de Gaulle’s decision to grant independence to Algeria.

It was certainly at the heart of the plan of policy drawn up by one Oded Yinon in the 1980s. The ‘Yinon Plan’ strategized a vision by which the ethnic-tribal rivalries and the economic maladies within larger Arab states should be exploited to the extent of creating the conditions by which the balkanization of such states could be achieved.

Thus the plan elaborated on designs for specific countries such as Iraq which would ideally be divided into three mini-states: one Kurdish and the other two Arab of which one would be Sunni and the other Shia. For Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, the best case scenario was that of a Coptic Christian state and numerous other Muslim states.

Addressing the potentially fractious state of affairs in its north eastern neighbour, Yinon’s essay noted that “Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it”.

A continuum of this thinking is apparent in ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’, a policy document produced by a team led by Richard Perle in 1996 for then serving prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, it should be noted, was a contributor to the aforementioned Project for the New American Century.

‘The Clean Break Document’ proposed that Israel give up on any objectives geared towards achieving a comprehensive peace with the Arab world and that it should instead work together with Turkey and Jordan to “contain, destabilize and roll-back” those states which pose as threats to all three.

Just as with the PNAC document, the strategy behind Israeli policy was to effect the “weakening, controlling and even rolling back” of Syria.

The threat posed to Israel by Syria thus has until recently been that of an ostensibly united state in possession of a substantive mass of territory and relatively large population under a strong form of leadership.

Israel of course has over the decades successfully countered those threats posed by Syria when Syria was part of coalitions of Arab armies as well as specific confrontations in Lebanon such as when their air forces famously clashed in duels over the Bekaa Valley in the early 1980s.

Israel is a nation which from the time of its inception has operated with what has been described as “strong survival instincts”.  It has consistently penetrated the highest levels of the command structures of Arab military and guerrilla organisations including those of the Syrian state and groups to which Syria has given refuge as well as those operating within its borders but which are hostile to the government.

Indeed, one of the most spectacularly successful feats of Israeli foreign intelligence was the Mossad operation in which an Egyptian-born Jew of Syrian-Jewish parentage, Eli Cohen, insinuated himself among the political and military elites of Syria by posing as a wealthy Syrian-Argentine returnee.

Before he was captured and hanged by the Syrian authorities, Cohen succeeded in relaying vital pieces of information to his handlers which would be of importance during the impending Six Day War of 1967.

The penetration of terrorist groups is among the most difficult of endeavours in the field of espionage, but Israel has consistently succeeded in this regard. In 1991, it was alleged that the United States, then embarked on a rapprochement with the Syrian government, had unwittingly unmasked “two or three” Palestinian agents working undercover for the Mossad in a Syrian-based guerrilla organisation who were later executed.

There is no reason to believe that these endeavours of espionage have not continued. The current civil war has prompted much in the manner of overt and covert activity along the Golan Heights border with Syria, the area which Israel seized after the 1967 war and which it later annexed.

The Israeli Defence Forces have mobilized troops and conducted a number of manoeuvres along its Syrian border. It has launched missiles into Syria and conducted bombing missions -all of which are illegal- which are believed to have cost the lives of significant amounts of civilians.

Its air force bombed a research centre in January of this year and a convoy of weapons which they claimed were Iranian supplied and in transit to Hezbollah in Lebanon was destroyed.

While the media mulled over whether the Assad government would respond to the research centre operation with a retaliatory attack on Israel as a means of widening the war and possibly setting the scene for an Arab-Israeli war if Israel embarked on an all-out attack on an Arab nation, one leader of the Syrian opposition publically pledged not to attack Israel.

Israel is central to the purported evidence that the American government is relying upon as confirming the culpability of the Assad government in regard to the chemical weapons attack which may lead to American strikes.

The intercepted phone call apparently implicating members of the Syrian military command structure emanated from Israeli military intelligence, the IDF’s 8200 Unit.

There is every reason to treat such evidence with caution. For instance, the formidable listening post operated by British intelligence on Mount Troodos in Cyprus does not appear to have picked up any messages implicating the Assad government in the chemical attack.

Such intercepted evidence would have been made available to the British Joint Intelligence Committee and would have been exploited by Prime Minister Cameron in making his case to Parliament for military intervention.

It is in Israel’s interest for the United States to attack Syria. Certainly, much of the public discourse in its media has indicated that Israel would welcome the fall of the Assad government.

Consider for instance a report by Debka, an Israeli news outlet which related how senior IDF officers criticised Moshe Ya’alon, the defence minister, for having “misled” the Knesset about the amount of Syrian territory controlled by the Assad government. “Erroneous assessments”, Debka stressed, “must lead to faulty decision-making”.

Consider also a Times of Israel editorial piece by David Horovitz written in the immediate aftermath of the vote by the British Parliament which ruled out involvement in an American-led attack on the Assad military.

The title, “Perfidious Albion hands murderous Assad a spectacular victory”, summed up the writer’s feeling that what he described as “British ineptitude and gutlessness” had “sent the wrong message to the butcher of Damascus, and left Israel more certain than ever that it can only rely on itself.”

The implication here is clear: Horovitz, whose paper had previously confirmed Israeli intelligence as being the source of Syrian responsibility for the chemical attack in Ghouta, is expectant of Western nations to remove the enemies of Israel. But in the absence of the will to do this, Israel will have to resolve to complete the task.

It is an attitude that has manifested itself in the policies and pronouncements of successive Israeli prime ministers. For instance, in 2003 as the Bush administration primed itself to invade Iraq, Ariel Sharon called on the United States to also disarm “Iran, Libya and Syria”.

More recently, Benjamin Netanyahu issued persistent pleas to the United States to launch attacks on Iran’s nuclear installations in order to remove the “existential threat” that nation is claimed to pose to Israel.

It is an attitude which fits into the outside-of-the-mainstream arguments that Israel has through its influential lobbies in the Western world, got America and its allies to ‘fight its wars’; wars which like the one in Iraq they allege have reduced Arab nations into ‘failed states’ which have been effectively balkanized.

When earlier this year the veteran journalist Carl Bernstein referred to the “insane” Iraq war as having been started by what he described as “Jewish neo-cons who wanted to remake the world (for Israel)”, he was referring to the proportionately high number of ethnic Jews who were part of the Project for the New American Century and who subsequently held key positions in the Bush administration which orchestrated an invasion that has ultimately led to the division of that country into three distinct segments.

It is the alleged power wielded by Israel lobbyists urging military intervention in Syria which some have argued is behind the hardline stances of Western leaders such as Britain’s David Cameron and France’s Francois Hollande.

Certainly, the opinion pieces, articles and commentaries on the websites of organisations such as AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs are reflective of a position calling for American intervention in Syria that goes further than mere gestures.

Even if the Syrian government arguably deserves to meet its end, the means that have been adopted by the United States and its allies to effect its removal cannot be justified.

Although led by a minority of the nation’s population and authoritarian in character, the Baathist government, at the helm of which has been the ruling Assad dynasty, has provided this fractious multi-ethnic country with a lengthy era of stability. The period before the ascent of Hafez al Assad as the strongman-ruler was marked by great turbulence as one military faction overthrew the other in a game of political musical chairs.

Its government represents the remnant of the socially progressive, anti-imperialist, non-sectarian movements such as the pan-Arabism pioneered by Egypt’s Gamal Abel Nasser and the Baathist philosophy espoused by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian Christian.

The nationalist character of the Syrian state and its secular nature provide the basis for unity and inclusiveness in a society composed of Sunnis, Alawites, Kurds, Orthodox Christians and Druze.

This is arguably the most important reason as to why it has survived the onslaught wrought by the Sunni-centred Free Syria Army and the Islamist militants who conceive a chauvinist post-Assad future of a Sunni-dominated state or states within which there would be an imposition of strict Sharia Law.

While not as successful or as benevolent as the form of governance afforded by Tunisia’s Habib Bourguiba, the Baath Party has provided most Syrians with a standard of living and a measure of social freedom which compares favourably with other parts of the Arab world.

But it is fair to say that the economy has been mismanaged and that nepotism and corruption are rife. The rule of Hafez al Assad, the President’s father is correctly characterised as having been one which was conducted with iron-fisted brutality.

The savage clamp down on an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama in 1982 testified to the utter ruthlessness of a ruler who murdered thousands of innocents in order to accomplish his objective.

The image of strength however has not been one which the Assads have been able to convey so far as reckoning with Israel is concerned. They have had to live with the brutal reality of Israeli military might.

Hafez Assad was the powerful minister of defence when Israel defeated three Arab armies in the Six Day War during which the Golan Heights was overrun and he was president when the Israelis annexed that territory.

While Syria can claim that it alone of the three primary Arab combatant nations in the wars with Israel has resisted reaching a settlement with Israel, it has not been able to escape the charge of impotence in the face of numerous acts of Israeli aggression towards it.

And while it claims to have never sold out on the interests of the Palestinians, such assertion neglects the fact that Assad senior never put his weight of support behind the largest and segment of the Palestinian liberation movement which was led by Yassir Arafat.

Arafat in fact became a sworn enemy of the elder Assad who attempted to have him assassinated in order to install his own puppet Palestinian leader whom he could manipulate in his dealings with his powerful Zionist neighbour.

In fact, it was a secret kept for many years by a number of Arab figures that the government of Syria of which Assad senior was an influential member negotiated a secret agreement with Israel on the eve of the Six Day War which ensured that the Syrian Army would do very little in the event of a war breaking out between Israel and Egypt. This betrayal of their Arab allies and the Palestinian people was a secret which those in the know did not mention for fear of fatal retaliation.

The history of the world up to the present day informs us that rivalries between international alliances caused by different political, social and economic systems can best be contained by an overarching system of international security which can achieve a measure of stability in the relations between nations, if not quite creating an idealised state of harmonious co-existence.

The problem with the policies of the United States and its allies who have fomented and facilitated the troubles in Syria is a failure to recognise that differences can be best contained by adopting strategies which are predicated on respecting national sovereignty and adopting purposeful and genuine policies which are geared towards constructive dialogue.

The tripartite alliance that comprises the Shiite Crescent is one which has interests that ought to be respected. The idea of destroying Syria and then Iran whether emanating from notions of the American Empire, Zionist Revisionism, Saudi Wahhabism or the Ottoman school of thought, is one that is rooted in an arrogant mentality; being based on inflexible assumptions which find their raison detre in the aspiration to control and dominate others.

In many respects, Syria’s ‘crime’ as with the case of Iran and before the change of regime, that of the Gaddafi-era Libya, was a failure to strictly toe the line so far as being obeisant to Western interests is concerned.

The fall of Gaddafi, whose state owed no debts to the international banking system, has paved the way for the intervention of international financial agencies given that NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ action  managed to destroy Libya’s infrastructure and will grant Western governments access to the water resources created by Gaddafi’s Great Man River project.

Similarly, the fall of the Assad dynasty would pave the way for the building of an oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Turkey and would remove a vital supply conduit to Hezbollah whose doctrinal and organisational discipline, reminiscent of the early Zionists in Palestine, has provided something of a check on the actions of Israel.

The moralistic stances often taken by America in its history have frequently been compromised by a sanctimonious tone which consistently asserts that its actions are predicated on sound values rather than on naked self-interest.   

Thus, the intention to launch punitive strikes against Syria for the unproven use of chemical weapons is not based on a profound abhorrence for the act or to genuinely effect a deterrent, but is in fact geared towards giving advantage to the foes of Bashar Assad.

That Assad’s foes are Islamic fanatics of the sort against who America claims to be waging a so-called War on Terror is not accidental but is, as previously explained, a consciously adopted policy.

The mercenaries who have been armed and financed at the behest of America in a sense gives confirmation to what ostensibly appears to be a grotesque analysis: that al Qaeda has served as America’s ‘foreign legion’ since the time when it financed the Mujahedeen in its ‘holy war’ in Afghanistan against the invading Soviet armies.

They have been used in Lebanon in operations against Hezbollah, they were utilised to overthrow Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi and are presently being used in an attempt to effect regime change in Syria.

Another point of deep irony is the resolve of the United States to intervene over the deaths of a comparably small proportion of deaths when given the overall tally of lives which have been consumed by an array of devastatingly powerful weapons and intricate but lethal forms of munitions: The agony of death, the finality of physical destruction and the legacy of tragedy are all consistent features regardless of the means by which they are realised.

It is a war which would almost certainly have never reached its current level of intensity and depravity without the active connivance of the United States.

That the expected campaign of strikes on Syria, ostensibly based on humanitarian precepts will end up killing and maiming even more people is, perhaps, the deepest irony of all. 

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer and law lecturer based in England.

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy or any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively. 

Don’t let their duplicitous rhetoric fool you. They’re all cut out of the same cloth. Otherwise, they wouldn’t get public attention. Populist Green Party aspirant Jill Stein gets none. 

A Clinton presidency would be nightmarish for the vast majority of Americans and world peace. It’ll combine the worst of George Bush and Obama, an agenda of endless wars of aggression, maybe targeting Russia, China, and/or Iran, corporate favoritism, destroying social justice, and full-blown tyranny against resisters.

Doug Henwood is editor and publisher of the Left Business Observer. It covers “economics and politics in the broadest sense,” discussing what everyone needs to know, suppressed in mainstream reporting.

In November 2014, his Harper’s article headlined “Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton dynasty.” It bears repeating. A second Clinton presidency is the worst of all deplorable choices.

Her qualifications “boil down to this,” says Henwood.

“She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor.”

As first lady, she pushed husband Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999. The rape of Yugoslavia raged throughout the 1990s, culminating with 78 days of lawless US-led NATO aggression from March 24 – June 10, 1999.

She encouraged her husband to end welfare for needy households. Vital Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ended. The so-called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation (PRWORA) followed, changing eligibility rules.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) set a five-year time limit – leaving millions of needy households (many with single mothers) on their own when aid was most needed.

As New York senator and Secretary of State, she “bec(ame) increasingly hawkish on foreign policy,” Henwood explained.

“What Hillary will deliver (as president) is more of the same. And that shouldn’t surprise us…American politics has an amazing stability and continuity about it.”

No matter who’s elected president, business as usual always continues, hardening, not softening deplorably during Bill Clinton’s presidency, worse than ever post-9/11 under Bush II and Obama – certain to be worse than ever no matter who gets the top job next November, especially if it’s Hillary, a neocon, anti-populist war goddess.

Her self-proclaimed progressivism is pure fantasy. Her record as first lady and in public office exposes her real agenda, warranting condemnation, not praise.

She “has a long history of being economical with the truth,” said Henwood. As New York senator, “she voted for the Iraq war, and continued to defend it long after others had thrown in the towel.”

She echoed the Big Lies about Saddam’s nonexistent WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda. She cozied up to right-wing Republicans to ward off criticism. As Secretary of State, she was “less of a diplomat and more of a hawk,” Henwood explained.

She backed escalated war on Afghanistan, pushed for continued US military presence in Iraq, helped orchestrate lawless aggression on Libya, and urged Obama to bomb Syria without required Security Council authorization.

She was involved in developing “pivot to Asia” strategy. “Since leaving the State Department, (she) devoted herself to…Clinton, Inc…(a) fund-raising, favor-dispensing machine” together with husband Bill, said Henwood.

Their style is self-promotion, including “huge book advances and fat speaking fees… And with an eye to the presidency, (she) kept up her line of neocon patter, while carefully separating herself from Obama.”

She deplorably supports Netanyahu’s high crimes – from naked aggression on Gaza to current war throughout the Territories. Palestinian bloodshed and horrific suffering are of no consequence. Israeli imperial interests alone matter.

Henwood concluded his lengthy article, saying “Eight years of Hill? Four, even? To borrow her anti-McCain jab from the 2008 Democratic convention: No way, no how!”

His new book titled “My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency” covers in greater detail what his article discussed. The cover shows her hawkish image, pointing a gun with her arm outstretched.With Biden out as a potential candidate, she looks like a shoe-in Democrat nominee, despite all the exposed baggage about her.

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. 

Robert Guimaraes Vasquez, a leader of the Shipibo-Konibo indigenous people in Peru’s Amazon has traveled to a global forum in London on business, deforestation and human rights to highlight the destruction of his people’s traditional lands by an international agribusiness group and member of the RSPO (Round Table for Sustainable Palm oil), a global body that certifies that the production and trade of palm oil is sustainable and respects human rights.

“We don’t understand how it’s possible that a member of the RSPO can be violating its own environmental rules and human rights commitments. The community is preparing a formal complaint” said Mr Guimaraes.

The case concerns the Shipibo community of Santa Clara de Uchunya whose lands were acquired by a Peruvian company, Plantaciones de Pucallpa SAC (one of only two RSPO members in Peru) in 2012 in an undisclosed deal with the regional government of Ucayali. The community only realized when the first bulldozers began destroying the forest. Determined community resistance, including confiscation of company machinery and occupation of the lands combined with continuous lobbying of local authorities and central government finally resulted in a high level investigation in August 2015 by the Ministry of Agriculture.

On the 2nd September, and in a historic victory for the community, the Ministry of Agriculture ordered the immediate suspension of all operations. The judgment determined that the deforestation had been entirely illegal as none of the environmental permits required for forest clearance had been issued. To make matters even more embarrassing for the government, all conversion of primary forest, an estimated 80% of the affected area, is expressly forbidden in Peru.

The damage however had been done. Today, only 25 hectares, or 0.3%, of the parcel of land formally acquired by Plantaciones de Pucallpa in 2012, remained standing. In just three years, over 5200 hectares of Santa Clara’s ancestral forests had been destroyed.

Local activist Washington Bolivar describes the impact on the community. “Our lands have been devastated, all the forest is gone, and the streams are completely churned up and blocked, there is now only one stream we can still use for clean drinking water”.

What the Ministry of Agriculture failed to highlight however was the central government’s own collusion in this destruction. The Peruvian government is legally required to ensure that the traditional lands of indigenous peoples, like the inhabitants of Santa Clara, are duly recognised. However, despite continued demands for resolution of their land rights over decades, Santa Clara is one of at least 1174 communities in the Peruvian amazon whose demands for full legal recognition of their lands remains pending. AIDESEP, Peru’s national indigenous organisation estimates that in total, approximately 20 million hectares of indigenous peoples’ lands in the Amazon remain unrecognised in Peruvian law This failure has been identified by a recent national level study compiled by AIDESEP and FPP as one of the key barriers preventing Peru’s government from meeting its target to reduce deforestation to zero by 2021.*

The failure to recognize these lands and to ensure adequate safeguards were in place meant that in 2012 the Regional Government of Ucayali sold Santa Clara’s  lands to Plantaciones de Pucallpa. Today, the village, which is home to over 500 inhabitants whose subsistence livelihood depend almost entirely on hunting, fishing and gathering of forest resources, formally holds title to only approximately 200 hectares of land. Community members explain how this is already inadequate to meet their basic farming needs.

Mr Bolivar lays the blame for the situation squarely at the feet of local government. “There is only one party to blame, the regional government of Ucayali who sold off our lands without even speaking to us.  Only when we started protesting did the company and the government officials try to sweet talk us but it is too late, there is nothing to discuss. Our demands are simple, we want the company to withdraw immediately from our lands and held to account for the destruction it has caused, we want measure to regenerate the forest and compensation for the community.”

Ultimately, the community is demanding resolution of its longstanding land issue and filed a formal application for a land ‘extension’ in March 2015 to encompass the remainder of their traditional lands that have now been designated as a forestry concession. Until these rights are recognized they highlight that the deforestation of their lands as it gets sold off for logging or palm oil or invaded by land grabbers is likely to continue despite their efforts.

Plantaciones de Pucallpa is one of many companies registered in Peru which recent investigations have exposed are actually part of a complex network of companies that appear to be effectively controlled by Dennis Melka, a businessman who founded the Malaysian agribusiness company Asian Plantations whose operations have been similarly controversial in Sarawak, Malaysia.**

Holding those responsible to account is hampered by a model deployed by the Melka group in both Peru and Sarawak. This is based on multiple layers of shell companies and the registration of many in offshore tax havens where the identity of investors and owners is concealed. In the case of Plantaciones de Pucallpa, the holding company is United Oils Ltd. SEZC registered in the Cayman islands.

“The complexity of the supply chain of a commodity like palm oil means that consumers and even buyers are not even able to trace the origins of their palm oil. We know that Plantaciones de Pucallpa is an RSPO member but who really owns and controls this company? If we are not even able to find out who is really behind this forest destruction then how do communities like Santa Clara hold companies like these to account?” said Tom Griffiths of FPPs Responsible Finance Programme.

Challenging the deforestation has not come without its consequences for community members. Leaders like Mr Guimaraes and Mr Bolivar have been subjected to continuous threats.

“I get death threats all the time, my life is in danger and I have to move from one place to another. I live in fear, there are always people who follow me and I get threatening calls on my phone. They even threaten my sister”.

Mr Guimaraes highlighted that this is a problem for all indigenous peoples in Peru’s Amazon and particularly those in Ucayali. This came to international attention in 2014 with the infamous case of Saweto, four indigenous leaders, including the prize winning Edwin Chota, struggling to secure a land title for their community were killed by assassins linked to a powerful logging mafia with interests in Saweto’s lands.

“It is good that there is an outcry and that institutions declare their solidarity but human rights defenders need the support now, we don’t only want the awards when we are dead. In addition, in spite of the high profile of the case of Saweto, nobody has been sentenced. The message for us is clear. In Peru, there is total impunity for those who kill indigenous people.”

Mr Guimaraes will be speaking out in an international event taking place in London about commodity supply chains, deforestation and human rights in which major global agribusiness operators and policy makers will be participating.***

For further background information please click here.

Mr Guimaraes will be in London between the 2nd and 4th November. To arrange an interview and for relevant images please contact: Tom Griffiths: 00 44 7889 343 380 or Conrad Feather 00 44 7792979817, [email protected]

Notes

*http://invisibleperu.com/deforestation-case-study/

**http://eia-global.org/images/uploads/EIA_Peru_Palm_Report_APRIL_7.pdf

***http://innovation-forum.co.uk/deforestation-london-2015.php

Forest Peoples Programme, www.forestpeoples.org 

What is the Tesla factor?  It might be deemed a mixture of chance and selflessness, that inventive genius which works towards broader, holistic goals; a genius with the selflessness of a shaman and the morality of an ascetic.  Wherever one places Nikola Tesla in the canon of scientific discovers and inventors, there is little doubt he comes top of the tree, however vast that canopy tends to be.

Going through the small, though charming collection of items at the Nikola Tesla Museum in Belgrade, one is struck by the man’s ascetic genius.  It is all frugality and dedication, a sort of priest of learning who also disseminates what goods he has.  The patents he took out, the discoveries he marketed, had everything to do with the commonweal and virtually nothing to do with his bank balance. It would come to cripple him later in life, a man who died impecunious and alone in Room 3327 of the Hotel New Yorker, having been injured in a hit and run.

His genius was one that was constantly plagued by a stretch of chance and ill-luck.  The museum features a sample of the Tesla coils which could transmit and receive radio signals at certain frequency, using electrical energy. But in 1895, chance intervened with a fire that destroyed his work, which would have featured the transmission of a signal 50 miles to West Point, New York.

The young Italian Guglielmo Marconi, who is still thought my some to be the pioneering inventor of the effective wireless radio system, took out the first wireless telegraphy patent in 1896.  To transmit signals across the English Channel, however, he had to make use of a Tesla oscillator.

The issue of patents would prove to be a running battle, with Marconi attempting to make inroads in the United States with applications that were rejected over the course of repeated applications over three years.  “Many of the claims are not patentable over Tesla patent numbers 646,576 and 649,621,” came the coolly dismissive language of the US Patent Office in 1903. Marconi had shown “pretended ignorance of the nature of the ‘Tesla oscillator’” which could only be regarded as “little short of absurd”.

Marconi was undeterred, and the Marconi Wireless Telegraphy Company shot up in stock value.  Investments poured in from Andrew Carnegie. Thomas Edison also contributed.  In 1904, buoyed by additional backing from J. P. Morgan, Marconi tried again. This time, the US Patent Office displayed a good deal of fickleness in reneging on its initial hostility to Marconi, awarding him the patent for the invention of radio.

To show that history has less reason than weasel-like cunning, the Nobel Prize committee decided to jointly award the prize in Physics to Marconi and Karl Braun in 1909.  The siding factor had been Marconi’s work in wireless communication.

That bout of scientific pugilism did not end there.  On June 21, 1943, months after Tesla’s death, the historical record was, at least to some degree, corrected by the US Supreme Court.  The patent rights for Marconi were declared invalid and awarded to Tesla.  The Marconi Company had sued the US government for using four patents in the US Court of Claims.  The four tuned circuits covered by Tesla’s patents were held to have preceded Marconi’s.  The inventor, John Stone, also gave Tesla priority.

The battle over radio was but one aspect of Tesla’s at times maligned work.  An even more formidable prospect remained Thomas Edison, putative inventor of the light bulb and phonograph.  Edison was the consummate pragmatist with good lashings of ruthlessness.  He was brilliant but threatened.  Money did matter – he had, after all, established the first investor owned entity in 1882.

Tesla, in contrast, seemed the antic dreamer, and one who saw concepts as structured totalities before pen and paper touched.  He was the true eidetic, reading Goethe’s Faust in Budapest and seeing before him the electrical field.  The brilliant Serb tended to operate in the world of the unseen – rays, currents, electromagnetic fields.

The “current wars”, as they came to be called, were bloody and toasty affairs. They featured Edison’s efforts to, if one can pun on this, short-circuit Tesla by a direct attack on the supposed evils of alternative current (AC).  Try it, Edison suggested, and die.  Edison believed that direct current (DC) – his envisaged world view of the electrical field – would dictate energy consumption.  Alternative current had to be discredited.

The tried recipe involved inflicting death on chosen animals. He had engaged on an orgy of electrical killings across a range of stray animals: dogs, cats, cows, horses.  Edison’s most famous casualty was the much abused elephant Topsy, which he electrocuted on January 4, 1903 in Luna Park with an enthusiasm verging on the fanatical.  Such murderous enthusiasm stood him in good stead to be the technology wizard behind the electric chair, the science of the grim reaper.

The Belgrade museum does not linger over scientific fractiousness, though it does introduce the theme. It rather chooses to see the oeuvre of electricity as one vast family of ambitious inventors stretching back to Thales. The Chicago Exposition saw Tesla’s thinking on alternative current transformed into material worth. It convinced the science heavies such as Lord Kelvin that AC was worth striving for. It also paved the way for the Niagara Falls Power Project and Tesla’s polyphase conductor.

Tesla’s vision would have terrified, as it already did then, the fossil fuel burners and the plunderers of the earth.  It was an envisaged world of free, and for the most part wireless electricity, transmitted via harnessing global points.

While he continued to investigate the possibilities of such a vision, one virtually impossible without colossal investment and good will, he was already noting humanity’s insatiable appetite for energy.  This is where the priestly side of Tesla came in, the preacher for economic, prudent use.

His calls fell on the deafest of ears and the heaviest of pockets.  J. P. Morgan, Wall Street’s indispensable representative, eventually ditched him. His laden pockets were also doing the talking. Accounts abound that Morgan did so because Tesla was not achieving his aims.  The contrary point is more plausible: Tesla’s success would have meant Morgan’s failure, an energy world without money.

The museum is filled with various models. The guide on this occasion resembled a pimply Keanu Reeves, and his tall, lean figure mechanically relayed the discoveries of Tesla and his various achievements. The Columbus egg device is particularly striking for children and children at heart.  Christopher Columbus showed how he could make an egg stand – by hard boiling it.  Tesla showed how electromagnetic fields could propel the fizzing egg upwards and move across the surface.  These were points of convergence four hundred years after the “discovery” of the Americas, though it is fair to say that both men has vastly different views about commerce and conquest.

Such museums tend to overcompensate in the practical department, encouraging participants to engage with certain exhibits.  The truth is that, for such a figure, more should be had.  Tesla’s entire life has become fragmented, and scattered through several museums with enthusiastic personnel who have persevered in keeping his role as a preeminent scientific genius alive.  The modern Serbian state struggles with adoring its cultural and scientific heroes. The sporting superstars tend to push the cerebral ones out, and into distant corners – Novak Djokovic tends to come first in all the stakes.

For all that, the compact space offers an intimate setting filled with a curious array of visitors.  The Tesla name continues to weigh heavily in the inventor’s world, though it should be heavier.  The crew today worshiping at his altar: fascinated Russians, a few gawky Americans on missionary work, a gaggle of intrigued Chinese, and an Aboriginal Australian jazz singer whose father so happened to be Serb.

A degree of chaos also prevails: tours for school students are also arranged.  Appointments are kept haphazardly.  The lack of organisation and punctuality is total in that regard. The staff seem disoriented and frazzled by some guests who expect more, be it in terms of minutiae or scientific gossip.  There are misunderstandings as to when Serbian and English sessions are to be held.

But the visitors, in the main, are seduced by the electric charge of Tesla’s world.  They come to sample the classic shock devices – generators where audience members can participate with fluorescent tubes to test the electromagnetic field.  Children squeal; adults sigh.  And they ask for more. This was always Tesla’s point: energy, to be sampled by all.

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

In an interview with Sputnik, eminent Turkish journalist Alptekin Dursunoglu voiced surprise about the US-led coalition’s reluctance to bomb Islamic State-controlled oil deposits in Syria, which he said are one of the key sources of income for the jihadist group. 

He referred to the Islamic State’s smuggling of oil to Turkey via an illegal pipeline, the existence of which has yet to be confirmed, according to Dursunoglu.

At the same time, he drew attention to the fact that the US-led air campaign never targeted the ISIL-controlled oil fields in Syria.

“This fact really makes [me] wonder, given that one of the steps of Obama’s plan to fight ISIL was the destruction of sources of the Islamic State’s income,” Dursunoglu said.

To find the answer, it is necessary to discern who ordered the US and its allies not to bomb ISIL’s oil fields, he said, referring to previous activities by local officials nominated by the US.

Commenting on thousands of oil tanks supplied by ISIL, Dursunoglu wondered why American drones failed to track the convoy of such a big scale.

He also said that the delivery of oil is not the only source of income for the Islamic State, which he recalled was part of al-Qaeda in 2012.

“This unified organization deliberately avoided being named al-Qaeda. This organization got the considerable share of money that was delivered by the Gulf States and Turkey under the pretext of helping the Syrian opposition,” Dursunoglu said.

He quoted local humanitarian workers as saying in 2012 that the money was sent in “bags, suitcases and sacks.”

Dursunoglu added that apart from illegal oil trading and racketeering, the smuggling of antiques and historical artifacts, as well as human trafficking and the organ trade add significantly to the Islamic State’s coffers.

The Obama administration is finally making sounds about a reasonable peace deal for Syria – accepting the principle that the Syrians should choose their own leaders – but words are cheap and a Saudi official makes clear that “regime change” remains the obsession, as Nicolas J S Davies explains.

The Vienna Communique — issued on Friday October by 17 countries, the United Nations and the European Union — provides a diplomatic framework for peace in Syria. In this document, the external powers who have poured weapons, fighters and money into a disastrous and failed “regime change” policy in Syria for more than four years have signed on to what could be a realistic basis for peace.

The agreement begins with a commitment to “Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity and secular character,” and then invites “the United Nations to convene representatives of the Government of Syria and the Syrian opposition for a political process leading to credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance, followed by a new constitution and elections.” Critically, the agreement stipulates that, “This political process will be Syrian led and Syrian owned, and the people of Syria will decide the future of Syria.”

King Salman of Saudi Arabia and his entourage arrive to greet President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

But of course, that is exactly what nearly all these countries already agreed to in the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012, under the leadership of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. That proved to be Annan’s final peace effort after the U.S. and its allies had rebuffed and undermined the peace plan he unveiled in April 2012 (see my October 2012 article).

Instead of pressuring their proxies in Syria to agree to the Annan peace plan, the U.S. and its allies organized what French officials called a “Plan B,” the Orwellian “Friends of Syria” meetings, where they pledged an unconditional flow of money, weapons and diplomatic support to their proxy forces in Syria.

Annan expected the Geneva Communique to be formalized in a UN Security Council resolution within weeks. Instead, when the parties reassembled in New York, the U.S. and its allies resurrected their demands for President Bashar al-Assad’s removal. In an echo of the Iraq debates in 2002-2003, they rejected a Russian resolution based on the Geneva Communique and drafted one of their own that included provisions designed to set the stage for a UN authorization for the use of force.

But after watching the destruction of Iraq and Libya, Russia and China would not let the authority of the UNSC be co-opted to give a veneer of legitimacy to yet another murderous and destabilizing U.S.-led regime change.

Annan resigned as UN envoy, and the war ground on to kill at least 250,000 people, destroy much of Syria and turn 11 million people into desperate and homeless refugees.

Haytham Manna is the Paris-based spokesman for Syria’s National Coordinating Body for Democratic Change (NCB), a coalition of the mainly leftist opposition groups who launched peaceful protests in Syria during the Arab Spring in 2011. The NCB opposes both the Assad regime and the foreign-backed rebels in Syria, and it has remained committed to three basic principles: non-violence; non-sectarianism; and opposition to foreign intervention.

Haytham Manna spoke to Le Vif, Belgium’s largest French-language news magazine, in 2013. “The Americans have cheated,” Manna told Le Vif. “Two or three times they have withdrawn at the very moment an agreement was in the works. … Everything is possible, but that will depend mainly on the Americans. The French are content to follow. A political solution is the only one that could save Syria.”

Despite conciliatory statements by Secretary of State John Kerry that President Assad need not be excluded from a political transition, it is not clear yet whether the U.S. and its allies have really changed their position since 2012.

On the morning of the Vienna meeting, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir reiterated the Saudi position on Assad to the BBC’s Lyse Doucet, “He will go. There is no doubt about it. He will go. He will go either through a political process or he will be removed by force. There is no doubt that he will go.”

Doucet suggested to Jubeir that the U.S. and U.K. were adopting a more conciliatory position, but Jubeir was adamant that he was expressing “the consensus among the allied countries”:

“I believe the position of the countries in the coalition is really a unanimous one. … What we are saying is that, at the beginning of the process, it has to be clear to the Syrian people that Bashar Al-Assad will leave by a date certain. It can’t be probable, it can’t be possible, it has to be certain. And then that date will depend on how quickly one can transition power to the Governing Council and how quickly one can take over the security forces in Syria to ensure that the security forces don’t collapse and the civil institutions don’t collapse.”

Jubeir spoke in terms that U.S. officials would be careful not to use in public right now, but may well be using behind closed doors in discussions with allies like the Saudis. The picture he paints looks very much like post-invasion Iraq, complete with an unelected “Governing Council” and a plan to “take over” the security forces.

Such a plan, which Jubeir claims would prevent Syria’s collapse, reflects the self-serving and untested claims of U.S. neocons that the invasion of Iraq could have succeeded if only they hadn’t disbanded the Iraqi Army. A U.S.-Saudi attempt to “take over” the Syrian military, which has loyally defended Syria against their proxy forces for four years, weaves the neocons’ wishful thinking into a dangerous fantasy that could succeed only in igniting a further escalation of the war.

The apparent difference between the U.S. and Saudi positions raises difficult questions, ones on which the success or failure of the Vienna initiative may well depend. Veteran Middle East correspondent Charles Glass explained the analytical conundrum to Democracy Now last week,

“The U.S. seems to have lost some control over its allies in the region. On the surface, the United States is fighting against the Islamic State mainly because it went into Iraq. They didn’t seem to mind when they were just in Syria. But they’re still allowing Turkey to keep its border open for men and supplies to come into the Islamic State. And … they’re still allowing … the Islamic State and … other similar jihadist groups of al-Qaeda to receive weapons, including anti-tank weapons, from the Saudis. … (E)ither this is fine with American policy and consistent with it, or they’ve simply lost control over the course of events.”

So is this a case of the U.S. losing control over the course of events, or is the U.S. just playing “good cop” to the Saudis’ “bad cop” as part of a coordinated policy? Or are there elements of both at work? It is a U.S. priority to maintain its position as the leader of the Western and Arab royalist alliance in the Middle East, and that sometimes means positioning itself at the head of the parade rather than actually directing it.

But having staked its leadership on successfully removing President Assad from power, it has never before wavered on that ultimate goal, even as unanticipated events like the Islamic State’s move back into Iraq have made it much more complicated.

By fighting a “disguised, quiet, media-free” proxy war in Syria, U.S. officials have been able to invoke plausible deniability in the corrupt Western media. Many Americans see their government as guilty of inaction rather than of a murderous and destabilizing intervention in Syria.

Although over 250,000 war deaths in Syria have been spread among soldiers, rebels and civilians, (as of June 2013, an estimated 43 percent of the dead were Syrian soldiers and militiamen) U.S. domestic propaganda blames the Syrian government, or President Assad personally, for all the violence. Few Americans blame their own government or themselves, despite the well-documented U.S. role in supporting, prolonging and escalating the bloodshed.

While a political transition that led to free and fair elections would very likely bring new and different leaders to power in Syria, President Assad is not as unpopular as we have been led to believe. The Syrian army has fought loyally for four years, and a Qatari-funded YouGov opinion poll in December 2011 found that 55 percent of Syrians wanted Assad to remain in power, even as NATO planes were already flying in fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey to overthrow his government.

So the U.S. and its allies may reasonably fear that a political transition which genuinely followed the roadmap laid down in Geneva and Vienna might leave important elements of the existing government in place.

On the other hand, when Le Vif asked Haytham Manna of the NCB about President Assad’s future in 2013, he replied, “He won’t stay. If the negotiations succeed, they will lead to a parliamentary regime. … But let me say this: when we are talking about massacres of minorities, and the president is a member of a minority, how can you ask him to resign or not to resign?

“Today, Western policy has reinforced his position as the defender of Syrian unity and of minorities. But having said that, nobody will be able to claim victory: the violence has become so blind that it will take an expanded front of the opposition and the regime to end it.”

If there are real differences between the U.S. and Saudi positions, the U.S. surely has leverage as the Saudi kingdom’s main weapons supplier and most important military ally to prevent it from derailing a diplomatic process that other countries support. But it seems more likely that the U.S. and the Saudis are still working together, as Jubeir implied, to take charge of a political transition in Syria and to try to ensure that their proxies end up in control of the country.

If the involvement of Russia, China and Iran prevents the U.S. and its allies from hijacking a political transition in Syria, will our leaders simply opt for carrying on with the war, as they did in July 2012? To paraphrase Haytham Manna, will the Americans cheat again?

On the heels of the Iran nuclear agreement, we are entering the beginning of yet another historic and fateful showdown between war and diplomacy, with the future of Syria – and maybe the future of U.S. foreign policy – on the line.

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.  He also wrote the chapters on “Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

Russia’s president is a refreshing contrast to the liars who inhabit Western governments and Western media.  The agenda of the Russian government is peace and international cooperation under the rule of law.  Washington’s agenda is hegemony. 

President Putin endeavors to lead the world to peace, while the neoconservatives who control Washington’s foreign policy try to drive the world to war.

Contrast the crazed statements that flow from Washington comparing President Putin to Hitler, suggesting his assassination, and calling for shooting down Russian military aircraft with President Putin’s appeal that Washington abandon its hegemonic agenda and submit to international law and international cooperation. As President Putin has emphasized, for Washington “international cooperation” means submission to Washington’s will.

President Putin repeatedly states that governments must govern in accord with the people and not function as a decree-issuing body in accord with interest groups disrespectful of the people. Throughout the West we see the increasingly unresponsive behavior of government. In the United States careful studies conclude that, despite elections, the American people have essentially zero input into the policies decided in Washington.  In Greece, the government is coerced to impose on the Greek people policies dictated by large German banks supported by the German and EU governments.  In Portugal, the socialists who won the election were told by the conservative president that they would not be permitted to form a government.

In the UK, a senior military official stated that the military would not permit Jeremy Corbyn to form a Labour government should the Labour Party win the election.  The United States government threatens the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina for representing the interests of the voters who put them in office instead of Washington’s interests.  The United States government has destroyed American civil liberty with its unconstitutional mass surveillance,  indefinite detention without charges, and murder of US citizens without due process of law. Dissent itself is in the process of being criminalized.

Just looking at the basic facts makes it impossible to conclude that the West has “freedom and democracy” or that Washington’s bombs and invasions have brought “freedom and democracy” to Africa and the Middle East.

Every American can get a conclusive lesson about where moral leadership resides by becoming familiar with Putin’s speeches.

Here are some examples:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/overcoming-the-logic-of-war-there-are-no-winners-in-a-global-conflict/5484131?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

http://www.globalresearch.ca/vladimir-putin-on-france-and-europe-nato-member-states-have-renounced-their-sovereignty/5458734

The university students have been furious, as their cry “Fees must fall!” rang out on campuses and sites of political power across this society. An historic victory over South African neoliberalism was just won through the most intense three-week burst of activist mobilization since liberation from apartheid in 1994.

The liberation movement rulers in the African National Congress (ANC) have faced unprecedented socio-economic pressure and unrest. This is the most unequal of any major country, with a working class that the World Economic Forum last month judged to be the most militant on earth for the fourth straight year, and a deregulated corporate elite which enjoys the world’s third highest profits, yet which remains intent on looting the economy at a rate as fast as any. All these measures have amplified since the ANC took power in 1994. Suffering a 53 per cent official poverty rate, South Africa witnessed 2300 protests recorded by the police as ‘violent’ this year, a fifth more than last year.

The desperation flash point this month was the announcement of double-digit increases in university tuition fees. Students demonstrated not only against local managers at more than a dozen campuses. Their organizations united across the ideological spectrum, from socialist to nationalist to even the center-right student wing of the main opposition party, and hit national targets.

They began by storming the parliamentary precinct in Cape Town on October 21, then marched to the Johannesburg and Durban headquarters of the ANC on October 22 and 23, and finally demonstrated – tens of thousands strong – at President Jacob Zuma’s Union Buildings office in Pretoria on October 23.

There, restraining fences were torn down by some of the activists and tyres and latrines were burned, with police once again responding by using stun grenades, rubber bullets and water cannons. Refusing to come out to address the crowd, instead Zuma held a press conference where he unexpectedly conceded to the students’ main demand: no fee increase for next year (in spite of general price inflation around 5 per cent).

The Trajectory Through Race to Class

The current insurgency began late last month with sporadic acts of fury. At the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, small groups of students burned an administration building and cars, and students were then caught bringing human excrement on campus, a tactic that was used successfully six months earlier to catalyse the dismantling of a hated statue at the University of Cape Town.

That was the #RhodesMustFall movement. Within a few weeks of a “poo protest” in which excrement was hurled at the prominent likeness of 19th century colonial mining lord Cecil Rhodes, thousands cheered when the statue was removed from the scenic campus. But their other demands for university transformation and “decolonization” – racial equity, a different campus culture, curriculum reform, more indigenous African professors (there are only five out of more than 250 senior faculty at Cape Town) – were unsuccessful.

After a breather, at UCT and Johannesburg’s University of the Witwatersrand (“Wits”), the country’s two traditional sites of ruling class reproduction, student protests revived this month. Of the dozen that erupted at tertiary institutions, these two were the best organized, most sustained and non-violent, mainly using the tactic of entrances blockages, then moving to the nearby arterial roads. Disciplined student leaders emphasized non-violent civil disobedience. Police brutality and occasional clashes with higher-income drivers who drove into the blockades did not deter the activists.

On October 21, inside parliament, the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters’ (EFF) support for their cause came before Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene delivered his medium-term budget speech, which EFF leaders ardently tried to postpone, before being forcefully evicted. Outside, courageous students nearly broke their way into the main hall where Nene was holding forth.

But although there is still plenty of scope for fiscal expansiveness, Nene’s budget was heartless: no new money for universities (just condemnation of “unconstructive” student protests), and a tokenistic $0.75 (U.S.)/month rise in grant payments to the poorest pensioners and disabled people (who currently receive $105 (U.S.)/month). Although the latter is less than 1 per cent, Nene dishonestly claimed that this plus a prior tiny raise offered in February are “in line with long-term inflation.” (The inflation rate for poor people is much higher than the norm due to the far higher share of faster-inflating food, housing and electricity costs in their budgets.)

Nene did find funds for a three-year $63-billion (U.S.) infrastructure program whose major projects promote, first, exceptionally destructive coal exports mainly by multinational corporations; second, the Durban port-petrochemical complex’s expansion; and third, iron-ore exports. Yet there is vast world over-capacity in coal, shipping and steel, with South Africa’s second major steel producer barely avoiding bankruptcy last month. But these White Elephant mega-projects continue to get the lion’s share of state, parastatal and private infrastructure funding.

The influence of big business on Nene’s budget team is blatant: for example, the world’s largest mining house, BHP Billiton, still gets electricity at 1/10th the price of ordinary consumers, and persistent corporate tax evasion and illicit financial flows are now notorious. Another pro-corporate investment that will be looked at with increasing suspicion by society the more it becomes active, starting next year, is the BRICS bank, whose target capitalization (spread among five countries) is $100-billion (U.S.).

Credit Rating Agencies and a “Communist” Minister

Whether seen through the eyes of students, workers, the poor, women and environmentalists, Nene’s budget was a recipe for intensified social struggle. Yet this was the first time since 1991, when Value Added Tax was imposed during apartheid at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, that a major spontaneous protest targeted the finance minister at such a sensitive moment. For Nene, the only objective appeared to be appeasing the banks’ credit ratings agencies.

As Reuters reported, Nene “downplayed the effect of university students storming parliament as he delivered his medium term budget on the credit rating of Africa’s most advanced economy. ‘What matters for the ratings agencies is our response as government in addressing these challenges,’ he said about the students’ demands to keep tuition fees unchanged.”

Government’s response was a combination of widely-condemned police brutality and ineffectual seduction by the ruling alliance’s left flank, especially the SA Communist Party whose leader Blade Nzimande is also Minister of Higher Education. He was shouted down by protesters outside parliament when he tried to explain why their demand was unrealistic and they would face a 6 per cent increase.

Nzimande’s 2013 Ministerial Committee for the Review of the Funding of Universities found “the amount of government funding is not sufficient to meet the needs of the public university system… Government should increase the funding for higher education, to be more in line with international levels of expenditure.” But Nzimande had refused to release a prior commissioned study favorable to the idea of free tertiary education.

A Boost to Anti-Austerity Activism

Students simply refused to accept Nzimande’s 6 per cent tuition rise, given that inflation is currently less than 5 per cent. So the march on Pretoria two days later – and threat of a full storming of Union Buildings – must have been the decisive factor in the state’s reversal. Although the cost of a deferring a tuition increase entirely will only be $150-million (U.S.), by making this concession Zuma has given encouragement to many more protests and Pretoria marches in future.

For those in the society watching and rooting for the students, this was a critical moment, perhaps ultimately as important as the breakthrough Treatment Action Campaign fight for free AIDS medicines fifteen years ago. For as Nene signalled, a more damaging period of austerity looms. South African GDP growth will be only 1.5 per cent this year and probably the same next year, lower than population growth. Thanks to Nene’s tight-fistedness, there will be a relatively small budget deficit (3.3 per cent of GDP), but financial commentators are full of threats about South Africa following Brazil’s recent downgrading to a junk-bond rating by Fitch, Standard&Poors and Moodys, the creditors’ cruel rating agencies.

The class war rages on. Other student demands remain outstanding: free tertiary education for poor and working people as the overall goal, and an end to labour casualization and outsourcing for low-paid university workers. Many such workers barely receive $100 (U.S.)/month, and with a poverty line of $60 (U.S.)/person/month, raising a family on starvation wages is impossible.

The task of retaining this visionary student-worker alliance in coming weeks and maintaining a national presence will be as difficult as is the multi-class ‘United Front’ organizing now underway. Difficult yes, but now, nothing seems impossible in this exceptional site of class struggle.

Patrick Bond is a political economist based at the University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Development Studies in Durban, where he directs the Centre for Civil Society. He is active with social movements in South Africa, Zimbabwe and internationally.

 In this short video,  the current Vice President of Veterans for Peace, Gerry Condon, denounces America’s bogus wars in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

We are told US foreign policy is “a total failure” and that “it’s time for the US to seek other means other than military to seek their policy goals in the world.” For him, US imperialism, which carries on spreading like poison, must be tamed: “It’s a miracle we got through the Cold War without having a nuclear confrontation and we shouldn’t be reckless with tempting that possibility today.”

Here is the full interview :

A 27 de Outubro, o Secretário da Defesa dos EUA, Ashton Carter, anunciou que o Pentágono está a ponderar “uma acção directa no terreno” tanto no Iraque como na Síria, num esforço para combater o grupo terrorista do autoproclamado Estado Islâmico”. (Sputnik, 27 de Outubro,2015).

Contudo, a agenda não tão oculta não é “combater” mas sim “proteger e ir em socorro” do grupo terrorista Estado Islâmico.

Qual é a novidade? Estaremos a testemunhar um processo de escalada militar?

Os EUA e os seus aliados já têm botas no terreno na Síria. Não é oficial, trata-se de uma dita “operação encoberta” da qual já toda a gente sabe.

O Pentágono, juntamente com a OTAN, a Turquia e Israel, et al, têm despachado de modo rotineiro para o teatro de guerra sírio os seus conselheiros militares, forças especiais e operacionais dos serviços secretos. Estas forças estrangeiras têm trabalhado no seio das hostes rebeldes desde o início da guerra na Síria em Março de 2011.

Embora nem Washington nem a comunicação social de massas tenham reconhecido “oficialmente” a sua presença na Síria, há que compreender que essas forças especiais ocidentais têm levado a cabo funções rotineiras de comando no seio dos vários grupos terroristas correlacionadas com a coligação liderada pelos EUA-OTAN. Por outras palavras, são amplamente responsáveis pela coordenação de incontáveis operações terroristas do EIIL e do Al Nusrah contra civis no interior da Síria em favor da coligação liderada pelos EUA. Escusado será dizer, contam também com o apoio da campanha aérea dos EUA, que teoricamente tem atingido (em vez de “proteger”) os terroristas.

“A Responsabilidade de Proteger” (R2P) Os Terroristas

Em reacção aos bombardeamentos da Rússia contra o EIIL, Washington pondera agora anunciar “oficialmente” (aquilo que têm já feito nos últimos quatro anos) a sua resolução de colocar tropas no terreno numa extensa operação militar. Escusado será dizer, esta operação, caso seja levada a cabo sem o selo de aprovação do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, irá constituir uma violação da lei internacional (Nuremberga).

A administração dos EUA está a considerar a possibilidade de mobilizar para o terreno sírio um pequeno número de forças inserida nas tropas da oposição “moderada” curda, anunciou o The Wall Street Journal na quarta-feira, citando fontes oficiais dos EUA.

Os militares dos EUA também propuseram enviar um grupo de conselheiros de combate para a linha da frente com o exército iraquiano e, possivelmente, também com os rebeldes sírios. Contudo, esta proposta é qualificada pelo jornal como sendo a do cenário menos provável.

Mais, a Casa Branca irá examinar a opção de mobilizar um pequeno esquadrão de helicópteros ofensivos Apache para o Iraque para incrementar a luta contra o Estado Islâmico, afirmou o jornal. Esta medida implica mobilizar várias centenas de militares dos EUA para o Iraque, de acordo com o diário. Washington lidera a coligação que tem levado a cabo ataques aéreos contra as posições do EIIL na Síria e no Iraque desde 2014. Na terça-feira, o Secretário da Defesa dos EUA, Ashton Carter, afirmou que o Pentágono não excluía a realização de ataques no terreno contra os terroristas do EIIL. (Sputnik, 28 de Outubro, 2015)

Uma Zona de Voo Restrito

Outro desenvolvimento importante diz respeito à afirmação do Secretário da Defesa, Ashton Carter, de que embora “uma zona de voo restrito” não esteja a ser considerada pelo Pentágono no futuro mais imediato, não deixam de ser uma opção: “o presidente Barack Obama não ‘descartou’ a opção de uma zona de voo restrito na Síria”.

Entretanto, o Qatar anunciou estar a ponderar enviar tropas para o terreno na Síria. Esta revelação anunciada por Doha foi muito provavelmente formulado em Washington. De acordo com o ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros do Qatar, Khalid al-Attiyah, o Qatar deve intervir militarmente em reacção à intervenção da Rússia em apoio ao governo de Bashar Al Assad. (CNN Arabic, 21 de Outubro):

“Para tudo aquilo que proteja o povo sírio e a Síria da divisão, não iremos poupar esforços em o desempenhar juntamente com os nossos irmãos sauditas e turcos, o quer que seja”.

Desde o início que o Qatar tem agido como intermediário dos EUA. Juntamente com a Arábia Saudita tem contribuído para o recrutamento, treinamento e financiamento dos terroristas ligados à Al Qaeda na Síria, incluindo o EIIL e o Al Nusrah.

Encontramo-nos numa Perigosa Encruzilhada

A diplomacia internacional colapsou. Os criadores da política externa dos EUA são ignorantes e corruptos, inconscientes quanto às implicações das suas acções.

Os ataques aéreos liderados pelos EUA estão a ser implementados simultaneamente com os da Rússia.

A ONU é um beco sem saída. O secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-Moon (nomeado por Washington), apoia a guerra liderada pelos EUA sob a bandeira do humanitarismo.

Estas várias opções e ameaças por parte da coligação liderada pelos EUA – sem falar da taragelice que diz respeito à “opção da III Guerra Mundial” nos corredores do Congresso dos EUA – apontam para um cenário de escalada militar, com o potencial de levar a um confronto militar directo entre a coligação liderada pelos EUA e a Federação da Rússia.

Michel Chossudovsky

All five US network television interview programs featured the same individual Sunday: the newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin congressman, who was Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential running mate in the 2012 election, was elected speaker Thursday. He succeeded John Boehner, who was forced out by a long-simmering rebellion of an ultra-right minority, the self-styled House Freedom Caucus.

Ryan was not portrayed, either in the Sunday interviews or the saturation media coverage of the previous week, as representing a further shift to the right in the US political establishment, although that is certainly the case. Rather, his interviewers treated him deferentially, even affectionately, while presenting him as someone who was generally well-liked among Democrats and Republicans and who was impressive both as a thinker and a policy maker.

The interviewers did not touch on Ryan’s record in his previous position as chairman of the House Budget Committee, where he authored a series of extreme-right budget proposals. These, as the New York Times summarized it, “have included transforming Medicare into a voucher program; partially privatizing Social Security; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax.”

It is worth recalling that when Romney chose Ryan as his running mate, the selection was made to appease ultra-right-wing elements within the Republican Party who had backed Romney rivals such as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. As theWorld Socialist Web Site wrote at the time, “the Ryan pick signals that the US ruling elite has decided on a frontal assault on key social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

Now Ryan has been elevated to the highest position in the US Congress, placing him second in the line of succession to the presidency, after Vice President Biden, and making him the highest-ranking Republican. His political views, once considered so extreme that even most Republicans were reluctant to cast votes for his budget plans, are presented as “mainstream” or even “moderate.”

Much has been made of Ryan’s supposedly pleasant demeanor, as though cutthroat attacks on the poor and on working people were more palatable when accompanied by a smiling face. Liberal Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne gushed, “he is, from my experience, a genuinely nice and warm person…” Another Post writer, Dana Milbank, noted that as Ryan made his way to the speaker’s seat, he walked among the Democrats, shaking hands and accepting bear hugs and other congratulations. He “offers a glimpse of hope,” Milbank enthused.

The congressman’s treatment of working people is anything but “kinder and gentler.” He advocates the replacement of universal social benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid with vouchers whose value will automatically erode with inflation, distributed through state governments that already apply harsh eligibility restrictions and limit social benefits to absurdly low levels. (Alabama, to take one recent example, has slashed the duration of jobless benefits to a mere 12 weeks).

In his television interviews, Ryan repeated the theme that congressional Republicans had up to now been “bold” only in their “tactics” in dealing with the Obama administration—a reference to the 2013 federal government shutdown and other efforts to use fiscal deadlines to pressure the White House.

Going forward, he said, the Republicans had to be “bold in policy.” By that he means that over the next year, the Republican-controlled Congress must elaborate an ultra-right agenda for the next administration, whether headed by a Republican or Democrat.

He singled out tax policy as one main area of work, suggesting that Congress must prepare a sweeping tax cut for the wealthy and for corporations to be implemented by the next administration. Social entitlement “reform” plans would also be developed, Ryan has indicated.

Ryan’s plan for privatizing Medicare is very similar in structure to Obamacare. In place of the present Medicare program, where the government pays medical bills directly and guarantees certain benefits, recipients would be given a voucher to buy private insurance on exchanges established with government assistance. This is precisely the mechanism under Obama’s health care overhaul for dismantling employer-paid health insurance, slashing benefits, raising out-of-pocket costs, rationing health care and increasing the stranglehold of giant corporations over the health care system.

The goal in both cases is the same: to boost the profits of the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical giants and the hospital chains by providing them guaranteed markets while slashing the cost of health care for the government and private business.

Ryan was elected speaker one day after the House adopted a bipartisan budget plan that significantly boosts military spending while introducing major cuts in Social Security disability payments and Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and other providers. It also maintains the so-called “sequester” caps on domestic spending with only minor adjustments for the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years. The budget deal was ratified by the Senate early Friday morning and sent to Obama for his signature.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal backed the deal, noting that despite the small increase in domestic spending authorized in the agreement, “Still, this means the discretionary budget—everything except entitlements—will be $56 billion and $70 billion less, in 2016 and 2017 respectively, than the first Paul Ryan budget that the House passed in 2011.”

The American political structure under Obama has moved so far to the right that what was denounced in 2011 as right-wing radicalism provided for higher levels of social spending than the bipartisan compromise of 2015.

Ryan’s elevation as speaker is a warning to the working class: policies once thought completely out of bounds, politically too dangerous to enact because the American people would rise up in anger, are now considered not only possible, but absolutely necessary.

Driven by the deepening global crisis of capitalism, the US ruling elite is preparing to wipe out what remains of a social safety net and destroy programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps that are the only things protecting tens of millions of people from poverty, disease, hunger and an early death.

Israel’s endless war on Palestine continues unabated – pitting one of the world’s most powerful militaries against defenseless youths, children, women and others joining their liberating struggle.

State terrorism rages against courageous freedom fighters, an apartheid rogue state operating mercilessly, victims blamed for its high crimes.

On Saturday, another Palestinian youth died, murdered by Israel in cold blood, alleging another stabbing attempt, fabricated like most others – during what Israeli authorities called a “violent riot,” what Palestinians call resisting tyranny. They alone were injured during the incident, no Israelis.

Palestinian medics were blocked at gunpoint from aiding the victim, forced to leave. A witness told Maan News he saw multiple live rounds fired at a “young man…far from the main street.”

He threatened no one. Soldiers removed his body to an unknown location. Journalists witnessing what happened were assaulted, ordered out of the area.

As of Sunday morning local time, the Palestinian death toll stands at 72, including 12 children, two infants and a pregnant woman, other female fatalities included in the overall total – everyone victimized by Israeli viciousness.

Scores more resistance victims are being crammed into overcrowded Israeli prisons, already filled with thousands of Palestinian political prisoners.

Human rights groups condemned Israel’s “shoot-to-kill” policy, adopted by Netanyahu security cabinet officials in September. Palestinian freedom fighters are being ruthlessly gunned down in cold blood.

Others are being beaten and arbitrarily arrested, guilty of protesting for freedom. East Jerusalem neighborhoods are blockaded – no one let in or out without authorization and intrusive searches.

Open warfare against defenseless civilians is virtually ignored by Western officials, one-sidedly supporting Israeli viciousness, mindless of how many Palestinians die, how many others suffer horrifically.

Haaretz published former Israeli defense minister/US ambassador Moshe Arens’ Big Lie, rubbish calling Palestinian “violence” another example of “worldwide Islamic terror,” adding “terrorists cannot be appeased’ – outrageously blaming victims for state-sponsored high crimes.

Israeli media have been disgracefully one-sided throughout weeks of state-sponsored brutality. Most everything they report lacks credibility, mimicking US media scoundrels.

Virtually claiming all Palestinian youths are “knife wielding terrorists.” Brave Israeli soldiers murdering defenseless protesters are national heroes – decades of brutal occupation harshness entirely ignored, along with the right of long-oppressed people to live free from apartheid ruthlessness.

Washington’s partnership with Israel is the root cause of regional violence and instability – oppressive Israeli occupation harshness responsible for ongoing heroic resistance. We’re all Palestinians in a common struggle for freedom.

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.

Egypt’s representative at United Nations voted on Friday in support of Israel’s bid for membership of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), Israeli media reported.

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and its acceptance to membership of the UN, Egypt had never voted in its favour at the UN before last Friday.

One hundred and seventeen countries voted in favour of Israel, 21 abstained, while only Namibia voted against the decision. Countries that abstained include: Qatar, Tunisia, Syria, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq and Algeria.

Israeli sources said that they were accepted to this UN committee after “intensive diplomatic efforts” exerted at different levels.

Prior to the vote, spokesman for the Egyptian ministry of foreign affairs Ahmed Abu Zeid refused to comment on the matter. However, in the face of fierce domestic criticism, he said that voting for Israel was necessary in order to secure the membership of a number of Arab countries to the committee.

Egyptian politicians and activists widely rejected this move and severely criticised Egyptian Military President Abdul-Fattah al-Sisi.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria started a war against Israel that paved the way for peace talks between Egypt and Israel. It ended up with a peace treaty in 1979 that ended state of war between the two sides, reciprocal recognition and normalisation of ties.

Palestinians gather in the street to be registered in the Tel Rumeida neighbourhood in occupied Hebron.

It is being reported that the area will be closed off completely for people who are not residents of the area and who are not registered within the next few days.

“For the people living in the area, it will become like a prison. For people living in Hebron, the closure of Tel Rumeida will mean that the city will be split in two”, says local resident to international activists.

The names and ID-numbers of the people living in the area are being written down by soldiers on long lists, and there are dozens of Palestinians standing around Gilbert checkpoint waiting to hand over their information or be forced out. Even for the residents who will be allowed in the area, this will mean severe restriction of their movement. Every time Palestinian residents of Tel Rumeida & the area around Ibrahimi mosque (between checkpoints 209 and 29) cross a check point to get to their home, the soldiers will have to search the long list for the name.

It is not the first time the Israel has imposed such restrictions on the residents of the area. In 1994 after the Illegal settler extremist Baruch Goldstein committed a massacre in the Ibrahimi Mosque, similar measures were taken. At that time, Palestinian residents refused registration and were punished with a six month 24-hour-curfew and only allowed a few hours a week during which the residents could buy food.

Due to the increase in violence by army and settlers against Palestinians they do not dare to refuse registration this time.

Much has been reported and analysed about recent developments pertaining first to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 28^th 2015 and shortly following that, the direct military action carried out by the Russian armed forces in relation to the conflict within Syria.

 Both events, it has been claimed, formally and decisively bring to an end the de facto post-Cold War state of affairs of unipolarity; that is, one which posits the United States of America as the sole geo-political superpower that has been able to exercise exclusive and unrestrained force in various parts of the world.

 It is also clear that the denunciation by Putin of longstanding American foreign policy as well as the projection of Russian power within the cauldron of Middle Eastern affairs has brought into sharp focus an aggregate of issues which taken together give the Russian leader the upper-hand, not only in regard to that geared toward the pursuit of his nation’s strategic interests, but also in the realms of moral authority and legal justification.

 It has left the United States reeling and presents a future laden with a mixture of threats and benefits. The threats relate to a re-ignition of a Russo-American Cold War replete with a formal drawing of global spheres of influence, the fighting of proxy wars and an ever-heightening danger of thermo-nuclear conflict.

 The benefits, on the other hand, would comprehend a framework for co-operation between the United States and the nations which it presently regards as the greatest threats to its global imperium: the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China.

 The masterful deconstruction Putin gave before the United Nations laid bare the failings of American foreign policy during the decades succeeding the ending of the Cold War. The Russian president correctly characterised it as one abounding in mischief, negativity and hubris – an analysis which has been bolstered by the widely favourable reaction of swathes of public opinion around the world towards Russian actions against anti-government insurrectionists in the Syrian theatre as well as the unimaginative and miserly reaction from the American government.

 Events have made it clear that only a genuine and unequivocal recalibration of American foreign policy rationales which have fostered coup d’etats, ‘colour revolutions’ and wars of destabilisation will serve the purpose of moulding the world into a far less dangerous place than it is at present.

Classic formulations of theories underpinning the security systems entered into by nation states often posit those representing ‘balance of power’ alignments or by an arrangement geared towards what is termed ‘collective security’.

 In the era of the Cold War which pitted the ideologically incompatible systems operated by the United States and the Soviet Union, each side established a military alliance of nations against the other.

 Aided by the threat of mutually assured destruction by thermonuclear exchanges, the parity of the military machineries respectively of the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact achieved what some referred to as a “balance of terror”.

 While the world was far from being a docile place, the prevailing circumstances meant that neither ‘superpower’ was prone to making rash decisions so far as interfering with the sovereignty of other nations within their immediate spheres of influence.

 The operation of the United Nations to which both superpowers belong provided more than a semblance of ‘collective security’ as was seen in regard, for instance, to the behind-the-scenes work of UN officials in combination with US and Soviet diplomats and statesmen in brokering armistices and peace accords in successive Arab-Israeli conflicts.

 But with the crumbling of the ‘Iron Curtain’ and the onset of what Francis Fukuyama referred to as “the end of history”, the previously existing international system of checks and balances became somewhat extinct.

 The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the succeeding chaotic transformation of Russia into a post-communist society provided those holding the levers of power in Washington with the raison d’etre to act on achieving an over-arching strategic goal; namely that of preventing the rise of another power which would challenge American dominance.

 That the American system had prevailed against the challenge offered by communism also granted it the right to remould the world, if not completely in its image, in a manner nonetheless which would serve the totality of its political and economic interests.

 It followed that the United States had the right to act unilaterally without cognisance of international treaty obligations or recourse to international systems of regulation while in pursuit of its aims. The ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’  thus set the tone for an era of American militarism and imperialism.

 Predating the “catastrophic and catalyzing event” of the September 11 attacks in 2001 which kick started a programme of armed invasions, fomenting of colour revolutions and manoeuvres geared towards destabilization was the role played by NATO in the ultimate dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia.

 The United States, the undisputed leader of NATO, steered its member states into supporting its decision to stage the illegal invasion of Iraq. There was a continuum of this ethic after the expiration of the administration led by George W. Bush. The ‘backseat’ approach favoured by the Barack Obama presidency rode roughshod over the strict letter of the law and convention by aiding Islamist rebels in overthrowing the government of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

 Then, also in contravention of international law, Washington oversaw the recruitment, training and financing of armed Islamic fanatics –some of them transferred from the carnage of Libya- to another theatre of Jihadist insurrection; namely that of Syria.

 The consistent practice of American policy towards governments which did not consent to do the bidding of Washington was that of promoting destabilization. This has obviously been the case in regard to its relationship with Russia since that nation began charting a very different course to that which had been followed by Boris Yeltsin.

 But even prior to the ascent of Vladimir Putin to the helm of the Russian Federation, the American’s had breached an important protocol of the agreement to allow a unified Germany to join NATO. This entailed that there should be no expansion eastwards.

 NATO has nonetheless continued to admit former members of the Warsaw Pact into its ranks and has been behind provocations on Russia’s borders via the fomenting of conflicts in the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine.

 These highly dangerous intrigues along with the policy of encirclement via the deployment of nuclear ‘defensive shields’ are in keeping with a vital counterpart of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, namely that espoused by Zbigniew Brzezinski, an influential political thinker whose ideas are apparently much admired by the incumbent Obama.

 Obama’s policy via the successful efforts of US intelligence assets in fomenting dissent and eventually overthrowing the democratically elected president of Ukraine, are consistent with Brzezinski’s strategy of pressuring and intimidating Russia with the end of reducing it to a vassal status by balkanising it and ensuring that it does not in concert with any other nation form a Eurasian power bloc that could challenge the economic domination of America and the Western European world.

 In many ways, Putin’s speech before the UN General Assembly, a brief and clear summation of the ills caused by the untrammelled exercise of American power, performed the feat of turning history on its head.

 Here after all was the leader of the successor state to the “Evil Empire” giving a moral lecture to the presumed leader of the “free world”. The “Evil Empire” phrase, coined by US President Ronald Reagan had a great degree of resonance because of the obvious failings of the Soviet system in terms of its poor record in guaranteeing individual freedom. The oppressive apparatus wielded by the Soviet state towards it own citizens extended to its iron-fisted response to dissent within its satellite states.

 Putin, a man often taken to task for his description in 2005 of the fall of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geo-political catastrophe of the twentieth century” was honest enough to admit the following:

 We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

 His exposition on the failure of American policy was concise and difficult to contradict. The host of disasters which have followed in the wake of the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 are clear for all to see, just as is the reduction of Libya from a nation with Africa’s highest standard of living to the broken down rubble of warring militias that it is today.

 The fracture of civil society and creation of chaos in those nations is being replicated manifold in the tragedy of Syria that again is authored by the United States with the connivance of its NATO allies and friends in the Gulf Cooperation Council.

 As Putin put it:

 Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

 The neoconservative idea of purportedly exporting democracy to Middle East through the barrel of a gun or bomb-bays of military aircraft continues, heedless of Robespierre’s warning about the fear and resentment inspired by “armed missionaries”.

 The United States has cynically utilised Sunni Islamist militias adhering to the ideology espoused by al Qaeda as its ‘shock troops’; a kind of a foreign legion tasked with bring down the secular regimes of the Arab world as well as the Shia powers not disposed to following the agenda set by Washington. This amounts an unholy alliance with groups of the sort that reportedly were at the root of the disaster of September 11, 2001.

 To this Putin offered the following:

The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

 It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

 I’d like tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question: who’s playing who here? The recent incident where the most “moderate” opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.

 We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous.

 Putin went on to plead for a re-institution of the collective security system. In other words, he called for an end to American unilateral action and a return to the co-operative basis on which the principles of the United Nations system for ensuring multi-state security is predicated.

 The reason for his call for cooperation is not hard to fathom. Russia as with China has sizeable Muslim populations which can pose internal security problems if the Islamic State strain of fanaticism is allowed to spread.

 An enduring Islamic State in the Levant which is subject to measures aimed at merely containing it provides a global threat to all; a threat to those Western European nations with rising Muslim populations and indeed Muslim states around the world.

 The inexorable logic behind the call for collective action must be obvious to all. Putin was clear in his plea for a break with the unipolar mode by not merely calling for the revival of the UN as a valid conduit for fostering international cooperation, but also specifically for a alliance of the sort last seen with the anti-Hitler coalition of the Second World War.

 Yet, the response from Washington has been largely marked by cynicism and continued hostility. On the one hand, such reaction confounds the mind of the objective bystander who cannot fathom why a common cause cannot be made against a dreaded foe such as the Islamic State.

 On the hand it is illuminating. The conclusion drawn by the objective observer is that the reluctance to create a unified and concerted effort against the Islamic State and other similar hued forces fighting against the Assad government is that the militants are serving the geo-strategic interests of the government of the United States.

 The abject failure in building a viable opposition political movement and a ‘Free Syrian Army’ are palpable when the official investment yield of a $500 million dollar investment is a paltry five guerrillas.

 Whereas in the past, the abstract principles governing the legality of intervention and non-intervention were sufficiently blurred by the legitimacy conferred on a genuine and sizeable anti-government movement, the situation in Syria does not permit this. The anti-Assad contingents of guerrillas are largely composed of imported Jihadis.

 Experts such as Professor Stephen Cohen insist that there are no credible entities which can be referred to as ‘moderate rebels’; an appellation which has been subject to much derision. Further, the Assad government has a great deal of support from the Sunni majority including that of the Grand Mufti of Syria.

 It needs to be reminded that it is the Assad government which has borne the brunt of fighting Islamist fanatics, and that his secular regime presents the only hope for maintaining a Syrian state which will protect religious minorities including Christians from an ominous fate under an Islamic State.

 Claims by Washington that the Assad government lacks legitimacy are not credible given that he won an election in June of 2014. The United States, of course, in 1864 underwent an election during its own civil war when the electoral votes of eleven Southern states were not counted.

 Neither can Washington’s contentious claims of the deliberate use by the Syrian Army of barrel bombs against civilian targets be used to argue the case for illegitimacy. It is an accusation reeking of hypocrisy given the numerous innocents killed by United States drone warfare, bombings and other military attacks, some involving the targeting of civilians with depleted uranium munitions.

 It is clear that Washington hopes that the demonization of Vladimir Putin for which much of the Western media has been complicit, will discredit his message.

 Putin it seems alternately inspires dread and hope: From anti-Russian Central and Eastern Europeans eternally unforgiving of the historical domination of their homelands by Russian and Soviet empires to the White Nationalists that tout him as the ‘saviour’ of the white race.

 From the archetypal ‘liberal’ Westerner inculcated with years of anti-Putin propaganda portraying him as the quintessential practitioner of a Russian brand of oriental despotism to the Western ‘Leftie’ still besotted with Russia or, at least, enduringly sympathetic to the role Russia played in attempting to set up a Marxist utopia.

 But whatever the point of view, the argument for a return to a collective security arrangement based on mutual interest is difficult to displace given that American dominance has not been exercised with benevolence. Putin has already demonstrated a high level of statesmanship in averting an American bombing campaign against Assad’s forces back in September of 2013 after the chemical attack in Ghouta.

 The negotiated programme for collecting and destroying Syrian chemical stocks alleviated the need for this, much to the relief of war-weary legislators and their constituents in both the United States and Britain.

 This was a noteworthy example of the benefits of multi-state co-operation of the sort which Washington has seemingly chosen to forswear. The suggestion by Putin of the formation of a Russo-American coalition against the Islamic State and other Islamist militias deserves consideration rather than contempt.

A re-orientating of the global patterns of power is long overdue. And given the state of the world after decades of effective unipolarity, it can only be for the better.

Adeyinka Makinde is a London-based law lecturer with an interest in intelligence and Security matters.

The reprehensible draft ‘resolution’ circulated by New Zealand (NZ), the present chair of the UN Security Council, is so blatantly biased against the Palestinian people that it proffers, in this instance, the correct diplomatic protocol to mind it’s own business….. particularly as NZ is an on-the-record, apologist and morally blind supporter of Israel. On July 22, 2014 as Israel’s vicious war on the people of Gaza raged relentlessly, Prime Minister John Key, repeated the zionist mantra that “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

In June this year, during a visit to Israel, NZ’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully ran the idea of the resolution by Netanyahu. So, sure enough, NZ, like all western governments, obsequiously replicated zionist propaganda in the ‘resolution’:

• NZ normalises Israeli atrocities by falsely presenting Israel and Palestine as equal perpetrators and equal victims and
• by pushing the demand that Palestine gives up its endeavour for justice in the International Criminal Court thus letting Israel off scott free for its monstrous war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• While NZ demands that Israel freezes its rapacious settlement expansion (in which NZ invests..see below), it absurdly promotes the farce of negotiations that expand settlements. There is no demand by NZ that the zionist infiltrators leave the present settlements that have illegally expropriated half of the remaining Palestinian West Bank.
• NZ obediently keeps up the pretence of a two state solution when Netanyahu has repeatedly ruled out Palestinian sovereignty:

At the height of the 2014 Gaza war, Netanyahu revealed that he doesn’t envision Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank any time soon. “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan,” he said at a press conference in Jerusalem. In other words: no withdrawal and no Palestinian sovereignty, which means no state of Palestine.

A few months later, Netanyahu said, in a much quoted interview on the eve of the March 17 election, that, “indeed,” no Palestinian state would be created under his leadership.

• To add insult to hypocrisy, NZ does not act on its recommendations – it will not “make a move to first recognise the Palestinian state.”
• Then loading more inanity on the ridiculous, NZ calls on the same incompetent clowns “the Quartet (United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union), Security Council members and Arab states” to maintain the posturing of the nihilistic negotiations.

So what can the people of Palestine expect from a flunkey state that belongs to the Impunity- for- Israel’s- War- Crimes Club?

A state furthermore that owns a government body, the New Zealand Super Fund that invests in and profits from a number of Israeli companies integrally connected to the illegal settlements and/or Israel’s arms industry such as Israel Chemicals which supplies white phosphorus to the USA which in turn sells its white phosphorous munitions back to Israel which then fires them illegally on innocent Gaza children such as little Hamza Almidani, 3.

Palestinians can expect the same old bystander impunity that exacerbates their suffering caused by the ongoing betrayal of NZ’s own obligations as a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions to protect and uphold Palestinian political and human rights.

This ‘resolution’ comes at a crucial time when Palestinian children and youth are being extrajudicially executed in the street for their courageous efforts to uphold their rights while NZ fails them and, in doing so, shames the decency of the people of New Zealand.

Dr. Vacy Vlazna is Coordinator of Justice for Palestine Matters. She was Human Rights Advisor to the GAM team in the second round of the Acheh peace talks, Helsinki, February 2005 then withdrew on principle. Vacy was convenor of Australia East Timor Association and coordinator of the East Timor Justice Lobby as well as serving in East Timor with UNAMET and UNTAET from 1999-2001. 

Since when did we decide that police officers should be above the law?

Two of the biggest police unions in the country are now on record in opposition to free speech. They are on record against constitutionally protected free speech that opposes the epidemic of police violence across America (more than 900 killed by police so far in 2015).

The current round of police union intimidation tactics started October 24, after filmmaker Quentin Tarantino spoke briefly to the “Rise Up October” protest, a “Call for a Major National Manifestation Against Police Terror.” The crowd of thousands marched peacefully up Sixth Avenue for two miles and included some 100 families impacted by police violence and killing. Police unions have reacted with violent rhetoric to Tarantino’s brief “speech,” which offered a non-specific truism (here in its entirety):

Hey, everybody. I got something to say, but actually I would like to give my time to the families that want to talk. I want to give my time to the families. However, I just do also want to say: What am I doing here? I’m doing here because I am a human being with a conscience. And when I see murder, I cannot stand by, and I have to call the murdered the murdered, and I have to call the murderers the murderers. Now I’m going to give my time to the families. [emphasis added]

The event centered on victims of police violence . There is no doubt that police have killed unarmed, innocent people. There is no doubt that a few cops have been convicted of murder. The reality of police violence is beyond dispute and longstanding. It goes with the territory, and responsible police leaders everywhere know perfectly well that part of their job is not only to keep their officers safe, but also, and arguably more important, to keep the public safe from their officers. The question is why they do so little about police violence.

In the aftermath of the Rise Up October rally, there were a reported 11 arrests, two of which on video show gangs of police roughing up single, unresisting men. Even though the demonstration was peaceful and had a lawful parade permit, police turned out in force. No police officers were reported hurt, except for their feelings.

Police union goes ad hominem with attack on First Amendment  

The day after the rally, Patrick Lynch, president of the New York police union (Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association) went on the offensive, as he often does. He ignore the vast substance of the Rise Up October group and chose instead to make an ad hominem personal attack on Hollywood director Tarantino and his right to free speech. Lynch’s press release in its entirety:

It’s no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too. The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls ‘murderers’ aren’t living in one of his depraved big screen fantasies — they’re risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem. New Yorkers need to send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy that he has no business coming to our city to peddle his slanderous ‘Cop Fiction.’ It’s time for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino’s films.

Actually the police officers that Tarantino calls “murderers” are in fact murderers, which is why Tarantino called them murderers – because, although they are but a small percentage of the total police cohort, they have murdered people, mostly without significant consequence to themselves. On October 30, Lynch sent another press release featuring Tarantino’s father saying, “Cops are not murderers, they are heroes,” which is the police union party line. In reality, it should go without saying, most cops are neither murderers nor heroes. Like the first press release, this one also ignored the complaints of police brutality, but it omitted the proposed boycott, too.

Whistling much the same tune, Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid, the New York Post, covered the protest with open hostility. The paper made the editorial choice to run a picture of a demonstrator giving a cop the finger. And its story suggested that years of police violence were somehow beyond objection because a police officer was recently killed in the line of duty, even though there was no connection between the recent murder and the years of police abuse:

Just four days after the on-duty murder of a hero NYPD street cop, a rally in Washington Square Park against ‘police terror’ devolved Saturday into a raucous, law-enforcement gripe-fest.

Los Angeles police claim victimhood, too, and backs boycott

Craig Lally, president of the LA police union, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, jumped on the boycott Tarantino bandwagon on October 27 in a somewhat more nuanced press release [in its entirety]:

We fully support constructive dialogue about how police interact with citizens. But there is no place for inflammatory rhetoric that makes police officers even bigger targets than we already are. Film director Quentin Tarantino took irresponsibility to a new and completely unacceptable level this past weekend by referring to police as murderers during an anti-police march in New York. He made this statement just four days after a New York police officer was gunned down in the line of duty. New York police and union leaders immediately called out Tarantino for his unconscionable comments, with union head Patrick Lynch advocating a boycott of his films. We fully support this boycott of Quentin Tarantino films. Hateful rhetoric dehumanizes police and encourages attacks on us. And questioning everything we do threatens public safety by discouraging officers from putting themselves in positions where their legitimate actions could be falsely portrayed as thuggery.

While this statement begins with support for “constructive dialogue about how police interact with citizens,” that very formulation betrays an imagined dichotomy between “police” and “citizens.” Police need to think of themselves as our fellow citizens. Worse, Lally immediately moves into his own unconstructive dialogue, mischaracterizing what Tarantino said, launching another ad hominem attack on Tarantino, and completely evading the substance of the Rise Up October protest.

Worst of all, Lally reinforces the police-as-victim trope, which is a form of psychological denial. It’s not “inflammatory rhetoric that makes police officers even bigger targets,” its inflammatory behavior by police officers. Given the spate of police horrors since 1999, when NY police shot unarmed Amadou Diallo 41 times, it’s fair to wonder why police departments everywhere aren’t showing a whole lot more humility. Instead, the NY chief of police has given one of the four killers his gun back (after all four were found not guilty by a jury).

Amadou Diallo’s mother, Katiatoo Diallo, was a speaker in the Rise Up October protest. What she said was in stark and humane contrast to the whining victimhood of the police unions:

We are not bitter. I told the world then, the day when they stood up and told me that the four cops who shot my son had done nothing wrong, that it was the fault of my son, I said to you, I say to you now, I said it then: We need change. Amadou has died. It’s too late for him. But we have to prevent this from happening again. When you have tragedies like that, you need to learn what went wrong and correct it….

Law enforcement community should know that we are not against them. We even feel for those who were shot just recently in Harlem. We are not against them. We are anti-police brutality. We are not anti-cop, because we know some of them are doing good job. But we need to root out those who are brutalizing our children for no reason.

What should a police union be doing, anyway?

The core issue with police unions, teacher unions, and all other public employee unions is how to manage the inherent tension between the good of union members and the good of the public that pays their salaries. Police unions, because their members are empowered to use lethal force, should be especially sensitive to the public perception of what is in the public good. That is almost never going to include killing innocent, unarmed civilians.

In December 2014, NY police union head Lynch actually blamed innocent, unarmed civilians for the ambush assassination of two police officers by a lone gunman. It was a breath-taking manipulation of reality and defiance of both logic and authority:

There is blood on many hands tonight — those that incited violence on the streets under the guise of protest, that tried to tear down what New York police officers did every day. That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor….

These comments set the stage for a symbolic police mutiny, as officers turned their backs on New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio at a press conference dealing with the assassination ambush. This is a direct challenge to civil order, open defiance of the mayor’s lawful authority over the police. And it is a gesture of arrogance, not only against non-violent protests of police killing, but in support of an above-the-law right to continue to execute civilians more or less randomly.

Who is more deserving of protection, police or public? 

The same day as the Rise Up October protest, The New York Times ran a front page story about FBI Director James B. Comey telling a Chicago Law School audience that increased scrutiny of police violence have led to an increase in violent crime, a theory for which he admitted he has no data. The data available does not support the claim. But Comey’s perception of “a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year” is just a more sophisticated whine than the police unions use. For the head of the FBI to defend police officers from scrutiny for their actions, especially their violent or lethal actions, is little more than a defense of police criminality. As the Times reported:

Mr. Comey said that he had been told by many police leaders that officers who would normally stop to question suspicious people are opting to stay in their patrol cars for fear of having their encounters become worldwide video sensations. That hesitancy has led to missed opportunities to apprehend suspects, he said, and has decreased the police presence on the streets of the country’s most violent cities.

Wait a minute, that’s pure sophistry. If you have police officers afraid of becoming viral video villains, then you have police officers who are tacitly admitting that they are likely to behave illegally if not lethally. Police officers who act properly make boring videos that don’t go viral.

The Times did not cover any of the Rise Up October activities. But it did re-publish the FBI chief story on October 30, with the additional comment: “It’s not clear why Mr. Comey decided to wade into this issue now.”

On October 18, the Times ran a story in the business section based on FBI statistics of police killings. The story notes that the available data strongly shows pervasive racial bias in many areas of American life. Police behavior is no exception:

The data is unequivocal. Police killings are a race problem: African-Americans are being killed disproportionately and by a wide margin.

The same persistent pattern of racial bias in police traffic stops was found in North Carolina statistics, as reported by a long analysis in the Times October 25 – “The Disproportionate Risk of Driving While Black.”

The evidence of racial bias in American life remains powerful and its effects are cruel and unusual. Perhaps the nation is less bigoted than it was in the past, but it remains a long way from being a place where all people are treated equally. And one of the grosser reasons for perpetual racial oppression is the willingness of powerful police unions to deny reality and blame the victims. Police unions need to reflect on the healing words of Kadiatou Diallo and put aside their bitterness. Police unions need to protect and serve the public, not the perpetrators of violence and death.

How about: if you’re not careful enough to identify a toy gun in the hands of a child before you shoot to kill, then you’re not careful enough to be an armed police officer. That seems like a pretty low bar.

 William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Science

US move to install cameras at Jerusalem mosque overlooks Israeli ‘obstacle course’ barring Palestinian worship, say archaeologists

Despite claims it is seeking to calm tensions in Jerusalem, Israel is intensifying activities to encircle the al-Aqsa mosque and strengthen its control over the holy site, a group of Israeli archaeologists warned last week.

The group sounded the alarm as the United States oversaw moves at the mosque compound, known as the Haram al-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary, intended to end weeks of Palestinian unrest focused on Jerusalem.

US Secretary of State John Kerry brokered an agreement last weekend between Israel and Jordan, the official guardian of the Haram, that will see cameras installed in the mosque compound.

But the archaeologists say the most pressing threats to the mosque, located on a raised plaza above the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, will be invisible to the cameras.

They accuse Israel of making rapid changes to the physical landscape around al-Aqsa to obscure the area’s Islamic character and create an ever-more arduous “obstacle course” for worshippers.

“The big picture is that Israel is weakening the Muslim and Palestinian presence there so that Israeli Jews can believe they are the true owners of the site,” said Yonathan Mizrachi, head of Emek Shaveh, an organisation of Israeli archaeologists opposed to the use of archaeology for political ends.

Various Israeli archaeological activities, he said, had almost completed Israel’s encirclement of the al-Aqsa compound, isolating it from Palestinian neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem.

24-hour surveillance

Kerry has said he believes the cameras will persuade Palestinians that Israel is not violating a “status quo” agreement governing the site since Israel occupied East Jerusalem, along with the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, in 1967.

The unwritten understandings are supposed to ensure that the religious administration of the compound remains solely with an Islamic authority known as the Waqf, while Israel controls policing at the site. Although Jews may visit the mosque area, they are banned from praying there.

Jews refer to the Haram as Temple Mount, arguing that the ruins of two ancient temples lie under al-Aqsa. The Western Wall, revered by religious Jews, is believed to be a retaining wall of the second temple, destroyed nearly 2,000 years ago.

Footage from the cameras will be broadcast around the clock, providing “comprehensive visibility and transparency,” according to Kerry.

In particular, the move is supposed to reassure Palestinians that ultra-nationalist Jews, who have been visiting in ever-larger numbers escorted by armed Israeli police, are not using the site for prayer.

Critics like Mizrachi say Washington’s narrow focus on Jewish prayer at al-Aqsa will fail to ease tensions because it ignores the wider injustices of Israel’s occupation, as well as limited access for Palestinians to the mosque and dramatic physical changes Israel is engineering immediately outside the compound.

“It is not just about what is happening on the plaza but what Israel is doing outside the compound to restrict access and prayer rights for Muslims, and to change the character and atmosphere of East Jerusalem and the Old City,” he told Middle East Eye.

The government and the settlers are working hand in hand to create the impression that the Old City is at the core of Jewish history and identity and must be under Israeli sovereignty.

Tighter entry restrictions

Palestinian leaders have long complained that Israeli barriers and checkpoints mean few Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza can still reach Jerusalem or its holy sites.

Increasingly even those living in Jerusalem or from Israel’s large minority of 1.6 million Palestinian citizens face entry restrictions.

Last year, according to official figures, the Israeli police imposed age restrictions 41 times, often preventing Palestinian men under 50 from entering.

For three weeks in late August and September, United Nations observers reported, Israel also denied entry to Palestinian women in the morning hours to allow Jewish groups access to the site. Some 500 Muslim children studying in the compound were refused entry too.

In addition, said Mizrachi, Israeli activities were cutting off the al-Aqsa compound from its Palestinian surroundings. Recent changes included:

• The extension of secretive excavations and tunnelling around the compound to create an “underground Jewish city” on the western and northern flanks of the Haram;
• The transfer of an archaeological park on the western and southern walls of al-Aqsa to an extremist Jewish settler organisation;
• The enforced closure of a historic but active Muslim cemetery, the length of the eastern side of the compound, denying Palestinian families access under the pretext that it falls within an Israeli national park.

Israel had also increased security restrictions for Palestinians on the main thoroughfare through the Old City’s Muslim Quarter to al-Aqsa, further limiting access, Mizrachi noted.

“The goal of all these changes is to emphasise the Jewish character of the environment around al-Aqsa, both above and below ground,” he said.

Pledge to stop Jewish prayer

Israeli officials have denied accusations that Islamic control at the site is being undermined. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed last month: “Israel is not the problem on the Temple Mount; it’s the solution. We maintain the status quo.”

Under pressure from Washington, Netanyahu’s office quietly issued a statement a week ago, late at night and only in English: “Israel will continue to enforce its long-standing policy: Muslims pray on the Temple Mount; non-Muslims visit the Temple Mount.”

Netanyahu has blamed the weeks of unrest in Jerusalem and in the West Bank on what he terms “incitement” by Palestinian leaders.

But there are indications of mounting concern in Europe and the United States that Israeli measures are weakening the status quo.

One of Kerry’s officials, John Kirby, caused a diplomatic storm by telling reporters last month: “Certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence.” Following Israeli complaints, he retracted the statement.

At the same time, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation approved a resolution condemning Israel for limiting freedom of worship for Muslims and for its management of holy sites under its control.

A French proposal to place international observers on the mosque plaza was blocked by Washington and Israel.

Many Palestinians fear that ultimately Israel wants either to physically divide the compound to create a prayer space for Jews or to insist on separate Jewish prayer times. Similar arrangements have been imposed by Israel on Hebron’s Ibrahimi mosque since the 1990s.

Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, added to concerns last week, telling Israeli TV: “My dream is to see the Israeli flag flying over the Temple Mount. It’s the holiest place for the Jewish people.”

Other ministers have called for a third temple to be built in place of al-Aqsa. The Haaretz daily noted last week that extremists calling for the destruction of the mosque now had “power hubs” in Netanyahu’s Likud party and its major coalition partner, Jewish Home.

Secret tunnelling

Mizrachi said al-Aqsa was not just threatened by the activities of a few ultra-nationalists but the combined actions of Israel’s political mainstream, archaeologists and Jewish religious authorities.

He said the government, the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Western Wall Heritage Fund were all working clandestinely on extensive excavations next to the mosque compound to create a network of underground spaces.

The purpose of the tunnelling was unclear, he said. “But it is inevitable that, when they are being conducted so secretively, they fuel concerns among Palestinians that the work could extend under the mosque or damage its foundations.”

He added that Israel was continuing with excavations on the western flank of the al-Aqsa compound that first came to public attention with the opening of the Western Wall tunnels in 1996, during Netanyahu’s first premiership. The opening of the tunnels led to clashes that resulted in dozens of Palestinian deaths and hundreds being injured.

In addition, an Israeli court ordered last month that control of an archaeological park, the Davidson Centre, on the western and southern flanks of the al-Aqsa compound, be handed over to Elad, a settler organisation.

Elad already controls large parts of the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan, south of the al-Aqsa compound, where it is developing a Jewish archaeological theme park called the City of David that is displacing Palestinian residents.

Mizrachi said Elad’s role at the Davidson Centre was “disturbing” because it brought the settler group to the foot of the Al-Aqsa compound. Elad, he added, was trying to connect its Silwan complex with the Davidson Centre, as a way to reinforce an exclusive Jewish narrative about ancient Jerusalem.

In September, Israel’s National Parks Authority sealed off with a barbed wire Bab al-Rahmeh, an ancient Islamic cemetery on the mosque’s eastern side, to prevent burials and access for Palestinians.

Emek Shaveh has warned that the move is the conclusion of “a long struggle between settlers and Palestinians over control of the eastern wall of the esplanade”.

During the recent weeks of unrest in Jerusalem, Israel has severely cracked down on Palestinian access to al-Wad Street in the Old City’s Muslim quarter. It is an area Jewish settlers have long targeted for a takeover as it also connects to the Western Wall.

“What is happening over time is that the Haram is getting ever more isolated from its Arab and Islamic surroundings,” Mizrachi said.

Palestinian leaders banned

The physical changes around al-Aqsa have been supplemented by ever-tighter Israeli restrictions on Palestinian political and religious leaders accessing the site, observers have noted.

The PA has been barred from any standing in Jerusalem since the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000. Last month, Netanyahu also ordered all members of the Israeli parliament, including representatives of Israel’s Palestinian minority, from entering the al-Aqsa compound.

Basel Ghattas, a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament from the Joint List party who had to disguise himself last week to get past Israeli police and on to the plaza, told MEE: “I don’t take orders from Netanyahu about whether I can visit al-Aqsa.”

He added: “When Israeli police determine who gets into al-Aqsa and who doesn’t, it’s clear that they are the real masters, not the Waqf.”

Ghattas, like other Palestinian leaders, was concerned that Israel will use the new cameras to identify Palestinian activists and arrest them or ban them from the site. The cameras, he said, would give Israel control over al-Aqsa “24 hours a day”.

Israel has also repeatedly barred Muslim religious leaders from Jerusalem and al-Aqsa – most notably Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel. Other religious figures in Jerusalem, including Hamas political leaders in the city, have been jailed or forcibly relocated to the West Bank.

Salah has made the status of al-Aqsa a key issue and has tried to bring thousands of Muslims from areas inside Israel to pray at the site as Palestinian worshippers from the occupied territories have dwindled.

Last month Prime Minister Netanyahu announced his intention to outlaw Salah’s Islamic Movement.

Zahi Njeidat, Salah’s spokesman, said the status quo at al-Aqsa was empty. “The reality is that Israel decides everything, both in the Haram and outside, because it is the occupier. That is the only status quo intended by Netanyahu and Kerry.”

Njeidat said there would be no calm at the site until the occupation of Jerusalem ended and Palestinians could freely visit and pray at al-Aqsa.

The Russian Presidency declared November 1 a day of mourning after Egyptian search and rescue teams reported that non of the 224 souls on board the ill-fated flight KGL9268 had survived the crash in Egypt’s North Sinai province. The majority of passengers were women and children. Egyptian and Russian teams are at the crash site.

Kogalmavia (Kogalymavia) Airlines flight KGL9268 from the Egyptian Red Sea resort Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg, Russia, crashed on Saturday morning, some 23 minutes after takeoff. Anxiety, hopes and fears turned into tragedy and tears when Egyptian rescue teams with some 45 ambulances arrived that the crash site and found no survivors.

Tragically 25 children were on board the Airbus A321 while the majority of the passengers were women. Most passengers were Russians. There were four Ukrainian and one Belarus national on board the plane.

Tragedy and tears at St. Petersburg Airport. Photo courtesy of Tass, Sergey Konkov.

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the tragic news, declaring November 1 a day of mourning.

Putin called on cultural institutions and broadcasters in Russia to cancel entertainment programs and to focus on the loss of lives instead. Egyptian Prime Minister Sherif Isamil visited the Russian Embassy in Cairo Sunday morning to express his condolences, reports The Cairo Post.

Initial speculation and sensationalized reports about a Daesh (ISIS / ISIL) affiliated Egyptian group’s claim of responsibility for “having brought down the Russian airliner” were quickly discredited when experts arrived at the crash site and found that the plane had not disintegrated in flight, and that all four corners of the jet, including the fuselage that had been separated into two sections were at the same, spatially limited crash-site. Foul play can, however, only be fully excluded during the course of the investigation.

Egyptian authorities have, however, declared the crash site in Egypt’s North Sinai province, some 100 km south of Arish a “restricted zone” until the end of the investigation.

The Egyptian government and military have since the ouster of former president Mohamed Morsi in 2013, fought the Daesh associated Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis (ABM) and other insurgencies. Arish is the hotbed of ABM activities.

The aircrew on board flight KGL9268 reportedly called Egyptian air traffic control to ask permission to deviate from the scheduled route and to conduct an emergency landing at Cairo Airport due to technical problems.

The reportedly 18 1/2 year-old Airbus A321 was airworthy and safe, claimed Kogalmavia (Kogalymavia)Airlines, also known as Metrojet. The airline had only suffered one other serious incident. In January 2011 a fire broke out on one of the airline’s Tupolev Tu-154B-2. Passengers and crew on flight RA-85588 were evacuated seconds before a flame-over in the fuselage. Three were killed and 43 were injured.

Debris Of Russian Plane Crashed Into Egypt’s Sinai Oct. 31, 2015- YOUM7

Russian and Egyptian investigators at the crash site have been joined by experts from Airbus and from the French aviation authority. The plane’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders have reportedly been recovered.

Initial results of the investigation suggest that the Airbus 321 had, depending on varying sources, reached a cruising altitude of some 28,000 – 31,000 ft before it suddenly lost altitude, briefly stabilized, and then crashed to the ground. There have been, so far not independently verified, reports that the aircrew complained about a technical issue before takeoff from Sharm el-Sheikh.

Ultimately, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, radar and other data as well as evidence from the crash site may provide answers to the causes of the crash. nsnbc calls, as in all air crashes, for full transparency and for providing certified copies of the data from the black boxes to independent media. nsnbc will pursue this issue if necessary.

On Saturday the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations dispatched four planes, loaded with recovery teams, trucks and other equipment to Egypt. The teams have arrived at the crash site. Russian Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov, Minister for Emergency Situations Vladimir Puchkov and the head of Rosaviatsia Federal Air Transport Agency, Alexander Neradko, were also heading to the crash site.

Egypt’s Minister of Tourism, Himam Zazou told the press that Egypt is ready to provide all possible assistance to repatriate the bodies of those who perished in the crash as soon as possible.

Relatives of passengers of crashed Russian A321 at Pulkovo airport. Photo courtesy of Alexander Demyanchuk/TASS

Meanwhile, a crisis center has been established at St. Petersburg Airport in Russia. The families and loved ones of those who perished in the crash have been informed. While some were waiting at the airport, others have been arriving at the crisis center from 13 Russian provinces.

Investigators and the bereft have embarked on the agonizing task to take DNA samples to help identify the remains. So far the remains of at least 175 of the 224 who perished have been recovered. Recovery efforts continue. The bereft have been afforded psychological, psychiatric and social services.

The Russian Emergencies Minister Vladimir Puchkov said the ministry kept in readiness an Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft for transporting the bodies to St.Petersburg, adding that “It’s a very important task laid upon the Emergencies Ministry – to pay homage to the victims.”

The Egyptian Minister of Tourism Himam Zazou said “Now we will conduct DNA tests on the bodies of the passengers. If you are ready to transport them to their home country, we are prepared to assist”.

Besides having the remains of loved ones repatriated, one of the most important factors for finding closure is full transparency with regard to the investigation, independently testable, verifiable or falsifiable evidence and data, results of an investigation and a report that are consistent with such evidence.

by Sayed Hasan

This article was originally published in June 2015

“As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech.” (Vladimir Putin)

Vladimir Putin denounces, more and more explicitly, the servility of France and Europe towards the United States, whether in the case of wire-tapping French leaders or that of the Mistral ships.

The publication by WikiLeaks of documents establishing the wire-tapping by the United States of three French Presidents was an open secret known since the revelations of Edward Snowden. Far from protesting against the flagrant violation of French sovereignty that the espionage of its top leaders constitutes, our government bravely hastened to hush up this scandal, as was expected by Lavrov and Putin. Let us remember that France prided herself in 2013 for having rejected the asylum for Edward Snowden, and that it is illusory to believe that these revelations could change anything : official France cannot but turn down flat Julian Assange’s calls.

While trade between the US and Russia is increasing, their European “allies” are forced to impose sanctions on Moscow and suffer alone its formidable repercussions: thus Vladimir Putin has renewed for one year the Russian embargo on food products from Europe.

Vladimir Putin recently said to Charlie Rose, an American TV star presenter who asked incredulously if Russia really aspired to gain respect (indeed, what a preposterous idea):

“You know, I hear this all the time: Russia wants to be respected. Don’t you? Who does not? Who wants to be humiliated? It is a strange question. As if this is some exclusive right – Russia demands respect. Does anyone like to be neglected?” To this rhetorical question, our French leaders respond ‘yes’ without hesitation and continue to whisper in their own homes for fear of prying ears (and microphones).

Instead of a rapprochement with Russia, a historic partner concerned about the respect of States and their sovereignty, in addition a rising great power and champion of the defence of international law, France and Europe prefer subjugation to the US, the superpower in irremediable decline with which they chain their destinies. It is easy to conceive the repulsion that Russian elites, despite their professionalism, must feel for our inglorious leaders. Probably to the extent of the felt more and more by their own peoples, whom Putin chooses to address directly.

Former arrogant colonial power and conqueror, then sovereignist Gaullist Republic, France is now relegated to the status of American sub-colony whose independence and national interests are routinely violated and trampled, as much by the stateless and spineless leaders in Paris, repeatedly guilty of the crime of high treason (abolished, thankfully for them), as by the imperial hawks in Washington.

Even a country like Algeria, a former French colony run by a corrupt and retrograde military regime, has at least leaders concerned of their national interests to the point of refusing any participation in the Saudi-American coalition against Yemen, while Hollands’ France was ready to pounce gleefully on a new crusade in Syria, which could have triggered World War III. One may ask, to use an expression of Norman Finkelstein, why prostitutes have such a bad reputation… Welcome to Western mediocracy!

Briefing session with permanent members of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, 25 June 2015

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/49766

Transcript: 

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Mr Lavrov will tell us about the consultations in Paris. Let’s start with this. Please, Mr Lavrov.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: On the whole, it was not useless because even despite certain wrangling during the discussion, the main outcome was the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no alternative to complete fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements. First and foremost, the acknowledgement by our German and our French partners of the fact that the overwhelming part of the Minsk provisions should be implemented through direct dialogue between authorities in Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk.
I can’t say that we have resolved all the problems because this should be done directly by the Contact group and the working subgroups created. I will report on that in more detail later, but on the day of our meeting, a report on the taps [by the United States of the French leadership] was published, and this gave rise to unrest in France so this was another thing that distracted our attention.

Vladimir Putin: How will this scandal end?

Sergei Lavrov: Frankly speaking, I think that Germany’s example [the US special services wiretapping the German leadership] gives the answer: I think that both sides will try to blanket the scandal and forget about it.

Vladimir Putin: That is what would happen.

Putin denounces the ‘submission’ of France: “Even without Mistral, we will survive” (English subtitles)

Direct Line with Vladimir Putin, April 16, 2015 

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/49261   

Olga Ushakova: Let’s take another question from the audience – from Dmitry Shchugorev’s section this time.

Dmitry Shchugorev: We have Dmitry Abzalov here, the president of the Center for Strategic Communications. Please, go ahead.

Dmitry Abzalov: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. I have this nagging question about Mistral ships. This week, the second ship was tested and left for the French shipyard. What are the prospects? Will we push for having these ships delivered to us? Will we seek financing? In general, what will our military and economic partnership with the European Union and France, in particular, be like after what happened a year ago?

Vladimir Putin: The refusal to deliver ships under the existing contract is, of course, a bad sign. However, frankly speaking, it’s of little consequence for us or our defence capability. We signed these contracts primarily to support our partners and offer work to their shipyard. We planned to use the ships in the Far East. For us, this is not critical.

However, I believe that the leadership of France – and the French people in general – are honourable people and will return the money. We are not even going to demand any penalties or exorbitant fines, but we want all of our costs covered. This certainly means that the reliability of our partners – who, acting as part of the military-political bloc, in this case NATO, have lost some of their sovereignty – has suffered, and is now questionable. Of course, we will keep this in mind as we continue our military and technical cooperation.

Kirill Kleymenov: Our partners may find that it was an easy way for them to get off the hook.

Vladimir Putin: That’s all right, we’ll survive.

Vladimir Putin to the peoples of the West: Russia is not an imperial power, the US spy on NATO members (English subtitles)

Speech by Vladimir Putin on the integration of the Crimea to Russia, March 18, 2014 – With a reflection on this intervention dated April 22, 2014

Source : http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

Transcript: 

[…]

Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!

[…]

Direct Line with Vladimir Putin – April 17, 2014

Source : http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20796

Transcript:

[…]

Kirill Kleymenov: But before giving the floor to [our correspondent in Germany], I’d like to ask you to return to the speech that we discussed at the very beginning, the one that you made before signing the treaty on Crimea and Sevastopol’s accession to Russia. Many people were very impressed by it and compared it to your Munich speech. They even called it your best speech.

I’d like to ask you why you made this speech. First, the protocol didn’t demand it and, second, the format was very unusual – you addressed peoples rather than countries or governments.

Vladimir Putin: The format was chosen based on the importance of the event and the situation. This is an unusual event in the life of our people, our country and our state. This is why I considered it my duty to address the Federal Assembly and the people of the Russian Federation in the presence of members of the State Duma and the Federation Council. This is the first point.

Second. Why was the speech addressed to the peoples of other countries rather than their governments? As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech. Listen to me, I’m serious, I’m not joking. However, they are our main partners on economic and some other issues.

But I addressed the peoples of these countries primarily because an ordinary person from Germany, France or Italy will instantly sense whether a statement is false or not. Our position is absolutely open, honest and transparent, and for this reason it is easier to get it across to ordinary people than even to some leaders. It seems to me we succeeded to some extent. No matter what government rules a country, it will have to consider the opinion of its voters. This is why I addressed the people.

[…]

With reports emerging that China has signed on to Russia’s military coalition in Syria at the same time that the Chinese are signing new cooperation agreements with the US, the question is once again being raised:

What is the nature of China-US rivalry?

Today Michel Chossudovsky talks about the forces in both countries that are manipulating this conflict and what it means for the prospects of future war.

This is the GRTV Feature Interview with our special guest, Michel Chossudovsky.

–

With reports emerging that China has signed on to Russia’s military coalition in Syria at the same time that the Chinese are signing new cooperation agreements with the US, the question is once again being raised:

What is the nature of China-US rivalry?

Today Michel Chossudovsky talks about the forces in both countries that are manipulating this conflict and what it means for the prospects of future war.

This is the GRTV Feature Interview with our special guest, Michel Chossudovsky.

–

The human rights provisions of the EU­-Israel Association Agreement are being continuously violated by the supply of arms and military equipment from the UK and other member states which are used to implement both an illegal occupation of the West Bank as well as the six year illegal blockade of essential goods to 1.8 million civilians in Gaza. This is leading to increased violence and the threat of a bloody intifada that could see the Holy City in flames.

It is, of course, a complete tragedy that the US congress is in the pocket of Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby. This has resulted in the recent authorisation of more millions of dollars’ worth of arms and killing machines to the Israeli government for use by the infamous IDF against an unarmed civilian population in the Occupied Territories.

However, the European Union is not a lobby-­subservient American congress but a democratic, primarily Christian, union of 28 independent nation states. We should not be colluding in illegal occupations, settlements and blockades against a dispossessed, indigenous people of five million souls whether black, white, Muslim or anyone else.

It is now high time that the European Parliament enforced the human rights provisions of the EU Association Agreement with the Netanyahu government and implements an immediate ban on all arms trade with the Israeli military occupation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/call-for-ban-on-arms-sales-to-israel/5485780

Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Air Force has carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets. In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 ISIS command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said on Friday. According to him, militants in Syria are trying to redeploy forces from Iraq and other neighboring states, but their morale and training levels are very low.

For the last six days, ISIS has blockaded the Syrian Government’s only supply route to the provincial capital of the Aleppo Governorate. However, for the last 48 hours, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah have worked to restore the security of this vital highway that stretches across the Khanasser Plains of east Hama. The SAA and Hezbollah are currently less than 1km away from liberating the Khanasser-Ithriya highway.

Meanwhile, southwest of Ithriyah, ISIS launched another assault on the imperative hilltop of Tal Khayber, targeting the NDF positions at the southeastern perimeter of the hill. The assault was beaten back.

ISIS has recently shifted its focus from Khanasser-Ithriya Highway to the Salamiyah-Ithriya Road, where the SAA reinforces their soldiers at the crucial city of Ithriya. If it falls, the SAA at the latter city will be cutoff from their main supply line.

According to reports the leaders of the al-Nusra terrorist group operating in the Syrian province of Hama have decided to join forces with ISIS as the Syrian army continues its offensive.

Separately, the SAA and the NDF continued their advance to the Kuweires Military Airport, capturing several building blocks from ISIS inside the town of Sheikh Ahmad in the Deir Hafer Plains. Then they captured the Railroad barrier inside the eastern district of the town. This allowed for the Syrian Armed Forces to cross the Aleppo-Baghdad railroad that passes through the east Aleppo.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Ian Williams, a senior analyst with the Foreign Policy in Focus from New York, to ask for his take on an apology from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the 2003 war against Iraq.

Watch interview here.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: What does it mean in your perspective to apologize when we’re talking about the displacement of millions of people, the killings of hundreds of thousands and total chaos and disruption of life for the Iraqi people and for much of the region? How can an apology suffice?

Williams: Well, an apology doesn’t suffice. It’s not intended to suffice. It’s intended to have the head off. The impending Chilcot report and a week or so ago Colin Powell memo showed very clearly that Tony Blair had lied through his teeth to the Chilcot inquiry and not he had every intention of starting a war with Iraq even before the weapons of mass destruction issue, even before the question of a UN authorization for the invasion.

So, when he apologizes that he did mistakes, what he’s trying to do is to convert admission to a crime into a mistake. And an analogy that occurred to me is the famous Victorian murderer in Britain, Jack the Ripper, could have apologize because he was just trying out surgical techniques when he dismembered his victims.

And not something like what Blair is doing here. It is pure spin. He knows he’s on the ropes. And he is now trying to anticipate the results of Chilcot inquiry and convert it from a discussion of policy rather than a discussion of criminal behavior in waging a war without UN authorization, without the support of the people and without his own stated justifications.

Press TV: Well, is he on the ropes? Can we really expect him to pay the price for what he and his American counterpart George W. Bush had done?

Williams:  Unfortunately, we can’t count on it. But let’s say it’s increasingly serious enough to be worrying to him. And I think Tony Blair is rapidly joining Henry Kissinger and other people around the world.

Now, he’s got to consult international lawyers as well as travel agents, before he travels anywhere, because they may have a prima facie case for his prosecution either in British courts or foreign courts under universal jurisdiction or with the International Criminal Court, because there is clear evidence now that he is somebody who waged an illegal war of aggression, violating the United Nations’ charter and was responsible for all of those deaths.

On October 31, Kolavia Metrojet (commercial airliner) Flight 7K9268 crashed 23 minutes after takeoff from Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, heading for St. Petersburg, Russia – killing all 217 passengers and seven crew members aboard, including 25 children.

News reports called the crash the worst aviation disaster in Russian history. Putin declared Sunday a day of mourning for its victims.

A criminal investigation began by searching operator Kogalymavia’s offices, checking for possible violations of Russian airliner safety standards.

A separate investigation is underway to determine the cause of the crash, most likely a technical failure. Russia’s Air Transport won’t speculate on what happened until more is known – including decoding the recovered black boxes, containing invaluable information.

A Sinai, Egypt based group connected to ISIS claimed responsibility, saying:

Soldiers of the Caliphate were able to bring down a Russian plane above Sinai Province with at least 220 Russian crusaders aboard.

They were all killed, praise be to God. O Russians, you and your allies take note that you are not safe in Muslims lands or their skies.

The killing of dozens daily in Syria with bombs from your planes will bring woe to you. Just as you are killing others, you too will be killed, God willing.

Russian Transportation Minister Maxim Sokolov dismissed the claim, saying it “cannot be considered credible. We are in a close contact with our Egyptian colleagues, with the aviation authorities of this country. At the moment, they have no information that would confirm such fabrications.”

Air France and Lufthansa said they’ll reroute their flights around Sinai until further notice, a temporary precautionary move.

The Russian aircraft was flying at an altitude of 31,000 feet – way above the ability of ground-based terrorist groups to down it. Their shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAMS), known as Manpads, threaten low-flying aircraft only, mainly helicopters – debunking their spurious claim. Expect investigation results to prove it.

French obtained weapons manuals recovered from North African Al Qaeda elements in 2013 showed they may have SA-7 and SA-7b SAMS – able to down taking off and landing aircraft, not the range to strike high-flying ones.

Reports from the crash site indicated debris scattered over at least a four mile area. It’s being closely examined to help determine the cause of the disaster.

Most passengers were Russian, three from Ukraine and one from Belarus. Sharm El-Sheikh is a popular resort town. Most likely they were tourists heading home.

Air traffic control said the plane began descending rapidly at 6,000 feet per minute before it disappeared from radar. Airline officials issued a statement, saying “(i)n 2014, the airplane has undergone factory maintenance in accordance with the factory specifications. All requirements of preflight technical maintenance were fulfilled in full and on time.”

Russian news reports said crew members recently complained about problems with one of the plane’s engines – so far without official confirmation.

RT International interviewed UK security/counterterrorism expert Charles Shoebridge. “As far as it’s known, Islamic State and its affiliate groups don’t have the capability to bring down aircraft flying at the height that this aircraft reportedly was, which is something around 10,000 meters,” he explained.

“That doesn’t mean to say though that at least theoretically they couldn’t bring the plane down by other means, for example by sabotage at the departing airport or a bomb on board.”Most likely,“mechanical failure of some sort (was) the most likely cause, as with most air accidents.” Terrorists like claiming responsibility for propaganda purposes, he added, especially targeting Russia for its ongoing Syrian campaign.

Egypt’s former civil aviation minister, Wail al-Madawi, told RT “(o)nly a state (has) such resources” to strike high-flying aircraft. Asked if a SAM could have downed the Russian plane he said: “No, it is out of the question.”

I am a former air force officer, and I have the expert knowledge that taking down a plane flying so high requires the kind of capacities only a state can have.

It requires some very significant resources: One would need search (three types of) radars, radars to locate the plane, radars to control the fire. Only a state can have such resources. No militant group like that can.

Addressing reports indicating the plane broke in two, he said “it’s impossible to define how exactly the ground impact occurred. It all depends on the kind of terrain at the impact site.”“For instance, if an aircraft were to hit some ridge on the ground, this could cause the plane to break into halves. So it all depends on the terrain.”

The main thing, however, is to establish why the plane started to lose altitude when it was flying so high. There is a database of air crashes with proven causes of the crash. Some were due to technical malfunction, some to human error, some even to the psychological state of the crew. So that means there are a lot of possibilities to study.

Once results of the ongoing investigation are revealed, we’ll know precisely what happened and why.

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 lion’s share of Islamic State illegal oil exports is conducted through Turkey and Kurdish areas. Although Washington could curb the illegal traffic, it has chosen to focus on other issues, a former CIA officer told the Sputnik news agency.

In India, genetically modified (GM) mustard is edging closer to becoming the first officially approved GM food crop to be placed on the commercial market. This is despite a series of official reports that recommend against introducing GMOs to India. The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report is the fourth official report exposing the lack of integrity, independence and scientific expertise in assessing GMO risk.

The four reports are: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal, overturning the apex Regulator’s approval to commercialise it; the Sopory Committee Report (August 2012); the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012) and the TEC Final Report (June-July 2013).

The TEC recommends an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops until the government devises a proper regulatory and safety mechanism. Prominent campaigner Aruna Rodrigues argues that official regulators have hidden all data about GM mustard from the public and the independent scientific community, which is against constitutional provisions and the orders of the Supreme Court. She concludes this means one thing: mandatory rigorous biosafety protocols have not been carried out and the data pertaining to ‘mustard DMH 11’ therefore needs to be concealed.

Rodrigues asserts that the secrecy surrounding GM mustard exemplifies the appalling state of regulation and smacks of corruption. She concludes the Indian government is using underhand means to introduce GM crops into Indian agriculture and that there appears to be no place for science or transparency in this process.

The Coalition for a GM Free India is therefore demanding that the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, immediately intervenes to stop the processing and approval of this GM mustard and makes public all the information regarding the safety tests of the GM Mustard.

On the back of a news report confirming that an application for approval for commercialisation of GM mustard has been moved with the apex regulatory body GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee in the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change), the Coalition for a GM Free India has reminded the government about the serious consequences.

Rajesh Krishnan, Convenor of Coalition for a GM-Free India, says that the GM mustard hybrid has been created mainly to facilitate the seed production work of seed manufacturers, whereas farmers already have a choice of non-GM mustard hybrids in the market, in addition to high yielding mustard varieties. He also argues that, more importantly, there are non-GM agro-ecological options like System of Mustard Intensification yielding far higher production than the claimed yields of this GM mustard of Delhi University.

Krishnan says:

This GM mustard is also a backdoor entry for various other GM crops in the regulatory pipeline – while herbicide tolerance as a trait has been recommended against by committee after committee in the executive, legislative and judiciary-based inquiry processes in India related to GM crops, this GM mustard uses herbicide tolerance. Contamination is inevitable of all other mustard varieties, while India is the Centre of Diversity for mustard. This is clearly one more GMO that is unwanted and unneeded and is being thrust on citizens in violation of our right to choices, as farmers and consumers.

Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), has been seeking biosafety data pertaining to GM Mustard without any success. She argues that:

GEAC is functioning in a highly secretive fashion, and while the nation does not know what is happening inside the regulatory institutions with applications like this GM mustard, biosafety data is being repeatedly declined by the regulators. What are the regulators hiding and whose interests are they protecting?

She goes on to ask:

Why should the regulators be trusted for their safety assessment when in the case of both Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee (SC TEC) which took up a sample biosafety analyses in 2013 showed that the regulators were wrong in concluding the safety of these GMOs?

The Supreme Court in 2008 had ordered that biosafety data be placed in the public domain when petitioners argued that unless the toxicity and allergenicity data are made known to the public, the applicants and concerned scientists in the country would not be in a position to make effective representations to the concerned authorities.

An indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal (GM eggplant) in 2010. The regulators sought public feedback on that particular food crop and the Government of India took up public consultations before taking a final decision on Bt brinjal’s commercial cultivation fate in india.

Kuruganti continues:

However, this current Government seems to be keen to conduct regulatory processes in a secretive fashion. Our past requests to meet with the Environment Minister to share our concerns met with no success. As the government gets more secretive and opaque around regulation, the public has a right to know what are they afraid of, if everything is safe and scientific?

The claim is that GM mustard will provide yield increases of 25-30%. However, Aruna Rodrigues argues that higher yields are not the result of these particular transgenes but rather a direct result of hybridisation of normal crop genes. This is basically a case of deception: the use of high-yielding hybrids is a deliberate ploy to camouflage the yield attributable to the hybrid and assign it to the GM crop instead. She says that this is precisely the story that ensued with Bt cotton (which is now having disastrous consequences for many farmers) and that thread wove its way through Bt brinjal and now, openly for mustard. Rodrigues says that the fraud is unprecedented and the case surrounding GM mustard in India is evidence of unremitting regulatory delinquency.

The secrecy and regulatory delinquency that Rodrigues talks of is integral to the speeding up of the wider agenda of restructuring Indian agriculture for the benefit of an increasingly impatient Western agribusiness cartel. These companies are pushing an unsustainable and poisonous industrialised model of farming on India based on a never-ending stream of petro-chemical inputs, commodity crops and corporate (GM) seeds (see this).

This is already impoverishing farmers and driving them out of agriculture and will ultimately have tremendously negative consequences in terms of the nation’s food sovereignty and security as well as its health (see this).

In India, genetically modified (GM) mustard is edging closer to becoming the first officially approved GM food crop to be placed on the commercial market. This is despite a series of official reports that recommend against introducing GMOs to India. The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report is the fourth official report exposing the lack of integrity, independence and scientific expertise in assessing GMO risk.

The four reports are: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal, overturning the apex Regulator’s approval to commercialise it; the Sopory Committee Report (August 2012); the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012) and the TEC Final Report (June-July 2013).

The TEC recommends an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops until the government devises a proper regulatory and safety mechanism. Prominent campaigner Aruna Rodrigues argues that official regulators have hidden all data about GM mustard from the public and the independent scientific community, which is against constitutional provisions and the orders of the Supreme Court. She concludes this means one thing: mandatory rigorous biosafety protocols have not been carried out and the data pertaining to ‘mustard DMH 11’ therefore needs to be concealed.

Rodrigues asserts that the secrecy surrounding GM mustard exemplifies the appalling state of regulation and smacks of corruption. She concludes the Indian government is using underhand means to introduce GM crops into Indian agriculture and that there appears to be no place for science or transparency in this process.

The Coalition for a GM Free India is therefore demanding that the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, immediately intervenes to stop the processing and approval of this GM mustard and makes public all the information regarding the safety tests of the GM Mustard.

On the back of a news report confirming that an application for approval for commercialisation of GM mustard has been moved with the apex regulatory body GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee in the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change), the Coalition for a GM Free India has reminded the government about the serious consequences.

Rajesh Krishnan, Convenor of Coalition for a GM-Free India, says that the GM mustard hybrid has been created mainly to facilitate the seed production work of seed manufacturers, whereas farmers already have a choice of non-GM mustard hybrids in the market, in addition to high yielding mustard varieties. He also argues that, more importantly, there are non-GM agro-ecological options like System of Mustard Intensification yielding far higher production than the claimed yields of this GM mustard of Delhi University.

Krishnan says:

This GM mustard is also a backdoor entry for various other GM crops in the regulatory pipeline – while herbicide tolerance as a trait has been recommended against by committee after committee in the executive, legislative and judiciary-based inquiry processes in India related to GM crops, this GM mustard uses herbicide tolerance. Contamination is inevitable of all other mustard varieties, while India is the Centre of Diversity for mustard. This is clearly one more GMO that is unwanted and unneeded and is being thrust on citizens in violation of our right to choices, as farmers and consumers.

Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), has been seeking biosafety data pertaining to GM Mustard without any success. She argues that:

GEAC is functioning in a highly secretive fashion, and while the nation does not know what is happening inside the regulatory institutions with applications like this GM mustard, biosafety data is being repeatedly declined by the regulators. What are the regulators hiding and whose interests are they protecting?

She goes on to ask:

Why should the regulators be trusted for their safety assessment when in the case of both Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee (SC TEC) which took up a sample biosafety analyses in 2013 showed that the regulators were wrong in concluding the safety of these GMOs?

The Supreme Court in 2008 had ordered that biosafety data be placed in the public domain when petitioners argued that unless the toxicity and allergenicity data are made known to the public, the applicants and concerned scientists in the country would not be in a position to make effective representations to the concerned authorities.

An indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal (GM eggplant) in 2010. The regulators sought public feedback on that particular food crop and the Government of India took up public consultations before taking a final decision on Bt brinjal’s commercial cultivation fate in india.

Kuruganti continues:

However, this current Government seems to be keen to conduct regulatory processes in a secretive fashion. Our past requests to meet with the Environment Minister to share our concerns met with no success. As the government gets more secretive and opaque around regulation, the public has a right to know what are they afraid of, if everything is safe and scientific?

The claim is that GM mustard will provide yield increases of 25-30%. However, Aruna Rodrigues argues that higher yields are not the result of these particular transgenes but rather a direct result of hybridisation of normal crop genes. This is basically a case of deception: the use of high-yielding hybrids is a deliberate ploy to camouflage the yield attributable to the hybrid and assign it to the GM crop instead. She says that this is precisely the story that ensued with Bt cotton (which is now having disastrous consequences for many farmers) and that thread wove its way through Bt brinjal and now, openly for mustard. Rodrigues says that the fraud is unprecedented and the case surrounding GM mustard in India is evidence of unremitting regulatory delinquency.

The secrecy and regulatory delinquency that Rodrigues talks of is integral to the speeding up of the wider agenda of restructuring Indian agriculture for the benefit of an increasingly impatient Western agribusiness cartel. These companies are pushing an unsustainable and poisonous industrialised model of farming on India based on a never-ending stream of petro-chemical inputs, commodity crops and corporate (GM) seeds (see this).

This is already impoverishing farmers and driving them out of agriculture and will ultimately have tremendously negative consequences in terms of the nation’s food sovereignty and security as well as its health (see this).

A shocking video has emerged recording a loud verbal threat from the Israeli military to residents of Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem. As a military jeep rolls down an empty quiet street a threatening voice comes over the loudspeaker:

 “You throw stones and we will hit you with gas until you die.”

The words spoken seem almost unfathomable.

Middle East Eye (MEE) reports the video was recorded on October 29 by a youth, 17-year-old Yazan Ikhlayel, on his iPhone. Ikhlayel was at Aida’s community center with a clear view of the road below. As Ikhlayel recorded the scene the jeep slows and then come to a halt as the threats continue. You can begin to see stones being thrown at :28 in the video. The threat also warns they were holding a person “one of you” and if they didn’t stop throwing stones they would slaughter the person:

Transcript:

People of Aida Refugee camp we are the occupation army. You throw stones and we will hit you with gas until you all die. The children, the youth, the old people, you will all die, we won’t leave any of you alive. And we have arrested one of you, he is with us now. We took him from his home and we will slaughter and kill him while you are watch if you keep throwing stones. Go home or we will gas you until you die. Your families, your children, everyone we will kill you. Listen to me, all of you go home, it’s better for you.

The Middle East Eye spoke with Ikhlayel, “The most important thing I want people to see when they watch this video is to realise what the Israeli ‘democracy’ really is”.  He also insisted this will not stop the protests:

They have said it for us now, they are an occupation – they said ‘we are the occupation army’. It is proof, this is an apartheid country, it is not democratic at all.

“This is the first time I heard them say something like that over a speaker for everyone to hear,” Ikhlayel continued.

The young people aren’t accepting what the soldiers are doing particularly now. They’re going to the streets [to protest] everyday, and they aren’t stopping. They aren’t scared of them.

When asked if he thinks the soldier’s message would scare the youth enough to stop the protests, Ikhlayel shook his head adamantly.

“This will not stop until the occupation ends,” he insisted.

Yazan Ikhlayel speaks to MEE (MEE/Abed al-Qaisi)

MEE also interviewed filmmaker and photo journalist Mohammed al-Azza, who has been targeted and attacked by Israeli forces in the past.  Like Ikhlayel, al-Azza also emphasized the soldier’s (unusual) self identification as  “occupation” forces:

“It’s been a long time since we’ve seen the soldiers get on a speaker like that,” al-Azza said.

But really we were surprised by one word – usually they call themselves the IDF (Israel Defence Forces), they don’t say the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) like we do, but that is something good for us, and for people outside the country to hear. They said it to us, ‘we are the occupation’….

Usually when we talk about Palestine we are telling people abroad what happened, and it’s usually after the Israelis have done whatever they did, but now it’s good that the people can hear it from the soldiers. They said ‘we are going to kill you and we are going to do this and that’ in their message. It’s very important for international people to hear this sort of stuff that we are hearing all the time from them.

Ma’an News reports: Israeli soldiers tell Palestinians: ‘We will gas you until you die’:

In this statement, we see — among a range of potential criminal offences — a public threat to kill Palestinian civilians, and to execute a prisoner,”Simon Reynolds, Legal Advocacy Coordinator at the BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, told Ma’an.

Though such threats are appalling, they are not necessarily surprising. In light of the mounting civilian death toll among Palestinians, such threats merely add words to the deed.

What we are seeing is an apparent policy of lawlessness in which Israeli forces can wield deadly force with virtual impunity. Especially troubling is that this is a policy that seems to have, at the very minimum, the tacit acceptance of the highest levels of government.”Numerous rights groups have publicly condemned Israel’s disproportionate military response while policing demonstrations and responding to alleged attacks.

Indiscriminate or deliberate firing on observers and demonstrators who pose no imminent threat violates the international standards that bind Israeli security forces,”Kenneth Roth, executive director of Humans Rights Watch said on Oct. 11, after a HRW research assistant was shot and injured while observing a demonstration near Ramallah.

 Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani 

One point we’ve been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin’s move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin’s open “invitation” to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag. 

That is, it simply wasn’t possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don’t necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.

Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative. 

Well, it hasn’t worked.

With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now,  US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington’s effort to oust Assad both “counterproductive” and “illegal.” In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are “our sworn enemy” and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.”

For more on how Russia and Iran’s efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see “ISIS In ‘Retreat’ As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As ‘Weak With No Strategy‘”

The Guardian, 1 November 2001

Press conference: PM and President Assad of Syria

[transcript of the joint press conference in Damascus by Syria’s President Assad and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on October 31, 2001]

Number10.gov.uk (official website of the British government) via European Security & Defence website

Editorial note:  This press conference was held 24 days after the launch of the Anglo-American-led invasion of Afghanistan.

The day after his visit to Damascus, Mr Blair met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. (emphasis added)

PRESIDENT ASSAD (via interpreter):  I am welcoming Mr Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain and the accompanying delegation in Syria and I would like to indicate that it is the first visit of senior British officials at this level since the independence of Syria in the 1940s and certainly before then, decades before then, and this has many indications and many importance and many meanings and it indicates the development of the relations between Syria and Great Britain.

Despite the fact that the visit is very short the talks were very rich and we had time to discuss many issues and many topics. We agreed on many of the analyses that we discussed in the talks and there were many points of understanding and there was also some points that each undertook to the other.

The main issues that we discussed during these talks, of course we concentrated on the issue of terrorism and the peace process and the Middle East, of course. We talked quickly about the bi-lateral relations and we agreed to consolidate these relations through the ideas which were discussed between Syrian and British officials whether in Syria or in Britain. As for the issue of terrorism, there was a sound condemnation of what had taken place on 11 September in the United States and, I think this goes without saying, I don’t think there is any country in the world that would say it agrees with terrorism. It is a principle for all countries.

But the condemnation that Syria has announced was not only a result of what had taken place on 11 September, but it is an outcome of our principles, all the principles throughout our history in Syria, social principles, it was an outcome to our religious principles that are here in our Arab region, whether as Arabs or as Muslims or as Christians. It is a result of our suffering from terrorism, especially during the mid-1970s and the consequent period, and of course, at the same time, we differentiated – and I personally differentiated – between resistance and terrorism and between Islam and terrorism.

There is a difference between resistance as a social right, as a religious right, it’s a legal right, and it is a right that is safeguarded through the United Nations’ resolutions. 

Of course Islam and all holy religions have the same source and they were sent to people by the same God. These religions were not sent for war but they were sent for peace and for the combating of terrorism.

We talked about the root causes of terrorism and I mentioned many causes. But I mentioned particularly one important cause of terrorism and it is a reason that many citizens in the Arab or Muslim regions feel; it is a feeling of the difference and the human value between the citizen in this region and the human values of the citizen in the West. Especially as terrorism is there for a long time in Syria, since 1985, the late President Hafez Al-Assad sent Syrian senior officials to Western European countries to ask for convening an international conference to combat terrorism. So the issue of combating terrorism is very old for Syria, and although the combating of terrorism came quite late, it is better late than never. The important point is that combating terrorism should have started before, and many people in the region feel there is a gulf that the Western people should fill, that the human person is a human person anywhere and terrorism is terrorism anywhere, whether it is in the Middle East or Europe or in Asia and everywhere in the world.

We spoke about combating terrorism and I said that combating terrorism should start by defining this again. We can’t fight an enemy without knowing who this enemy is, what shape is he, where is he, is he North, East, West or South. We have to define our enemy first and we have to specify its appearance and its existence and then we have to analyse the reasons which brought this terrorism. Therefore, in order to combat terrorism, we have to address the root causes and not the effect. Until now only the effects of terrorism are being addressed but the root causes are not being addressed or it is at the beginning of being addressed. Addressing the root causes of terrorism, as I have said, should be first political, it should be cultural, it should be media, informative, security and intelligence addressed. And the terrorism works as a network; it doesn’t have a certain head whether it is a person or an organisation. It is a network, terrorism is a network that could be found anywhere, and therefore combating terrorism and fighting its causes should come through international co-operation and not through having one side or one country that fights terrorism. Terrorism is there everywhere and therefore combating terrorism should be done by every country in the world.

We spoke about peace in the Middle East. As we say always, Syria did not change its stand towards peace. Reaching a just and comprehensive peace in the region was always our principle, despite all the difficult circumstances, despite all the setbacks that the peace process has suffered from, the Syrian stand towards peace has not changed because it is a strategic position and not a tactical position, but Israel as far as we are concerned, is proving every day that it is against this peace, and therefore the desire for peace cannot coincide with the desire for killing. The list for assassinations cannot be an expression of a desire to reach peace and stability in this region.

We also spoke in the peace process about the international consensus in the world, especially after 11 September events, about the necessity of achieving peace in the Middle Eastern region, and I said that this international consensus is a golden opportunity that might not be repeated in the future. It is an opportunity for the world, but it is to a large extent an opportunity for the American administration that could move without taking into account the domestic pressure that might influence its neutral role as co-sponsor of the peace process.

We did not differentiate in our talk (inaudible) that peace and terrorism. Some people linked the issue of the Middle East to terrorism directly and it is understood as if the Middle East is a source of terrorism, and this is not correct. Despite our point of view as Arabs, because Israel is practising the state terrorism regularly and this is definite, but the Middle Eastern region often influences activating terrorism, because terrorists always need a cover. This cover could be a national issue, it could be a pan-national issue, it could be a social issue, and therefore closing the hot areas in the world will deprive these terrorists of the cover they always seek.

Of course we — and the last point I would like to say about peace is that in Syria we cannot see with one eye as some people see. We cannot separate the issue of terrorism that we see every day and we live every day that Israel is practising against the Palestinians. We cannot separate between this kind of terrorism and the terrorism that is taking place in the world, and we can’t really look with one eye. Some people see with one eye, some people see with closed eyes and we cannot, we look at the issues with wide-open eyes in order to see what has taken place, and in order to see things from a very realistic perspective.

And therefore no one can say small details can see small details without seeing the big issues, and the closer issues. People in the Arab region, and in the Muslim world cannot see the international terrorism without seeing Israeli terrorism, and therefore addressing this kind of terrorism is one.

Some people say that achieving peace will make a big step for combating terrorism, this is correct. But also combating terrorism in Israel would help to reach (5 second break in audio) highly appreciate what I have heard from Mr Prime Minister, because of his high appreciation and his great respect to Islam as a religion, and his high respect to the Muslim people in Britain. I am going to leave the floor to Mr Prime Minister to address you.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  Mr President, first of all can I thank you for hosting me here in Syria, and say how much I welcome the talks that we have had this morning and I know we will continue later.

And as you said right at the very outset this is candid dialogue. But it is a dialogue I would like to think could be pursued by us both as people trying to reach an understanding of each other’s perspectives. And trying to work together as partners for the greater good of the wider world.

And there are two main issues obviously that we discussed. The first was the attacks of the 11 September in the United States of America. And I very much welcomed the strong statement of condemnation that you have made to me, and repeated again now Mr President. I think that is important that the entire world knows that the world community is united in condemning what happened on the 11 September as an atrocity.

The second thing is that that attack was carried out by extremists who do not represent in any way, shape or form, the true faith or voice of Islam. And your strong statement to that effect is also most welcome.

I believe it is important therefore that we send out a very clear message and signal that there is a strong international coalition against terrorism. And in Syria, and indeed the countries in this entire region are united as part of that coalition.

In respect of the Middle East peace process, whatever the differences of perspective, we both understand the importance of restarting the Middle East peace process properly, of getting back to a situation in which differences are resolved by a process of talking and dialogue. And that in that regard violence from whatever quarter is equally unhelpful, and what we require is the space and the time to get people talking together again.

And the objective that we seek, and I believe again this is shared by you, and shared by people in this region, is a situation where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace together. That is in the end the only possible long-term solution.

So Mr President I thank you for inviting me here today, I have very much welcomed the talks together. I know that for you as you were saying to me earlier, there is a relationship not just between Britain and Syria that is part of our history, but a personal relationship for you, since you have lived and worked in Britain.

And I hope that the candid dialogue that we have begun today can strengthen over time. Because there are huge differences in understanding between West and Islam, between west and the Arab world.

And yet if one can come out of the terrible events of the 11 September, it is an attempt to bridge that gulf of misunderstanding, and create the right circumstances for partnership in the future, and I believe that that is possible.

And so I hope that the dialogue we have begun today can continue over time, so that we achieve the objectives we both want to achieve. Which is an end to terrorism in all its forms, wherever it exists, and a proper and lasting peace and solution for the province of the Middle East. Thank you. 

QUESTION:  Could I ask (inaudible) if they discussed the current action in Afghanistan during their talks? Whether any pledges, promises, guarantees, anything of that nature were sought by President Assad, and given or not by Prime Minister Blair.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  Well of course we have discussed the current situation in Afghanistan. And I think that the most important thing to emphasise is that people accept that what happened on the 11 September was wrong, and that it is necessary for the international community to act.

Now we are acting in Afghanistan, we have set out our objectives there very, very clearly. And I think that the desire of everyone is to make sure that we bring that action to a successful conclusion as swiftly as possible. That is our desire I think that is the desire of all people in this region and elsewhere.

PRESIDENT ASSAD (via interpreter):  As far as we are concerned in Syria we (inaudible) appreciate that we announced our stand right from the beginning. A very clear stand that we condemn terrorism, and with an international coalition for combating terrorism. But we should differentiate between combating terrorism, and between war.

We did not say we support an international coalition for launching a war, we are always against war, it is a point of principle, because wars have always a negative effect on societies. And we believe that combating terrorism cannot be done through war, but it can be done through political cultural intelligence cooperation amongst relevant countries.

And therefore, at least we do not like to see more wars taking place in the world, because we have suffered from many wars, especially as we see some civilians, innocent civilians falling every day.

QUESTION:  And Mr Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the American President George Bush, and your Excellency have announced your support to establishing a Palestinian, independent Palestinian state to establish the ability in the region. How do you see the execution of the (inaudible) in the light of the dangerous (inaudible) of pulling down houses, expanding settlements, and ignore all international requests, including your request, and the request of the American administration.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  What is necessary if we are going to restart the peace process in the Middle East is that two things happen. First of all we have got to agree what the fixed points of principle are. And those fixed points of principle to my mind are that Israel is entitled to exist, has its right to exist, and be confident of its own peace and security within its own borders.

And secondly that alongside the state of Israeli there is a Palestinian state where there is justice and equality for people. Now I believe that based on that, based on the United Nations resolutions, it is possible to restart a proper process that can achieve those aims.

The second thing however that is necessary, as well as agreement on those fixed points of principle, is that we have an end to violence of all sorts, in order to give space and time for a peace process to begin again. Because whilst violence is continuing, of whatever nature, it is difficult for the political process to work, and if I can say to you, certainly to borrow from the process of peace in Northern Ireland, which, in a very different context, has some similarities in terms of divided communities and great bitterness and hostility, it is vital, in order for the political process to work, that violence ends, of all types, because it is the people of violence that want to displace the political process, and what I would like to see is, based on those six points of principle, based on the United Nations Resolution, a peace process begin again that allows us to take back control of the situation for politics and not for violence.

QUESTION:  Can I ask the Prime Minister whether you did discuss the situation of the terrorist groups which the Americans believe were operating in this country, whether you asked the President to restrain them, and may I ask the President whether you are prepared to take action against those groups, in particular the one that has claimed responsibility for the recent assassination in Israel? 

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  First of all, if I can say that, as I just made clear a moment or two ago, it is our belief that all groups involved in violence must cease their activities, so that the political process is given a chance to work. Now, there are going to be differences in perspective and views about the issue, both of the Middle East peace process, about the action that we take in respect of Afghanistan. But what I think is important is to recognise that unless we can bring about the situation in which the violence really does cease in the Middle East and the political process begin to work, then it is very difficult to see how we are going to get a just, negotiated solution to the problems that we face, and as I say, whatever the differences in perspective are – and we said it was a candid dialogue – whatever the differences in perspective, I think that is accepted by both of us. We both want to see a situation where the violence ends and ends completely, on all sides, so that the peace process can get started again. 

PRESIDENT ASSAD (via interpreter):  I would like to give a comment about this question. Of course the issue of the Middle East issue is for the countries concerned and one of the first countries who are concerned and we are more capable to decide the nature of the organisations and the people who are in the region. As I said in the beginning, resisting occupation is an international right nobody can deny, and therefore we have many organisations, many people who support the liberation and who support the resistance fighters who seek to liberate their lands. The act of resistance is very different from the act of terrorism. As I said, we differentiate. In the west you have one example in France, for example, one of the most important personalities or one of the symbols is President de Gaulle, who fought for liberating the French land. Can any one of you accuse President de Gaulle of being a terrorist? No way, because what President de Gaulle did is the same thing that’s being done by the resistance fighters in this region, and therefore it’s the same measure that should be applied.

QUESTION:  Mr Prime Minister Tony Blair, the peace process was started ten years ago and peace has not been achieved at a time when violence was not there in the region, and the peace was not achieved due to the Israeli policies. Is there any initiative or intention by the Europeans or by international community to restart the peace process (inaudible) according to the United Nations Resolution and the land for peace principles (inaudible) for the region’s (inaudible)?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  Well of course there’s an intention to do that. It’s precisely what we want to achieve. We want the process to begin again so that there is the possibility, through dialogue, of resolving the issues in the Middle East. But in order for that to happen, what is important is that there is an end to all forms of violence, where there is restraint, an end to violence, and the opportunity then to get people to talk about the issues, and over the last ten years, as you know, there have been many, many attempts to get the peace process moving ahead. Now those attempts have not yet succeeded, but my message to people in whatever part of the region I will be over the next couple of days is there is no alternative. When all the killing and the bloodshed stops, people will have to come back and try and resolve their differences through dialogue. There is no alternative to that, just as there is no realistic alternative to a situation where the right of Israel to exist, confident in its own security, and the right of the Palestinians to their own state, is accepted as the basic principles of that dialogue.

Now I believe that can happen, but it needs the space and the time, as I say, to do it and even before the 11 September — sometimes I know in this part of the world it has been said that people like myself and President Bush were only interested in the issue of the peace process in the Middle East once the 11 September had occurred. This is not true. When I met President Arafat a few days ago in London, that was my eleventh meeting with him. Before the 11 September we already had the Tenet (?) Plan, the Mitchell Plan; as you know the Americans were preparing a new process in order to try and restore some momentum to the Middle East peace process. So we have, right from the very beginning, understood the importance of this issue, but we need the help of everybody, of all countries in this region, in order to get it done, and the single most important thing that will allow us to get it done is an end to violence from whatever quarter, in whatever form.

QUESTION:  It seems that the focus now is to implement the Mitchell Plan and the Tenet Plan to cement the shaky ceasefire between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Do you think that’s a good start? Is it enough of a start? And would you, at some point, encourage what you perceive as legitimate resistance to halt their attacks to give the Mitchell Plan a chance?

PRESIDENT ASSAD (via interpreter):  We have our perspective about the Mitchell Report. We did not participate in it and Syria was not consulted about it, but the failure of many attempts did not take into account the necessary requirements for the peace (inaudible) including the rights of the Palestinian people, and the people in the region have proven that our perspective, our point of view, was correct, so the right thing is that the ceasefire, agreement for a ceasefire, but it is not the terms of reference for a peace process. The terms of reference for a peace process is the Security Council Resolution and the Madrid terms of reference. When we speak about initiatives regardless of the names of these initiatives, or when we speak about negotiations, all these are the means, but the important thing is justice; justice is peace.

We have to put one rule for the elements and for the objective, in order to achieve this objective. When we want to say — or let us assume that there’s an initiative, and the Palestinian citizen is going to ask, “What is the objective of this initiative? Is it to stop violence?” Stopping violence is perhaps necessary to reach peace, but it is not everything; the more important thing is what this citizen is going to achieve, what are the rights he is going to achieve when the peace process ends, when — any initiative depends on United Nations Resolutions, on Madrid terms of reference, and so directing the peace process, or the co-sponsor should be neutral, should be an honest broker, and this is what was not achieved during the last ten years, and that’s why peace has failed, and that’s why all the attempts have failed. If you don’t have the right way to conduct the peace process through the means and through the objectives we are going to meet in press conferences with other senior officials ten years from now to speak about launching a peace process.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  I’d like to just respond to that if I might, for a moment. Sorry, let me just respond to that for a moment please. I think the President said something that is very important there, that the Tenet and the Mitchell plans are valid plans in order to bring about a different security situation and end the violence. But I agree that is the first step, it is not the end of the process. What must then happen is that we resolve the actual issues that are outstanding. And I think that what he said there too, in respect of the UN resolutions and the Madrid conclusions is also important. And I hope very much there will come a point in time when Syria is able to resume negotiations also with Israel in order to get the outstanding issues between them sorted out.

So I agree with the fact that the end to violence is the context in which the key issues can be resolved. It’s not the resolution of the issues themselves. So we’ve got to end the violence and then go on to resolve those key issues. And I think that if there is agreement on that and if there is an agreement, as I say, on those two fixed points of reference – on Israel and on the Palestinian state – I think that we could start to make a great deal more progress. Sorry, sir.

QUESTION:  Mr Prime Minister, Tony Blair, many Arabs and Moslems feel a kind of frustration and oppression and injustice because of the non-implementation of Israel into the United Nations resolution and because of the double standards. Do you, Mr Prime Minister, have a plan, especially the European Union, to address this issue – this very sensitive issue — and which really is the source of tension in the region? Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  Well, first of all, I want to say this very directly to public opinion here – and we should never forget, coming from my country, that public opinion in your country may be in a different place from public opinion in Britain or Europe or the United States of America – but I hope whatever part of the world we’re in we can agree on this: what happened on 11 September cannot be excused and neither can those that carried out the 11 September attack, in which, I may say, thousands of innocent people — Christians, Jews, Moslems, people of no faith at all — died. That cannot be excused on the basis of any court and, as the President said a moment or two ago, there are always people — the extremists always want to use a cause as cover for the extremist acts that they carry out.

Now, it is also important — so I hope that condemnation is accepted by everyone and that no one should think that the people that carried out the 11 September attack represent, in any shape or form, true Arab or Moslem opinion. And that’s an important statement. But of course we understand that there is legitimate concern about the breakdown of the Middle East Peace Process and a desire to get that started again. And we understand that and what you have got to understand from us is that we know there is a serious issue here that must be resolved. And we are willing to put all our energy and ability into trying to resolve it.

Now it’s not for me to come here and issue plans and so on but it is for me to come here and say to people very clearly, “We want to try and resolve this issue. We want to get the Middle East Peace Process started again. Give us the opportunity of doing that by making sure that the conditions in which people can talk again, and of which dialogue is the way forward, can be created.” And that’s why I say to you that the violence from whatever quarter has to end. And I understand the different perspectives there will be between Syria and Britain or between Syria, obviously, and Israel. There will be fundamental differences of perspectives. But we both, in the end, know there is no alternative but to us sitting down and working out these differences, not by violence or by terrorism of whatever form but by partnership and by trying to resolve the issues constructively. And I think that can happen. And one of the reasons for us coming here – and I say this to you again, absolutely openly – it is difficult because of the history and the differences to come here, to have a press conference such as this but I happen to believe that if anything good can come out of the terrible events of the 11 September, it is an attempt to find new understanding and a new way forward to resolve the differences that we have. Now maybe we won’t be able to but let’s at least try. And let’s at least try doing so, understanding the perspective from which the other person comes. 

Okay? Yeah, I don’t mind. Yeah — I can take another one, if you want. Well, this lady here. I should say this is the generosity of the president that is allowing this! (laughter)

QUESTION:  Mr Prime Minister, I was very interested in what you said about the military action in Afghanistan. Are you now requesting, British Prime Minister, to stop the military action and would you go so far as to define it, in a way, as a form of terrorism?

PRESIDENT ASSAD (via interpreter):  We are not asking for anything and we are not a party to it in order to ask for putting an end to it but we have a perspective, we have a point of view, a general point of view about this war and about any other war. The history of Syria stretches for 6,000 years, 4,000 years before Christ, and the Assyrians were great fighters and that then since that time until no, there is a defence of Syrian territory. But there was — that Syria was never an aggressor or an occupier of any other country or killing of any innocent citizens. This is a principle, a Syrian principle. But, at the same time, we cannot accept what we see every day on television screens, killing the innocent civilians [in Afghanistan]. There are hundreds now who are dying every day. I don’t think anybody in the West accepts or agrees to that.

QUESTION:  (Several inaudible words) Mr Prime Minister, some voices in Europe after 11 September are asking for closing the frontier in the way of Arabs and Moslems. How do you see these races called and what are you doing towards them?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:  Well, as you probably know, just as Syria has some 2 million Christians, we have many, many Moslems in Britain. Millions of Moslems live in Europe and we defend, absolutely and totally, their rights to exist free from racism or stigmatising of any kind at all. There are many, many Moslems indeed, who live in the United States of America and I think what is important is that one of the common values that we should stand for in the aftermath of the 11 September is a complete rejection of all forms of racism, of religious intolerance, of discrimination against people, whatever their race or religion or creed.

Just to say, in respect of the action in Afghanistan, we understand as well the issue and opinion here about the nature of the action we take but I would just like to say this to you: the action that we take is designed, in so far as we possibly can, to minimise civilian casualties. The action that was taken on the 11 September was action designed to maximise the number of civilian casualties. So whatever the differences again of perspective there, we too want to see this action brought to an end as swiftly as possible but it can be done at any point in time that the Taliban regime and the al-Qaida network shut down the network of terror there.

PRESIDENT ASSAD (via interpreter):  We thank you very much and, as I said to Mr Prime Minister at the end of our meeting, however bloody the picture might be, we can extract some light out of it if we enjoin (?) the will (?) and the media can participate in that directly and in a helpful way, particularly in the West, so we would like the media in the West to play a very effective role in this crisis. Thank you very much.__________________________________

source:  Rifkind attacks Blair’s ‘unwise’ mission to the Middle East, Daily Telegraph, 3 November 2001

Flashback to 2003:

“[W]e have maintained the understanding that in bad days the two allies need to act shoulder-to-shoulder. Turkey has indeed been alongside the United States in nearly every major military conflict, from Korea to the Gulf War, from Bosnia to Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.  (*)

Based on an urgent U.S. request on March 19, [2003] we reapplied to the National Assembly [i.e. Turkey’s parliament] to get authorization for the opening of Turkish air space to the coalition forces led by the U.S. The Assembly approved this request on March 20, the day the war began in Iraq. Turkish airspace was made available to the coalition forces on the very next day.”[Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, My Country Is Your Faithful Ally and Friend , Wall Street Journal, 31 March 2003.Mr Erdogan’s article was published 11 days after the launch of the Anglo-American-led invasion of Iraq.]

(*)  Mr Erdogan refers to Turkey’s participation in U.S.-led wars against Korea (1950), Iraq (1991-), Bosnia (1994), Somalia (1993), Serbia (1999) and Afghanistan (2001-)

Related:

Propaganda alert:  Cameron: ‘British air strikes on Syria would be legally justified’

by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 7 September 2014

President Bashar al-Assad sworn in for a new term, addresses Syrians in milestone speech

[transcript of the inauguration speech by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad]

SANA, 17 July 2014

Flashback to 2003: “Major combat in Iraq is over, U.S. warns rogue Syria”

propaganda alert by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 16 April 2014

Flashback to 2003: President Assad: US seeks war on Iraq in order to redraw the map of Middle East

by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 20 June 2014

This excerpt was first published on WhoWhatWhy

As you watch, perhaps with alarm, while thousands of refugees from Muslim countries make their way through Europe in a seemingly endless parade, you may be wondering if some of them will end up living near you, and how this might affect your life.

If you step back and look at the bigger picture, you will see the situation in reverse: how much the dominating presence of those from the western world has affected the daily lives of people living in Muslim countries.

What the colonial powers have done in Muslim countries is well known. Less well known are the machinations of Allen Dulles and the CIA in one of these colonial powers, France.

President Charles de Gaulle Motorcade. Photo credit: Gnotype / Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Without the knowledge or consent of President John F. Kennedy, Allen Dulles orchestrated the efforts of retired French generals, rightwing French, Nazi sympathizers, and at least one White Russian, to overthrow Charles de Gaulle, who wanted to give Algeria its independence. Dulles et al feared an independent Algeria would go Communist, giving the Soviets a base in Africa.

And there was another reason to hang onto Algeria: its natural resources. According to the US Energy Information Administration, it is “the leading natural gas producer in Africa, the second-largest natural gas supplier to Europe outside of the region, and is among the top three oil producers in Africa.”

We note with great interest that the plot to bring down Charles De Gaulle — the kind of people involved, the role of Allen Dulles, the motive behind it — all bear an eerie similarity to the circumstances surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But that is another story.

As we have said earlier, Dulles’s job, simply put, was to hijack the US government to benefit the wealthy.  And in this fascinating series of excerpts from David Talbot’s new biography on Dulles, we see how his reach extended deeply into the government of France.

WhoWhatWhy Introduction by Milicent Cranor

This is the third of a three-part series of excerpts from Chapter 15 (“Contempt”) of  The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the,  Rise of the American Secret Government. HarperCollins Publishers, 2015.  Go here and here to see Parts 1 and 2. Previously, we presented excerpts from Chapter 20, and to see them, go here, here, andhere.

PURGES AND MORE PURGES

After the failed coup, de Gaulle launched a new purge of his security forces. He ousted General Paul Grossin, the powerful chief of SDECE, the French secret service, and he shut down its armed unit, the 11th Choc (Shock Battalion), which he suspected of being a breeding ground for the coup. Grossin, who was closely aligned with the CIA, had told Frank Wisner over lunch that the return of de Gaulle to power was equivalent to the Communists taking over in Paris.

The 11th Choc had grown into a dangerously unhinged killing unit, targeting representatives of the Algerian independence movement and their European supporters, even on the streets of France.

Those branded enemies of the French empire were gunned down, blown up, or poisoned by SDECE’s action arm. Aided by ex-Nazi agents of Reinhard Gehlen’s organization, the 11th Choc’s assassination campaign reached the point where “liquidations [were] an almost daily routine,” according to Philippe Thyraud de Vosjoli, a veteran SDECE agent who served as the liaison to the CIA.

Shortly after pushing out Grossin, de Gaulle also jettisoned his security adviser, Constantin Melnik, Dulles’s close ally. Late into his life, Melnik continued to insist that the CIA was always a friend to de Gaulle — which would have come as a surprise to the French president.

Writing in his 1999 memoir, Politically Incorrect, Melnik flatly declared, “I can testify that … despite suspicious yelping by Gaullist camp followers … the CIA always was a faithful ally of General de Gaulle, even of his often torturous Algerian policies.” After de Gaulle dumped Melnik, Dulles — who by then had also been fired — immediately offered to hire him for a new private intelligence agency he was planning in the Third World. But Melnik declined, instead pursuing a career in French publishing and politics.

Continuity in Washington was no longer the new president’s concern. Shaken by the traumatic events in Cuba and France, JFK was ready to remake his government.

For the rest of his ten-year presidency, which ended with his retirement from politics in 1969, de Gaulle continued to take strong counter-measures against forces he regarded as seditious threats. In 1962, he expelled CIA station chief Alfred Ulmer, a gung ho veteran of Dulles’s Cold War battlegrounds. In 1967, de Gaulle evicted NATO from France to regain “full sovereignty [over] French territory” after discovering that the military alliance was encouraging Western European secret services to interfere in France’s domestic politics.

Parade of the 13th DBLE Legionnaires through Roman ruins in Lambaesis, Algeria.
Photo credit: Richard Bareford / Wikimedia

THE DAY OF THE JACKAL

Following the Algiers putsch, de Gaulle remained an assassination target — particularly during the explosive months before and after he finally recognized Algerian independence in July 1962. The most dramatic attempt on his life was staged the next month by the OAS — an ambush made famous in the Frederick Forsyth novel and movie The Day of the Jackal.

As de Gaulle’s black Citroën sped along the Avenue de la Libération in Paris, with the president and his wife in the rear seat, a dozen OAS snipers opened fire on the vehicle. Two of the president’s motorcycle bodyguards were killed — and the bullet-riddled Citroën skidded sharply. But de Gaulle was fortunate to have a skilled and loyal security team, and his chauffeur was able to pull the car out of its spin and speed to safety, despite all four tires’ being shot out. The president and his wife, who kept their heads down throughout the fusillade, escaped unharmed.

DE GAULLE’S OWN SECRET ASSASSINS

The French president demonstrated that he was willing to fight fire with fire. According to de Vosjoli, de Gaulle loyalists in SDECE even recruited their own secret assassins — including a particularly violent group of Vietnamese exiles — who blew up cafés in Algeria frequented by enemies of de Gaulle and kidnapped, tortured, and murdered other OAS combatants deemed a threat to the president. Democracy in France in the early 1960s was sustained as the result of a vicious underground war that the old French general was willing to fight with equal ferocity.

Because of the severe security measures he took, Charles de Gaulle survived his tumultuous presidency. He died of a heart attack the year after he left office, just short of his eightieth birthday, slumping over quietly in his armchair after watching the evening news.

A SUBJECT TO AVOID

President Kennedy met with de Gaulle on his state visit to Paris at the end of May 1961, a month after the failed coup. The president and First Lady were feted at a banquet in Élysée Palace, where the old general — dazzled by Jackie — leaned down closely to hear every breathy word she spoke to him, in fluent French.

During the three-day visit, the two heads of state discussed many pressing issues, from Laos to Berlin to Cuba. But Kennedy and de Gaulle never broached the touchy subject of the coup, much less the CIA’s involvement in it. As French journalist Vincent Jauvert later observed, “Why wake up old demons who had barely fallen asleep?”

KENNEDY’S GENTLE PURGES

Kennedy knew that he would have to resume wrestling with those demons as soon as he returned home. He would have to decide how deeply to purge his own security agencies, as de Gaulle had already begun to do in France. Kennedy knew there would be steep political costs involved in taking on the CIA and Pentagon. But, as Walter Lippmann had told Schlesinger, “Kennedy will not begin to be President until he starts to break with Eisenhower.”

Continuity in Washington was no longer the new president’s concern. Shaken by the traumatic events in Cuba and France, JFK was ready to remake his government.

A few weeks after the Bay of Pigs and the foiled French coup, JFK asked Jackie to invite Dulles for drinks or tea at the White House. Charlie Wrightsman and his wife were also dropping by, and Kennedy wanted to make a point. The Florida tycoon had self-righteously told Kennedy that he was not going to be seeing his old friend Dulles during his trip to Washington — his way of snubbing the spymaster for bungling the job in Cuba.

The president was “disgusted” by Wrightsman’s disloyalty to Dulles, according to Jackie, so he went out of his way to include the disgraced CIA leader in the White House’s get-together. By now, enough time had elapsed since the disasters of April, and with Dulles on his way out, Kennedy was feeling magnanimous toward the Old Man.

“[Jack] was so loyal always to people in, you know, trouble,” the First Lady later recalled. “And he made a special effort to come back from [the Oval Office] and sit around with Jayne and Charlie Wrightsman, just to show Charlie what he thought of Allen Dulles. And, I mean, it made all the difference to Allen Dulles. I was with him about five [or ten] minutes before Jack got there. He just looked like, I don’t know, Cardinal Mindszenty on trial,” she said, referring to the Hungarian prelate who was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of treason by a Soviet-run show trial.

By mid-January 1962, the “retired” spymaster was writing an old comrade, “As you know, I am not much of a believer in either retirement or long vacations.” The house on Q Street was already on its way to becoming the seat of a government in exile. Dulles had been deposed, but his reign continued.

You know, just a shell of what he was. And Jack came and talked — put his arm around him … Well, wasn’t that nice? It was just to show Charlie Wrightsman. But it shows something about Jack. I mean, he knew [that] Dulles had obviously botched everything up. [But], you know, he had a tenderness for the man.

SLOW BURNING FURY

But “poor Allen Dulles,” as Jackie took to referring to him, was likely untouched by the president’s gesture. The CIA director’s resentment of Kennedy was growing by the day, as his fingers slowly lost their grip on power. Feeling the young man’s arm wrapped paternally around his shoulder would have chilled Dulles, not warmed him. The spymaster had served every president since Woodrow Wilson. And now, here he was, being comforted by this weak pretty boy who did not belong in the same company as the great men who preceded him. It was appalling that he, Allen Dulles, should be consoled by such a man.

Though Dulles himself kept his fury carefully concealed, his most loyal aides and political allies freely vented their feelings against the Kennedy White House on the Old Man’s behalf. Howard Hunt, who worked as the CIA’s political liaison with the volatile Cuban exile community on the Bay of Pigs, called Dulles and Bissell “scapegoats to expiate administration guilt.”

Hunt, whose anti-Communist passions equaled those of his militant Cuban compadres, was deeply moved by the way his boss comported himself during his slow fadeout at the CIA. “As a member of Dulles’s staff,” Hunt remembered, “I lunched in the Director’s mess, seeing him return from each [Taylor] Committee session more drawn and gray. But on taking his place at the head of the table, Mr. Dulles’s demeanor changed into hearty cheerfulness — a joke here, a baseball bet there, came from this remarkable man whose long career of government service had been destroyed unjustly by men who were laboring unceasingly to preserve their own public images.”

The summer following the Bay of Pigs, Prescott Bush — the CIA’s man in the Senate — and his wife, Dorothy, invited Dulles to dinner at their Washington home. The spymaster showed up with John McCone in tow — the  Republican businessman and former Atomic Energy Commission chairman Kennedy had just privately tapped as Dulles’s replacement. Bush, who was still unaware that Dulles had been officially deposed, was surprised to see McCone, “whom,” he later recalled in a letter to Clover, “we had not thought of as a particular friend of Allen’s. But Allen broke the ice promptly, and said that he wanted us to meet his successor. The announcement came the next day.”

The dinner conversation around the Bush family table that night was awkward. “We tried to make a pleasant evening of it,” Bush wrote, “but I was rather sick at heart, and angry too, for it was the Kennedy’s [sic] that brot [sic] about the fiasco. And here they were making Allen seem to be the goat, which he wasn’t and did not deserve. I have never forgiven them.”

President John F. Kennedy Presents the National Security Medal to Allen Dulles,
retiring director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Photo credit: Robert Knudsen. White House Photographs. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston

On November 28, 1961, Dulles was given his formal sendoff at the CIA, in a ceremony held at the agency’s brand new headquarters, a vast, modernist complex carved out of the woods in Langley, Virginia. It was a day of clashing emotions for Dulles.The gleaming new puzzle palace, which Dulles had commissioned, was seen by many as a monument to his long reign — but he would never occupy the director’s suite. Now some agency wits were snidely christening the Langley edifice “The Allen Dulles Memorial Mausoleum.”

President Kennedy was gracious in his farewell remarks, as he bestowed the agency’s highest honor — the National Security Medal — on Dulles. “I regard Allen Dulles as an almost unique figure in our country,” he told the crowd gathered in a sterile, fluorescent-lit theater, including a somber-faced Clover and Eleanor Dulles, and an equally stern-looking General Lemnitzer and J. Edgar Hoover, who almost certainly were wondering when they would be next to go. “I know of no man,” the president continued, “who brings a greater sense of personal commitment to his work — who has less pride in office — than he has.”

This last piece of flattery was particularly overblown, as Kennedy well knew, because there were few men in his administration brimming with as much self-admiration as Allen Dulles. The departing CIA director had made sure that invitations to his medal ceremony were sent out to a who’s who list of Fortune 500 executives, including the chiefs of General Electric, General Motors, Ford, DuPont, Coca Cola, Chase Manhattan, US Steel, Standard Oil, IBM, CBS, and Time Life. He kept copies of all the flowery farewells that poured in from the corporate world, including letters from 20th Century Fox movie mogul Spyros Skouras, and conglomerate tycoon J. Peter Grace, who wrote, “It is almost unbelievable that one family could produce two men of the caliber of yours and your late, sorely missed, brother.”

But, after the ceremony, Dulles looked a bit lost and forlorn as he waved to Kennedy’s departing helicopter from the front steps of the headquarters he would never occupy. The following day was even more melancholy for Dulles as JFK swore in McCone at the old CIA building on E Street.

Clover dropped him off at the ceremony in the family car, since Dulles was no longer entitled to a CIA limousine and driver. “Clover, I’ll be home later in a taxi,” the Old Man told his wife as he climbed out of the car. He was overheard by Lawrence “Red” White, the agency’s efficient, nuts and bolts administrator, who insisted that Dulles be driven home in an official car. Dulles made a show of protesting but accepted the kind gesture — one of the few bright spots in what colleagues described as a very dark day for the espionage legend. “His morale,” White recalled, “was pretty low on his last day as DCI [Director of Central Intelligence].”

Retired at home in Georgetown, the old spymaster’s funereal mood did not lift as Kennedy proceeded to rid his administration of remnants of the fallen Dulles dynasty. First to go were the Dulles deputies most closely associated with the Bay of Pigs, Dick Bissell and Charles Cabell.

Then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, his brother’s vigilant watchman, tracked down Eleanor Dulles, who was still working quietly on German affairs in Foggy Bottom, and had Secretary of State Rusk fire her. “I don’t want any more of the Dulles family around,” the attorney general was heard to say. Eleanor took it hard. “It was silly, I suppose,” she later remarked. “I was 66 years old, and a lot of my friends asked why I should want to go on working. Well, I had psychological and financial reasons. My job at State was a valuable thing to cling to. Besides, I had debts. I had put two children through college, and I needed a salary.”

Over at the Pentagon, JFK had already begun to purge Dulles Cold Warriors like Arleigh Burke, who was drummed out of the Navy in August. Next to go was Lemnitzer, who was replaced as Joint Chiefs chairman by Maxwell Taylor in November, the same month Dulles himself was shown the door.

Kennedy took further steps to signal that the Dulles era was over and that the CIA would no longer be allowed to run wild; he placed overseas agents under the control of US ambassadors and shifted responsibility for future paramilitary operations like the Bay of Pigs to the Pentagon. It was the Kennedy brothers, not the Dulles brothers, who now ran Washington.

IN EXILE, DULLES RULES

Dulles found it hard to adjust to life on the political sidelines. “He had a very difficult time to decompress,” said Jim Angleton, his long time acolyte. But it soon became clear that the Dulles dynasty was not entirely dismantled.

In truth, the Kennedy purge had left the ranks of Dulles loyalists at the CIA largely untouched.

James Jesus Angleton was CIA Counterintelligence Chief
from 1954 to 1975. Photo credit: Unknown

Top Dulles men like Angleton and Helms remained on the job. And the Old Man’s shadow knights never abandoned their king. They continued to call on him in Georgetown, with Angleton visiting two or three times a week. They consulted with him on agency affairs, as if he were still DCI, and not John McCone. They collaborated with him on plans for books and film projects. They continued to kneel before Allen Dulles, their banished commander, and kiss his ring. And soon, Dulles began to emerge from his gloomy refuge, ready for action.

By mid-January 1962, the “retired” spymaster was writing an old comrade, “As you know, I am not much of a believer in either retirement or long vacations.” The house on Q Street was already on its way to becoming the seat of a government in exile. Dulles had been deposed, but his reign continued.

Appel du général Challe (1961) Guerre d’Algérie.
 Video credit: Entertainment-Education WebTV / YouTube

In Part I of this essay entitled Big Pharma Dangerous Drugs and “Drug-Injured Patients, I wrote about some of the ethical concerns that I have had with the modern medical profession. Over my 40 years of practicing medicine I have experienced increasing frustration with its direction, mainly because the business of medicine has been increasingly distorting the ethics I was taught in medical school. The profession has become increasingly difficult to recognize over the 40 year span.

Big Pharma Dangerous Drugs and “Drug-Injured Patients”By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, October 29, 2015

Like many other physicians who have tried to take the Hippocratic Oath seriously (“first do no harm”), I also tried to resist the increasing corporate influences that eventually made the once-honorable practice of medicine into a crass profit-making industry. I makes me sad to report that outside forces have gradually made us physicians into computer bound high class technicians that are largely prescribers/providers of Big Pharma’s often toxic and always unaffordable drugs. In the current profit-above-all-else era, it is not even remotely possible for us physicians to be the compassionate healers of the long-gone era that I knew.

Way too often, the money-making Big Business of medicine is being controlled by institutional shareholders  (who demand increasing dividends or increasing shareholder value) whose CEOs are often amoral Masters of Business Administration graduates who are equally at home leading Wall Street banks, tobacco companies, weapons manufacturers or brothels – or big clinics or hospitals. In this era the term “business ethics” (just like “military justice”) is an oxymoron.

Fraudulent Marketing and Hiding Serious Adverse Effects

In fact, every major psycho-pharmaceutical company has been taken to court by thousands of injured and deceived patients over fraudulent marketing, fraudulent advertising and/or fraudulently hiding the serious adverse effects that the drug companies didn’t reveal to the FDA, prescribing physicians or the public.

The “chump change” multibillion dollar, usually out-of-court settlements (always with “gag rules” so that the plaintiffs couldn’t say anything about the awards) didn’t convince Lilly to take those three hugely profitable drugs off the market, nor did the FDA ban the drugs. The permanent damages done to unsuspecting patients – including many suicides and other deaths – were regarded by the drug companies and their CEOs as just another cost of doing business.

I mention this because every major psycho-pharmaceutical company has been guilty of similar legal entanglements because their synthetic drugs and neurotoxic, heavy metal-laden (mercury and aluminum) vaccines are inherently dangerous, especially when given in batches. Lilly (who also invented neurotoxic vaccine preservative Thimerosal – which was in so many vaccines during the explosion of autism that occurred in the 1990s) was the company that had done the most damage to my unaware patients’ brains and bodies, and they had gotten away with it. It was also Lilly that was the first drug company to seduce me – as a naïve med student – into falsely believing that the psycho-pharmaceutical drug industry was a force for good in the world. Be assured that Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bayer, Abbott, Sanofi Aventis, et.al. have all been as guilty of malfeasance as Lilly.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Drug Industry

I implore concerned readers to Google some of my fellow whistle-blowing medical heretics like Peter Breggin, David Healy, Russell Blaylock, Robert Whitaker, Joseph Glenmullen, Loren Mosher, Peter Gotzsche, Gary Null, Martha Rosenberg, and then, starting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I6_BkqjWN8, watch the many YouTube videos that expose some of the unwelcome truths about Big Pharma’s psych drugs. Also consider watching some of my video-interviews on YouTube by typing in ‘gary kohls’ after accessing the YouTube site. Www.cchrint.org is a valuable website that contains a number of powerful and very well-made documentaries about the dangers of psychotropic drugs.

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that most people experience when their deeply held beliefs are contradicted by new information that disproves their old beliefs. Since it is impossible for truly thinking persons to simultaneously hold two mutually exclusive beliefs, anxiety and confusion can result. I am happy to say that, given my personal and professional experiences with Big Pharma’s dangerous drugs, I had no cognitive dissonance when my patients were telling me the stories about the medications that had sickened them.

Denial, Ad Hominem Attacks, and Killing the Messenger

However, cognitive dissonance, especially in people (or doctors) that might have been brain-washed from childhood in dogmatic systems (such as religion or medical school), often causes the sufferer to go into denial concerning the new facts, or they may ignore of become hostile to the bearer of the new information. The hostile reaction against the bearer of the new information often takes the form of “ad hominem attacks”.

Attacking the messenger of a new unwelcome truth, rather than rationally dealing with the truth, is a commonly used tactic when the new information can’t be refuted using logic.

Unfair and endlessly repeated verbal attacks against whistle-blowers (including peacemakers, environmentalists, feminists, human rights/anti-racism/antiwar activists -and some physicians) often succeed in angering-up the listener-supporters of talk show host celebrities like Rush Limbaugh (whose devotees proudly call themselves “DittoHeads”). These blinded and blinkered supporters of half-truths are then distracted from hearing all sides of an important issue. So uninformed conclusions are drawn that then become rigid, unexamined doctrinal beliefs that make the believers in the false propaganda ripe for refusing to deal with the truth. Politics in America have been deeply polarized lately because of the cognitive dissonance and anti-democracy realities of mud-slinging and name-calling.

But cognitive dissonance is also rampant among America’s psychotropic drug prescribers, psychotropic drug consumers, the corporate drug-makers and the corporate-controlled media. Whenever these groups are confronted with the fact that the drugs they once trusted and profited from are not as safe or as effective as they had previously believed, they go into denial. Or as Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Big Pharma and many of their willing and eager partners in the many medical industry trade groups that profit from quick-fix drug treatments have done cunningly effective, mass media work in discrediting potentially curative, non-drug approaches like psychotherapy, psychoeducation, nutritional therapy, naturopathy, massage therapy, etc, all of which are regarded by Big Pharma as dangerous competitors that need to be crushed.

Over 90% of the drug research in America has, for decades, been designed, funded, ghost-written, published and totally controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, in whose interest it is to ensure – by hook or by crook – that its wholly-owned company researchers and company statisticians will massage the numbers enough so that they will get the FDA to approve the drug for marketing.

Mainstream medical journal editors are often beholden to the drug companies that so generously subsidize their magazines. Mainstream medical journals have large numbers of drug companies and medical device companies that advertise in them. Journal articles that promote the drugs or devices from these companies are often published, but the mainstream medical journal editors rarely allow any space for peer-reviewed articles that contradict the pro-drug reports from the companies that advertise in the journals.

The same conflicts of interest are on display at most major medical conventions and conferences. These so-called educational conferences are heavily subsidized by the drug industry. Most thinking physicians are appalled at the large numbers of pharmaceutical companies that give out free trinkets and food in order to attract physicians to their tables so that they can pitch their newest, unaffordable blockbuster drug.

I have also observed that medical meetings that are dependent on pharmaceutical company money do not invite researchers who want to present information about non-drug alternatives that go up against drug and medical industry dogma. Whistle-blowers and medical heretics are not welcome at such medical conventions. Truth-tellers rain on Big Pharma’s parade and so they are excluded.

Whatever Happened to Fully Informed Consent?

I was taught in my medical school training that before prescribing a treatment, the physician was ethically and medico-legally obliged to fully inform the patient about the potential hazards of a drug (or a surgical procedure). Then the patient was to be given an opportunity to refuse or accept the recommended prescription or procedure. Consent to surgical procedures was to be signed and the signature witnessed. Alternatives to the suggested treatment program were also to be offered.

Unfortunately, and often tragically, obtaining fully informed consent before prescribing a drug no longer seems to be the standard of care in the Big Business of modern medicine, where high productivity, high patient turnover and high income-generation for the clinic is the norm. Such “efficiencies” often short-change thoroughness and quality time that should be spent listening to the concerns of the patient. Stopping to fully discuss the potential dangers of medications is often replaced by the handing out of computer-generated lists and a coerced signature from the patient that (falsely) states that she has been fully informed of the pros and cons of the treatment. Medical malpractice lawyers assure us physicians that such short-cuts to consent hold up in court.

Most of the patients that came to me in my holistic mental health care practice, did so because they knew that they had become addicted to and simultaneously sickened by their psychiatric drugs (usually involving combinations of two or more drugs that had never been thoroughly tested for safety or efficacy – even in the animal labs).

Most of those patients had already failed in their attempts to get off their offending drugs because of the terrible withdrawal symptoms that had occurred when they had tried to cut down the dose. Withdrawal syndromes always involved totally new symptoms that hadn’t been there prior to starting the drug – no matter what the original diagnosis had been.

I saw hundreds of patients in my practice who were totally unaware that their drug could cause permanent tardive dyskinesia, dementia, brain damage, permanent drug-induced disabilities, temporary or permanent sexual dysfunction, akathisia, violence, aggression, homicidality, suicidality, Parkinsonism, depression, mania, psychotic reactions, atrophy (shrinkage) of the brain, diabetes, obesity, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, loss of IQ points, loss of memory, etc, etc, all of which they or their physicians could have read about in the pharmacy’s prescription handouts or in the PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference).

It is important to point out that the above short list of serious – even life-threatening – adverse drug effects have been documented again and again in the medical literature but likely were not mentioned by the too-busy prescribing physician. Most importantly, my patients had never been fully informed that they could become dependent on those substances and therefore could suffer serious withdrawal symptoms when trying to go stop their drug.

Obtaining fully informed consent is a time-consuming problem for modern medical practitioners, and it always has been. But, given 1) the millions of drugs that are being prescribed today just in America (many of which can cross the blood brain barrier and enter the brain), 2) the 3,600 virtually unreadable fine print pages in the PDR and 3) the enormous numbers of adverse effects from the drugs that had been ingested for weeks, months or years, the problem has to be far worse now than when I was prescribing drugs early in my career (the toxic natures of which I had also been kept unaware). Knowing what I know now, I shudder to think of the harm that my choices in prescribing did to my unsuspecting patients in decades past.

It’s an increasingly dangerous road for physicians to travel, but it is even worse for their patients. If my medical heresy has come about because of my truth-seeking and my ethical concern for patients, I accept the label gladly.

DISCLAIMER: Readers who are interested in reducing their psych drug use should consult their prescribing physician and not suddenly stop them. Stopping drugs suddenly can be more dangerous than starting them. They should consult a physician knowledgeable in neuroscience, brain nutrition and with experience in helping people safely discontinue psychiatric medications.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his family practice career. He now writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA.

For elaboration on some of the statements above, please consider reading some of his past columns archived on Global Research

Young children treated as brutally as adults. On October 19, soldiers abducted three Palestinian children from their homes pre-dawn. They’re being held uncharged for at least six months, an unprecedented move in East Jerusalem according to human rights groups.

Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) accountability program director Ayed Abu Eqtaish expressed outrage, saying:

We are deeply disturbed that Israeli authorities have approved the detention of these three boys without charge or trial. Administrative detention must never be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution where there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.

We believe this is unprecedented by Israeli authorities to put children from East Jerusalem under administrative detention. It’s part and parcel of the ideology and policies of Israeli authorities to suppress the Palestinian people who are living there.

Abducted were Fadi Hasan Abassi, Kathem Mahmound Sbaih and Mohammad Saleh Ghaith (all aged 17). They’ve undergone brutal interrogations amounting to torture – accused without formal charges lodged of stone-throwing, accusations they deny, no evidence proving them.

Automatic guilt by accusation for Palestinians suffices. The three youths are indefinitely detained. Israel can hold them interminably. if it wishes – uncharged and untried.

In 1948, a state of emergency was declared, remaining in force, authorizing arbitrary detentions of Palestinians based on secret evidence or none at all.

East Jerusalem’s Emergency Powers law permits them. Anyone Israel calls a threat to public order and security is vulnerable, no evidence required, a classic police state practice.

According to Maan News, “at least 94 administrative detention orders (were) issued against Palestinians” since October 1, 24 in East Jerusalem – a futile attempt to curb justifiable resistance. An entire generation of youths is involved, demanding freedom, accepting nothing less.

Israel denied the three youths the right to counsel during brutal interrogations, keeping them isolated from outside contacts, including family members, customary police state policy.

Every Palestinian youth and child is suspect, subject to harassment and/or arrest any time for any reason. Police claimed the three children arrested posed an “immediate and severe threat to the national security of Israel.”

DCIP’s advocacy officer Bashar Jamal said “Israel is trying to restore security, but children are losing their freedom and are being denied liberty and their human rights. It violates Israel’s international and domestic obligations.”

Children are falling victim to the situation. It’s an escalation in the violation of children’s rights. Their rights are violated on a regular basis, but there has been an escalation in October.

It’s open season on targeting them, soldiers and police involved. They’re either being injured, killed or abducted and imprisoned – uncharged, untried, on their own under horrific conditions, including denial of treatment for any wounds sustained.

Israeli Military Order 1651 permits administrative detentions of Palestinians for up to six months. Indefinite renewals may follow.

Israel flagrantly violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It prohibits depriving children of their liberty arbitrarily, longstanding Israeli practice, assuring greater resistance than already.

Jewish lives and welfare alone matter. It’s always open season on brutalizing Palestinians, especially a new generation of youths and children wanting freedom from occupation harshness.

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. 

Movements on the right and left are changing the political culture. Their impact can be seen in the Democratic and Republican primaries, but the media does not report it.

BALTIMORE — Confusion reigns in the Democratic and Republican primaries. Huffington Post political reporters write, “It’s Time To Admit: Nobody Knows Anything About The 2016 Campaign,” now that “the old ‘rules’ of presidential politics no longer seem to apply.”

Why the confusion? Media pundits have not given credit to the popular movements on both the right and left. This election cycle is showing the impact of social movements on the primary campaigns — both in the polling results and in the candidates’ rhetoric.

Tea Party and Occupy change the political culture

On the Republican side, Tea Party anger is showing itself. Republicans co-opted this movement, but its members are dissatisfied with elected Republicans and are turning to non-politicians. Why are they angry? Because the core of Washington politics continues: crony capitalism, wherein government writes the rules and doles out the cash for their big business donors.

One example of many was giving President Barack Obama fast track trade authority to negotiate deals that undermine our democracy, economy and sovereignty. Voters know that these crony capitalist trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is larger and farther-reaching than NAFTA, have been bad for the U.S. economy. Speaker John Boehner was forced to resign because of his heavy-handedness in insisting Republicans support fast track for Obama and punishing those who led opposition to it.

Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The role of corporate Democrats has been evident in the Democratic Party for a long time. The Democratic Leadership Council, founded by Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others, was successful at destroying Howard Dean, an insurgent, but definitely not a radical one. The DLC has evolved into the Third Way Democrats, whose donors are funding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will seek to ensure the defeat of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The Democratic Party needs a complete overhaul away from its pro-corporate, “Third Way” stance if it wants to be in synch with the grassroots. The Occupy movement and its offshoots — Fight for $15, Black Lives Matter, OUR Walmart, Strike Debt, and United We Dream, among others — hold views opposite from corporate Democrats.

Tea Party activists cheer during the “Exempt America from Obamacare” rally, on Capitol Hill, September 10, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Tea Party activists cheer during the “Exempt America from Obamacare” rally, on Capitol Hill, September 10, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Occupiers were never part of the Democratic Party because the Democrats are in bed with Wall Street, while Occupy saw Wall Street as a root of corruption. The Sanders campaign could not have existed without Occupy changing the corporate political culture. Clinton has had to mould her rhetoric to fit the new political reality. Again, the TPP is one example of many where the “gold standard” TPP has now become unacceptable to the former Secretary of State. Why? The movement that has developed against it is so broad that the TPP is “Toxic Political Poison.”

More revolts are coming as Washington continues on the same corrupt path.

Movements and electoral politics

Police remove activist Margaret Flowers for protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership during a Senate hearing in January. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Mass movements need an electoral arm, one that comes out of the movement with candidates who are accountable to the movement. In fact, to help achieve that, Margaret Flowers, co-director of Popular Resistance, will be taking a leave of absence as she seeks the Green Party nomination for the U.S. Senate in Maryland.

The movement needs to build an alternative to challenge the United States’ mirage elections and pro-corporate parties. U.S. elections consist of two corporate candidates running against each other. The two political parties rig the system to prevent insurgent challenges inside the duopoly and to stop third alternatives outside the duopoly.

Movements have a lot of work to do to create real democracy; basics include universal voter registration, uniform ballot access, verifiable voting systems and public funding of public elections. Much more needs to be done to create a representative democratic system that allows for minority parties to have a voice in the legislature, i.e. proportional representation, as well as a break from monopoly voting districts to protect the duopoly. We also need to build more direct democracy like voter initiatives and participatory budgeting. These are a few examples of how the U.S. badly needs to update its electoral system to catch up with world experience.

Experiences outside the US

The U.S. is the most ingrained two-party system in the world; that is not a compliment but a description of a system that does all it can to prevent alternatives to the two corporate parties.  People in the U.S. can look at Spain, Greece and even Canada to see how alternatives to the two corporate parties can advance and represent the interests of the people.

In Canada, people were astounded earlier this year to see a third party elected to lead Alberta, the oil capital of Canada. Writing for EcoWatch, David Suzuki describes how the voters gave the New Democratic Party a strong majority in response to austerity measures taken by the Conservative Party that reigned for 44 years in Alberta. The NDP is a long-time third party in Canada that was born out of the labor movement in 1961 and is credited with bringing Medicare to all Canadians. Its first leader, Tommy Douglas, remains the most popular Canadian in history. He explains the futility of two-party politics in this video.

Spain recently held local and regional elections that produced astounding results. The elections took place in 13 of Spain’s 17 regions and included more than 8,000 towns and cities. The ruling parties lost power in many major cities as smaller parties, for the first time, challenged the two dominant parties. Writing for radical online journal ROAR Magazine, Carlos Delclós reported in May:

“On Sunday, May 24, the two parties that have ruled Spain since the country’s transition to democracy in the late 1970s were dealt yet another substantial blow, this time in regional and municipal elections. Nationwide, the ruling Popular Party saw support fall from the nearly 11 million votes they received in 2011 to just under 6 million this year.”

This means that candidates from the Indignado Movement will actually govern. In Barcelona, a “prominent anti-evictions activist Ada Colau won the city’s mayoral race.” In many of the largest cities the mayor will not belong to either of the two major parties. How did these parties build their power? Delclós reported:

“. . . [T]heir roots in prominent local struggles, their independence with respect to the established parties and their willingness to spearhead bottom-up processes seeking a confluence between new or smaller parties, community organizations and political independents around a set of common objectives determined through radical democratic participation.”

The Spanish elections, like the Greek elections earlier this year, are an example of bottom-up, grassroots organizing and power-building. The roots of this success are longer than is often discussed:

“In Catalonia, the Popular Unity Candidacies of the left-wing independence movement have had a notable presence in smaller towns for several years (they also quadrupled their 2011 results on Sunday, for what it’s worth). At the southern end of the country, the Andalusian village of Marinaleda is a well-documented experiment in utopian communism that has been going on for over three decades now.”

The new electoral movement is a “municipal movement,” participants tell their story in a video that provides a “recipe” for such a movement.

People arrive to the main square of Madrid during a Podemos (We Can) party march in Madrid, Spain, Saturday, Jan. 31, 2015. Tens of thousands of people, possibly more, are marching through Madridís streets in a powerful show of strength by Spainís fledgling radical leftist party Podemos (We Can) which hopes to emulate the electoral success of Greeceís Syriza party in elections later this year. Supporters from across Spain converged onto Cibeles fountain before packing the avenue leading to Puerta del Sol square. Podemos aims to shatter the countryís predominantly two-party system and the ìMarch for Changeî gathered crowds in the same place where sit-in protests against political and financial corruption laid the partyís foundations in 2011. Andres Kudacki/AP

As we have seen with Syriza’s election in Greece, governing in a new way is no easy task. In an interview with Alexandros Orphanides for In These Times, Frances Fox Piven, a social movements scholar, discussed the complex challenges in Greece as being “not so much to do with Syriza but with the ability of a nation-state, especially of a small nation-state, and its elected political rulers to determine its own economic policy in a very interconnected and global world, in which the centers of financial power are very ominous and powerful.”

In discussing Syriza, Piven talks about the differences between movements and electoral politics:

“Anybody who is running for an election wants to win enough votes to take the seat for which she or he is campaigning. To do that, they tend to be conciliatory; they don’t want to make any enemies. They want to win just enough to get over the electoral barrier. They tend to be consensual, they tend to not want to make trouble. They want to keep everyone that voted for them last time and add the few more that they need to get over the hump.

Movements are very different. They are dynamic. How they grow, how they succeed is very different. Protest movements in particular do two things. They identify issues that politicians want to ignore, because the politicians want to paste together a coalition that can win. Movement leaders, on the other hand, want to identify the issues that can mobilize people. They don’t care about voting, because we don’t know a movement exists by the number of votes it can get—we know by how many people it can pull into the streets. So movement leaders are attracted to contentious issues that make trouble for the parties.

And movements often have a capacity for disruption, for withdrawing cooperation, for bringing things to a halt, for various kinds of strike actions. Parties don’t do that.”

And that is why many recognize the importance of continuing to build an independent movement even if movement candidates win elections. There continues to be a need to disrupt the system to pressure other forces that seek to block progress.

In Spain, a group of militants who see the declining numbers of people in the streets because of electoral progress are seeking to build new street actions. The group, Apoyo Mutuo (Mutual Aid), has doubts about the electoral path and wants to return to popular horizontalism outside of government. They see their work as parallel to Podemos, not in reaction to it but because “politics cannot be limited to the election of representatives at the ballot box every four years. We can’t delegate our responsibility; as a pueblo we need to be active agents in the decision-making process.”

The US electoral system

The U.S. is very different from Europe. Each country in Europe is the size of one state in the U.S. Countries in Europe have systems where even parties that get a minority percentage of votes can be represented in parliament. While many countries have two parties that dominate the political system, there is a greater possibility of participation.

This June an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 50 percent of Americans consider themselves independent and fewer than 30 percent align with either major party. A 2015 Gallup poll similarly found arecord high number of Americans — 43 percent — consider themselves independents, with only 30 percent considering themselves Democrats and 26 percent considering them Republicans.

The independent nature of U.S. voters is not reflected in elections, which makes it very difficult for alternatives to the duopoly to participate. At the same time, elections are funded by a shrinking group of the extremely wealthy. The U.S. is now widely recognized as an oligarchy, where big business and moneyed interests rule, and where democracy is a mirage.

There have been some recent examples at the local level where people from outside of the duopoly have won elections. Most notable is Kshama Sawant, the Seattle City Council member, who Chris Hedges describes asthe “most dangerous woman in America.” Sawant ran with Socialist Alternative, winning 93,000 votes in a citywide race. Sawant came out of the Occupy Movement, fought housing foreclosures and made the Fight for $15 her signature issue. Sawant is up for re-election on Nov. 3 this year; she won the first round of voting in August with 52 percent.

In 2013, Ohio showed a break between the Democrats and labor. Two dozen city councilors were elected on an“Independent Labor” ticket. Lorain County AFL-CIO President Harry Williamson explained: “When the leaders of the [Democratic] Party just took us for granted and tried to roll over the rights of working people here, we had to stand up.”

In 2007, Richmond, California, elected a Green mayor, Gayle McLaughlin, with Greens, independents and progressive Democrats controlling the City Council through the Richmond Progressive Alliance. Big Oil failed in its attempts to defeat them in last year’s elections.

The confusion of the Bernie Sanders campaign

Bernie Sanders, a lifelong independent, is running for president in the Democratic primaries and pledging to support whomever the Democrats nominate if he is not elected. He has entered a rigged Democratic primary system that has successfully blocked insurgent candidates in every election in the last 35 years. The rigging begins with super delegates who make up 20 percent of the delegates needed for nomination, it includes the frontloading of primaries so there are 23 states voting in March requiring hundreds of millions of dollars. And this year they limited debates to only six, when in 2008 there were more than two dozen. This is all designed to stack the primary in favor of establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, speak during the CNN Democratic presidential debate Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Howie Hawkins, the recent New York Green Party gubernatorial candidate, writes in “Bernie Sanders is No Eugene Debs” that Debs, the five-time Socialist Party presidential candidate between 1900 and 1920, understood that it is essential for a movement to have its own political vehicle as a matter of principle. Hawkins recognizes that Sanders is good on most domestic issues (not as good on foreign policy) but:

“… [H]is positions on the issues is secondary to the question of whether his politics are helping the working class act for itself or subsume itself under the big business interests in charge of the Democratic Party. By entering the Democratic primaries with the promise of supporting Clinton as the lesser evil to the Republicans, Sanders is not helping the working class to organize, speak and act for itself.”

Sanders has called for a revolution against the billionaire class, but accomplishing that inside a political party owned by Wall Street and other big business interests is an absurdity.

While Sanders is misleading people to stay inside the Democratic Party, he is doing useful education on domestic economic issues. This is valuable to the movement’s task of building national consensus. But, when Sanders loses, which is a near certainty in the rigged Democratic Party primaries, people need to understand the problem is not his positions on the economy but the corruption of the Democratic Party. People need to flee the party and support a third-party alternative like Jill Stein, who is likely to be the strongest third-party candidate in 2016. This is not a wasted vote — though the media will try to convince people that it is. It is voting for what you want and help building an alternative to the corporate duopoly.

How independent movements and third parties have won transformational change

In his article, Howie Hawkins points out that from the 1840s to the 1930s there was a series of independent parties tied to movements to end slavery, secure voting rights for women, allow the development of unions, empower workers, and break up monopolies. The combination of an independent movement and independent electoral politics built power. In 1936, the unions decided to work within the Democratic Party, undermining both independent politics and the union movement.

Ralph Nader in his campaign vehicle during his 2008 presidential bid. (AP/Lisa Poole)

The Nader campaigns of 2000, 2004 and 2008 raised the banner of the “Tweedledum” and “Tweedledee” nature of the two parties. Now the American public is catching on, with a majority being independent of the corporate duopoly. The combination of an independent mass movement and independent electoral politics is once again on the horizon. We already see the movement creating confusion in the duopoly; if the movement continues to grow, an independent electoral movement will follow to accomplish the task of the era – end corporate rule and bring economic, racial and environmental justice.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance, @PopResistance.

The following resolution was passed by the National Lawyers Guild unanimously at its 78th convention, in Oakland, California, on October 24, 2015, reiterating its call to fully end the blockade on Cuba and also demanding an end to the IRS proceedings against the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO) and other threats against organizations and people working to end the blockade on Cuba.

Full text below and online at IFCO’s website

Urgent call for US administration to cease impending punitive actions and to instead act consistently for normalized relations with Cuba

The NLG welcomes the recently announced policy of the US government to normalize relations with Cuba, pursuant to simultaneous to declarations by President Barack Obama and Raul Castro. This includes mutual openings of embassies and full diplomatic recognition, the release of the Cuban five and other prisoners, and the subsequent removal of Cuba from the unilaterally maintained US list of nations that supposedly support terrorism.

Despite this, the US economic blockade of Cuba still continues. While full repeal of the statutory authority for these economic sanctions can only be done by Congress, the Obama administration has so far not used its expansive authority to allow Cuba to sell to the US, or to generally allow US suppliers to sell or provide goods and services to Cuban entities, including urban and rural cooperatives. We call for an immediate end to these restrictions, by both administrative and legislative
action.

We also call on all levels of the administration to act consistently with the announced policy of President Obama, and accordingly to cease all obstructive and punitive actions, specifically:

1) The Internal Revenue Service should cease all attempts and proceedings to revoke the 501(c)3 non-profit status of IFCO, the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, based on its long history of using civil disobedience to challenge US restrictions on travel to and trade with Cuba;

2) the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) should cease all impending threats and prosecutions of US persons based on their previous travel to Cuba, including the threatened re-institution of “trials for travel” in Washington DC; and

3) the US State Department should immediately cease its continuing practice of unreasonably withholding or delaying issuance of non-immigrant visas to mainstream Cubans invited to visit the US by academic and professional organizations including the NLG and for this convention.

Implementation will be done by the NLG Cuba subcommittee, which will forward copies of this resolution and background information to all chapters and relevant committees, requesting supportive action on their part.