Global Research

Note: This article was originally published in January 2015.

The statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 22 December 2014:  “If the Russian side needs it, we will provide necessary assistance within our capacity” – is a clear testimony that Russia and China have entered into an economic alliance which will be stronger than the incessant ruble and petrol devaluation manipulations by Washington, aided by the European puppets. 

China, leading member of the BRICS, is lining up the bloc of the BRICS and that of the SCO – and their currencies – to support Russia in need. Currency swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) members – including the soon to become new members – Iran, Pakistan, India (also a BRICS member) and Mongolia – and possibly in some not too distant future also strategically located NATO member Turkey.

In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons will as of immediately no longer be traded in US (petro) dollars, but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies. This will reduce worldwide demand for the petro dollar.

The US is able to maintain pressure on other currencies, currently the ruble, only as long as the petro dollar remains the major world reserve currency. This is the main reason why Washington gets away with a seven-fold indebted dollar (i.e. total outstanding and uncovered commitments are currently more than 7 times higher than the US GDP (US$ 17.6 trillion, 2014 est. – vs. US$ 128 trillion of unmet obligations); making the US worldwide the most indebted country – by far.

Once the demand for the (petro) dollar fades – as hydrocarbons are no longer dealt in dollars – the value of the dollar will decline and at worst may result in hyperinflation in the dollar economies, including those closely linked to the US economy.

In the meantime, Russia has nothing to fear, since the ruble is really not traded anywhere, except sold by western central banks to go along with Washington’s criminal scheme of attempting to destroy the Russian economy by flooding an imaginary ‘market’ with the Russian currency – which they will not achieve.

The Russian central bank is basically not interfering. Why? – Because Russia eventually will need rubles for its new trading alliance – and will buy the rubles back from the flooded market at rock-bottom prices, for artificially boosted dollars and euros and other western linked currencies. In a future Russia-China based monetary system these currencies would at least initially be of secondary or tertiary importance.

Letting the ruble ‘collapse’ is a superb strategy by the Maestro Chess player, Vladimir Putin. Western investors in Russian shares, mainly but not exclusively of hydrocarbon corporations, dropped also. Western investors became afraid and released their shares on the market – Russia’s treasury bought them back at low market prices, increasing their value instantly and – and on top of it Russia reaped the dividends of the newly Russian owned shares. According to a Spiegel Online article, Russia made at least 20 billion dollars’ worth of profit with this little gambit alone, plus she repatriated about 30% of foreign-held Russian petroleum shares.

Russia has foreign exchange reserves of close to half a trillion dollars equivalent, more than two times the rubles in circulation. Russia’s economy shows a pristine balance sheet with only about 15% debt to GDP, whereas the EU’s debt-GDP ratio is close to 100%.

Here comes the link to the US-Saudi manipulated oil price. It just fell to below US$ 50 / barrel, less than half of what it was in June 2014 (US$ 105 – WTI Crude). This criminal act of attempting to destroy sovereign nations’ economies is foremost directed at Russia, but is also meant to ‘punishes’ other non-aligned oil producers, like Venezuela and Iran. ‘Aligned’ oil producers’ suffering might be written off by the empire as collateral damage.

But not only. That’s perhaps where Obama miscalculated by shooting his own foot. At these prices domestic unemployment will soar especially in petrol producing states, like Texas and North Dakota. Hardest hit will be Texas. Last week, JPMorgan Chief Economist Michael Feroli, predicted, “We think Texas will, at the least, have a rough 2015 ahead, and is at risk of slipping into a regional recession.”

According to Zero Hedge, the US hydrocarbon industry and its nationwide ramification produce almost US$ 1.2 trillion of GDP (7%) and generates more than 9.3 million well-paying permanent jobs throughout the nation. Most affected by the free fall of petrol prices will be the higher cost shale production – the new source that gave the impetus to the oil renaissance 5 years ago. Texas and North Dakota will be the main losers, in terms of job losses and recession. But repercussions will be felt countrywide, as almost all industries are linked to hydrocarbon energy.

Obama may feel that the hike in unemployment may be a small collateral price to pay for ruining other economies around the world. Besides, overall the US economy may profit from lower prices – letting the rich get richer and the poor – well, we know that.

However, there is another element that Obama’s and his cronies’ shortsightedness did not foresee. The petro-dollar is highly dependent on trading hydrocarbons in dollars – following the 40-year old agreement with the Saudis as head of OPEC in turn for US military security and protection. This alone, the constant demand for US dollars by all nations who needed to trade hydrocarbons, propelled the dollar into a ‘permanent’ reserve currency – allowing Washington to print dollars at will and to become a financial hegemon.

No longer. These times are gone. Washington’s evil attempt to destroy all those who ‘are not with us’, catalyzed the transition. More than a year ago, Russia started selling her hydrocarbons in rubles and local currencies of her trading partners, like China and other BRICS countries. Today Russia is selling her hydrocarbon in gold – yes, in physical gold. The west did not count with the quick analytical thinking of Mr. Putin’s. He will accept artificially inflated dollars and then immediately exchange them for gold, thereby increasing Russia’s gold reserves dramatically. Already today, the ruble is backed by gold – a reality the west with its casino currencies is quiet about.

By artificially boosting the value of the dollar against the Euro and lowering the price of gold, the FED and its Wall Street mobsters intend to make the dollar more attractive, say, as the euro which, after all its MSM propagated economic mediocrity, is backed by a much more solid and stable economy than is that of the United States; especially in view of its huge potential to be able to deal with the east – Russia and the Xi Jinping’s announced new economic Silk Road, all the way from Frankfurt to Shanghai. – But this would be Europe’s call; a sovereign call by a sovereign union and by new leaders with backbone and common sense.

This is still an open decision. Although, it looks like – or should logically appear – that Europe is waking up. Even the most stubborn stooges of Washington are gradually seeing the light. Hungary and Poland, historically not great friends of Russia, are wondering whether they might not be better off with the east, rather than licking Obama’s boots. German business is angry about Merkel’s obsessiveness with Washington imposed ‘sanctions’. They see Russia as the trading partner of the future, as it has been until Washington didn’t succeed in Ukraine – today an almost hopeless but still murderous basket case – and wanted to crush Vladimir Putin and his country. Even the spine and brainless Hollande is responding to France’s business – ‘sanctions’ – enough is enough.

Where does that leave Washington? – One move away from checkmate. Washington’s criminal attempt to destroy Russia’s economy has been largely irrelevant and self-destructive. In the meantime and as Russia’s gold reserves increase, Russia has established an alternative SWIFT system. It is currently being tested internally but could go global within a few months – so that any country wanting to avoid the corrupt dollar casino scheme could use the new system for international monetary exchanges.

That combined with ever more countries willing and daring to trade their hydrocarbons in their own currencies or currencies other than the dollar, will further lower demand on the petro-dollar. In addition, under their economic alliance, Russia and China may soon launch a new currency, a basket of currencies that could be joined by other nations ready and willing to abandon the fraudulent western fiat scheme. Immediate candidates would be the other BRICS and the countries of the SCO.

The system could function in the same way as did the Euro at the beginning – as a basket of currencies each valued according to some key indicators of its national economy. – Initially the new monetary system might be gold based – as opposed to the current fiat money with no backing whatsoever. In the long run, however, gold is not a stable or sustainable back-up for any currency. The intrinsic value of gold is only its industrial worth, currently less than 20% of its use. The combined economic output of the nations behind the joint currency – to a lesser degree the numerical growth oriented GDP, but rather social indicators such as public health, standard of education and environmental concerns, capacity of conflict resolution, of living in peace and harmony – might be more indicative of the strength of a sovereign’s currency than just gold or a straight GDP.

Such a new monetary system may soon cover 25% to one third of the world economy, thereby becoming fully autonomous. The petro-dollar would further lose its stature as world reserve. Ten years ago 90% of world reserves consisted of dollar-nominated securities. Today that ratio has shrunk to a mere 60%, as currencies like the Yuan is rapidly gaining ground as reserve money, especially in Asia. Even Australia has recently declared it will increase its Yuan holding.

The drop of the dollar as the world’s major reserve currency is Washington’s biggest nightmare, and has been for the last 15-20 years, when first Iran and then Iraq (Iraq’s oil for food program) and Venezuela threatened to sell their hydrocarbon in Euros. At that time this economically strategic move was not so much meant as an affront to the US, but rather a measure of security for their own economies, as worldwide trust in the US dollar was waning then and now.

This is considered one of the major reasons for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – securing the petro dollar as trading currency – and the ensuing war, to take over all of Iraq’s hydrocarbon wells – and privatize them. It was also the key reason for Washington’s false flag accusation of Iran’s plans for manufacturing nuclear weapons. In the meantime this has been proven umpteen times as a lie, including by the 16 major US intelligent agencies.

Washington’s relentless aggression on Russia is of course part of the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), to achieve full world hegemony, but at the same time Washington is desperate not to lose its dollar supremacy. The US is in a terminal quagmire. There is no way out. Washington is acting like a wild beast in its last throbs of live. The empire may be capable of destroying the world – including itself – just so that nobody may survive outside of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe.

The emergence of a new ‘eastern’, dollar detached monetary scheme is therefore becoming increasingly urgent. One might ask, why hasn’t it happened before?

The reasons’ might be manifold. The key players’ – Russia and China – banking and exchange infrastructure might not have been ready. But more likely, to reduce to the extent possible the collateral economic damage a new monetary system may entail to the rest of the world. After all, fair trading among sovereign nations is a noble objective for global peace.

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, the Voice of Russia / Ria Novosti, 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.

On Friday, Sputnik News, RT International, the Jordan Times and Reuters said Russian and Jordanian officials agreed to establish a “special working mechanism” to share information on counterterrorism operations in Syria.

“Under an agreement between His Majesty King Abdullah II and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, the militaries of the two countries have agreed to coordinate their actions, including military aircraft missions over the Syrian territory,” Sergey Lavrov explained. He urged other nations to join their coalition against a common enemy.

Jordan’s communications minister Mohammad Momani said “military cooperation…between (both countries) concerns southern Syria and aims to ensure security of the Kingdom’s northern frontier.”

“Jordan remains an active member of the international coalition fighting the Da’esh terror group.” Coordination between both countries isn’t new, he added. It’s been developing for some time at all levels.

Reuters said “Moscow’s deal with Jordan could mark a shift in the alliances engaged in the Syria conflict.” Jordan’s ambassador to Moscow Aiad al-Majali said establishing a “special working mechanism” to share information on Syrian operations increases military cooperation between both countries to an unprecedented level.

“It will not be just in a format of informations exchange,” he explained. “(W)e see a necessity ‘to be on the ground’ as Jordan has a border with Syria.”

“(W)hen it comes to combating terrorism, we have to” increase Amman/Moscow cooperation. Discussions have been ongoing for some time. How this affects US regional operations remains to be seen.

Jordan is a longtime US ally, an Israeli one since their October 1994 peace treaty, both countries at the time pledging neither would let its territory be used as a staging ground for military attacks by a third country, a promise broken practically before the ink was dry.

Washington works with both countries to advance its imperium, freely using their territory. Is Jordan now shifting alliances?

It lets CIA and Pentagon operatives along with British and French instructors train ISIS fighters covertly at a secret military location, sending them across its porous 375 km border with Syria to fight Assad’s government.

Jordan’s apparent willingness to join Russia’s campaign likely reflects concern about extremist elements biting the hand that’s been feeding them.

Their ambitions go way beyond Syria and Iraq. They may have Jordan and Lebanon in mind next with other countries to follow if they’re not stopped.

Putin’s main concern is their presence in Afghanistan, likely intending to expand to Central Asia, especially Russia.

Russian intelligence estimates around 3,500 militants in Afghanistan, their numbers increasing – US, UK, Arab and Pakistani instructors training them.

Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate chief Col. Gen. Igor Sergun said ISIS elements see Afghanistan as a rich recruiting ground, a foothold for expanding into Central Asia – why Putin believes it’s urgent to defeat them in their current strongholds.

Does Jordan now share the same view? Another body blow to Washington’s hegemonic agenda if so.

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.

Russia held the Presidency of the UN Security Council for the month of September.

On September 30, the Ministerial level UN Security Council meeting was entitled: Maintenance of International Peace and Security. Settlement of Conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and Countering the Terrorist Threat in the Region. With stunning intellectual force, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov began the debate, stating:

The euphoria that engulfed many following the Arab Spring changed to horror with the spread of chaos, the escalation of violence, the shadow of religious warfare looming over the region and, of course, the unprecedented terrorist threat. The heinous activities of the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaida in Iraq, Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, the Yemeni branch of Al-Qaida, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Boko Haram and other groups have faded in the light of the expansion of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Across the territories of Iraq and Syria, ISIL has created an extremist quasi-State on the ground that possesses a vast repressive apparatus, stable sources of income, a well-equipped army and elements of weapons of mass destruction.

ISIL cells are flourishing in Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Its announced plans include the capture of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem and the spread of its evil activities to Europe, Central and South-East Asia, and Russia. These terrorists carry out mass killings and public executions, and threaten the very existence of various ethno-religious groups, including Christians, Kurds and Alawites. ISIL has a professional propaganda machine active in dozens of languages……Unless we learn the lessons to be drawn from the reckless, mistaken adventures undertaken over the past 10 or 12 years, we will not be successful…Russia’s multi-ethnic and multireligious character gives us unique experience when it comes to peaceful coexistence among different ethnic groups and religious communities.

Next, Wang Yi, China’s brilliant Foreign Minister, captured in a single image, and with heartrending immediacy, the intolerable human dimension of this crisis, stating: “Wars and Conflicts, humanitarian disasters and terrorist threats are interlinked. The image of the drowned 3-year old Syrian boy is an affront to human morality and strikes at the conscience of the international community…In the twenty-first century, the coexistence of civilizations requires the spirit of harmony without imposed uniformity…..People need a Middle East of self-advancement. The Middle East is the home of all the peoples in that region. Therefore, its future and destiny should be determined by those same countries, through consultation. Countries outside of the region may provide help but should avoid interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and – even more importantly – avoid imposing a specific model on them.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Mrs. Rodriguez Gomez boldly declared:

We should also be talking about the social and economic model that breeds poverty and misery….what has the Arab Spring done for these peoples? Has it brought them greater happiness and more democrary? Because what we are hearing today we have heard before, all in the name of democracy, freedom and the people’s welfare. The unilateral, imperialistic interventions we have witnessed have bypassed this Organization, contravened the Charter and made people less equal and more unhappy. What has been the result in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan? The destruction of sovereign States. And now what do we want to do for Syria? The same thing? Can it be that the terrible photograph of a little Syrian boy on a seashore does not affect us or touch our souls and our hearts?

How many more children must we see die? We have heard all of this before. I must say it frankly to the world, all of those imperialist wars have been preceded by media wars and lies. It was lies that led to the interventions by those countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and 10 years later, they say that yes, it was a lie, but we made mistakes and we have learned a lesson. But what we see is that no lessons have been learned…..Today in Syria, there are more than 500 terrorist groups. Who is funding them? We need an answer to that question. Who is training them and giving them logistical support? What we see are the vicious cycles of imperialism. They are the cycles that first destroy nations and States and then create a space where terrorist groups can proliferate….There should be no excuses about how we do not like a particular leader. The Arab spring has already showed us what can happen then. We must stop choosing that false and immoral course of action. If we truly want a safer and less violent world, we must fight the causes of terrorism and not its consequences, which is a pretext to intervene in other countries and trample on the Charter of the United Nations.

US Secretary of State John Kerry unsurprisingly did not address the socio-economic root causes that breed terrorism, and evidently, having learned nothing from the disastrous consequences of regime change in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, called for regime change in Syria as the solution to the problem of terrorism in the region. He stated:

“Pursuant to those procedures in Syria over the past year, the coalition has now conducted nearly 3,000 airstrikes against ISIL targets, and we are now in position, with France, Australia, Canada, Turkey and other coalition partners joining the campaign, to dramatically accelerate our efforts. That is what we will do…One thing is certain: the vast majority of States represented around this table know that the ISIL forces and ISIL itself cannot be defeated as long as Bashar Al-Assad remains president of Syria. It cannot happen by definition of the lines of this battle. It cannot happen because of who has lined up with whom and because of the nature of these protagonists…Al-Assad will never be accepted by those whom he has harmed; it will never be possible for him to become a legitimate leader in future or to lead a reconciliation or unification of the country. That cannot happen until he makes clear his willingness to actually heal the nation, end the war and decline to be part of the long-term future.”

The primary goal of US-NATO policy from the inception of this crisis in Syria, 5 years ago, has been regime change, the destruction of the secular government of President Assad, which had guaranteed women’s empowerment, a goal that US-NATO claims to defend, along with other social safety nets. Failing to obtain UN Security Council authorization for military action against Assad, following three Chapter VII resolutions that were vetoed three times by both Russia and China, US-NATO initially resorted to unilateral covert action, relentlessly escalating the crisis by arming so-called “moderate” rebel groups.

On October 13, The New York Times reported:

“The American-made TOW anti-tank missiles began arriving in the region in 2013, through a covert program run by the United States, Saudi Arabia and other allies to help certain CIA-vetted insurgent groups battle the Syrian government. The weapons are delivered to the field by American allies, but the United States approves their destination. The CIA program that delivered the TOWS (an acronym for tube-launched, optically-tracked wire-guided missiles) is separate from and significantly larger than the failed $500,000,000 Pentagon program that was cancelled last week after it trained only a handful of fighters. Rebel c ommanders scoffed when asked about reports of the delivery of 500 TOWs from Saudi Arabia, saying it was an insignificant number compared with what is available. Saudi Arabia in 2013 ordered more than 13,000 of them. Given that American weapons contracts require disclosure of the “end user,” insurgents said they were being delivered with Washington’s approval. One official with a rebel group that is fighting in Hama called the weapons supply “carte blanche.” ‘We can get as much as we need and whenever we need them.’”

As the conflict escalated, incubating ISIS, US-NATO forces underwent multiple contortions in an effort to legitimize their incitement of civil war in Syria, a war intended to result in the destruction of the government of President Assad.

On August 22, 2014 the New York Times headline announced:

U.S. General Says Raiding Syria is Key to Halting Isis: Airstrikes in Iraq are seen as inadequate to defeat a Foe that Crosses Borders.” On August 29, 2014 the New York Times headline announces: “Asking Congress to Back ISIS Strikes in Syria is Tricky for Obama,” and, with a classic Orwellian distortion, on September 24, the New York Times headlines announces: “U.S. Invokes Defense of Iraq in Legal justification of Syria Strikes.’ The article continues the contorted Orwellian attempt at justification, alleging that the American-led airstrikes against the Islamic State – carried out in Syria without seeking the permission of the Syrian government, or the United Nations Security Council – were legal because they were done ‘in defense of Iraq.’ The September 24 article continues: “International law generally prohibits using force on the sovereign territory of another country without its permission or authorization from the United Nations, except as a matter of self-defense. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Islamic State poses no immediate threat to the United States.

One year later, and 3,000 US-Coalition airstrikes later, ostensibly against ISIL targets in Syria, and ISIS is thriving, and spreading, as described on October 14, 2015: “Chaos Swells for Afghan Civilians as ISIS Branch Makes Inroads Against Taliban.’ The New York Times reports: ‘The Islamic State has made major inroads in turf battles against Taliban commanders, particularly in places in Nangarhar province like the Maamand Valley. And the result, rather than weakening the overall insurgency, has mostly been to inflict more chaos and misery for Afghan civilians…But one big difference soon became obvious: the fighters were suddenly flush with cash’”

In his September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Russian President Putin declared:

Suffice it to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. Certainly, political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time. And people there wished for changes. But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a flagrant destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress we got violence, poverty and social disaster. And nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life

I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: do you realize now what you have done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit, and belief in one’s excptionality and impunity have never been abandoned. It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa led to emergence of anarchy areas. Those immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called ‘Islamic State.’ Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

‘And now the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries . First they are armed and trained, and then they defect to the Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.’ ‘We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but ‘fire-hazardous.’ This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions. Especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries. Unfortunately, Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who have already felt the smell of blood, to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he? Russia has always been firm and consistent in opposing terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria that are fighting terrorist groups. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its Armed Forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face-to-face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s Armed Forces and Kurd Militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.’

More than one year and 3,000 US-Coalition airstrikes later, the US-Coalition forces have failed to defeat or even weaken ISIS, which now raises legitimate questions about US-Coalition ineptitude, or worse, the sinister possibility of its collusion with ISIS. As the scourge of ISIS has metastasized, Russia has suddenly increased its military support of Syrian President Assad’s struggle against ISIS, very much to the shock and dismay of US-Coalition forces. With breathtaking effrontery, on October 1, USA Today headlined:

“U.S. Rebukes Russian Strike: Russia launched its first airstrike in Syria on Wednesday after its military buildup in the embattled country, drawing a sharp rebuke from the United States and raising tensions further in the region. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter called Russian policy in Syria ‘ill-advised,’ and said it was ‘doomed to fail.’”

In view of the failure of 3,000 US-Coalition airstrikes to curtail the spread of ISIS, Carter’s own remarks would appear to be ‘ill-advised.’ That same day, The New York Times reported: “Russian aircraft carried out a bombing attack against Syrian opposition fighters on Wednesday, including at least one group trained by the CIA, eliciting angry protests from American officials….Russia’s entry into the Syrian conflict, foreshadowed by a rapid military buildup in the past three weeks at an airbase in Latakia, Syria, makes the possibility of a political settlement in Syria more difficult.”

The Russian participation, in response to the failed US-Coalition attempt to defeat ISIS, should have been welcomed with enthusiasm, if the US-Coalition goal was to defeat ISIS. An alliance of forces would have been recognized as a desperately needed strengthening of any genuine counter-terrorism effort. But, taken by surprise, and off-guard, the US-Coalition’s alarmed response exposed the fact that counter-terrorism is not their goal, or their agenda. Their purpose is regime change, and the destruction of the existing government infrastructure of Syria, reducing Syria to the dangerously chaotic rubble that regime change has already caused in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

The reality of the US-Russia proxy war in Syria is inescapable. A NATO encircled Russia is striking back in defense of its base in Syria. And the cold war paranoia about resurgent Russian militarism is being resurrected to reinvigorate NATO. On October 15, The New York Times stated: “In a report this month for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Gustav Gressel argued that Mr. Putin had overseen the most rapid transformation of the country’s armed forces since the 1930’s. ‘Russia is now a military power that could overwhelm any of its neighbors, if they were isolated from Western support, wrote Mr. Gressel, a former officer of the Austrian military.”

This paranoia will guarantee the astronomical profits of the military-industrial complex, while driving the world to the boiling point of possible nuclear war in Ukraine, Syria, and now other regions.

Western think tanks have been working relentlessly to try and counter Russia’s geopolitical masterstroke in Syria, which has clearly taken most strategists in the West by complete surprise. Reading through the analysis by these think tanks on Russia’s role in Syria, one is starkly reminded of how immoral Western foreign policy actually is, when you remember that these organisations are freaking out because Russia is bombing terrorists! Obviously, the reason why they are so distraught is because Russia is bombing the West’s terrorists, which they have been using as proxy armies to try and force regime change in Damascus (a strategy that has completely failed).

Potential countermeasures are the subject of a recent article for the Brookings Institution written by Pavel K. Baev, a nonresident senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings, titled: Russia’s Syrian entanglement: Can the West sit back and watch? Baev suggests that “the decision to withdraw the batteries of Patriot surface-to-air missiles [from Turkey] must be cancelled”,before arguing that the US and its allies could bomb “Hezbollah bands around Damascus”:

Finally, the United States and its allies could deliver a series of airstrikes on the Hezbollah bands around Damascus. That would be less confrontational vis-à-vis Russia than hitting Assad’s forces. Hezbollah has already suffered losses in the Syrian war and is not particularly motivated to stand with Assad to the bitter end, away from [its] own home-ground in Lebanon. (Israel would appreciate such punishment, too.)

Striking Hezbollah may not have the desired effect Baev seems to envisage however, as this belligerent action is as likely to galvanize the group and ensure it will fight “to the bitter end” with the Syrian army, than encourage it to scale back its involvement in Syria. Airstrikes on Hezbollah could also potentially provoke a response against the perpetrators of the violence, further escalating a conflict that already involves a plethora of regional and international powers. Furthermore, many people would consider an attack on Hezbollah to be essentially an attack on Iran, as the Lebanese based group is funded by Tehran and closely aligned with the country.

Brookings recommendations once again highlight the fact that large sections of the US establishment have absolutely no focus on defeating ISIS in the region, as Brookings is advocating bombing a major group that has been fighting ISIS for years now. Rather, many within the US are still focused on toppling the regime in Damascus (which is never going to happen) in addition to weakening the forces that are battling ISIS. If the West was serious about defeating ISIS, they would support and cooperate with the forces that are truly fighting against this new so-called caliphate.

TTIP is an Geoeconomic Tool against Russia

 Western strategists are terrified of Europe moving closer to the East, and an EU-Russian (especially a German-Russian) alliance arising. Merging Russia and the EU in the future is an objective of some US strategists, but Washington only desires this if both Russia and the EU are completely subservient to US dictates. Today however, Russia is a sovereign, independent nation which is not controlled by the US, and some within the EU are increasingly tiring of being vassals of Washington. This means closer relations between Russia and the EU is a geopolitical disaster for the US at the present moment, as Washington’s power will be severely diminished if this tectonic shift occurs.

By understanding this reality, it is now obvious how essential the trade deal between the US and the EU – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – is to US geostrategy. As well as being a corporate fascist deal that empowers multi-national corporations at the expense of citizens, TTIP is a geoeconomic weapon against Russia to cement the transatlantic alliance between the US and the EU.

Ensuring TTIP passes was a recommendation of another Western organisation that has been working on potential counter strategies to Russia, namely the Washington-based Atlantic Council (AC). In a testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington on October 8, 2015, Gen James L. Jones, Jr., the Chairman of the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security and a former National Security Advisor, Jones emphasises the importance of TTIP “successfully concluding” for the West:

Energy security is instrumental for transatlantic growth, prosperity, and security. The same can be said of successfully concluding TTIP. Europe and the US have the largest trading partnership in the world. Strengthening it serves our mutual interests and reaffirms the centrality of the transatlantic alliance in the 21st century. TTIP also affords the U.S. a unique opportunity to author the rulebook and roadmap for 21st century advanced economies.

Jones other recommendations include working to diversify the EU’s energy supply to “undermine Putin’s use of energy as a political weapon”, continuing to impose sanctions on Moscow, in addition to admitting Montenegro into NATO next year and working to pull Macedonia into the military alliance. The retired General also asserts that the US should provide the government in Kiev with “anti-tank missiles, intelligence support, training and counter-electronic warfare capabilities”.

Russia of course is well aware of the importance of TTIP to Washington’s long-term agenda. In Vladimir Putin’s speech at the United Nations at the end of September, Putin appeared to confront some of the US-led trade deals which we have seen being negotiated in recent years, most probably referring to TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (from 18.45 into the speech):

I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries have chosen to create closed and exclusion economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes in secret from those countries own citizens, the general public [and] the business community. Other states whose interests may be effected are not informed of anything either. It seems we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favour of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could imbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space. These issues affect the interests of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole.

For a multitude of reasons, defeating TTIP would be a colossal achievement for the world. Many European’s are diametrically opposed to this deal, with hundreds of thousands protesting TTIP in Germany a recent illustration of this sentiment. Stop TTIP!

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The main strategic result of the ongoing Russian military operation in Syria is loss of the US monopoly on the recourse to force. Now, the US is lossing the leadership in the Middle East region. The success of the alternative anti-ISIS coalition will mean that the US could lose the leadership in a great part of the world, in Eurasia.

The US is pushed to answer on this challenge through political, military and media means. This is why Washington is preparing a military operation of Peshmerga and People’s Protection Units (YPG) to take control of Raqqa. The US military will coordinate this offensive and provide air support.

It’s important that Turkey is supporting this plan. Earlier, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence noted that the Turkey’s attitude against Kurds could conduct tensions between Washington and Ankara. Now, it seems that Erdogan has decided to support the US because of security threats conducted by the fail of pro-terrorist policy in Syria. On Octoober 7, six people linked to ISIS were arrested on charges of illegally minting coins in the Turkish province of Gaziantep. Also, Turkey has reportedly reduced an oil traide with ISIS.

Two blasts at the venue for a peace rally in Ankara on October 10 shown that Erdogan can’t defend even the Turkish capital and ISIS militants decided that they had been betrayed by Turkey.

The internal conflicts are also growing. A part of the Turkish elites have supported ISIS. Moreover, Erdogan is a leader of the Justice and Development Party largerly financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is conducting tensions because Qatar is linked with ISIS. The actual results of the Russian operation including the future US operation in Raqqa generate a real threat of purging ISIS in Syria.

In this enviroment, the Erdogan’s group decided to end its attempts to conduct independent policy in the region. It adopted the course on the rapprochement with the US, NATO and EU.

On October 18, Merkel arrived Turkey and gave her support to a new start in EU-Turkey membership talks. Turkey also demanded a €3 billion aid package for measures to strengthen the control of Turkey’s border with the EU and facilitate returns of unwanted migrants to Turkey.

Thus, Turkey has been shaping its approach in the region. It will likely include a hard anti-Iranian policy and cooling in relations with Russia. This marks the major developments going in the region affected by the major crisis. Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are its core, but the destabilization has been spreading. Turkey is affected by terrorism. Israel is involved into the conflict against Palestinian. Saudi Arabia is involved into a protracted war in Yemen and affected by Yemeni cross-border raids.

SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence expects that the global alliances competing in the Middle East will have the next shape:

A core of the first alliance includes Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel lead by the US. On October, pro-Israeli statements occurred in the major Saudi media. They characterize Israel as a solid and needed ally of Saudi Arabia in the contemporary situation. Turkey and Israel will likely strengthen a joint military cooperation. They already have a success story of a long standing cooperation on the level of intelligence services military departments.

A core of the second alliance includes Russia, Iran and Syria. Iran supported the start of the Russian military operation in Syria. And it could expand its role in the region due to the Russian support. The alliance set on this core will likely oppose the US-led powers.

Indeed, this situation looks as a background of the future war. Nonetheless, the near-war situation can’t be stable. At the moment, the US and Russia stay on different sides of the trench. But, the rapidly changing situation could lead to occurrence of the shotgun marriage between Russia and the US.

Michael Meacher, who died yesterday, was in many ways the intellectual powerhouse behind the insurrection that saw Jeremy Corbyn elected leader of the Labour Party this summer.

He was one of the few politicians to attend the Parliamentary debate on money creation, he gave a stirring speech at the protests when UK hosted the secretive Bilderberg Group, and he was the only mainstream politician to raise questions about the 911 attacks, with a 2003 article in the Guardian headed “This War on Terrorism is Bogus”.

His 911 stance led to an aggressive character assassination campaign by the US London Embasssy. Later, when he planned a showing of the 911 sceptic movie Loose Change in the House of Commons it was cancelled at the last moment while Michael said privately that he feared violent repercussions.

In recent weeks he was active again behind the scenes, supporting a 911 family member who is seeking a new inquest. At a private Commons meeting last autumn he seemed in excellent health. He said he did not feel anything like his age and might stand again for Parliament.

News reports have given no details of the cause of Michael’s unexpected death beyond a statement from Peter Dean, his constituency office manager, who said: “We are extremely sad and it has been quite a short illness he has had and we just don’t know the details at present”.

Ian Henshall an organiser of Reinvestigate 911 said: “I hope that, to put to rest any lingering doubts, his aides will take a close look and divulge full details of what happened.

Even more importantly, I hope the Corbyn leadership recognises the urgent need to replace Michael with someone who understands the big issues and is sceptical of the veracity of news reports in the Western media.

CONTACT

Ian Henshall <[email protected]>

Reinvestigate 9/11 campaign <[email protected]>

Reinvestigate 9/11 email list <[email protected]>

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=171161#171161additional info…

*      *      *

Some of Michael’s comments…

Last twenty tweets from Michael’s deleted twitter account @MichaelMeacher restored

http://www.bilderberg.org/meacher_twitter.html

Michael Meacher MP – on 9/11, The PNAC & Peak Oil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0atrw3640yo

This War on Terrorism is Bogus

Michael Meacher

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Saturday 6 September 2003 12.15

BST Last modified on Friday 3 October 2014 09.56 BST

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

Massive attention has now been given – and rightly so – to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. It refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership”. It describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN”. It says “even should Saddam pass from the scene”, US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently… as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has”. It spotlights China for “regime change”, saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia”.

The document also calls for the creation of “US space forces” to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons “that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.

Finally – written a year before 9/11 – it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command and control system”. This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House”.

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing – on the war on terrorism perspective – that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.”

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that “casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured”. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden” (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11” (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to… the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East”. Submitted to Vice-President Cheney’s energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, “military intervention” was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” is likely to be a long one in the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the “go” button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world’s oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing “severe” gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America’s national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron’s beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India’s west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that “the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts” with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

Copyright Michael Meacher, The Guardian, 2003

Israel’s killing machine raged on Friday, continuing into Saturday. The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) said Israeli forces wounded over 290 Palestinians yesterday alone, many seriously – 48 from live fire, 44 using rubber-coated steel bullets.

Hundreds suffered from toxic tear gas inhalation. Maan News said “Israeli forces used Palestine TV reporter and cameraman Sira Sarhan and Hadi al-Dibs as human shields…forcing them at gunpoint to remain in front of their Jeep and tell protesters to stop throwing rocks.”

French journalist David Perrotin was brutally assaulted by Jewish Defense League Zionist zealots outside AFP’s Paris headquarters. He was beaten with batons.

Lunatics involved tried storming AFP’s building, waving Israeli flags, throwing eggs, chanting: “We’re coming to get you.”

One agitator raved:

“We are here to show support for Israel in our war against the Arabs. Journalists working for organizations like AFP support the Islamic terrorists and that’s why we have to fight back.”

Friday night, Perrotin twittered he’s OK. He thanked everyone expressing support.

On October 21, Luay Faisal Ali Abeid stood on his third floor balcony, displaying no weapon, threatening no one. No clashes were ongoing in the area around his home.

An Israeli soldier opened fire at him without just cause, a rubber-coated steel bullet fracturing his skull and nose, striking his left eye. Surgeons couldn’t save it. They had to operate to remove it.

On Saturday, an Israeli security guard murdered a Palestinian teenager in cold blood. He was unarmed threatening no one.

Palestinian medical workers said Israel prevented help from reaching him. He was shot at least five times. Overnight Friday intoSaturday morning, dozens of Palestinians were kidnapped – in East Jerusalem, Jenin, Abu Dis, Qabatia and Bethlehem.

Western and Israeli media reports are entirely one-sided. Palestinians are portrayed as knife-wielding terrorists. Most reports are fabricated. The few legitimate ones are blown way out of proportion.

Rampaging Israeli forces and extremist settlers are considered noble defenders. Al Monitor said “(t)he Obama administration is cutting aid to the Palestinians by $80 million in what congressional sources describe as a ‘message’ to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.”

It’s being reduced from $370 million to $290 million for the fiscal year ending September 30 – following criticism from congressional members, blaming Palestinians for vicious Israeli incitement and premeditated persecution over the past three weeks.

Zionist zealot Rep. Eliot Engel (D. NY) said “(w)e need to dial up pressure on Palestinian officials to repudiate this violence.” On October 22, House Foreign Affairs Committee members voted unanimously to punish Palestinians for Israeli high crimes.

Practically the entire Congress one-sidedly supports Israel, no matter how outrageous its crimes – nothing worse than cold-blooded murder, defenseless Palestinians outrageously blamed.

AIPAC demands an end to “Palestinian incitement…Palestinian terrorists are attacking Israelis,” it rants.

“Palestinian leaders…exacerbated tensions,” instead of accurately saying it’s the other way around, Israel entirely responsible, being rewarded by Washington with hundreds of millions more in military aid – supporting its killing machine to spill more blood.

“Palestinians must renew direct peace talks with Israel (to achieve) a real and lasting peace,” claims AIPAC – ignoring reality on the ground.

Israel and Washington deplore peace and stability, thrive on endless violence, at all times blame victims for their viciousness.

So-called peace initiatives are dead on arrival every time. They’re a waste of time, Palestinians always wrongfully blamed for failure.

Daily NYT reports provide cover for Israeli high crimes. Not a word on horrific Friday’s Israeli-instigated violence on defenseless Palestinians explained above.

Instead headlined “Jewish Man Stabbed in Israel by Palestinians as Violence Continues,” blaming them for an ongoing “wave of violence.”

The entire article highlights claims about Jewish victims, Palestinian terrorists, attackers, assailants. The latest Times propaganda piece cited Israel saying a “Palestinian stabber (was) shot dead.”

No Israelis were harmed. No weapons were found. Another accusation repeats the same Big Lie about violent Palestinians, poor Israeli victims. It’s hard believing this stuff gets printed – maliciously and willfully turning truth on its head.

Sources are always government or military officials, past or current ones, mostly unnamed, repeating the same old Big Lie, long ago discredited by legitimate news reports and analysts.

Israeli state terror, fully supported by Washington and rogue allies, bears full responsibility for ongoing, earlier and certain future violence against defenseless Palestinian victims.

The Times and other media scoundrels never report what everyone needs to know. Israel’s war on Palestinians continues with no resolution in prospect.

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.

Myanmar passed an historic milestone on 15 October, signing into effect what its government terms to be a “Nationwide Ceasefire Accord” (NCA) between itself and eight ethnically centered rebel organizations. As positive of a step as this may notionally be towards resolving the world’s longest-running civil war, it’s substantially without a solid backbone, as at least seven of the country’s strongest rebel formations followed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’sadvice in taking their time and refusing to sign.

With the nationwide elections just under one month away, it’s obvious that the NCA will become the most polarizing electioneering tool for both the government and the opposition, with each side evoking the agreement as a means of further ingratiating themselves with their respective bases, both majority Burmese and ethnically affiliated. Whether the NCA leads to a drawn-out peace and eventual settlement or has contrarily drawn the new battle lines for an upcoming explosion of civil war depends entirely on the results of the election and the reaction of both sides, but from the looks of things, it appears as though Myanmar is in for a very rocky and polarized future.

Part I begins by expounding upon the details of the NCA and the military and political factors that guided each side’s position relative to the agreement. Afterwards, it examines the intricacies of the strategic geography present in the country after the NCA’s signing and analyzes the inherent incompatibility of both blocs’ nationwide objectives. Finally, the last two sections wrap everything up by forecasting the three most likely scenarios to result from these conflicting national contrarieties, eventually concluding that there’s a disturbingly real risk that India and China might get sucked into the conflagration and enter into a destabilizing proxy war against the other.

Making History

On paper at least, the NCA is an historic document for Myanmar, and the attendance of representatives from China, India, Japan, and Thailand to oversee its signing testifies to the international optimism that key players have about its significance. Each of the groups that are party to the agreement are removed from the government’s list of illegal organizations and are now allowed to enter mainstream politics, importantly just in time to participate in the upcoming elections. The next step of the process takes place at the end of November, 40 days from the ceasefire’s signing, by which all sides must agree to a code of conduct and a joint monitoring committee.

It’s thus no wonder that the government had prioritized the conclusion of the NCA prior to the elections, since it gives each of the rebel groups a stake in the process and the country’s immediate stability afterwards. The reason this is important is because the country might be rocked by renewed unrest if Suu Kyi and her followers opt for a 21^st-century repeat of their last Color Revolution attempt from the 1980s and/or encourage the resumption of full-scale civil war if her National League for Democracy (NLD) party underperforms at the ballot. Here’s a listing of which groups have and haven’t agreed to the NCA (as for the latter, including those that were kept outside the process), and they can respectively be categorized by whether their loyalty is to the government or the opposition:

It All Comes Down To The Guns

The most important determinant over whether a group signed the NCA or not appears to its military strength, as the weaker groups aligned with the government while the more powerful ones refused to budge. For example, the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) and United Wa State Army are the strongest insurgent groups in the country, while the All-Burma Students’ Democratic Front is scarcely a force and the hodgepodge of Karen militants have been weakened by in-fighting over the years. The situation with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Khaplang (NSCN-K) is a bit different, in the sense that the government may not have wanted to be seen as fully accommodating a group that the Indian government recognizes as a terrorist organization, which might explain why it didn’t bend over backwards to get it to sign. Additionally, the NSCN-K, while likely having its own interests in possibly agreeing to the NCA, is also tightly connected to the KIO that flat-out refused to sign the accord, so in a tactical sense, it was much more advantageous for it to stay outside of the agreement anyhow. That being said, this decision is forecast to have a strong impact on future events, and the analysis will return to it in a forthcoming section.

Fighting For Different Futures

Each of the rebel groups would like to increase their respective ethnicity’s share of power in the country, feeling that they’ve been left out of the economic and political loop for far too long. The difference over ends, however, comes down to which side they’ve now aligned themselves with, which as was just explained, is primarily due to whether the said group was strong enough to resist the government or not. Those that are now associated with the authorities through their cooperation in the NCA are in support of retaining Myanmar’s unitary nature, as Naypyidaw does not seem willing to flip-flop anytime soon on its decades-long stance of anti-federalization. Given that the nominally civilian-led (but heavily military-influenced) administration is “reforming” the country, it’s conceivable that it might allow some degree of autonomy for minority-majority areas if it absolutely has to, but it would definitely fall short of the federalist structure that the NLD opposition and its allies would like to see enter into practice.

That’s the primary and irreconcilable difference between the two sides, as the government is adamant in preserving the unitary state, while the opposition wants to dismember it into largely independent and resource-rich ‘ethnic reserves’. In fact, out of the 11 groups that constitute the United Nationalities Federal Council, a pan-rebel alliance of pro-federalist entities, only three of them (the Karen National Union, Chin National Front, and Pa-O National Liberation Organization) ‘defected’ to the government by signing the NCA, with the remaining eight unyielding in their pursuit of Suu Kyi’s federalist agenda. As mentioned above, it’s the weaker groups that ‘crossed the aisle’, so to speak, so the central government simply gained symbolic allies while the federalists still retained the lion’s share of their strength. The non-signatories can thus leverage their considerable military potential in the event that civil war erupted once more, especially if they were to more formally ally with one another and coordinate their activities, potentially under Suu Kyi’s stewardship.

Strategic Positioning

The easiest way to make sense of Myanmar’s political complexities and forecast their likely progression is to physically map out as many of the factors as possible:

Key

* Red – government-controlled areas, either through direct administration or NCA rebel alliance

* Blue – anti-government rebel-controlled areas

* Black Dots – Myanmar’s three SEZs, from north to south they are Kyak Phyu, Thilawa, and Dawei

* Yellow Dot – The capital of Naypyidaw

* White Line – China-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines

* Lavender Line – India-Thailand Highway

Red

The above map presents the clearest way for one to understand the present status of forces in Myanmar, and it was drawn from the NCA information listed at the beginning of the analysis. The government has control over a strategic corridor stretching from the northwest to the southeast, with the lynchpins being Chin State (the one just north of blue-striped Rakhine State [“Rohingyaland”]) and Kayin State (the elongated province directly south of the three blue ones), both of which are marked red due to their primary rebel groups’ participation in the NCA. The result is that Naypyidaw controls enough territory so as to secure the newly operational India-Thailand Highway that’s expected to become a major economic artery for its future growth, and the vast majority of the country’s population (and thus, laborers) falls under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, two of the country’s SEZs are also safely under its control as well, meaning that Myanmar could realistically maintain the astronomical growth rates that have made it the fourth-fastest growing economy, with or without regaining full sovereignty over the rebel periphery.

Blue

The pro-federalization rebels not party to the NCA are concentrated mostly in the northeast Kachin and Shan States along the Chinese border, and some reports argue that a few of the groups might be under the influence of China. Whether or not this is true is a cause for considerable debate, as China stands to lose a lot more than it gains by indefinitely prolonging a state of instability along its borders, especially since its geostrategic oil and gas pipelines pass through rebel territory. Furthermore, as witnessed at the beginning of the year during the Kokang Rebellion (led by the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, not a member of the NCA), stray shells fell into Chinese territory, creating an international scandal for which the Myanmar military later had to apologize and admit responsibility. It’s these types of chaotic situations that China definitely doesn’t want along its southern border, especially as the US seeks to exploit any and all available opportunities (and well as create its own) so as to offset Beijing’s influence in Greater Southeast Asia (of which its Myanmar-bordering Yunnan Province is geographically a part of).

Reverting back to a more domestic analysis about the non-government-controlled areas, they’re short on population but rich in natural resources, and therein lay the reason behind their federalization aspirations. They believe that they can acquire formidable wealth if their tiny native population didn’t have to share their resources’ riches with the rest of the country, siphoned out by the central government’s scattered military outposts throughout their territory. Suu Kyi appeals to them precisely because she wants to decentralize the country and move towards a federal model, which is the only thing that these diverse ethnic fighting groups have in common (if it’s not outright independence). As explained in the above section about the government-administered territory, the central authorities don’t have to go on the offensive in order to survive, but also, because of the rebel’s natural resource wealth, they, too, don’t really have to change the status quo in order to prosper, aside from ridding their territories of the military that still ‘steals’ their resources (as they see it, which is the cyclical source of the conflict) or politically realizing a federalist solution that empowers their region. This means that the rebels are technically on the losing defensive, but the dense jungle terrain and hilly geography are on their side and thus poses a massive hindrance to all government efforts in projecting influence deeper into the area and changing the current balance of power present in the periphery.

Stripes

Northern Sagaing State:

The color of the stripe represents which ‘bloc’ is making progress in establishing its influence over a given territory (or part thereof). As can be seen from the map, there are three areas that could possibly become contested battlegrounds in any forthcoming resumption of civil war. Beginning with the northerly most, the blue stripes in Sagaing State represent the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Khaplang (NSCN-K) that was touched upon earlier. They may not control that much of the area by themselves, but together with their Kachin brothers-in-arms, that part of the state definitely falls under the control of the rebels. It’s an enormous vulnerability from the government’s point of view because the NSCN-K is the leading organization in the United Liberation Front of West South East Asia (UNFLW), a terrorist umbrella of separatist groups active in Northeast India that proved threatening enough to New Delhi for it to enact a cross-border raid against them in June.

Western Shan State:

Moving along, the next striped section is colored red and lies in the western part of Shan State, home to a plethora of active rebel movements. It’s shaded due to the Shan State Army – South’s participation in the NCA and the government’s scattered military presence in the area, which thus allows the newly created capital to acquire a certain degree of strategic depth from any rebel attack. Keep in mind that the military does in fact have influence further than is indicated on the map (recall the Kokang incident spoken about earlier along the Chinese border), but because of the unfamiliarity its majority-Burmese troops have with the far-flung terrain and the dissipated nature of rebel encampments throughout, it’s almost impossible for it to assert a level of sovereignty there equal to what it does in the heartland. The nature of Myanmar’s civil war is that it’s very difficult to draw clear-cut frontlines between forces, but the red shading in the map was estimated as the best approximation of where the government can exert the highest degree of relative control in the state.

Rakhine State:

Finally, the last shaded region is the entirety of Rakhine State, otherwise known the homeland of the Rohingyas and referred by them as “Arakan”. The two main rebel groups associated with the area are on opposing sides now, with the Arakan Liberation Party (ALP) signing the NCA while the Arakan Army (AA) has yet to do so. Interestingly, however, neither group is thought to exert much direct influence in the state at all, with the AA currently being based in Kachin State, the nucleus of the country’s rebel movements, while the ALP is in the extreme northern reaches of their home state but also in Kayin State. The blue shading is explained by the fact that AA has infiltrated some of its troopsback into Rakhine State, meaning that it could very well be preparing an insurgency there among the disgruntled Rohingyas in order to jumpstart the creation of a South Asian “Kosovo” for “Rohingyaland”. If they go forward with this plan, and especially if it’s coordinated with a concurrent rebel offensive in the northeast countryside and a Color Revolution in the urban areas, then it could possibly succeed, hence why the government felt compelled to get on the good side of one of the rebel factions so as to divide the demographic in the event of any uprising. Speaking of which, the population could be provoked towards this end in the event of nationalist Buddhist attacks against the Muslim minority in the state, which have in fact happened before but have yet to lead to an insurgency.

To be continued…

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

Myanmar passed an historic milestone on 15 October, signing into effect what its government terms to be a “Nationwide Ceasefire Accord” (NCA) between itself and eight ethnically centered rebel organizations. As positive of a step as this may notionally be towards resolving the world’s longest-running civil war, it’s substantially without a solid backbone, as at least seven of the country’s strongest rebel formations followed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’sadvice in taking their time and refusing to sign.

With the nationwide elections just under one month away, it’s obvious that the NCA will become the most polarizing electioneering tool for both the government and the opposition, with each side evoking the agreement as a means of further ingratiating themselves with their respective bases, both majority Burmese and ethnically affiliated. Whether the NCA leads to a drawn-out peace and eventual settlement or has contrarily drawn the new battle lines for an upcoming explosion of civil war depends entirely on the results of the election and the reaction of both sides, but from the looks of things, it appears as though Myanmar is in for a very rocky and polarized future.

Part I begins by expounding upon the details of the NCA and the military and political factors that guided each side’s position relative to the agreement. Afterwards, it examines the intricacies of the strategic geography present in the country after the NCA’s signing and analyzes the inherent incompatibility of both blocs’ nationwide objectives. Finally, the last two sections wrap everything up by forecasting the three most likely scenarios to result from these conflicting national contrarieties, eventually concluding that there’s a disturbingly real risk that India and China might get sucked into the conflagration and enter into a destabilizing proxy war against the other.

Making History

On paper at least, the NCA is an historic document for Myanmar, and the attendance of representatives from China, India, Japan, and Thailand to oversee its signing testifies to the international optimism that key players have about its significance. Each of the groups that are party to the agreement are removed from the government’s list of illegal organizations and are now allowed to enter mainstream politics, importantly just in time to participate in the upcoming elections. The next step of the process takes place at the end of November, 40 days from the ceasefire’s signing, by which all sides must agree to a code of conduct and a joint monitoring committee.

It’s thus no wonder that the government had prioritized the conclusion of the NCA prior to the elections, since it gives each of the rebel groups a stake in the process and the country’s immediate stability afterwards. The reason this is important is because the country might be rocked by renewed unrest if Suu Kyi and her followers opt for a 21^st-century repeat of their last Color Revolution attempt from the 1980s and/or encourage the resumption of full-scale civil war if her National League for Democracy (NLD) party underperforms at the ballot. Here’s a listing of which groups have and haven’t agreed to the NCA (as for the latter, including those that were kept outside the process), and they can respectively be categorized by whether their loyalty is to the government or the opposition:

It All Comes Down To The Guns

The most important determinant over whether a group signed the NCA or not appears to its military strength, as the weaker groups aligned with the government while the more powerful ones refused to budge. For example, the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) and United Wa State Army are the strongest insurgent groups in the country, while the All-Burma Students’ Democratic Front is scarcely a force and the hodgepodge of Karen militants have been weakened by in-fighting over the years. The situation with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Khaplang (NSCN-K) is a bit different, in the sense that the government may not have wanted to be seen as fully accommodating a group that the Indian government recognizes as a terrorist organization, which might explain why it didn’t bend over backwards to get it to sign. Additionally, the NSCN-K, while likely having its own interests in possibly agreeing to the NCA, is also tightly connected to the KIO that flat-out refused to sign the accord, so in a tactical sense, it was much more advantageous for it to stay outside of the agreement anyhow. That being said, this decision is forecast to have a strong impact on future events, and the analysis will return to it in a forthcoming section.

Fighting For Different Futures

Each of the rebel groups would like to increase their respective ethnicity’s share of power in the country, feeling that they’ve been left out of the economic and political loop for far too long. The difference over ends, however, comes down to which side they’ve now aligned themselves with, which as was just explained, is primarily due to whether the said group was strong enough to resist the government or not. Those that are now associated with the authorities through their cooperation in the NCA are in support of retaining Myanmar’s unitary nature, as Naypyidaw does not seem willing to flip-flop anytime soon on its decades-long stance of anti-federalization. Given that the nominally civilian-led (but heavily military-influenced) administration is “reforming” the country, it’s conceivable that it might allow some degree of autonomy for minority-majority areas if it absolutely has to, but it would definitely fall short of the federalist structure that the NLD opposition and its allies would like to see enter into practice.

That’s the primary and irreconcilable difference between the two sides, as the government is adamant in preserving the unitary state, while the opposition wants to dismember it into largely independent and resource-rich ‘ethnic reserves’. In fact, out of the 11 groups that constitute the United Nationalities Federal Council, a pan-rebel alliance of pro-federalist entities, only three of them (the Karen National Union, Chin National Front, and Pa-O National Liberation Organization) ‘defected’ to the government by signing the NCA, with the remaining eight unyielding in their pursuit of Suu Kyi’s federalist agenda. As mentioned above, it’s the weaker groups that ‘crossed the aisle’, so to speak, so the central government simply gained symbolic allies while the federalists still retained the lion’s share of their strength. The non-signatories can thus leverage their considerable military potential in the event that civil war erupted once more, especially if they were to more formally ally with one another and coordinate their activities, potentially under Suu Kyi’s stewardship.

Strategic Positioning

The easiest way to make sense of Myanmar’s political complexities and forecast their likely progression is to physically map out as many of the factors as possible:

Key

* Red – government-controlled areas, either through direct administration or NCA rebel alliance

* Blue – anti-government rebel-controlled areas

* Black Dots – Myanmar’s three SEZs, from north to south they are Kyak Phyu, Thilawa, and Dawei

* Yellow Dot – The capital of Naypyidaw

* White Line – China-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines

* Lavender Line – India-Thailand Highway

Red

The above map presents the clearest way for one to understand the present status of forces in Myanmar, and it was drawn from the NCA information listed at the beginning of the analysis. The government has control over a strategic corridor stretching from the northwest to the southeast, with the lynchpins being Chin State (the one just north of blue-striped Rakhine State [“Rohingyaland”]) and Kayin State (the elongated province directly south of the three blue ones), both of which are marked red due to their primary rebel groups’ participation in the NCA. The result is that Naypyidaw controls enough territory so as to secure the newly operational India-Thailand Highway that’s expected to become a major economic artery for its future growth, and the vast majority of the country’s population (and thus, laborers) falls under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, two of the country’s SEZs are also safely under its control as well, meaning that Myanmar could realistically maintain the astronomical growth rates that have made it the fourth-fastest growing economy, with or without regaining full sovereignty over the rebel periphery.

Blue

The pro-federalization rebels not party to the NCA are concentrated mostly in the northeast Kachin and Shan States along the Chinese border, and some reports argue that a few of the groups might be under the influence of China. Whether or not this is true is a cause for considerable debate, as China stands to lose a lot more than it gains by indefinitely prolonging a state of instability along its borders, especially since its geostrategic oil and gas pipelines pass through rebel territory. Furthermore, as witnessed at the beginning of the year during the Kokang Rebellion (led by the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, not a member of the NCA), stray shells fell into Chinese territory, creating an international scandal for which the Myanmar military later had to apologize and admit responsibility. It’s these types of chaotic situations that China definitely doesn’t want along its southern border, especially as the US seeks to exploit any and all available opportunities (and well as create its own) so as to offset Beijing’s influence in Greater Southeast Asia (of which its Myanmar-bordering Yunnan Province is geographically a part of).

Reverting back to a more domestic analysis about the non-government-controlled areas, they’re short on population but rich in natural resources, and therein lay the reason behind their federalization aspirations. They believe that they can acquire formidable wealth if their tiny native population didn’t have to share their resources’ riches with the rest of the country, siphoned out by the central government’s scattered military outposts throughout their territory. Suu Kyi appeals to them precisely because she wants to decentralize the country and move towards a federal model, which is the only thing that these diverse ethnic fighting groups have in common (if it’s not outright independence). As explained in the above section about the government-administered territory, the central authorities don’t have to go on the offensive in order to survive, but also, because of the rebel’s natural resource wealth, they, too, don’t really have to change the status quo in order to prosper, aside from ridding their territories of the military that still ‘steals’ their resources (as they see it, which is the cyclical source of the conflict) or politically realizing a federalist solution that empowers their region. This means that the rebels are technically on the losing defensive, but the dense jungle terrain and hilly geography are on their side and thus poses a massive hindrance to all government efforts in projecting influence deeper into the area and changing the current balance of power present in the periphery.

Stripes

Northern Sagaing State:

The color of the stripe represents which ‘bloc’ is making progress in establishing its influence over a given territory (or part thereof). As can be seen from the map, there are three areas that could possibly become contested battlegrounds in any forthcoming resumption of civil war. Beginning with the northerly most, the blue stripes in Sagaing State represent the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Khaplang (NSCN-K) that was touched upon earlier. They may not control that much of the area by themselves, but together with their Kachin brothers-in-arms, that part of the state definitely falls under the control of the rebels. It’s an enormous vulnerability from the government’s point of view because the NSCN-K is the leading organization in the United Liberation Front of West South East Asia (UNFLW), a terrorist umbrella of separatist groups active in Northeast India that proved threatening enough to New Delhi for it to enact a cross-border raid against them in June.

Western Shan State:

Moving along, the next striped section is colored red and lies in the western part of Shan State, home to a plethora of active rebel movements. It’s shaded due to the Shan State Army – South’s participation in the NCA and the government’s scattered military presence in the area, which thus allows the newly created capital to acquire a certain degree of strategic depth from any rebel attack. Keep in mind that the military does in fact have influence further than is indicated on the map (recall the Kokang incident spoken about earlier along the Chinese border), but because of the unfamiliarity its majority-Burmese troops have with the far-flung terrain and the dissipated nature of rebel encampments throughout, it’s almost impossible for it to assert a level of sovereignty there equal to what it does in the heartland. The nature of Myanmar’s civil war is that it’s very difficult to draw clear-cut frontlines between forces, but the red shading in the map was estimated as the best approximation of where the government can exert the highest degree of relative control in the state.

Rakhine State:

Finally, the last shaded region is the entirety of Rakhine State, otherwise known the homeland of the Rohingyas and referred by them as “Arakan”. The two main rebel groups associated with the area are on opposing sides now, with the Arakan Liberation Party (ALP) signing the NCA while the Arakan Army (AA) has yet to do so. Interestingly, however, neither group is thought to exert much direct influence in the state at all, with the AA currently being based in Kachin State, the nucleus of the country’s rebel movements, while the ALP is in the extreme northern reaches of their home state but also in Kayin State. The blue shading is explained by the fact that AA has infiltrated some of its troopsback into Rakhine State, meaning that it could very well be preparing an insurgency there among the disgruntled Rohingyas in order to jumpstart the creation of a South Asian “Kosovo” for “Rohingyaland”. If they go forward with this plan, and especially if it’s coordinated with a concurrent rebel offensive in the northeast countryside and a Color Revolution in the urban areas, then it could possibly succeed, hence why the government felt compelled to get on the good side of one of the rebel factions so as to divide the demographic in the event of any uprising. Speaking of which, the population could be provoked towards this end in the event of nationalist Buddhist attacks against the Muslim minority in the state, which have in fact happened before but have yet to lead to an insurgency.

To be continued…

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

His actions say it all. In over a year of bombing, US warplanes struck zero Syrian and Iraqi terrorist targets – none. It’s unsurprising he rejected Putin’s offer to cooperate in fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups.

On Saturday, Sergey Lavrov said the following:

We are ready to back the patriotic opposition, including the so-called Free Syrian Army, with our air support (in jointly fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups).

However, Washington is refusing to inform us of the locations of the terrorists and where the opposition is based. The most important thing for us is to find people who will be true representatives of the armed groups who will confront terrorism among other things (serving the interests of Syrian people, not foreign powers).

Russia is “the only country…support(ing) all political forces in Syria (concerned about maintaining its sovereignty). Foreign players” must have no says about internal politics, decisions for Syrians alone.

We have to make them choose their own process for how their country should live on and protect the interests of every confessional, ethnic or political group.

“Of course, this work should be done in preparation for elections, both parliamentary and presidential” – free from foreign interference.

Putin stressed similar sentiments, saying Russia’s intervention “will not solve all problems, but it will create conditions for the main thing – a beginning of a political process to encompass all healthy patriotic forces of the Syrian society,” concerned about a future free from foreign interference and domination.

Putin and other Russian officials reject Washington’s demand for Assad to go. That’s for Syrians alone to decide. Assad’s red carpet welcome in Moscow shows Moscow’s solidarity with Syria against the scourge of terrorism, along with directly challenging Washington destructive imperial agenda.

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov made similar comments on BBC’s Hardtalk program, saying:

Unfortunately all our ‘partners’ (sic) have failed up to now to identify a serious opposition that has no links to terror, no links with extremist organizations, no links with ISIL, Al Qaeda and others.

He politely stopped short of explaining reality on the ground. US-recruited, funded, armed, trained and directed ISIS and other terrorist groups alone are fighting Syria’s government.

No moderates exist. The so-called Free Syrian Army is more myth than reality – terrorists alone fighting Assad, imported from scores of countries, non-Syrians, wanting the nation’s sovereignty destroyed, serving their own interests and Washington’s, seeking unchallenged regional control.

Peskov stressed the importance of preserving Syria’s “territorial and political integrity, not to let the whole region, including the countries that are bordering with Syria, go into a nightmare of collapse and hegemony of terror.”

Russia wants Syria saved “from terrorists and extremist organizations.” It wants their scourge kept from spreading. It intervened because Washington failed to fight terrorism as promised. It’s part of the problem, not the solution.

Media reports about Russia joining forces with Syrian opposition groups against Assad are false. Lavrov was clear and unequivocal saying Moscow supports all Syrian elements against terrorism, a scourge vital to contain and defeat.

After meeting with his Russian, Turkish, and Saudi counterparts in Vienna, John Kerry lied claiming Washington supports “a global effort of all people of conscience, and nations, to do everything possible to bring (war in Syria) to a close.”

Obama didn’t wage it preemptively in 2011 to quit. US policy fundamentally opposes peace and stability. Endless violence and chaos serve its imperial agenda. An atmosphere of calm and lawfulness defeat it.

Kerry’s sole aim is furthering America’s hegemonic aims, endless wars of aggression its main strategy, millions of lost lives a small price to pay. Conquest and domination alone matter, an agenda reflecting pure evil.

The choice for freedom-loving people everywhere is clear. Defeating this monster is top priority. End its scourge or it’ll end us.

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.

Masanobu Fukuoka, the legendary Japanese organic farmer once described Bhaskar Hiraji Save‘s farm as “the best in the world, even better than my own!” In 2010, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements honoured Save with the ‘One World Award for Lifetime Achievement’.

Based on the results and practices on his 14-acre farm in Gujarat, Save was an inspiration for generations of farmers. By using traditional methods, he demonstrated on his farm that yield is superior to any farm using chemicals in terms of overall quantity, nutritional quality, taste, biological diversity, ecological sustainability, water conservation, energy efficiency and economic profitability.

Bhaskar Save died on 24 October 2015 at age 93. Emphasising self-reliance at the farm/village level, Save was regarded as the ‘Gandhi of natural farming’. In 2006 he published an open letter to the Indian Minister of Agriculture, the Chair of the National Commission on Farmers and other top officials to bring attention to the mounting suicide rate and debt among farmers. He wanted to encourage policy makers to abandon their policies of importing and promoting the use of toxic chemical chemicals that the ‘green revolution’ had encouraged. He regarded the green revolution as having been a total disaster for India – socially, economically and ecologically.

Below is a slightly edited version of his open letter [2006], which reveals in some detail where India has gone wrong. At the same time, however, Bhaskar Save was optimistic that a fundamental change in policy could turn things around. His views on farming are rooted in a vision that is diametrically opposed to the current policies of selling out farmers and agriculture – the heart and soul of India – to corrupt foreign agribusiness concerns. 

*     *     *

To: Shri M.S. Swaminathan,

The Chairperson, National Commission on Farmers,

Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India  

I am an 84-year old natural/organic farmer with more than six decades of personal experience in growing a wide range of food crops. I have, over the years, practised several systems of farming, including the chemical method in the fifties – until I soon saw its pitfalls. I say with conviction that it is only by organic farming in harmony with Nature, that India can sustainably provide her people abundant, wholesome food. And meet every basic need of all – to live in health, dignity and peace.

You, M.S. Swaminathan, are considered the ‘father’ of India’s so-called ‘Green Revolution’ that flung open the floodgates of toxic ‘agro’ chemicals – ravaging the lands and lives of many millions of Indian farmers over the past 50 years. More than any other individual in our long history, it is you I hold responsible for the tragic condition of our soils and our debt-burdened farmers, driven to suicide in increasing numbers every year.

As destiny would have it, you are presently the chairperson of the ‘National Commission on Farmers’, mandated to draft a new agricultural policy. I hope this provokes some soul-searching and open debate at all levels on the extremely vital issues involved. – So that we do not repeat the same kind of blunders that led us to our present, deep festering mess.

Farming runs in our blood. But I am sad that our (now greyed) generation of Indian farmers, allowed itself to be duped into adopting the short-sighted and ecologically devastating way of farming, imported into this country. – By those like you, with virtually zero farming experience!

For generations beyond count, this land sustained one of the highest densities of population on earth. Without any chemical ‘fertilizers’, pesticides, exotic dwarf strains of grain, or the new, fancy ‘bio-tech’ inputs that you now seem to champion. The many waves of invaders into this country, over the centuries, took away much. But the fertility of our land remained unaffected.

In our forests, the trees like ber (jujube), jambul (jambolan), mango, umbar (wild fig), mahua (Madhuca indica), imli (tamarind) yield so abundantly in their season that the branches sag under the weight of the fruit. The annual yield per tree is commonly over a tonne – year after year. But the earth around remains whole and undiminished. There is no gaping hole in the ground!

From where do the trees – including those on rocky mountains – get their water, their NPK, etc? Though stationary, Nature provides their needs right where they stand. But ‘scientists’ and technocrats like you – with a blinkered, meddling itch – seem blind to this. On what basis do you prescribe what a tree or plant requires, and how much, and when.?

It is said: where there is lack of knowledge, ignorance masquerades as ‘science’! Such is the ‘science’ you have espoused, leading our farmers astray – down the pits of misery. While it is no shame to be ignorant, the awareness of such ignorance is the necessary first step to knowledge. But the refusal to see it is self-deluding arrogance.

This country has more than 150 agricultural universities. But every year, each churns out several hundred ‘educated’ unemployables, trained only in misguiding farmers and spreading ecological degradation.

In all the six years a student spends for an M.Sc. in agriculture, the only goal is short-term – and narrowly perceived – ‘productivity’. For this, the farmer is urged to do and buy a hundred things. But not a thought is spared to what a farmer must never do so that the land remains unharmed for future generations and other creatures. It is time our people and government wake up to the realisation that this industry-driven way of farming – promoted by our institutions – is inherently criminal and suicidal!

Trying to increase Nature’s ‘productivity,’ is the fundamental blunder that highlights the ignorance of ‘agricultural scientists’ like you. When a grain of rice can reproduce a thousand-fold within months, where arises the need to increase its productivity?

Numerous kinds of fruit trees too yield several hundred thousand kg of nourishment each in their lifetime! That is, provided the farmer does not pour poison and mess around the tree in his greed for quick profit.

The mindset of servitude to ‘commerce and industry,’ ignoring all else, is the root of the problem. But industry merely transforms ‘raw materials’ sourced from Nature into commodities. It cannot create anew. Only Nature is truly creative and self-regenerating – through synergy with the fresh daily inflow of the sun’s energy.

Modern technology, wedded to commerce – rather than wisdom or compassion – has proved disastrous at all levels… We have despoiled and polluted the soil, water and air. We have wiped out most of our forests and killed its creatures.  And relentlessly, modern farmers spray deadly poisons on their fields. These massacre Nature’s jeev srushti – the unpretentious but tireless little workers that maintain the ventilated quality of the soil, and recycle all life-ebbed biomass into nourishment for plants. The noxious chemicals also inevitably poison the water, and Nature’s prani srushti, which includes humans.

Can you deny that for more than forty centuries, our ancestors farmed the organic way – without any marked decline in soil fertility, as in the past four or five decades? Is it not a stark fact that the chemical-intensive and irrigation-intensive way of growing monoculture cash-crops has been primarily responsible for spreading ecological devastation far and wide in this country? Within the lifetime of a single generation!

This country boasted an immense diversity of crops, adapted over millennia to local conditions and needs. Our numerous tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains. But in the guise of increasing crop production, exotic dwarf varieties were introduced and promoted through your efforts. This led to more vigorous growth of weeds, which were now able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight. The farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding, or spraying herbicides.

The straw growth with the dwarf grain crops fell drastically to one-third of that with most native species! In Punjab and Haryana, even this was burned, as it was said to harbour ‘pathogens’. (It was too toxic to feed farm cattle that were progressively displaced by tractors.) Consequently, much less organic matter was locally available to recycle the fertility of the soil, leading to an artificial need for externally procured inputs. Inevitably, the farmers resorted to use more chemicals, and relentlessly, soil degradation and erosion set in.

The exotic varieties, grown with chemical ‘fertiliser’, were more susceptible to ‘pests and diseases’, leading to yet more poison (insecticides, etc.) being poured. But the attacked insect species developed resistance and reproduced prolifically. Their predators – spiders, frogs, etc. – that fed on these insects and ‘biologically controlled’ their population, were exterminated. So were many beneficial species like the earthworms and bees.

Agribusiness and technocrats recommended stronger doses, and newer, more toxic (and more expensive) chemicals. But the problems of ‘pests’ and ‘diseases’ only worsened. The spiral of ecological, financial and human costs mounted!

With the use of synthetic fertilizer and increased cash-cropping, irrigation needs rose enormously. In 1952, the Bhakra dam was built in Punjab, a water-rich state fed by 5 Himalayan rivers. Several thousand more big and medium dams followed all over the country, culminating in the massive Sardar Sarovar. And now, our government is toying with a grandiose, Rs 560,000 crore  proposal to divert and ‘inter-link’ the flow of our rivers. This is sheer ‘Tughlaqian’ megalomania, without a thought for future generations!

India, next to South America, receives the highest rainfall in the world. The annual average is almost 4 feet. Where thick vegetation covers the ground, and the soil is alive and porous, at least half of this rain is soaked and stored in the soil and sub-soil strata. A good amount then percolates deeper to recharge aquifers, or ‘groundwater tables’.

The living soil and its underlying aquifers thus serve as gigantic, ready-made reservoirs gifted free by Nature. Particularly efficient in soaking rain are the lands under forests and trees. And so, half a century ago, most parts of India had enough fresh water all round the year, long after the rains had stopped and gone. But clear the forests, and the capacity of the earth to soak the rain, drops drastically. Streams and wells run dry. It has happened in too many places already.

While the recharge of groundwater has greatly reduced, its extraction has been mounting. India is presently mining over 20 times more groundwater each day than it did in 1950. Much of this is mindless wastage by a minority. But most of India’s people – living on hand-drawn or hand-pumped water in villages, and practising only rain-fed farming – continue to use the same amount of ground water per person, as they did generations ago.

More than 80% of India’s water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. Maharashtra, for example, has the maximum number of big and medium dams in this country. But sugarcane alone, grown on barely 3-4% of its cultivable land, guzzles about 70% of its irrigation waters!

One acre of chemically grown sugarcane requires as much water as would suffice 25 acres of jowar, bajra or maize. The sugar factories too consume huge quantities. From cultivation to processing, each kilo of refined sugar needs 2 to 3 tonnes of water. This could be used to grow, by the traditional, organic way, about 150 to 200 kg of nutritious jowar or bajra (native millets).

While rice is suitable for rain-fed farming, its extensive multiple cropping with irrigation in winter and summer as well, is similarly hogging our water resources, and depleting aquifers. As with sugarcane, it is also irreversibly ruining the land through salinisation.

Soil salinisation is the greatest scourge of irrigation-intensive agriculture, as a progressively thicker crust of salts is formed on the land. Many million hectares of cropland have been ruined by it. The most serious problems are caused where water-guzzling crops like sugarcane or basmati rice are grown round the year, abandoning the traditional mixed-cropping and rotation systems of the past, which required minimal or no watering.

Since at least 60% of the water used for irrigation nowadays in India, is excessive, indeed harmful, the first step that needs to be taken is to control this. Thus, not only will the grave damage caused by too much irrigation stop, but a good deal of the water that is saved can also become available locally for priority areas where acute scarcity is felt.

Efficient, organic farming requires very little irrigation – much less than what is commonly used in modern agriculture. The yields of the crops are best when the soil is just damp. Rice is the only exception that grows even where water accumulates, and is thus preferred as a monsoon crop in low-lying areas naturally prone to inundation. Excess irrigation in the case of all other crops expels the air contained in the soil’s inter-particulate spaces – vitally needed for root respiration – and prolonged flooding causes root rot.

The irrigation on my farm is a small fraction of that provided in most modern farms today. Moreover, the porous soil under the thick vegetation of the orchard is like a sponge that soaks and percolates to the aquifer, or ground-water table, an enormous quantity of rain each monsoon.  The amount of water thus stored in the ground at Kalpavruksha, is far more than the total amount withdrawn from the well for irrigation in the months when there is no rain.

Thus, my farm is a net supplier of water to the eco-system of the region, rather than a net consumer! Clearly, the way to ensure the water security and food security of this nation, is by organically growing mixed, locally suitable crops, plants and trees, following the laws of Nature.

We should restore at least 30% ground cover of mixed, indigeneous trees and forests within the next decade or two. This is the core task of ecological water harvesting – the key to restoring the natural abundance of groundwater. Outstanding benefits can be achieved within a decade at comparatively little cost. We sadly fail to realise that the potential for natural water storage in the ground is many times greater than the combined capacity of all the major and medium irrigation projects in India – complete, incomplete, or still on paper! Such decentralized underground storage is more efficient, as it is protected from the high evaporation of surface storage. The planting of trees will also make available a variety of useful produce to enhance the well-being of a larger number of people.

Even barren wastelands can be restored to health in less than a decade. By inter-planting short life-span, medium life-span, and long life-span crops and trees, it is possible to have planned continuity of food yield to sustain a farmer through the transition period till the long-life fruit trees mature and yield. The higher availability of biomass and complete ground cover round the year will also hasten the regeneration of soil fertility.

After the British left, Indian agriculture was recovering steadily. There was no scarcity of diverse nourishment in the countryside, where 75% of India lived. The actual reason for pushing the ‘Green Revolution’ was the much narrower goal of increasing marketable surplus of a few relatively less perishable cereals to fuel the urban-industrial expansion favoured by the government.

The new, parasitical way of farming you vigorously promoted, benefited only the industrialists, traders and the powers-that-be. The farmers’ costs rose massively and margins dipped. Combined with the eroding natural fertility of their land, they were left with little in their hands, if not mounting debts and dead soils. Many gave up farming. Many more want to do so, squeezed by the ever-rising costs. This is nothing less than tragic, since Nature has generously gifted us with all that is needed for organic farming – which also produces wholesome, rather than poisoned food!

Restoring the natural health of Indian agriculture is the path to solve the inter-related problems of poverty, unemployment and rising population. The maximum number of people can become self-reliant through farming only if the necessary inputs are a bare minimum. Thus, farming should require a minimum of financial capital and purchased inputs, minimum farming equipment (plough, tools, etc.), minimum necessary labour, and minimum external technology. Then, agricultural production will increase, without costs increasing. Poverty will decline, and the rise in population will be spontaneously checked.

Self-reliant farming – with minimal or zero external inputs – was the way we actually farmed, very successfully, in the past. Barring periods of war and excessive colonial oppression, our farmers were largely self-sufficient, and even produced surpluses, though generally smaller quantities of many more items. These, particularly perishables, were tougher to supply urban markets. And so the nation’s farmers were steered to grow chemically cultivated monocultures of a few cash-crops like wheat, rice, or sugar, rather than their traditional polycultures that needed no purchased inputs.

Masanobu Fukuoka, the legendary Japanese organic farmer once described Bhaskar Hiraji Save‘s farm as “the best in the world, even better than my own!” In 2010, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements honoured Save with the ‘One World Award for Lifetime Achievement’.

Based on the results and practices on his 14-acre farm in Gujarat, Save was an inspiration for generations of farmers. By using traditional methods, he demonstrated on his farm that yield is superior to any farm using chemicals in terms of overall quantity, nutritional quality, taste, biological diversity, ecological sustainability, water conservation, energy efficiency and economic profitability.

Bhaskar Save died on 24 October 2015 at age 93. Emphasising self-reliance at the farm/village level, Save was regarded as the ‘Gandhi of natural farming’. In 2006 he published an open letter to the Indian Minister of Agriculture, the Chair of the National Commission on Farmers and other top officials to bring attention to the mounting suicide rate and debt among farmers. He wanted to encourage policy makers to abandon their policies of importing and promoting the use of toxic chemical chemicals that the ‘green revolution’ had encouraged. He regarded the green revolution as having been a total disaster for India – socially, economically and ecologically.

Below is a slightly edited version of his open letter [2006], which reveals in some detail where India has gone wrong. At the same time, however, Bhaskar Save was optimistic that a fundamental change in policy could turn things around. His views on farming are rooted in a vision that is diametrically opposed to the current policies of selling out farmers and agriculture – the heart and soul of India – to corrupt foreign agribusiness concerns. 

*     *     *

To: Shri M.S. Swaminathan,

The Chairperson, National Commission on Farmers,

Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India  

I am an 84-year old natural/organic farmer with more than six decades of personal experience in growing a wide range of food crops. I have, over the years, practised several systems of farming, including the chemical method in the fifties – until I soon saw its pitfalls. I say with conviction that it is only by organic farming in harmony with Nature, that India can sustainably provide her people abundant, wholesome food. And meet every basic need of all – to live in health, dignity and peace.

You, M.S. Swaminathan, are considered the ‘father’ of India’s so-called ‘Green Revolution’ that flung open the floodgates of toxic ‘agro’ chemicals – ravaging the lands and lives of many millions of Indian farmers over the past 50 years. More than any other individual in our long history, it is you I hold responsible for the tragic condition of our soils and our debt-burdened farmers, driven to suicide in increasing numbers every year.

As destiny would have it, you are presently the chairperson of the ‘National Commission on Farmers’, mandated to draft a new agricultural policy. I hope this provokes some soul-searching and open debate at all levels on the extremely vital issues involved. – So that we do not repeat the same kind of blunders that led us to our present, deep festering mess.

Farming runs in our blood. But I am sad that our (now greyed) generation of Indian farmers, allowed itself to be duped into adopting the short-sighted and ecologically devastating way of farming, imported into this country. – By those like you, with virtually zero farming experience!

For generations beyond count, this land sustained one of the highest densities of population on earth. Without any chemical ‘fertilizers’, pesticides, exotic dwarf strains of grain, or the new, fancy ‘bio-tech’ inputs that you now seem to champion. The many waves of invaders into this country, over the centuries, took away much. But the fertility of our land remained unaffected.

In our forests, the trees like ber (jujube), jambul (jambolan), mango, umbar (wild fig), mahua (Madhuca indica), imli (tamarind) yield so abundantly in their season that the branches sag under the weight of the fruit. The annual yield per tree is commonly over a tonne – year after year. But the earth around remains whole and undiminished. There is no gaping hole in the ground!

From where do the trees – including those on rocky mountains – get their water, their NPK, etc? Though stationary, Nature provides their needs right where they stand. But ‘scientists’ and technocrats like you – with a blinkered, meddling itch – seem blind to this. On what basis do you prescribe what a tree or plant requires, and how much, and when.?

It is said: where there is lack of knowledge, ignorance masquerades as ‘science’! Such is the ‘science’ you have espoused, leading our farmers astray – down the pits of misery. While it is no shame to be ignorant, the awareness of such ignorance is the necessary first step to knowledge. But the refusal to see it is self-deluding arrogance.

This country has more than 150 agricultural universities. But every year, each churns out several hundred ‘educated’ unemployables, trained only in misguiding farmers and spreading ecological degradation.

In all the six years a student spends for an M.Sc. in agriculture, the only goal is short-term – and narrowly perceived – ‘productivity’. For this, the farmer is urged to do and buy a hundred things. But not a thought is spared to what a farmer must never do so that the land remains unharmed for future generations and other creatures. It is time our people and government wake up to the realisation that this industry-driven way of farming – promoted by our institutions – is inherently criminal and suicidal!

Trying to increase Nature’s ‘productivity,’ is the fundamental blunder that highlights the ignorance of ‘agricultural scientists’ like you. When a grain of rice can reproduce a thousand-fold within months, where arises the need to increase its productivity?

Numerous kinds of fruit trees too yield several hundred thousand kg of nourishment each in their lifetime! That is, provided the farmer does not pour poison and mess around the tree in his greed for quick profit.

The mindset of servitude to ‘commerce and industry,’ ignoring all else, is the root of the problem. But industry merely transforms ‘raw materials’ sourced from Nature into commodities. It cannot create anew. Only Nature is truly creative and self-regenerating – through synergy with the fresh daily inflow of the sun’s energy.

Modern technology, wedded to commerce – rather than wisdom or compassion – has proved disastrous at all levels… We have despoiled and polluted the soil, water and air. We have wiped out most of our forests and killed its creatures.  And relentlessly, modern farmers spray deadly poisons on their fields. These massacre Nature’s jeev srushti – the unpretentious but tireless little workers that maintain the ventilated quality of the soil, and recycle all life-ebbed biomass into nourishment for plants. The noxious chemicals also inevitably poison the water, and Nature’s prani srushti, which includes humans.

Can you deny that for more than forty centuries, our ancestors farmed the organic way – without any marked decline in soil fertility, as in the past four or five decades? Is it not a stark fact that the chemical-intensive and irrigation-intensive way of growing monoculture cash-crops has been primarily responsible for spreading ecological devastation far and wide in this country? Within the lifetime of a single generation!

This country boasted an immense diversity of crops, adapted over millennia to local conditions and needs. Our numerous tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains. But in the guise of increasing crop production, exotic dwarf varieties were introduced and promoted through your efforts. This led to more vigorous growth of weeds, which were now able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight. The farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding, or spraying herbicides.

The straw growth with the dwarf grain crops fell drastically to one-third of that with most native species! In Punjab and Haryana, even this was burned, as it was said to harbour ‘pathogens’. (It was too toxic to feed farm cattle that were progressively displaced by tractors.) Consequently, much less organic matter was locally available to recycle the fertility of the soil, leading to an artificial need for externally procured inputs. Inevitably, the farmers resorted to use more chemicals, and relentlessly, soil degradation and erosion set in.

The exotic varieties, grown with chemical ‘fertiliser’, were more susceptible to ‘pests and diseases’, leading to yet more poison (insecticides, etc.) being poured. But the attacked insect species developed resistance and reproduced prolifically. Their predators – spiders, frogs, etc. – that fed on these insects and ‘biologically controlled’ their population, were exterminated. So were many beneficial species like the earthworms and bees.

Agribusiness and technocrats recommended stronger doses, and newer, more toxic (and more expensive) chemicals. But the problems of ‘pests’ and ‘diseases’ only worsened. The spiral of ecological, financial and human costs mounted!

With the use of synthetic fertilizer and increased cash-cropping, irrigation needs rose enormously. In 1952, the Bhakra dam was built in Punjab, a water-rich state fed by 5 Himalayan rivers. Several thousand more big and medium dams followed all over the country, culminating in the massive Sardar Sarovar. And now, our government is toying with a grandiose, Rs 560,000 crore  proposal to divert and ‘inter-link’ the flow of our rivers. This is sheer ‘Tughlaqian’ megalomania, without a thought for future generations!

India, next to South America, receives the highest rainfall in the world. The annual average is almost 4 feet. Where thick vegetation covers the ground, and the soil is alive and porous, at least half of this rain is soaked and stored in the soil and sub-soil strata. A good amount then percolates deeper to recharge aquifers, or ‘groundwater tables’.

The living soil and its underlying aquifers thus serve as gigantic, ready-made reservoirs gifted free by Nature. Particularly efficient in soaking rain are the lands under forests and trees. And so, half a century ago, most parts of India had enough fresh water all round the year, long after the rains had stopped and gone. But clear the forests, and the capacity of the earth to soak the rain, drops drastically. Streams and wells run dry. It has happened in too many places already.

While the recharge of groundwater has greatly reduced, its extraction has been mounting. India is presently mining over 20 times more groundwater each day than it did in 1950. Much of this is mindless wastage by a minority. But most of India’s people – living on hand-drawn or hand-pumped water in villages, and practising only rain-fed farming – continue to use the same amount of ground water per person, as they did generations ago.

More than 80% of India’s water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. Maharashtra, for example, has the maximum number of big and medium dams in this country. But sugarcane alone, grown on barely 3-4% of its cultivable land, guzzles about 70% of its irrigation waters!

One acre of chemically grown sugarcane requires as much water as would suffice 25 acres of jowar, bajra or maize. The sugar factories too consume huge quantities. From cultivation to processing, each kilo of refined sugar needs 2 to 3 tonnes of water. This could be used to grow, by the traditional, organic way, about 150 to 200 kg of nutritious jowar or bajra (native millets).

While rice is suitable for rain-fed farming, its extensive multiple cropping with irrigation in winter and summer as well, is similarly hogging our water resources, and depleting aquifers. As with sugarcane, it is also irreversibly ruining the land through salinisation.

Soil salinisation is the greatest scourge of irrigation-intensive agriculture, as a progressively thicker crust of salts is formed on the land. Many million hectares of cropland have been ruined by it. The most serious problems are caused where water-guzzling crops like sugarcane or basmati rice are grown round the year, abandoning the traditional mixed-cropping and rotation systems of the past, which required minimal or no watering.

Since at least 60% of the water used for irrigation nowadays in India, is excessive, indeed harmful, the first step that needs to be taken is to control this. Thus, not only will the grave damage caused by too much irrigation stop, but a good deal of the water that is saved can also become available locally for priority areas where acute scarcity is felt.

Efficient, organic farming requires very little irrigation – much less than what is commonly used in modern agriculture. The yields of the crops are best when the soil is just damp. Rice is the only exception that grows even where water accumulates, and is thus preferred as a monsoon crop in low-lying areas naturally prone to inundation. Excess irrigation in the case of all other crops expels the air contained in the soil’s inter-particulate spaces – vitally needed for root respiration – and prolonged flooding causes root rot.

The irrigation on my farm is a small fraction of that provided in most modern farms today. Moreover, the porous soil under the thick vegetation of the orchard is like a sponge that soaks and percolates to the aquifer, or ground-water table, an enormous quantity of rain each monsoon.  The amount of water thus stored in the ground at Kalpavruksha, is far more than the total amount withdrawn from the well for irrigation in the months when there is no rain.

Thus, my farm is a net supplier of water to the eco-system of the region, rather than a net consumer! Clearly, the way to ensure the water security and food security of this nation, is by organically growing mixed, locally suitable crops, plants and trees, following the laws of Nature.

We should restore at least 30% ground cover of mixed, indigeneous trees and forests within the next decade or two. This is the core task of ecological water harvesting – the key to restoring the natural abundance of groundwater. Outstanding benefits can be achieved within a decade at comparatively little cost. We sadly fail to realise that the potential for natural water storage in the ground is many times greater than the combined capacity of all the major and medium irrigation projects in India – complete, incomplete, or still on paper! Such decentralized underground storage is more efficient, as it is protected from the high evaporation of surface storage. The planting of trees will also make available a variety of useful produce to enhance the well-being of a larger number of people.

Even barren wastelands can be restored to health in less than a decade. By inter-planting short life-span, medium life-span, and long life-span crops and trees, it is possible to have planned continuity of food yield to sustain a farmer through the transition period till the long-life fruit trees mature and yield. The higher availability of biomass and complete ground cover round the year will also hasten the regeneration of soil fertility.

After the British left, Indian agriculture was recovering steadily. There was no scarcity of diverse nourishment in the countryside, where 75% of India lived. The actual reason for pushing the ‘Green Revolution’ was the much narrower goal of increasing marketable surplus of a few relatively less perishable cereals to fuel the urban-industrial expansion favoured by the government.

The new, parasitical way of farming you vigorously promoted, benefited only the industrialists, traders and the powers-that-be. The farmers’ costs rose massively and margins dipped. Combined with the eroding natural fertility of their land, they were left with little in their hands, if not mounting debts and dead soils. Many gave up farming. Many more want to do so, squeezed by the ever-rising costs. This is nothing less than tragic, since Nature has generously gifted us with all that is needed for organic farming – which also produces wholesome, rather than poisoned food!

Restoring the natural health of Indian agriculture is the path to solve the inter-related problems of poverty, unemployment and rising population. The maximum number of people can become self-reliant through farming only if the necessary inputs are a bare minimum. Thus, farming should require a minimum of financial capital and purchased inputs, minimum farming equipment (plough, tools, etc.), minimum necessary labour, and minimum external technology. Then, agricultural production will increase, without costs increasing. Poverty will decline, and the rise in population will be spontaneously checked.

Self-reliant farming – with minimal or zero external inputs – was the way we actually farmed, very successfully, in the past. Barring periods of war and excessive colonial oppression, our farmers were largely self-sufficient, and even produced surpluses, though generally smaller quantities of many more items. These, particularly perishables, were tougher to supply urban markets. And so the nation’s farmers were steered to grow chemically cultivated monocultures of a few cash-crops like wheat, rice, or sugar, rather than their traditional polycultures that needed no purchased inputs.

There are reports that ISIS has been on the run since Russia began its military operations against the U.S. backed terrorist organization. The relentless bombardment against ISIS, Al –Nusra and other terrorist targets led by the Syrian forces with support from the Russian air force has been an effective strategy to regain lost territories once held by the terrorists. The“Syrian Moderate Rebels” or ISIS has been reported to be demoralized and many are no longer fighting in the conflict according to RT News:

The majority of armed gangs are demoralized. Discontent with field commanders is growing amid the fighters, and there are instances of disobeying orders,” senior Russian General Andrey Kartapolov told a media briefing. Cases of desertion among the jihadists are no longer isolated, with them now fleeing “en masse,” the colonel general, who heads operations in the Russian general staff, added

The U.S. invested an enormous amount of money to arm these terrorist groups where in one case, 4 or 5 jihadists where apparently trained at the cost of $500 million (I’m sure that the military contractors and others in on the deal pocketed the cash for themselves). However, since the campaign began, ISIS militants in fact have been fleeing Syria in droves. But the question must be asked, where would these terrorists end up? Some will go to Iraq, Libya and Lebanon to regroup and maybe some might actually end up in South Florida, a place where they can enjoy the sun and have some fun with the locals. The beaches are decent (although not like the Caribbean) and the people party all night. Miami, home to Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine and actor Andy Garcia has been a haven for terrorists, dictators and mobsters since the 1950’s. Close to the Caribbean, South Florida hosts some of the most notorious terrorists at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers.

Yes, terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. They come in different colors and nationalities. These terrorists who are currently living in Florida are “Latinos” who are right–wing extremists funded and trained courtesy of the CIA since the 1960’s. Many of them support Senator Marco Rubio who fits in as the typical Republican war monger and anti-Castro opponent in Washington as President of the United States. It reminds me of the “Contras” a terrorist organization in Central America who was supported by the Reagan administration during the civil war in Nicaragua. Tens of thousands were tortured, raped and murdered in the process.

However, it is well known that a terrorist who is also a resident of Florida by the name of Luis Posada Carriles and others such as Orlando Bosch (who died on 2011) that live in Miami, Florida. Luis Posada is a free man who committed a terrorist attack on a ‘Cubana’ Airliner in 1976 and was implicated in several others against Cuba since the 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro. A report by the Miami Herald from this past June states that the declassified documents from 1976 points to Luis Posada Carriles as the ring leader in the bombing of the Cubana Airliner that killed 73 people:

A 1976 document declassified Wednesday by the State Department shows concerns about the CIA’s links with extremist groups within the Cuban exile community and points to Luis Posada Carriles as the most likely planner of the bombing attack against a Cubana Airlines plane that year. The memorandum was sent to then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger by two high ranking State Department officials who evaluated the accusations made by Fidel Castro on the alleged U.S. involvement in the downing of a Cubana plane traveling out of Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976, in which 73 people were killed. “We have now pursued in detail with CIA (1) what we know about responsibility for the sabotage of the Cubana airliner and (2) how any actions by CIA, FBI, or Defense attache´s might relate to the individuals or groups alleged to have responsibility,” states the report. The memorandum concludes that the CIA had previous ties to three of the people “supposedly” involved in the downing of a Cuban airliner, “but any role that these people may have had with the demolition took place without the knowledge of the CIA

The CIA did not have “no knowledge “of what Carriles was planning? Please, the chances that the CIA did not know what Carriles was capable of is laughable, besides they funded him from the start. Carriles still remains a free man in the streets of Miami. Despite the fact that the Miami Herald (part of the U.S. propaganda machine) did admit that a known terrorist lives in Miami who openly attends “right-wing extremists” fundraisers to overthrow the Cuban government only means that the U.S. government protects him. ISIS or the “Syrian moderate rebels” are fleeing from the crime scene. They are useful tools for Washington’s covert wars they wage across the globe. Where would they go? Miami is an obvious location. Why not? Keep the terrorists close to home in case someone from Langley needs them at a moment’s notice. There is no doubt that the Pentagon’s paid terrorists from the Middle East and North Africa would enjoy the city of Miami.

The U.S. has been arming, funding and directing ISIS (or please excuse me) the “Moderate Syrian Rebels” to target the Syrian government since the civil war began. Russia has stepped in to defeat the terrorist which has destroyed dozens of terrorist targets in a matter of weeks, while the U.S. has been bombing “alleged” terror targets in Syria for over a year without any success. The real reason why the U.S. had a low success rate against ISIS or any other terror group in the region is that the U.S. is complicit in funding and arming them from the start. The goal was to oust the Assad government and it has failed. Russia has showed the world who is the real hypocrite. Now ISIS is on the run, fleeing the war zone they have created. Russia will continue its fight along with its allies, but the question is what will ISIS do? Move to Miami?

Just imagine, ISIS living in South Beach, sipping rum and coke with Luis Posada on the beach talking about how great it is living “La Vida Loca” as a terrorist. I am not saying that ISIS is actively looking for condos or a house in Miami, but as history tells us, good terrorists who obey Washington’s orders will be well compensated in the end, even if the objectives are not met. As crazy as it may be, that is a hard truth for those who live on U.S. shores especially in Miami who might have to get use to the idea that your neighbor next door might actually be a terrorist.

Meanwhile in Portugal we are witnessing the makings of a genuine coup with the unwillingness of the establishment there to accept the outcome of an election and the support won by parties who oppose EU austerity. Gerry Adams, Sinn Féin, Oct 24, 2015

This is the truest form of Euro authoritarianism, short of full prisons and torture chambers. (These may, in time, come.) If you are not seized by the idea, the fetishism of a currency; if you gather up your forces to mount an offence against austerity, twinned as it with monetary union, then you must be, in the eyes of these policing forces, against the European project.

This obscene inversion has found form in Portugal, yet another country that has taken the road towards anti-democratic practice when it comes to the battle between the outcome of staged elections and the heralded inviolability of a broken euro system. It has the chill of history – political groupings with a certain number of votes barred because of supposedly radical tendencies. It has also received scant coverage in certain presses, with a few notable examples, such as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s observation that the country had “entered dangerous political waters.”[1]

First, the mathematics of the election held on October 4. The combined Left bloc won 50.7 percent of the vote (122 seats), while the conservative premier, Pedro Passos Coehlo’s Right-wing coalition gained 38.5 percent – a loss of 28 seats. One would have to be a rather brave and foolish individual to let the latter form government.

This, in fact, is what Aníbal Cacavo Silva, the country’s constitutional president, did. “In the 40 years of democracy, no government in Portugal has ever depended on the support of anti-European forces, that is to say forces that campaigned to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty, the Fiscal Compact, the Growth and Stability Pact, as well as to dismantle monetary union and take Portugal out of the euro, in wanting the dissolution of NATO.”

The statement hits upon a definition of the European project, if you can call it that, linked to bound, self-interested market structures and the virtues of military defence. Cavaco Silva evidently cannot conceive that a European project could involve a variation of the theme, let alone one averse to dogmas of austerity and the bank.

The Socialists, under António Costa, have promised Keynesian reflation policies with expenditures on education and health, a policy platform very much at odds with the EU’s Fiscal Compact.

So much, in that sense, for the legacy of the Carnation Revolution, which saw Portugal’s post-Salazar normalisation. It was that generally peaceful revolution that oversaw the demise of the Estada Novo, António de Oliveira Salazar’s corporatist vision that shares, in some perverse sense, similarities with the anti-democratic spirit of EU market governance. Bolting from those same stables, Cavaco Silva insists that the European left, and specifically the parties in Portugal, are somehow against Europe, parochial and therefore dangerous. The reverse, in fact, is the case.

The clue in Cavaco Silva’s erroneous thoughts on where a pan-European idea lies in his total faith in the market, corporate ideal. It is not the language of voters and public investment here that counts, but the ghostly forces of capital and private investment. The investors, the financiers, and the bankers must be kept in clover – or the entire country and by virtue of that, the EU, unravels.

This is the worst moment for a radical change to the foundations of our democracy. After we carried out an onerous programme of financial assistance, entailing heavy sacrifices, it is my duty, within my constitutional powers, to do everything possible to prevent false signals being sent to financial institutions, investors and markets.

In point of fact, the most radical tendency in history is the illusion that democracy and the market do, in fact, have a relationship that corresponds, rather than jars. In truth, democracy can only ever survive when markets are controlled. The European financiers have given the impression, manifested through the ideology of the Troika, that the estranged European Union is democratic only because it has such institutions as a single currency, or a tough austerity line.

The Greek crisis showed this entire process to be a grim sham, with Athens now a client state mortgaged to the hilt and contained by debt bondage. This happened after Syriza won power in January with a platform that seemed, at first, to be wholly against austerity. Sovereignty is short changed, while the finance sector counts its gains.

The entire context of such revolt in finance is permissiveness towards reactionary, nationalist elements. This is the paradox of having a supposedly flexible market that encourages the ease of liquidity in the absence of stable social structures. Historically, the forces of capital and finance permit a degree of nationalism and extremism as long as the money sector comes good. The liquidity tends to stay put.

The Portuguese example has become the most overt statement of this so far, though the Left grouping promise to block and scuttle the proposed four-year policy programme of the minority administration when the assembly resumes.

Till the two points meet – the pro-European left inspired by Keynesian-buttressed sovereignty, and the anti-democratic institutions that have held the European idea hostage – the notion of a workable euro zone will disintegrate. It will become, instead, a geographical area populated by authoritarian governments who see elections as mere pantomimes.

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

Note

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html

Russia’s intervention in Syria has derailed US regime-change efforts aimed at Damascus. It also threatens America’s secondary objective of dividing and destroying Syria as a functioning, unified nation-state. Long sought after “buffer zones” also sometimes referred to as “free zones” or “safe zones” still stand as the primary strategy of choice by the US and its regional allies for the deconstruction of Syria’s sovereignty and the intentional creation of a weak, failed state not unlike what the US and NATO left within the borders of Libya since 2011.

And while the US seeks to sell its “buffer zone” strategy under a variety of pretexts – from protecting refugees to fighting the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL) – it is admittedly a tactic aimed instead at America’s true objectives in Syria – the destruction of its government, the division of its people, and the eradication of its sovereignty.

ISIS is Clearly the Product of State-Sponsorship  

In 2012, it was clear that the region north of Aleppo and across the border into Turkey, had become one of two primary points (Jordan being the other) of staging and entry for NATO-backed terrorists operating in Syria. It was from across the border north of Aleppo and Idlib that NATO-armed, funded, and trained terrorists from Libya first flowed into Syrian territory and from where the initial 2012 invasion of Aleppo emanated.

While NATO opened up several other fronts along Syria’s northern border, this has remained their primary focus – specifically for the purpose of taking Idlib, Aleppo, or both, establishing them as a seat of government for a proxy regime, and as a strategic and logistical springboard to wage war deeper into Syrian territory from.

While initially the West attempted to make ISIS appear to be sustaining its fighting capacity within a vacuum deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory, allegedly sustaining itself on ransoms and black market oil, the scale of their operations has since betrayed this narrative, revealing immense state-sponsorship behind them.

If ISIS was being armed, funded, equipped, and its ranks replenished from abroad, it would need supply lines leading to and from these resources. Fighting along the Syrian-Turkish border, between ISIS and both Syrian troops and Kurds exposed NATO-ISIS ratlines – with maps published even by the Western media clearly indicating ISIS supply lines as “support zones” and “attack zones.”

Cutting NATO-ISIS Supply Lines

It was clear that as Syrian troops deep within Syria encircled, cut off the supplies of, and defeated terrorist bastions in cities like Homs and Hama, a much larger version of this would need to be accomplished to secure Syria’s borders. With Syrian troops themselves unable to operate along its borders with Turkey because of a defacto no-fly-zone established with the help of US anti-air missile systems, the burden has been shifted onto Syrian and Iranian-backed Kurds.

The Kurds with their advantages as irregular forces familiar with the territory and now receiving significant material support have managed to cut off ISIS from its NATO supply lines along nearly the entire Syrian-Turkish border, save for the region just north of Aleppo and Idlib. Kurds and Syrian forces have managed to secure the border on positions flanking this last NATO-ISIS logistical zone and threaten to cut it off as well.

Thus the intentionally confusing narrative and feigned jostling between Turkey and the US over the exact details of the impending “buffer zone” they seek to carve out of Syrian territory becomes crystal clear.

It is intended entirely to preserve ISIS, Al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda affiliates’ supply lines to and from Turkey. It, by necessity, will exclude Kurds – an immense betrayal by the Americans who have attempted to pose as their allies – and the Syrian Arab Army, to ensure no force is capable of harassing and disrupting NATO’s increasingly tenuous logistical and terrorist operations.

With Russia’s entry into the conflict, and its application of airpower across regions previously out of reach of Syria’s own heavily taxed air force, the prospect of Syrian and Kurdish forces now being able to close that last remaining gap has become a real possibility. Should this gap be closed and similar efforts accomplished in Syria’s south near its border with Jordan, not only will NATO’s mercenary forces be strangled, all prospects of NATO dividing and destroying Syria will be lost well into the foreseeable future.

“Buffer Zone” To Divide and Destroy, Not Save Syria 

Western policymakers have made it quite clear precisely what these “buffer zones” are truly intended for. While they claim they are aimed at fighting ISIS or protecting refugees – these are but pretexts.
The Brookings Institution – a corporate-funded policy think-tank whose policymakers have helped craft upper-level strategy for the Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, and now Syrian conflicts as well as plans laid for future confrontations with Iran and beyond – has been explicit regarding the true nature of these “buffer zones.” In a recent paper titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” it states:

…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 special forces.

The paper goes on by explaining (emphasis added) :

The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.

In essence, these zones constitute a defacto NATO invasion and occupation. The territory seized would be used as springboards to launch attacks deeper still into Syrian territory until eventually the entire nation was either permanently Balkanized or destroyed. Despite Brookings’ claims that eventually a national government would emerge and the territory under it “stabilized,” a look at all other NATO interventions, invasions, and occupations (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya) clearly indicates Syria’s true fate will be anything but stable and well-governed.

The President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Richard Haas, published an op-ed titled, “Testing Putin in Syria,” which echoed the Brookings plan (emphasis added):

In the meantime, the United States and others should pursue a two-track policy. One track would channel steps to improve the balance of power on the ground in Syria. This means doing more to help the Kurds and select Sunni tribes, as well as continuing to attack the Islamic State from the air.

Relatively safe enclaves should emerge from this effort. A Syria of enclaves or cantons may be the best possible outcome for now and the foreseeable future. Neither the US nor anyone else has a vital national interest in restoring a Syrian government that controls all of the country’s territory; what is essential is to roll back the Islamic State and similar groups.

It should be noted that the CFR plan was presented after Russia’s intervention, Brookings’ plan was presented beforehand, as early as June, and the concept of buffer zones has been proposed by US policymakers as early as 2012.

It was also recently revealed during a US Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing that retired US Army General John Keane suggested the creation of “free zones” in precisely the same manner. General Keane also suggested using refugees as a means of deterring Russian airstrikes in these zones – or in other words – using refugees as human shields. The common denominator between the Brookings, the CFR, and the US Senate Committee on Armed Services’ plans is the establishment of these zones for the destruction of Syria by perpetuating the fighting. To perpetuate the fighting terrorists like ISIS and Al Nusra must be continuously supplied and supported – a process now in jeopardy because of Russia’s intervention.

In a desperate last bid, the US may try to seize and expand “buffer zones” within Syrian territory in the hopes that these expansions can at least Balkanize Syria before Russia and Syria are able to roll back terrorist forces from most vital regions. It will be a race between Russia and Syria’s ability to drive out terrorists and stabilize liberated regions and America’s ability to bolster terrorists in regions along the border while obtaining public support for providing these terrorists with direct US-NATO military protection. Somewhere in between these two strategies lies the possibility of a direct confrontation between Russian-Syrian forces and US-NATO forces.

For the US and NATO, they would be provoking a wider war within the borders of a foreign nation in direct violation of the UN Charter, without a UN Security Council resolution, and with an entire planet now aware of their role in creating and perpetuating the very terrorist threat they have claimed now for a decade to be at ‘war’ with.

Revealing the true nature of NATO’s “buffer zones” and the fact that they are aimed at saving, not stopping ISIS, Al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda linked extremist factions, further undermines the moral, political, diplomatic, and even strategic viability of this plan. By revealing to the world the true solution to solving the “ISIS problem” – cutting their fighters off from their Western and Arabian state-sponsors, opens the door to more aggressive – not to mention more effective – measures to defeat them both in Syria and elsewhere.

That Russia has already begun taking these measures means that that window has closed further still for the US. The only question now will be whether the US concedes defeat, or escalates dangerously toward war with Russia to save a policy that has not only utterly failed, but has already been exposed to the world as a criminal conspiracy.

Logistics is the lifeblood of war. Understanding this and denying the enemy the resources they need to maintain their fighting capacity is the key to victory. The Russians, Syrians, Kurds, and Iranians are strangling NATO’s proxies at their very source and instinctively, NATO has raised its hands in the form of a “buffer zone” to defend them and relieve the pressure – thus revealing the true nature of this regional conflict and the central role the West has played in creating and perpetuating ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremists currently ravaging Syria and beyond.

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

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, shows that the 2012 donors to Mitt Romney’s campaign have been donating more to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they have been donating to the campaign of — listed here in declining order below Clinton — Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Martin O’Malley, Jim Web, Jim Gilmore, or Lawrence Lessig.

Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors.

In ascending order above Clinton, Romney’s donors have been donating to: John Kasich, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush. The top trio — of Bush, Cruz, and Rubio — have, together, received about 60% of all the money donated this time around, by the people who had funded Mitt Romney’s 2012 drive for the White House.

So: the Democrat Hillary Clinton scores above 14 candidates, and below 6 candidates. She is below 6 Republican candidates, and she’s above 11 Republican candidates.

This means that, in the entire 17-candidate Republican field, she drew more Republican money than did any one of 11 of the Republican candidates, but less Republican money than did any one of 6 of them. So, if she were a Republican (in what would then be an 18-candidate Republican-candidate field for 2016), she would be the 7th-from-the-top recipient of Romney-donor money.

Hillary Clinton, therefore, to Republican donors, is a more attractive prospect for the U.S. Presidency than is 64% of the current 17-member Republican field of candidates.

Another way to view this is that, to Republican donors, a President Clinton would be approximately as attractive a Presidential prospect as would be a President Graham, or a President Kasich.

To judge from Clinton’s actual record of policy-decisions, and excluding any consideration of her current campaign-rhetoric (which is directed only at Democratic voters), all three of those candidates — Graham, Clinton, and Kasich — would, indeed, be quite similar, from the perceived self-interest standpoint of major Republican donors.

As to whether any of those three candidates as President would be substantially worse for Republican donors than would any one of the Republican big-three — Bush, Cruz, and Rubio — one can only speculate.

However, the main difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates is certainly the rhetoric, not the reality. That’s because Ms. Clinton is competing right now only for Democratic votes, while each one of the Republican candidates is competing right now only for Republican votes.

In a general-election contest, Clinton would move more toward the ideological center, and so also would any one of the Republican candidates, who would be running then in the general election, against her; but, right now, the rhetorical contest is starkly different on the Democratic side, than it is on the Republican side, simply because the candidates are trying to appeal to their own Party’s electorate during the primary phase of the campaign, not to the entire electorate as during the general-election campaign.

Only in the general-election contest do all of the major candidates’ rhetoric tend more toward the center. The strategic challenge in the general election is to retain enough appeal to the given nominee’s Party-base so as to draw them to the polls on Election Day, while, at the same time, being close enough to the political center so as to attract independent voters and crossover voters from the other side.

A good example of the fudging that occurs during the general-election phase would be the 2012 contest itself. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney drew closer to the rhetorical center during the general-election matchup; but they were actually much more similar to each other than their rhetoric ever was. (After all, Obamacare is patterned upon Romneycare.) During the general-election Romney-Obama contest, Romney famously said that Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe, they fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors.”

Then, Obama criticized that statement, by saying, “you don’t call Russia our No. 1 enemy — not Al-Qaida, Russia — unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.” But, now, as President, Obama’s own National Security Strategy 2015 refers to Russia on 17 of the 18 occasions where it employs the term “aggression,” and he doesn’t refer even once to Saudi Arabia that way, though the Saudi royal family (who control that country) have been the major funders of Al Qaeda, and though 15 of the 19 perpetrators on 9/11 were Saudis — none of them was Russian — and though the Saudis areusing American weapons and training to bomb and starve-to-death Yemenis. Instead of calling the Saudi regime “aggressors,” we supply arms to them, and cooperate with them against their major oil-competitor, Russia. (For example, we arm the Saudi-funded jihadists that Russia is bombing in Syria — a key potential pipeline route.)

Also, on 27 March 2009, President Obama in secret told the assembled chieftains of Wall Street, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m protecting you.” Romney could have said the same, if he had been elected. And President Obama’s record has now made clear that he indeed has fulfilled on that promise he made secretly to them.

The reality turned out to be far more like Romney, than like Obama’s campaign rhetoric had ever been. Similarly, on Obama’s trade-deals (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), he has been very much what would have been expected from Romney, though Obama had campaigned against Hillary Clinton for her having supported and helped to pass NAFTA. Obama’s trade-deals go even beyond NAFTA, to benefit international mega-corporations at the general public’s expense.

What Hillary’s fairly strong appeal to Romney’s financial backers shows is that the wealthy, because of their access to leaders in government, know and recognize the difference between what a candidate says in public, versus what the winning public official has said (to them) in private and actually does while serving in office.

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.

Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli said that Baghdad and Moscow have agreed to hit ISIL militants heading from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement released on Friday, Zameli said that the joint data center between Iraq, Syria and Russia was still in its initial stage, noting that however, it has offered important intelligence information which helped end the battle in Baiji, raqi TV, al-Sumaria reported on Friday.

Syria offered important information about the position of ISIL (so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Levant), Zameli said in the statement.

“Iraq agreed with Russia, which leads the joint data center, to hit ISIL militants heading from Syria to Iraq,” Zameli said, pointing out that this move weakens ISIL militants as it cuts off supply routes of the Takfiri insurgents.

Earlier on Wednesday, Reuters news agency reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is under pressure to seek anti-ISIL strikes from Russia.

Iraq’s ruling alliance and powerful Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) have urged Abadi to request Russian air strikes against ISIL.

The agency quoted quoted two members of parliament as saying that the prime minister was under “tremendous pressure” from the ruling National Alliance to request Russian intervention.

The United States is leading a 60-plus member coalition allegedly targeting ISIL Takfiri group (so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Levant) in Iraq and Syria and has been carrying out frequent raids for more than a year.

The strikes have failed to turn the tide in the war against the Takfiri militants who have declared a caliphate and want to redraw the map of the Middle East.

Meanwhile, and under the request of the Syrian government, Russia also is launching an air campaign against ISIL and other terrorists.

Russia is in the midst of a transformational geo-economic pivot, whereby its previous Western-prioritized economic relations are rapidly moving towards Asia. As part of this historic shift, Russia seeks to spearhead three North-South vectors of trade, with the subject of this article being the one directed towards ASEAN. The Asian Sea Arc, as the author has taken to calling it, is the maritime link connecting a reinvigorated Vladivostok with a burgeoning Indochina, and it gets its name by traversing the Sea of Japan, the Yellow Sea, and the South China Sea.

While much attention has been given to the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership, particularly less has been made of Russia’s attempts to diversify its Asian relations and break into the ASEAN marketplace (save for the free trade relationship with Vietnam). What’s critically being left out of the discourse are the political-economic advances that Russia has already made in this direction, and how the utilization of a shrewd and guided economic policy can reap lasting rewards in actualizing Russia’s full Asian Sea Arc potential.

The article begins by fleshing out Russia’s ASEAN pivot, explaining how it’s necessary for the country’s leadership and its economic vanguard to concentrate more seriously on the countries of Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. Afterwards, it illustrates how this could realistically be manifested, specifically through investing in key Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in each of these states. Finally, the last section proves how these identified locations are the most strategic springboards that Russia can employ in rapidly deepening its relations with the Southeast Asian states and reaching the heralded ASEAN-Eurasian Union Free Trade Agreement that’s at the heart of its decision makers’ global economic ambitions.

Analyzing The ASEAN Pivot

Backdrop:

Russia’s reorientation towards non-Western economies must have more substance to its policy than simply intensifying relations with China (as important as this is, of course), and it’s clear that Moscow understands this imperative. It’s already been seen how Russia signed a free trade agreement with Vietnam this summer under the aegis of the Eurasian Union, but this is really the start, not the conclusion, of its ASEAN Pivot. The end game is to expand this free trade to include all of ASEAN, and the talk of Thailand being the next in line to apply for such an economic arrangement proves that at least one other regional state is interested in working with the Eurasian Union. In order for this ambitious policy to enter into pan-organizational practice, however, the other ASEAN economies need to see the benefits of clinching free trade deals with Russia, and herein lays the reason for Russian companies to invest in certain SEZs in key regional states.

Strategy:

In terms of strategy, it’s much more likely that Russia can make a stronger economic impact in newly emerging markets where there’s less of an institutionalized and established competitive presence, like in Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, and whose economies are scaled much smaller than regional powerhouses Indonesia and Malaysia, for example. The results of this would be to court a much more favorable impression that their decision makers would then have towards reaching a future free trade deal with Russia (through the Eurasian Union), as a relatively smaller investment in these SEZs could have a much larger effect on their respective economies. Looking at the bigger picture, if Russia is serious about reaching an ASEAN-Eurasian Union Free Trade Agreement, then its best bet is to first seal such deals with mainland ASEAN (Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia), and then have this internal bloc of economies lobby their insular counterparts for a wider deal with the rest of the organization. As Vietnam already has a free trade deal with Russia and Thailand is rapidly moving towards that direction, the focus thus passes to Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

Political Advances:

Russia is already deepening its partnerships with each of these three states on a government-to-government basis, but it urgently needs to employ the SEZs as a catalyst for doing the same thing on the economic level. In addressing the recent successes of Russian diplomacy towards these countries, one can clearly see a level of political commitment on both sides that can obviously be harnessed to do this, but Russian companies need to take the initiative now and seize the constructive momentum that their government has gifted them.

Concerning Myanmar, for example, Vice President U Nyan Tun was given the honor of delivering akeynote speech at the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in June alongside President Putin, which occurred after the two countries agreed to a memorandum on nuclear energy cooperation. Per the latest from Laos, President Putin held a meeting with his counterpart on the sidelines of the World War II victory commemorations in Beijing where he expressed confidence that Vientiane’s upcoming ASEAN presidency will help Russia enhance its trade and economic ties with the group. As with Myanmar, Russia will also be building nuclear power plants in the country per a recent agreement made prior to that meeting. Last but not least, Cambodia is the country where Russia has the least direct political influence, but Phnom Penh’s official ascension to the SCO at the end of September provides a very constructive platform for taking ties even further. It’s even possible that China could stimulate Cambodia to do so and/or influence it to be more receptive to Russia’s outreaches, as the strategic partnership between Beijing and Moscow tacitly suggests that each side use their respective diplomatic strengths to help the other whenever possible.

It thus follows per everything explained above that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a clear and determined push to intensify Russia’s relations with ASEAN. The prerogative for taking relations past the political realm and into the economic sphere now rests squarely on the shoulders of Russia’s business community, but the state can encourage them to invest there by crafting a guided and coordinated policy directed towards the three examined countries’ key SEZs.

The Three-Step Approach

The purpose of this section is to elaborate on the economic attractiveness of Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, as well as briefly discuss the benefits of investing in key SEZs in each of those states. Interested businessmen will also be provided with direct links to government sources that will give them the opportunity to receive authoritative information for how to facilitate any regional investment ideas they may have after reading this article.

Myanmar:

Overview

Myanmar is a formerly closed economy that is now opening up to the globalized world. The government wants to diversify away from its former dependency on China, and is thus eager to court as much international investment as possible. The country’s rather sizeable population of over 50 million people provides a lot of cheap labor potential, as the minimum wage is only a paltry $67 a month for a six-day work week, the second-lowest in the world. It’s not for naught that famed global investor Jim Rogersproclaimed in early 2014 that “If I could put all of my money into Myanmar, I would. Myanmar is in the same place China was in early 1979, when Deng Xiaoping said “we have to do something new”. Myanmar is now opening up and it’s the next economic frontier in Asia.” His enthusiasm is likely attributable in part to Myanmar’s ideal geography, which strategically places the country smack dab in the middle of the large Chinese and Indian marketplaces.

Natural Resources

Aside from labor and geo-economic considerations, Myanmar is also very attractive because of its natural resource and mineral wealth. The UK Trade & Investment Department issued a January 2015report that sought to convince British investors that the time is right for investing in the country’s energy sphere. According to the IHS Global Insights firm cited in the document, oil and gas reserves are estimated to be 3.2 billion barrels and 18 trillion cubic feet, respectively, although the publication suggests that unproven deposits could actually be much more. As it currently stands, the US’ Energy Information Agency notes that “natural gas production has increased substantially over the past decade… but is forecasted to rise further as a result of new projects coming online”, thus confirming their British counterparts’ assessment that the time is now for investors to get involved in Myanmar’s energy market. As regards the mineral one, Soe Nandar Linn of the World Bank writes that the jade market in 2011 (including illegal sales to China) totaled more than $8 billion, and Stratfor released amap in 2013 showing the wide extent of the country’s gold, copper, zinc, and other mineral deposits that remain largely untapped.

Political Risks

The problem with Myanmar, however, is that it’s wrought with political risk, as the country could realistically be destabilized by a Rohingya separatist war, ethnic cross-border terrorism against India, and/or a return to all-out civil war in the periphery (where most of the minerals are). Despite this, for investors willing to stretch their necks out a bit, the rewards are forecasted to be astronomical, with the World Bank considering Myanmar to be the world’s fourth-fastest growing economy. Also, even with all of the possible political tumult that might occur, in most worst-case scenarios, the Burmese heartland (the central part of the country) would still remain largely untouched by the direct consequence of chaos (in the sense of not undergoing physical destruction, at least) that could rage along its borderlands, meaning that most manufacturing and garment assets should remain largely safe. The important exception to this would be if Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters commence a Color Revolution that evolves into a Hybrid War which devastates the country’s urban areas.

SEZs

To take a glance at the country’s most promising investment areas for those that are still interested, one should refer to the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration’s listing of Myanmar’s SEZs. Going from North to South and stretching along Myanmar’s coast, these are Kyauk Phyu, Thilawa, and Dawei. All three of them each have their own competitive advantages, which in the grander sense of Russia’s ASEAN Pivot, will be more thoroughly connected with other regional investments in the last section. To briefly describe them, though, Kyauk Phyu is located in Rakhine State (“Rohingyaland”), right where the Chinese-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline corridor reaches the Indian Ocean. In the future, this energy corridor is expected to give way to an all-out economic one, so it’s predicted that investments in Kyauk Phyu will provide a direct gateway to the Chinese market and certainly stand to gain by being located at the corridor’s maritime terminus. Thilawa, on the other hand, is located along the central coast and very close to Yangon, the largest city in Myanmar. This means that it has access to a large pool of laborers and existing infrastructure, and furthermore, could possibly become a prioritized state asset that enjoys security protection in the event that the country’s peripheral problems migrate inward. Finally, the Dawei SEZ is in the country’s extreme south very close to the Thai border. The newly christened project houses a deep water port and is expected to be a terminal point on the southern portion of the Greater Mekong Subregion Economic Corridor(GMSEC, more to be discussed later).

Laos:

Overview

This communist relic is a peaceful and stable country that has no history of political, social, or ethnic disturbances since the end of the Vietnam War era. The sinewy Mekong River snakes along most of Laos’ western border with Thailand, and in the parts that are exclusively under its jurisdiction, it provides an excellent opportunity for harnessing hydroelectric energy to turn the country into the “Battery of (Southeast) Asia”. Electricity exports are projected to become an increasingly important part of Laos’ economy because its population of slightly less than 7 million people (the smallest in ASEAN behind much smaller Brunei) doesn’t exactly prepare it to become the next manufacturing powerhouse like Myanmar’s 50-plus-million does.

“Land-Linked”

Instead, Laos’ real economic advantage is in being a “land-linked” state that connects to all of the other mainland ASEAN countries, thereby giving it enormous importance in terms of logistics and transport infrastructure. China is building a Kunming-to-Singapore high-speed railroad (the “ASEAN Silk Road”) which transits through Laos, and Malaysia is constructing a West-East one along the country’s South that aims to integrate into the GMSEC that was just discussed. It’s thus no coincidence that Laos’ SEZs are positioned in nearby proximity to these two lines, with plans to construct a total of 41 such sites from the country’s current 10 (as listed by the Lao National Committee for Special Economic Zones). Of specific interest to Russia should be that the Ministry of Planning and Investment specifically makes an effort to promote its Moscow location and contact details within easy reach of its website’s front page. Additionally, due to the trade agreements that Vietnam has with Russia and Laos, Vietnamese-based Russian investors are uniquely poised to exploit the overlapping loopholes in order receive de-facto free trade privileges with Laos prior to the signing of a formalized bilateral agreement between Vientiane and Moscow.

Wage Changes

Investors in Laos can expect to pay their workers a minimum monthly wage of around $110, which represents a 43% increase from its previous rate due to a new change in legislation from earlier this year. It’s thought that the hike was a preemptive attempt to stifle any coming social turbulence precipitated by the country’s forthcoming integration into the globalized economy, and in this sense, it was a wise decision and well worth the price to pay for domestic stabilization and a positive external image. Also, it’s much more convenient for the government to have adjusted the minimum wage in advance to something more in line with realistic regional rates than to make a huge increase in response to dissatisfied and striking masses, as had been the case in Cambodia last year. From the entrepreneur’s standpoint, this also saves them the trouble of having to adjust their business model to factor in the unexpected rise in wages, which could totally throw off their projected figures and seriously lessen their profit margins.

Minerals

On the topic of business interests, other than the garment and manufacturing industries that are stereotypical for ASEAN countries, investors might be attracted to Laos’ untapped mineral deposits. Referencing the Laos Mineral and Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide (updated annually, but with the 2009 version being the last publicly available edition online), one can be best prepared for entering into this largely undeveloped market. They should be advised, however, that Laos has put up an unspecific physical amount of its mineral resources thought to total around $500 million as collateral to China in exchange for a financing loan to construct its portion of the ASEAN Silk Road, and it’s conceivable that even if it’s eventually paid off, those said resources will still be sold to China for additional profit. Nonetheless, in all probability, there should still be more than enough minerals left for other actors to extract, although the difficulty might be in prospecting for them since many of the already discovered, yet untapped, ones likely may have been included in the collateral agreement with China. If this challenge can be surmounted by an effecive company, then they’re bound to receive a windfall of profit (subject to commodity pricing trends, of course) by employing the soon-to-be-built high-speed rail networks to sell their newly unearthed resources on the global market.

Cambodia:

Overview

The land of the ancient Khmer Empire is now but a fraction of its former size and glory, but it’s back on the upswing as an increasingly important regional economic hub. For the most part, Cambodia was largely isolated after the Vietnam War, first undergoing the genocidal killings of the Khmer Rouge, and secondly being under the administration of liberating Vietnamese forces until the 1990s. Long-ruling Prime Minister Hun Sen has kept the country stable ever since, and under his stewardship Cambodia has emerged from Vietnam’s shadow and partnered itself with China. Its 14 million people live mostly along the Vietnamese border, which is also logically where the Council for the Development of Cambodia lists most of its 14 SEZs to be, the largest of which is Sihanoukville along the southern coast.

Sihanoukville

Out of all of Cambodia’s SEZs, this one deserves the most attention from foreign and Russian investors. Not only is it important that it’s already the largest, and therefore the most developed in terms of services and infrastructure, but its key point of attractiveness is that it’s located right near the sea and is linked to the only international port in the country. This means that goods can be manufactured and then quickly shipped to the Gulf of Thailand and thenceforth to the South China Sea’s global shipping lanes en route to Northeast Asia (Vladivostok) or Europe. For all intents and purposes, this gives Sihanoukville the potential to become a major economic node in the greater South China Sea/Mekong River region due to the logistical ease and geo-economic convenience of conducting business there.

Domestic Dynamics

Being positioned between regional powerhouses Thailand and Vietnam, it’s very possible that Cambodia’s economy will enjoy residual benefits as investors use the country as a cost-effective hub for exporting to its neighbors. This is even more so for non-Russian investors that might use the Vietnamese-bordering SEZs as a gateway for accessing that market (Russian ones have no need for this geographic benefit because of the free trade agreement their country has with Hanoi). Also, the GMSEC’s southern route will run through the country from Myanmar’s Dawei SEZ en route to Vietnam, and it’s likely that Cambodia will receive some sort of economic benefit through its transit country role. Additionally, with workers earning a minimum monthly wage of $128 (more than in Myanmar and Laos, and equal to or more than some Vietnamese cases) and possibly growing if more strikes occur in the future, there’s the long-term potential that the relatively small economy could become a consumer destination for certain SEZ-domestically produced goods, although it’s of course decades away from ever becoming a consumer-driven economy in any traditional sense of the meaning.

Making Money In The Greater Mekong Subregion

The quintessential strategic benefit that Russian companies can acquire by investing in Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, especially in the SEZs that were discussed above, is that they have prime access to the region-wide transport infrastructure being built to integrate the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS, full transport corridor map here). This term is used by the Asian Development Bank to connote the five countries of mainland ASEAN plus China’s Yunnan Province, and the two primary high-speed rail corridors being built here are the North-South (China’s “ASEAN Silk Road) and East-West ones. The former is from Kunming to Singapore and via Laos and Thailand, whereas the latter has two routes that go from Myanmar and Thailand to Vietnam, with one each crossing through Laos and Cambodia.

The nominal “East-West” route goes from Mawlamyine (Myanmar’s fourth-largest city and close to Yangon and Thilawa SEZ) and cuts through Laos betweenSavannakhet and Lao Bao (and within close proximity to many of the country’s SEZs). The second route, the so-called “southern” one, goes from Dawei SEZ and carries on to Thailand’s capital of Bangkok, Cambodia, and southern Vietnam and will be partly financed by Japan and Thailand. When completed, all three of these high-speed rail lines are expected to greatly increase trans-ASEAN trade and provide a mainland solution to the Straits of Malacca chokepoint. How this relates to Russian companies in the current context is that they’ll be able to employ these connective infrastructure projects (paid for both other investors) to ship Myanmar- and Laotian-SEZ-produced goods to the Gulf of Thailand and South China Sea, thereby putting them within easy maritime reach of being shipped further to Vladivostok and assisting with Russia’s Far Eastern development projects there.

What this all amounts to is that Russian companies are free to capitalize off of their government’s recent political inroads with ASEAN states in order to set up profitable enterprises in the various SEZs that were discussed in Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. By the time their enterprises are up and running in a few years’ time, most of the connective infrastructure networks should have been completed in part or in full, thus allowing Russian investors to ‘piggyback’ off of others’ efforts in order to most cost-effectively get their products to market. Because they didn’t have to invest but one cent in the tens of billions of dollars’ worth of transport projects that will zig-zag the region, but will still have equal access to them, Russian investors and their government can save much-needed cash through these ‘indirect subsidies’ that could then be used for scaling up their ASEAN holdings and deepening their economic influence in each country.

Concluding Thoughts

Now is the time unlike any other for Russia to get serious about its Pivot to ASEAN. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made tremendous progress in furthering government-to-government relations in the region, and it’s now high time for the economic sector to step up and take the initiative in propelling each emerging partnership to the next level. The end goal of reaching a pan-ASEAN-Eurasian Union Free Trade Agreement can only be attained by expanding Russia’s existing agreement with Vietnam to include Thailand and the other mainland bloc states, with the expectation they’d later rally their insular counterparts into agreeing to the proposed full-organizational measure. While things are proceeding apace with Thailand, the same can’t necessarily be said for Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, and a lot of economic progress is still to be desired.

It’s with this in mind that Russian companies must be made aware of the enormous profit potential to be had by investing in SEZs in each of these three countries. Such a path represents the most surefire way to jumpstart mercantile ties and move closer to sewing together a patchwork of bilateral free trade agreements between Russia and each of the mainland ASEAN states, which as previously written, is the necessary prerequisite to a proper bloc-to-bloc accord. To make it all even more enticing, Russian investors should be cognizant of the billions of dollars in ‘indirect subsidies’ that China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam are giving them through the construction of high-speed rail corridors throughout the region. These will put Russian investments in Laos within convenient reach of maritime shipping routes to Vladivostok, thus accomplishing a logistical challenge that had hitherto deterred all but the most ambitious (and capital-heavy) entrepreneurs. It will also make it easier to transfer any investments along Myanmar’s coast directly to the Gulf of Thailand/South China Sea area without having to pass through the Strait of Malacca.

Finally, in a geopolitical sense, Russia’s Pivot to ASEAN isn’t only necessary for economic ends, but also strategic ones as well. If Russia can establish more influence over mainland ASEAN states at the same moment when the US’ Pivot to Asia is attempting to push China out, then it can increase its importance to Beijing in a way that no other country currently can, thus strengthening the partnership between them and possibly leading to asymmetrical rewards as well. Additionally, amidst this American-Sino struggle in the ASEAN arena, Russia notably has no bad blood with any of the regional states, so it’s free to economically maneuver however it sees fit. This mobility of action is very important as the country strives to deepen its foothold in the region, and it’s likely that the trust garnered during this process can be recycled into political dividends when the time is right. If Russia fully succeeds with its Pivot to ASEAN and achieves the heralded bloc-to-bloc free trade agreement that it’s working towards, then it would go a long way towards expanding Moscow’s supercontinental reach across Eurasia and opening up a pivotal economic partnership that could do wonders for the modernization of the Far East.

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

What if there were an election and nobody came? It happened in Haiti on August 9, 2015. Language fails us. Words like election, plebiscite and democracy no longer matter. If there had been a word for an election under foreign occupation, then the vacuous exercise would have carried its proper name.

The business of occupation elections has great appeal for Haiti’s hustler class, who appeared in droves to run for the legislature. Millions of United Nations dollars were distributed to over 2,200 candidates, ostensibly to administer their campaigns. At least 10 percent were hoodlums who had cloaked themselves as candidates, to benefit from the immunity that Haitian law confers on legislators from criminal prosecution. They came, heavy with weapons and pre-filled ballot boxes, to attack the polling stations.

The campaigns for the presidency began soon after the botched legislative first-round elections. Some candidates did everything short of tap dancing in blackface in Washington DC, to impress the US State Department. As we say in Haiti, “money makes a dog dance.” Especially the comfortable dog, it would appear. It was the Haitian poor who kept a dignified stance, even while the country’s currency was devalued from 43 gourdes to more than 59 gourdes per dollar in advance of the elections, and even when this meant that they would be starved of food and clean water. They promised that they would not vote unless the United Nations mission (MINUSTAH) cleared out of their neighborhoods and the entire country. They had delivered on that promise on August 9, when less than eight percent of the greater Port-au-Prince area showed up to vote, and they planned to do the same on October 25 and December 27.

Cite Soleil, a large slum north of the capital city of Port-au-Prince with a population of about 400,000, did not have any polling-station incidents on August 9, because voting was completely shut down in that area by a total boycott of the elections. That city was not the only one. Indeed, throughout Haiti, in areas where people’s municipal buildings and lands had been appropriated, or the electrical grid and municipal water supply systems had been sabotaged to force people to sell their lands cheaply and move, the citizenry had refused to vote. In some cases, they had set up street barricades and taken back their neighborhoods. Cite Soleil is the most advanced region in this regard. It has been off limits to the Haitian National Police (PNH) and MINUSTAH for years. The residents have established their own police force, which the mainstream and their liberal echo chambers like to call gangs. The Cite Soleil citizenry has been forced to do this to protect itself from the PNH and MINUSTAH, which they accuse of coming there only to steal, rape and kill.

Haiti’s slums, because of their dire need for organization, sprout leadership almost as generously as Port-au-Prince’s wealthy areas produce hustlers. Jean Liphete Nelson, nicknamed Ti-Lifet, who was born in Cite Soleil in 1974 and lived there all his life, organized schools for children, hot meals for the elderly, mobile clinics for the poor, and a radio station called Radio Boukman, which he directed. Jean-Baptiste Jean-Philippe, nicknamed Samba Boukman, was part of the armed resistance of Lavalas partisans against MINUSTAH that ultimately negotiated a peace in the Bel-Air slum. Both men were charismatic and well respected. In free-and-fair elections, individuals like these would have emerged among Haiti’s new leadership, but both of these men were killed in March 2012. The occupier’s strategy is the same as Israel’s in the Gaza and West Bank: it is to eliminate any incipient leadership.

Peterson Salomon, nicknamed Te Quiero, was killed on June 14, 2015, as soon as there began to be talk of elections. This most recent killing of a Cite Soleil leader is still presented by some news organizations as the result of supposed inter-gang rivalry, although the PNH and MINUSTAH have assumed responsibility for it. The PNH has claimed that Te Quiero refused to submit to a search and then shot at them, but Cite Soleil eyewitnesses described an assassination. According to one woman who witnessed the killing:

 “There was no war against the police. There was no police! People said, here come the blan [foreigners], and everybody went inside their homes. The blan hid out on the porch of this house. There was one who laid flat on the ground. Te Quiero was up there in his home and about to step out. The moment he appeared there, you heard a shot: a single shot and he fell to his knees and died.”

Another witness described the killing of a teenager called Nono with a single shot to the head, because he appeared at the wrong time, and the death of an infant by asphyxiation from tear gas thrown by MINUSTAH after the shootings. A man who had been with Te Quiero recalled: “We were in the first-city area having a good time and drinking. And then we saw four MINUSTAH snipers appear. They made no sign and said nothing. They just started to shoot at us….” All the witnesses described Te Quiero and his group as serving the community. According to another man:

“They do a job that the police cannot do. They were the ones who protected and served…. They were the ones who watched the place. When we have a problem, it is them that we go see.”

Three days after the assassination, 60,000 people took to the streets of the slum to honor Te Quiero’s memory and especially to call for MINUSTAH to go. The accounts of the killings and protest were published in Creole-language videos but until now reported nowhere in print.

Since June 2015, there have been reports of a spate of killings of Haitian policemen by supposed bandits on motorcycles, though it has become increasingly clear that an armed resistance against the occupation has developed in Haiti. During the night of October 16, more than 15 peoplein Cite Soleil were shot dead and over 140 were arrested by a new branch of the PNH called the Brigade for Departmental Operation and Intervention (Brigade d’Opération et d’Intervention Départementale, BOID). The inauguration of this new group in June corresponded, not only with the start of the election season but also with the conclusion of the training by Ecuador of a new paramilitary force, loyal to Michel Martelly.

Witnesses say that two pregnant women were among the dead. The PNH has claimed responsibility for the raid, but it said that it counted only two victims from a shootout, both of them gunmen. Nevertheless, the press persists with its conclusion that the killings in Cite Soleil were due to internecine warfare.

The notion that Martelly’s gangs might be battling the partisans of other candidates for the Cite Soleil electorate is patently absurd. Cite Soleil and the other slums in the greater Port-au-Prince area want no part of the elections. Period. The occupation has announced that it will deploy 10,000 police, 2,500 MINUSTAH troops and police, over 880 motorcycles and 150 four-by-fours throughout Haiti on October 25 to protect – or rather, corral — the voters.

A good show of slum voters is needed, not to help Martelly, but to concoct a convincing win for the Fanmi Lavalas presidential candidate, Maryse Narcisse, for the international press. Indeed, on October 23, Aristide was brought out of his house arrest, under heavy guard, to display yet more support for Maryse Narcisse, this time in Cite Soleil; apparently, the BOID bloodbath and arrests had cleared the stage for this show, which was immediately reported by the Associated Press.

The results of the first-round presidential elections of October 25 have already been decided by a CNN poll, which gave Narcisse 27.9 percent of the electorate, followed by Martelly’s candidate Jovenel Moise at 18.9 percent, Preval’s candidate Jude Celestin at 14.9 percent, and Lavalas-offshoot candidate Moise Jean-Charles at 11.8 percent. A persuasive win for Narcisse will distract the world from Haiti’s municipal and legislative elections of October 25, which will be disastrous. A Narcisse victory cannot be arranged without people lining up at the polling stations, waiving the photos of Aristide and Narcisse that were conveniently staged for the occasion on September 30 and October 23. The bloodshed in Cite Soleil and elsewhere has less to do with Haiti’s elections than the 2016 US elections.

The Clintons want to eat their cake and have it too. They want to present themselves as Haiti’s saviors despite having destroyed Haiti’s governance for their own benefit. They want to win even if it costs many hundreds of lives in Haiti’s slums to break the election boycott and herd the voters for the cameras, so as to generate the Associated Press-Reuters-CNN euphoria of a supposed return of democracy to Haiti in the person of a female leader.

Sources: News Junkie Post | For more from Dady Chery on the Haitian elections, read We Have Dared to be Free: Haiti’s Struggle Against Occupation, available as a paperback from Amazon and e-book from Kindle.

Excellent interview of Dady Chery with Eric Draitser on Haiti’s predicaments, between the election charade under the hospice of Clinton & Co. and their Haitian surrogate Narcisse, and the armed resistance against the occupation unfolding in places such as Cite Soleil.

Is 2015 the year that we can finally lay Western mainstream media ‘journalism’ to rest?

Watch a video of this report here:

The Guardian is claiming that, ‘at least four hospitals have been bombed … since Russia’s intervention in the war‘ in Syria began, and says that ‘international medical organisations have repeatedly claimed that medical facilities in opposition areas have been systematically targeted’.

It cites Physicians for Human Rights (PFHR), a group who claim that these attacks have occurred ‘since protests against the regime of Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011 until the end of August 2015.’ This seems to suggest that nothing except ‘protests’ have been sought out for bombing by Assad, ignoring the fact that ‘moderates’ have never existed in what is unquestionably a war; not a series of ‘protests’.

This week PFHR also happens to be promoting their #DefendDoctors “Die-In” in New York City, which is said to be “in defense of doctors in Syria” who are allegedly being brutalised by Washington and London’s target for regime change. According to their website:

More than 670 medical professionals have been killed in the Syrian crisis. Over 95% of these deaths are by Syrian government forces.

The director of Medical Relief in Syria, Khaled Almilaji, says the world needs to start getting angry with Russia and claims they are far ‘more accurate’ in their bombings of hospitals than Assad:

The whole world has to be just as angry as they were with what happened in Afghanistan. Their anger must not just be directed at Bashar, who has been inhuman with us, but also at the Russians, who are just as bad, but more accurate in their targeting.

Mr. Almilaji would, perhaps, find a friend in the BBC’s John Simpson who recently tried, although spectacularly unsuccessfully, to call Putin an aggressor. Such actions are an obvious reaction to the embarrassment that Russia’s highly successful air campaign has caused the West.

The Su-34s are concerned with bombing terrorists, not civilians. (Photo Credit: Alex Beltyukov)

For some reason, The Guardian does not provide us with any images or video clips of the carnage that they claim has occurred at these hospitals, except a shaky video ‘purporting to show a Russian airstrike’ from ‘@Johnyrocket69‘ (obviously a highly reliable source) that shows an explosion in an open square.

Where is the continuity? Did we not just hear that the Russians were ‘more accurate in their targeting’?

This is in massive contrast to the extensive media coverage of NATO’s bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan just a few weeks ago. No doubt, this could easily be view as counter-propaganda in the wake of NATO PR meltdown after ‘accidentally’ leveling the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz.

That is not to say that the outlet does not have any evidence at all, as they do have this rock solidstatement from a certain Dr Tennari:

“I think it was Russian.“

By Guardian journalistic standards, is this then ‘case closed’...?

They also drag up the tried-and-tested, or in this case tried-and-failed, subject of ‘barrel bombs’ but now with a chemical twist. The Guardian says with absolute certainty that ‘Syrian regime helicopters dropped barrel bombs filled with chlorine’, but offer no citation as to what happened and when. It then goes on to seemingly contradict itself by saying that this alleged chlorine barrel bomb attack by the Syrian government has subsequently “prompted further claims that Damascus had continued to use banned chemicals’.

So an alleged attack is “further prompting claims”? Should there not have been much more than a ‘claim’? How about an investigation? Or would that expose the truth that it’s the terrorists who have been using chemical weapons?

Past Its Sell-By Date: The ‘WMD’ Narrative

By marrying the ‘Barrel Bomb’ and ‘chlorine chemical bomb’ narratives together, the west is once again attempting to position the Syrian Government as a purveyor of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and somehow gaining a moral edge in the hearts and minds department. Even theUN admitted in its chemical weapons report earlier this year that they have no actual evidence of the west’s alleged ‘Assad Chlorine Barrel Bombs’:

While the report did not attribute responsibility for the chlorine attacks, it cited 32 witnesses who saw or heard the sound of helicopters as bombs struck and that 29 smelled chlorine…

Good enough for the Guardian?

The record shows that the western media have been jumping to convenient conclusions on WMD’s many times already. Putting the whole Iraq debacle aside, we can show many other examples of policy-led journalism in the west. In Ghouta in 2013, it was “Sarin Attack” which the US and UK immediately blamed on the Syrian government as a pretext for war, which has since been exposed, beyond a doubt, as a false flag event carried out by western-backed opposition militants in Syria.

The chlorine/WMD narrative is all part of the West’s PR campaign of “Syria Crossed Obama’s Red Line” narrative, even though US officials have since finally admitted in 2014, and again in 2015, that ISIS and al Qaeda groups have actually been using crude chlorine munitions – a fact which seems to be regularly ignored by media outlets who are keen to continue painting Syrian president Bashar al Assad as the next Saddam Hussein.

In fact, 21st Century Wire was one of the first media outlets to expose al Nusra/ISIS use of chlorine bombs in Syria as far back as in the spring of 2013, and how this was being used to initiate a military intervention by the West.

What The Guardian’s latest “report” represents is an utter journalistic failure. It fails to question anything or offer alternative explanations for what it presents so confidently as evidence (what should be a basic academic trait), and instead relies on dubious eyewitness claims that hold very little water at all.

In doing so, The Guardian acts as a functionary for western foreign policy in Syria – further advancing a dangerous position that advocates an escalation of tensions with a very capable nuclear power in Russia, a move which only damages the lofty reputation of the entire news outlet.

Follow me here: http://twitter.com/StuartJHooper

For my comrade Giullietto Chiesa co-organizer of the Anti-NATO event in Rome on 26 October 2015 – my apologies for not being present, though I will be present in spirit. As a colleague from Delphi this is my message:

Here is to put today’s NATO into context.

NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization – today is a military alliance of twenty-six European and two North American countries (total 28) that constitutes a system of collective defence, created in 1949 by the twelve initial members (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and the United States), as an apparent shield against a Soviet invasion of Europe. Greece and Turkey, Europe’s most strategic locations, were coerced to join NATO in 1952; Germany followed in 1955 and Spain in 1982.

As we know by now, the Soviet threat was a farce the western people – mostly the people of the US and Europe – were made to believe by a massive and continuous propaganda campaign, a western propaganda of lies – not unlike today’s anti-Russia, anti-China supra-multi-billion dollars Zionist-Anglo-Saxon media misinformation.

At that time in 1949, the Soviet Union was totally destroyed by WWII and was no threat to anyone. In 1955, the Soviet Union countered NATO with the Warsaw Pact, officially called the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. It was led by the Soviet Union and included eight communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. The so-called Cold War was nothing else but an instrument of fear to justify an almost endless arming of the NATO war machine, fuelling the mainly US military industrial complex – and the US economy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany in 1990, as well as the dismemberment of the Warsaw Pact, there was no justification to maintain NATO. Indeed, the western ‘Allies’ – US, UK, and France – promised then President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. – Although the veracity of this assertion is today debated, the German magazine DER SPIEGEL, carried out a profound investigation into this matter and in its Online paper of 26 November 2009 reports:

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher [Germany’s Foreign Minister] spoke with Shevardnadze [the Soviet Foreign Minister]. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.” And because the conversation revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: “As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.” 

Shevardnadze replied that he believed “everything the minister (Genscher) said.”

On 2 February 1991, Genscher and the US Secretary of State, James Baker, agreed in Washington that there would be no expansion of NATO to the East. – Unfortunately, none of this was sealed in a written agreement.

Since 1999 and until 2009, 12 more countries, all east of Berlin, in the former Soviet area, were added, despite promises to the contrary – Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia. That’s how much the West can be trusted. Today Russia is literally encroached by the NATO war machine.

NATO flexed its killer muscles in 1995 by merciless bombing of Bosnia and in 1999 the war on Kosovo – both without UN Security Council approval. These were the first two combat ‘trial runs’ of NATO. If they were tolerated by the West at large, thanks to massive propaganda and misinformation, more could follow. And more would follow indeed.

The infamous 9/11 auto-terror attack on US soil, triggered the endless war on ‘terror’, justifying an all-out war by the empire and its puppet, the European Union. The US-NATO war agenda is ‘divide and conquer’ by creating chaos. This concept dates back to the Roman Empire – and it still works today. The US NATO killing machine has destroyed Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, and helped destroy many other nations – and is threatening Iran – by direct action as well as by proxy, by funding, arming and training terrorists, such as the Islamic State / IS-Daesh, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groupings – whose names are interchangeable for the convenience of confusing the public at large.

Since 9/11 an estimated 10 to 12 million people have lost their lives in wars and conflicts fuelled, instigated and carried out by the US-NATO war machine, or by proxies and mercenaries hired, funded, armed and trained by them throughout the world.

As long as there is NATO, there will be no peace. As long as there is NATO, Europe will be divided, economically and militarily. Europe should have listened to then French President, General De Gaulle, when in 1966 he withdrew France from NATO and warned that Europe will become dependent (vassals) of the US empire, lest, the European Nations or what at that time was the precursor to the EU, would mount their own defence to become and stay independent. De Gaulle was a visionary, as many are realizing today.

For Europe to prosper and become a socio-economic and political force by itself, Europe does not only have to exit NATO, each and every state, but become an autonomous and sovereign political structure. Today’s EU is far from it. Today Brussels listens to Washington’s heart beat and follows Washington’s dictate to the letter. Today’s EU economic and financial policies are designed by the FED and Wall Street, two ‘entities’ that are basically inter-changeable by the notion of ‘revolving doors’. They are reinforced by the IMF the extended arm of the US Treasury – as Greece has been witnessing for the last four and a half years. Worse, the EU is continuing letting Greece being annihilated by the infamous ‘troika’ – ECB, European Commission and IMF. Today’s Europe knows no solidarity – which is why its common currency, the Euro, is not sustainable. The currency has been in existence for a mere 15 years, yet it acts by mandate of Washington, as if it were irreplaceable.

The European Union as such is a valid concept. The EU, as it stands today, with its domineering commission in Brussels, secrecy, arrogance, dictatorship, can hardly be reformed. Just look at the TTIP – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a secretly negotiated US dominated corporate economic and trading enslavement parallel to NATO; together with the EU’s dollar-linked Euro monetary system run by a so-called European Central Bank, managed by a Goldman Sachs executive, is poised to become a societal and human disaster – if not stopped now, by US THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE.

The current EU needs to be dissolved and restructured as an economic and political federation whose main principle is solidarity among member nations, including in defence – and without any interference from outside, politically, militarily and economically – NO NATO. Only then can a strong Europe, even under today’s artificially created economic crisis, stronger than the US – become truly independent – become a federation of sovereign nations that can prosper on its own with partners of its choosing, to the East and to the West.

We, the people of Europe have to stand up against NATO. We must not let go. We must persist, until Europe is free from NATO, free from the Washington hegemony, free from political and financial coercions. We must look to alternatives – and alternatives exist.

This may sound like a huge challenge. However, as we are today cheering for a NATO-free Europe, geopolitical powers are shifting. Russia’s intervention in Syria is for the first time in almost 15 years bringing prospects of peace and stability back to the Middle East. Vladimir Putin’s speech at the UN General Assembly on 28 September 2015 has awakened the world at large to reality.

Russia is not alone. Together with China and other members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa), as well as the SCO – Shanghai Cooperation Organization, including in addition to China and Russia, most of Central Asia, India, Pakistan and Iran, an alternative political, defence, economic and monetary model is being forged. It will be independent from our western, fraudulent dollar based system. This new alliance comprises about 50% of the world population and about one third of the globe’s total economic output. It offers hope for a new independent and NATO-free Europe.

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

The vast majority ‒ 85 percent ‒ of tampons, cotton and sanitary products tested in a new Argentinian study contained glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, ruled a likely carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Meanwhile, 62 percent of the samples tested positive for AMPA, glyphosate’s metabolite, according to the study, which was conducted by researchers at the Socio-Environmental Interaction Space (EMISA) of the University of La Plata in Argentina.

All of the raw and sterile cotton gauze analyzed in the study showed evidence of glyphosate, said Dr. Damian Marino, the study’s head researcher.

“Eighty-five percent of all samples tested positive for glyphosate and 62 percent for AMPA, which is the environmental metabolite, but in the case of cotton and sterile cotton gauze the figure was 100 percent,” Marino told Télam news agency. An English translation of the Télam report can be found here. The products tested were acquired at local stores in Argentina.

In terms of concentrations, what we saw is that in raw cotton AMPA dominates (39 parts per billion, or PPB, and 13 PPB of glyphosate), while the gauze is absent of AMPA, but contained glyphosate at 17 PPB.

The results of the study were first announced to the public last week at the 3rd National Congress of Doctors for Fumigated Communities in Buenos Aires.

“The result of this research is very serious, when you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene uses, thinking they are sterilized products, and the results show that they are contaminated with a probably carcinogenic substance,” said Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, president of the congress.

“Most of the cotton production in the country is GM [genetically modified] cotton that is resistant to glyphosate. It is sprayed when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” Avila continued.

Marino said the original purpose of his research was not to test products for glyphosate, but to see how far the chemical can spread when aircraft sprayed an area, such as cropland. “There is a basic premise in research that when we complete testing on out target we have to contrast it with something ‘clean,’ so we selected sterile gauze for medical use, found in pharmacies,” he said. READ MORE: Long exposure to tiny amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup may damage liver, kidneys – study “So we went and bought sterile gauze, opened the packages, analyzed and there was the huge surprise: We found glyphosate! Our first thought was that we had done something wrong, so we threw it all away and bought new gauze, analyzed them and again found glyphosate.” Argentina has had a tampon shortage in recent years based on the country’s policies concerning imports and foreign currency, according to reports in January. Most of the nation’s tampon imports come from Brazil, Miguel Ponce, head of the Chamber of Importers, told AP. Those tampons include American brands, such as OB and Kotex.

In 2014, 96 percent of cotton produced in the United States was genetically modified, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Transnational agrochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, of which glyphosate is the main ingredient, is sprayed over genetically modified crops ‒ which Monsanto also produces ‒ that are engineered to be resistant to the powerful chemical. Used the world over, glyphosate, which Monsanto first developed in 1974, is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops. GMO seeds have caused use of glyphosate to increase immensely since the 1990s, according to US Geological Survey data.

In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen,” as opposed to its previous designation, a “possible carcinogen.”

In the US, the herbicide has been considered safe since 2013, when Monsanto received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for increased tolerance levels for glyphosate. In its original assessment, the federal regulator said glyphosate could be “used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment.” Scientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s biocides to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and cancer. Furthermore, as the most powerful multinational biotech corporation today, Monsanto has drawn the ire of farmers and consumers for its firm grip on the global food chain. The company’s control and advancement of GMO seeds is of prime concern, as they symbolize the company’s consolidation of agricultural processes.

The effects of biochemicals on wildlife, including pollinators such as honeybees and monarch butterflies, are also a point of concern. For instance, since 1990, about 970 million of the butterflies – 90 percent of the total population – have vanished across the United States, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At least part of the blame rests on the boom in Roundup use. The herbicide is marketed to farmers and homeowners as an effective method for eliminating plants like milkweed, so it’s widely blamed for decimating the butterflies’ only source of food in the Midwest. Two-thirds of European Union nations have requested allowance to ban GMO crops, pursuant to European Commission rules.

Note: This article was first published in June 2015.

The U.S. military facility on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean represents a horrific example of the human costs of war and imperialism.

Russia’s intervention has changed the dynamic in Syria and the region with potential global implications. Washington is reeling, stumped about what to do next.

Kerry’s Friday power play meeting with his Russian, Turkish and Saudi counterparts in Vienna changed nothing. Nor will other discussions he plans. Russia and Washington agree to disagree. Putin’s arm won’t be twisted.

At Syria’s request, he’s waging real war on ISIS with devastating effectiveness – polar opposite Obama’s war on Syrian infrastructure targets, supporting ISIS and other terrorists, using them as regional foot soldiers with plans to employ them in Russia, Central Asia and China.

In over a year of US bombing Syria and Iraq, zero ISIS targets were struck – infrastructure and other government ones only in both countries.

Baghdad took note. For weeks, reports suggested its government might ask Russia for help. It’s getting none from America, its enemy, not ally in its war on terrorism.

In September 2014, Obama said:

“I want to be clear: the American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. I will not commit (US forces) to fighting another ground war in Iraq.” At the same time, he pledged to strike ISIS terrorists “wherever they exist.”

He lied on both counts. His Iraqi strategy aims to weaken and balkanize the country into a Kurdish north, Baghdad center and Basra south – thousands of US special forces and air power involved for this purpose.

America’s first acknowledged combat death in Iraq since 2011 showed US forces aren’t there as advisors. The stated mission taking Sgt. Joshua Wheeler’s life, allegedly to rescue hostages held by ISIS, is very much open to question – maybe cover concealing the Pentagon’s ongoing destabilization mission, targeting, not aiding Iraq.

Did ISIS or government forces kill Wheeler? Were other US forces killed or wounded since American combat troops returned to Iraq last year? All Pentagon reports are suspect. None are credible. What’s unrevealed matters most.

On Friday, Defense Secretary Carter lied indicating a more aggressive campaign against ISIS in Iraq. More raids will be conducted, he said. A single one on a terrorist target would be Washington’s first. None were conducted so far.

Instead of challenging reality on the ground, media scoundrels reported the Pentagon’s alleged new strategy as factual – ignoring over a year of US air power doing the opposite of what’s officially claimed.

Are things in Iraq about to change dramatically? On Friday, Turkey’s Anadolu (News) Agency (AA) headlined “Russia receives authorization to strike inside Iraq,” saying:

The Iraqi government authorized Russia to target Daesh convoys coming from Syria, a senior Iraqi official said.

The authorization for Russia to target Daesh inside Iraq comes amid security coordination between Iraq, Russia, Iran and Syria.

Hakem al-Zamli, chief of the Iraqi parliament’s security and defense committee, told Anadolu Agency on Friday that the measure contributed to weakening Daesh by cutting off its supply routes.

Russia, an ally of the Assad regime, began carrying out airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30. According to the Kremlin, the strikes are aimed at weakening the Daesh militant group, an avowed enemy of the regime.

It remains to be seen if AA’s report is accurate. US Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph (“Fighting Joe) Dunford made a hurried trip to Baghdad, claiming Iraq “doesn’t want Russia’s help.”

Washington is its main ally, he said, warning Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi – telling them:

(I)t would make it very difficult for us to be able to provide the kind of support you need if the Russians were here conducting operations as well. We can’t conduct operations if the Russians were operating in Iraq right now.

In early October, Abadi said he’d “welcome” Russian support, saying he’d gotten little from Washington. He now faces a choice – accept vitally needed Moscow help or continue letting US air power and ground forces systematically destroy his country.

A Final Comment

On Friday, Turkey’s Anadolu Agency reported French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius saying his government will submit a new Security Council draft resolution, condemning Assad’s so-called use of “barrel bombs,” as well as “indiscriminate attacks” on civilians.

“We have to ensure that the regime stops bombing the civilian population,” Fabius blustered in Paris – despite no evidence supporting his claim. Washington’s use of ISIS and other takfiri terrorists bears full responsibility.

Fabius also announced foreign ministerial talks in Paris on Syria, planned for October 27 without Russia’s involvement, providing no further information.

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.

On 16 October 2015, Israeli Ambassador Roet addressed the UN Security Council in an emergency session on the escalating situation in Israel and Palestine. Below are excerpts of his speech followed by facts disproving them provided by the Palestinian government in a statement released yesterday.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “Israel is facing an onslaught of terrorism; men, women and children are being stabbed to death on the streets on a daily basis. Yet for them there has been no demand for an emergency session at the Security Council.”

Fact: The Palestinian people are a defenceless and unarmed population suffering gross violations of human rights under Israel’s illegal occupation. It is in fact the Israeli occupation that is the source and context of all of the violence, violence that has been inflicted by Israel with total impunity for over 48 years on the Palestinian people. Yet Israel has the audacity to oppose international action to protect the civilian population.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “These are just a few of the silent victims of Palestinian terror.”

Fact: Individuals that carried out the alleged stabbings acted alone and without the support of others. On the contrary, Israeli settlers carry out terrorist acts with Israeli state protection – military and political. Nearly 200 acts have been carried out by settlers against Palestinian civilians in the past month. These include stoning and firebombing Palestinian cars, houses and civilians; trespassing on villages and property; setting fire and damaging crops; and attacking, beating and shooting at Palestinians, including children.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “Over the course of the last month, 24 terror attacks have claimed the lives of eight Israelis, and injured 70.”

Fact: Israel, the occupying power, is not a victim in this situation. Since 1 October 2015, over 1,850 Palestinians have been injured and at least 46 killed, including at least 18 in demonstrations. The Israeli occupying forces (IOF) have greatly intensified their excessive use of force, especially to suppress protests, through the use of rubber bullets, tear gas, sound canisters and live fire.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “The root cause of this wave of terror is clear.”

Fact: The root cause of the current violence is Israel’s half century illegal occupation of the Palestinian land and its subjugation of the Palestinian people. Palestinians, many of them children, are killed, wounded, arrested and harassed and intimidated every day while their property is seized, demolished, or bombed. This incessant oppression leaves little hope for a peaceful and stable future, deepens despair and encourages the oppressed to resist injustice.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “Israel is firmly committed to the status quo which protects the right of Muslims to pray in the mosque.”

Fact: The IOF has intensified incursions and attacks at Al-Aqsa Mosque compound by allowing terrorist settlers free reign to storm the holy site in attempts to change the historic status quo. Between 14 January and 15 September, the IOF and settlers under their protection carried out more than 450 attacks against this holy site and Palestinian civilian worshippers.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “It is inflammatory rhetoric and lies lit the fuse, and incitement that keeps feeding the flames.”

Fact: Israeli leaders have long and recklessly cultivated a culture of hate against Palestinians that’s manifested in the constant and excessive use of violence by the IOF and terrorist settlers. For example:

“We will not provide immunity to any rioter, inciter, or terrorist, not anywhere and under no conditions. Israel’s security forces have no limits when it comes to defending Israelis,” said Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, on 5 October.“Palestinians have to understand they won’t have a state and Israel will rule over them,” said Eli Ben-Dahan, deputy defence minister of Israel, on 10 October. “The entire Palestinian people is the enemy…in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure,” said Ayelet Shaked, Israeli justice minister, on 7 July 2014.

“Instead of calming tensions, Palestinian leaders continue to lie and use inflammatory rhetoric.”

Fact: The Palestinian Government has repeatedly affirmed that it supports peaceful and legal means to end the illegal Israeli occupation. President Abbas recently stated: “I support a popular, nonviolent struggle and oppose all violence and use of weapons. I’ve made clear a number of times that I don’t want to return to the cycle of violence.”

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “Such acts of terror do not occur in a vacuum.”

Fact: Indeed, they don’t occur in a vacuum. They occur when there is constant impunity for brutal crimes by the IOF and terrorist settlers. This includes the burning of teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the arson attack of the Dawabsheh family home, and the mounting executions of Palestinian civilians, including children and youths by the IOF with live fire. When the IOF investigates soldiers for suspected criminal activity against Palestinians, it closes 94 per cent of cases without prosecution.

Israeli Ambassador Roet: “Prime Minister Netanyahu stood here in the UN and declared that he is ready for direct negotiations with the Palestinians without any preconditions.”

Fact: The Israeli government tells the UN it’s prepared for negotiations while telling the Israeli public a Palestinian state will never come to be. On 18 October, Justice Minister Shaked avowed: “We are against a Palestinian state. There is not and there will be no Palestinian state.” Direct negotiations are inherently asymmetrical as Palestine is under Israel’s occupation. The international community must present a multilateral and time-bound negotiating process to salvage the prospects of peace, beginning with concrete steps to end this illegal occupation without delay.

The Western media has only two tools. One is the outrageous lie. This overused tool no longer works, except on dumbshit Americans.

The pinpoint accuracy of the Russian cruise missiles and air attacks has the Pentagon shaking in its boots. But according to the Western presstitutes the Russian missiles fell out of the sky over Iran and never made it to their ISIS targets.

According to the presstitute reports, the Russia air attacks have only killed civilians and blew up a hospital.

The presstitutes fool only themselves and dumbshit Americans.

The other tool used by presstitutes is to discuss a problem with no reference to its causes. Yesterday I heard a long discussion on NPR, a corporate and Israeli owned propaganda organ, about the migrant problem in Europe. Yes, migrants, not refugees.

These migrants have appeared out of nowhere. They have decided to seek a better life in Europe, where capitalism, which provides jobs, freedom, democracy, and women’s rights guarantee a fulfilling life. Only the West provides a fulfilling life, because it doesn’t yet bomb itself.

The hords overrunning Europe just suddenly decided to go there. It has nothing to do with Washington’s 14 years of destruction of seven countries, enabled by the dumbship Europeans themselves, who provided cover for the war crimes under such monikers as the “coalition of the willing,” a “NATO operation,” “bringing freedom and democracy.”

From the Western presstitute media you would never know that the millions fleeing into Europe are fleeing American and European bombs that have indiscriminately slaughtered and dislocated millions of Muslim peoples.

Not even the tiny remnant of conservative magazines, the ones that the neocon nazis have not taken over or exterminated, can find the courage to connect the refugees with US policy in the Middle East.

For example, Srdja Trifkovic writing in the October issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, sees the refugees as “the third Muslim invasion of Europe.” For Trifkovic, the refugees are invaders who will bring about the collapse of the remnant of Western Christian Civilization.

Trifkovic never mentions that the Europeans brought the millions of Muslim refugees upon themselves, because their corrupt political bosses are Washington’s well-paid vassals and enabled Washington’s wars for hegemony that displaced millions of Muslims. For Trifkovic and every other conservative, only Muslims can do wrong. As Trifkovic understands it, the wrong that the West does is not defending itself against Muslims.

Trifkovic believes that Europe will soon live under Sharia law. He wonders if America will “have the wherewithal to carry the torch.”

A majority of Americans live in a fake world created by propaganda. They are disconnected from reality. I have in front of me a local North Georgia newspaper dated October that reports that “a Partiot Day Memorlal Service was held at the Dawson County Fire Headquarters on September 11 to remember the terrorist attacks that shook America 14 years ago.” Various local dignitaries called on the attendees to remember “all of those who have died not only on that day, but since that day in the fight to keep America free.”

The dignitaries did not say how murdering and dislocating millons of Muslims in seven counries keeps us free. No doubt, the quesion has never occurred to them. America runs on rote plattitudes.

The presidents of Russia and China watch with amazement the immoral stupidity that has become America’s defining characteristic. At some point the Russians and Chinese will realize that no matter how patient they are, the West is lost and cannot be redeemed.

When the West collapses from its own evil, peace will return to the world.

The CIA director’s position can prove hazardous. General David Petraeus found that out personally when he had to resign after falling on the sword of mixing classified information with private pleasure. The consequences of such a breach were never grave – what mattered was the way he handled the information.

Current CIA director John Brennan is finding out, just as Hillary Clinton did, how information on private, non-government email accounts is all too accessible for the larrikin eye. If you are sufficiently prominent, and sufficiently dangerous, you are bound to be the subject of a hack. Calling themselves Crackas with Attitude (CWA), a self-described teenage group of hackers managed this week to carry out some “social engineering” (that is, acts of hacking) on Brennan’s AOL account.

It is not clear to what extent the CWA had Brennan on the ropes, but according to a member, it was serious enough for the director to actually engage in what was described as a “cat-and-mouse game”. Describing the episode to WIRED magazine, the member discloses their response to Brennan’s question as to what the group wanted. “We just want Palestine to be free and for you to stop killing innocent people.”[1] Eventually it got too much: Brennan chose to close the account altogether.

By that time, it was clear that enough material had been copied. From October 21, WikiLeaks began releasing documents concerning Brennan’s AOL account. The link between the CWA and WikiLeaks has been assumed. The subject matter released so far is not overwhelming (there is, for instance, a list of contacts stored in the AOL email account of the director). Other documents, however, shed light on the inner workings of the security establishment, and Brennan’s own personal security history, outlined in the SF86 form.

As far as the intelligence community is concerned, Brennan’s July 15 2007 draft is his pitch on what challenges face the US security establishment. “Intelligence to Meet the Challenges of the 21^st Century” observes the importance of giving the intelligence community a push from its Cold War roots.

In a sentiment that pre-dates the Snowden disclosure by six years, Brennan notes the need, “In light of the seriousness of the transnational terrorist threat […] to set the appropriate balance between conducting domestic intelligence operations and protecting the privacy rights and liberties of US persons.”[2] All agencies engaged in intelligence activities on US soil had to do so “consistent with our laws and reflect the democratic principles and values of our Nation.” So much, it would seem, for that.

There is another document authored by Brennan describing recommendations for the next president assuming office in 2009 on the “conundrum” that is Iran. “Tone Down the Rhetoric” and “Establish a Direct Dialogue with Tehran” are key points that mark a departure from the Bush administration’s obsession with the “Axis of Evil”. Be “realistic” is another.

In what is a rather sensible suggestion, Brennan disputes the value of using “third parties” such as the Swiss to convey messages between Washington and Tehran. “Iran’s importance to US strategic interests and to overall stability in the region necessitates the establishment of a direct and senior-level dialogue between Washington and Tehran”.[3] A presidential envoy is also recommended.

There is also some discussion on operational details on how the CIA is to deal with that nasty practice of torture, so willingly practiced during the Bush-era. They stem from Sen. Christopher Bond, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose note (May 7, 2008) to fellow members suggests a residual endorsement for various torturous practices among such individuals as then Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden.

A floated proposal to require intelligence agencies to specifically use the 19 techniques authorised by the US Army Field Manual was immediately rejected by both Hayden and McConnell. Both “expressed concern that the AFM fails to exhaust the universe of techniques that could be authorized consistent with the Geneva Conventions.”

Bond wishes to straddle the divide, allowing harsh interrogation techniques while still keeping the intelligence services within the remit of international and domestic law. “Rather than authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are allowed under the AFM [Army Field Manual], I believe the more prudent approach is to preclude the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM.” Specificity, in other words, should only go to disallowance rather than what is permitted. “In this way, Congress can state clearly that certain harsh interrogation techniques will not be permissible.”[4]

Bond also ventures into what prohibitions should be abided by, suggesting that he has been looking long and hard at the legacy of Abu Ghraib with its extensive stash of torture as pornography.[5] These include: forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, posing in a sexual manner, placing hoods or sacks over the detainee’s head, using duct tape over eyes, applying beatings, electric shock, burns, and such forms of physical pain, mock executions, and the deprivation of the adequate food, water or medical care.

Much of these outlines are the basic, kindergarten injunctions acknowledged by an assortment of conventions, though it says much that there is even a debate about them. More to the point, they suggest that enhanced interrogation, as it is euphemistically termed, should remain flexible, with non-exhaustive techniques that might sail close to the winds of legality. The subsequent bill, titled “Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008” sets out “to prohibit the use of certain interrogation techniques and for other purposes”. It essentially replicates the spirit of Bond’s recommendations.[6]

The usual recriminations have followed about whether such documents should, or should not, have been released. The issues are, however, far more fundamental. They do provide some insight, not all of it that surprising, about an official who makes decisions on a daily basis about life and limb. They also show a security official keen, in 2007, to warn about a bureaucratic intelligence process that serves to undermine, rather than enhance, the functions of the Republic.

That said, much of Brennan’s world is insipid and mundane – the lot of an intelligence director is not all murder, betrayal and spice. Nor do the emails, as yet, say much about Brennan as CIA director, notably on that testy area of extra-judicial killings. But as one of the Republic’s most powerful agents, he might take better care in future about parking material in an AOL account.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.wired.com/2015/10/wikileaks-publishing-cia-director-john-brennan-hacked-emails/

[2] https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/Draft-Intel-Position-Paper/page-2.html

[3] https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/The-Conundrum-of-Iran/The-Conundrum-of-Iran.pdf

[4] https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/Torture/page-1.html

[5] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib

[6] https://wikileaks.org/cia-emails/Torture-Ways/page-1.html

Leaked cables and Google Earth have revealed a secret drone base in a remote Djibouti airstrip, essential for U.S. military presence in Africa.

The newest budding star of the U.S.’s accelerating military presence in Africa is a drone base in Djibouti, according to an investigation by The Intercept, which added an Africa chapter to its Drone Paper leaks on Wednesday.

The whistleblower website provided insight into a secret unit called Task Force 48-4, whose operations are still largely unknown, but which seems to be principally engaged in counterterrorism in the Horn of Africa, especially against the al-Shabaab in Somalia. The unit is laid out in a hub-and-spoke design, with U.S. base Camp Lemmonier, in the Djibouti capital, at its center, and the growing Chabelly, on an airstrip 10 kilometers away.

Chabelly is not on the list of overseas bases and the Pentagon refuses to acknowledge its presence in public, but Google Earth images and various cables allowed The Intercept to conclude that the base is active and of rising importance to the U.S. army.

Established in 2013 as a temporary facility to support Camp Lemmonier, Chabelly now likely serves “intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities and counterterrorism strikes in Somalia and Yemen, as well as aiding the Saudi-led air campaign in the latter country,” wrote The Intercept Wednesday.

The base provides a landing and taking off point for U.S. drones headed to Yemen, southwest Saudi Arabia, much of Somalia, parts of Ethiopia and southern Egypt. It also serves as an airstrip for French and Japanese military aircraft and civilian planes. Last year, the Pentagon signed a lease on the land until 2044 at a cost of US$70 million per year.

The Air Force Civil Engineer Almanac boasted in 2013 that Lemmonier and Chabelly were essential in “providing operations anonymity from the International Airport and improving host-nation relations.”

To Djiboutians, though, U.S. presence has been far from invisible. A Washington Post investigation in April found that Lemmonier drones crashed multiple times, inciting safety concerns from the Djibouti government and defiance from air traffic controllers, who have ignored requests from U.S. pilots.

The full extent of U.S. presence in Africa is still unknown, but investigations have estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 U.S. forces were on the ground as of 2014 — with another 300 deployed to Cameroon last Wednesday — and at least 14 drone bases are spread out across the continent. The Intercept also counted 674 military operations in Africa, “from drone strikes to counterinsurgency instruction, intelligence gathering to marksmanship training” in 2014.

[Originally published by New Straits Times, The above title by GR]

The [Malaysian] Transport Ministry today said Malaysia was not given full access and privileges into the Dutch Safety Board’s (DSB) investigation into the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17.

Responding to points made in the DSB final report on the incident, which stated that Malaysia did not extend its full cooperation in the initial stage of the investigation, Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said this was because Malaysia’s role was not honoured as it denied full access and privileges to the probe.

He said the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) was not made a full member in the joint investigation and unlike other members, Malaysian representatives were only granted limited access.

We were the owner of the aircraft. How can we be prevented full access?

We could not view the aircraft and were not invited to attend certain meetings.

“In the end, we cooperated when they gave us full access after acknowledging our role. It even says so in the news report,” said Abdul Aziz, referring to a recent foreign news article alleging Malaysia’s initial reluctance to cooperate.

The article had also claimed that Malaysia Airlines had delayed the DSB probe by denying investigators access to its employees and documents.

Aziz also said the report was one-sided.

On the claim, Aziz told reporters to seek further clarification from the airline.

The report by Australia News Corp had criticised Malaysia for suspending assistance into the investigation and claimed that Malaysia was conducting its own probe “to exonerate itself.”

MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine on July 17 last year, killing all 298 people onboard.

Tjibbe Joustra, Chairman of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB/OVV), speaks during a press conference to present the report findings of the Dutch Safety Board in Gilze Rijen, The Netherlands, 13 October 2015. EPA

Copyright New Straits Times 2015

Link to original article:  

http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/transport-ministry-explains-msia’s-“reluctance”-cooperate-mh17-probe?d=1

[Originally published by New Straits Times, The above title by GR]

The [Malaysian] Transport Ministry today said Malaysia was not given full access and privileges into the Dutch Safety Board’s (DSB) investigation into the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17.

Responding to points made in the DSB final report on the incident, which stated that Malaysia did not extend its full cooperation in the initial stage of the investigation, Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said this was because Malaysia’s role was not honoured as it denied full access and privileges to the probe.

He said the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) was not made a full member in the joint investigation and unlike other members, Malaysian representatives were only granted limited access.

We were the owner of the aircraft. How can we be prevented full access?

We could not view the aircraft and were not invited to attend certain meetings.

“In the end, we cooperated when they gave us full access after acknowledging our role. It even says so in the news report,” said Abdul Aziz, referring to a recent foreign news article alleging Malaysia’s initial reluctance to cooperate.

The article had also claimed that Malaysia Airlines had delayed the DSB probe by denying investigators access to its employees and documents.

Aziz also said the report was one-sided.

On the claim, Aziz told reporters to seek further clarification from the airline.

The report by Australia News Corp had criticised Malaysia for suspending assistance into the investigation and claimed that Malaysia was conducting its own probe “to exonerate itself.”

MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine on July 17 last year, killing all 298 people onboard.

Tjibbe Joustra, Chairman of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB/OVV), speaks during a press conference to present the report findings of the Dutch Safety Board in Gilze Rijen, The Netherlands, 13 October 2015. EPA

Copyright New Straits Times 2015

Link to original article:  

http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/transport-ministry-explains-msia’s-“reluctance”-cooperate-mh17-probe?d=1

Ukraine won’t cut its defense budget next year. On Thursday, Secretary of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov Turchynov said that “despite all difficulties, the spending on security and defense must not decrease.” According to Ukraine’s military doctrine, Kiev must allocate at least 3 percent of the country’s GDP for defense. In September, Ukraine’s Defense Ministry said it needed a $3.1-billion funding for 2016. Considering an aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric in Ukrainian media and the Ukraine’s military spendings, it’s hard to believe that Kiev is ready to implemet Minsk agreements de-facto.

The Russian Emergencies Ministry sent its 42nd humanitarian aid convoy to residents of Donbass on Thursday. Over 100 vehicles will deliver more than 1,000 metric tons of humanitarian cargo to Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Overall, Russia has delivered more than 50,000 metric tons of humanitarian aid to Donbass since August 2014. In turn, Martin Sajdik, Special Representative of OSCE in Ukraine, told on Tuesday that UN aid convoys had been unable to reach Donbass because of the so-called “access challenges”.

A fire has broken out at a camp for asylum seekers in Slovenia on October 22. It was not clear whether asylum seekers lit the fire in protest at poor conditions at the transit camp just inside Slovenia, or whether it was started to keep warm in the winter temperatures and then got out of control. No-one was injured in the blaze which was said to have engulfed 27 tents at the Brezice camp. About 11,000 people are estimated to be stuck in Slovenian registration centres, waiting to continue their journey to Austria.

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker called an extraordinary meeting of several European leaders to tackle the migration crisis. The mini-summit is to be held on Sunday with the aim of agreeing to “common operational conclusions which could be immediately implemented”. Mr Juncker invited the heads of state or governments of Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia. Crowds of asylum seekers and other migrants have been camping by roads in western Balkan countries in worsening autumn weather after Hungary sealed its borders with Serbia and Croatia, causing a chain reaction in other overwhelmed states.

Attacks by ISIS have jumped by more than 40 percent per day in the third quarter compared to the previous three months, IHS Janes Terrorism and Insurgency Center said in a study released on Thursday. According to it from July through the end of September 2015, ISIS claimed a total of 1,086 attacks worldwide, with a 42 percent increase in the average daily number of attacks by the group. The report highlights ISIS activity across the area that includes Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, the North Caucasus and Algeria.

This article was first published by Who What Why

The underlying story of Benghazi is one that cannot and will not be talked about in any open session of Congress. This means that Thursday’s hearing featuring former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was nothing but an exercise in futility.

It is the story of a covert CIA operation that was operating from a separate facility in the Benghazi compound that was simply known as the “Annex.” Some two dozen CIA case officers, analysts, translators and special staff were a part of this operation and its security was provided by CIA Global Response Staff (GRS), who had entered the country under diplomatic cover.

The CIA’s mission included arms interdiction — attempting to stop the flow of Soviet-era weapons to Central Africa — and very possibly the organization of Libyan arms shipments to vetted insurgent groups on the ground in Syria.

Montage including images of President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and others walking towards the podium during the transfer of remains ceremony at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. CIA Director David Petraeus testifying before the US Senate. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Pete Souza / Official White House, State Department / Peace Corps, Medill DC / Flickr

There is also evidence that the mission was working in concert with military personnel from the Joint Special Operations Group Trans-Sahara. At the time of the attack, an unarmed American surveillance drone was in flight over the territory east of Benghazi and Trans-Sahara military personnel were stationed in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

In contrast, the State Department’s special diplomatic mission facility, classified as “temporary,” was minimally staffed with a rotating series of State Department officers sent to and from Tripoli.

US Ambassador Christopher Stevens had not been in Benghazi for a year. When he arrived for a short stay in September 2012, only a single diplomatic officer was present there, and that officer rotated back to Tripoli upon the ambassador’s arrival. Stevens was accompanied by a communications officer and a handful of Diplomatic Service Security staff. The security personnel provided protection for the ambassador during his travels and meetings in the city. His presence was intended to be extremely low key, but it was exposed in the local media shortly after his arrival.

FRUITLESS, MEANINGLESS, POINTLESS QUESTIONING

Asking Clinton to justify maintaining the State Department temporary mission in the face of a worsening security situation is fruitless, given its actual function as a clandestine national security mission cover.

Questioning Clinton about that role would be as meaningless as questioning senior CIA personnel about operational information. Such missions cannot be publicly acknowledged or discussed, and revealing anything about them is strictly prohibited.

The same national security laws constraining State Department and CIA personnel also prevent lawmakers, other than those on select intelligence committees, from being briefed on such missions. And even those privileged individuals could not raise related questions in public — or even in closed sessions that include committee members or staff without the appropriate clearances.

In addition, querying Clinton about her involvement in the immediate response to the attacks is also pointless. The Secretary of State has no legal or operational role in a military response to a diplomatic facility attack. Only National Command Authority (president/secretary of defense) can order a foreign military intervention. The State Department does have Foreign Emergency Support Teams (FEST), composed of personnel from multiple agencies and maintained on alert to respond to crisis. But the FEST teams have no military elements and are dispatched only in the aftermath of a crisis, when the security situation allows. Following an attack their role is damage assessment and recovery.

Earlier investigations have already documented that President Obama ordered a military response immediately upon word reaching Washington. They showed as well that the AFRICOM commander responded to that order right away, directing deployment of the closest military quick reaction units — units which were on station in Spain, training in Eastern Europe, or back in the United States.

There were no armed American aircraft or naval units close enough to respond during the attack, those assets were in operation in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the Horn of Africa in Somalia and Yemen.

MAINTAINING A COVERT PROFILE

As for the well-equipped paramilitary operatives at the CIA station, according to their own statements, they were initially held back by the CIA station chief — as they had been in other incidents. And the station chief was, in turn, acting under his directive to let local militia groups respond. That practice was intended to maintain the station’s covert profile. Unfortunately, it was not consistent with providing any real time defense for the State Department compound.

Given all of the above, it is clear why the hearing quickly turned into a game of “pin the tail on the donkey.” As Democrats have claimed all along — and some Republicans have recently admitted — the committee’s work is mostly about beating up a political adversary and not at all about advancing the security of American diplomats abroad.

Larry Hancock conducts investigative and historical research in the areas of intelligence and national security. He has studied Benghazi in regard to both its covert aspects and the issues it raises for diplomatic security. That work is published in Shadow Warfare, A History of America’s Undeclared Wars (Counterpoint, 2014) and his most recently published book, Surprise Attack, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 to Benghazi (Counterpoint, Sept. 2015).

On October 21, the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Al-Nusra” and its allies from Jund Al-Aqsa launched a powerful assault on the strategic town of Al-Si’in inside the Hama province. Intense firefights between the militants and the civilian-led “National Defense Forces” (NDF) have been going since yesterday. 

This is likely the first of many attacks on the town of Al-Si’in. The town has become the focal point of their Hama offensive because it is strategically located 30km to the west of the Syrian Government’s only supply route to the Aleppo Governorate: Khanasser Highway. Furthermore, if Al-Si’in is lost to Jabhat Al-Nusra, the aforementioned terrorist group will have access to the two main roads that lead into both the Hama and Al-Salamiyah districts.

According to reports, militants withdrew additional forces from the Al-Ghab Plains front of the volatile battle for Jabal Al-Akrad (Kurdish Mountains) inside the Latakia Governorate northeastern countryside. So, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence expects a lull there.

Separately, the Syrian Arab Army’s “Cheetah Forces”led by Colonel Shady Isma’eel entered the town of Sheikh Ahmad in the suburbs of the Kuweires Military Airbase after intense firefights against ISIS. The NDF supports the SAA from the recently captured village of Tal Sab’een. This area is located approximately 4km away from the airbase. Thus, despite the adamant ISIS holdout, the SAA has made one more step to lift the siege from the Kuweires Military Airbase.

Elsewhere, ISIS launched an offensive on the Deir Ez-zour Military Airport’s outer parameters, targeting the southeastern gates protected by the SAA. ISIS successfully passed outside perimeter and pushed to the gates. Intense firefights started there.

According to the Arab sources, no more than one hour later, the Russian Air Force’s SU-24 fighter jets came into the Deir Ez-zour province to succor the Syrian Arab Army soldiers at the military airport. This proved extremely effective, as ISIS offensive was brocken due to their lack of cover against the airstrikes. As result, 25 militants were killed and over 40 were injured.

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

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

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

We will no doubt look back upon the current era as the “crime of the century” for so many different reasons. Actually, current times represent the worst financial crimes of ALL TIME! The various crimes and how they are operated are too numerous to list and would probably fill a three volume set of books, let’s concentrate on just one. Central to everything is the U.S. issuing the global reserve currency by fiat knowing full well it truly means “non payment”. The absolute cornerstone to the dollar retaining confidence and thus value has been the suppression of the price of gold.

Before getting to specifically what I’d like to point out, let’s look at a couple common sense points which beg questions.

How is it China has been importing 2,400 tons of gold over the past two and a half years without any upward push to the gold price? This amount equals almost EXACTLY the TOTAL amount of gold mined annually around the world! How is it possible that ALL production has been purchased by China and yet the price goes down? The answer of course is quite simple unless you purposely close your eyes or disingenuously “apologize”.

The argument from the apologists is that “traders” on COMEX and LBMA believe gold will go lower so they are sellers and this is where the downward pressure has come from. You as a reader already know that much of the “selling” is done at midnight (or off hours) in the U.S. which is the lunch break in Asia, China specifically.

The massive selling (as much as total global production in less than two trading days) has usually taken place during off hours when the volume is lightest and price moves the most, especially with any significant volume. The result has been gold now trades at or very near the cost of production and silver well below production costs. None of this is new, only a refresher. The reaction in the actual physical markets is backwardation, premiums over spot prices and actual shortages. Put simply, low price has brought out additional physical demand.

To the point, the following is a snapshot of inventory movement (or the lack of) within the COMEX gold vaults this month:

Initial standings

Oct 21/2015

.

Only 185,000 ounces have been withdrawn from the customer (eligible) accounts and ZERO from the dealer (registered) accounts. What is not shown is there have been ZERO dealer deposits and ONLY TWO customer deposits in all month. One of 32,150 ounces and another of just over 300 ounces for the entire month! It is clear the large entry was a “kilo” deposit of one ton even though COMEX deals, quotes and supposedly delivers in ounces.

Why is this interesting you ask? Because at the beginning of the month there were over 10 tons worth of contracts standing for delivery with dealers only having just over 5 tons available to deliver. This figure has now dropped to about 3 tons standing …but the amount of registered gold for delivery is right where it was at the beginning of the month? How could this be if gold has been delivered? Is there a “secret stash” where gold is being delivered from or has “settlement” occurred using cash?

I have my own idea as to why no gold at all has entered the dealer’s vaults, it is a symptom of the disease. If gold was so plentiful we should have seen all sorts of movements of gold into dealer accounts to support deliveries, we have seen none, zero, NADA! Remember, October is an active delivery month which originally had over 10 tons standing for delivery versus 5+ tons available. If we go out to Dec., this contract has open interest representing some 11+ million ounces … while dealers claim only 182,000 to deliver!

Yes, yes, the open interest ALWAYS collapses and delivery “always gets made”. But doesn’t it seem strange to you that a market with less than $200 million worth of inventory is the pricing to a $5 trillion monetary asset? In comparison, a single ranch in Texas just got sold for nearly 4 times the size of what COMEX claims they have available for delivery. It used to be the tail was wagging the dog. Now, COMEX inventory has been bled down so far it can be said just a few hairs on the tail is wagging the dog!

Surely I will receive comments like “this will go on forever” or “don’t worry, nothing ever comes of these delivery months”. It should be pointed out, as it stands right now a single trade of 1,820 contracts represents the entire deliverable inventory and we have seen on multiple occasions where 3,000-6,000 contracts have been sold (in one trade) to collapse the price. I ask, how does COMEX keep this in the box when something very “REAL” happens? “Real” meaning a mere push of our financial system by China? Or a military shove by Russia? Or something as simple as a “truth bomb” being released on the American public? Can an inventory of less than $200 million fiat dollars make good and keep hidden the core crime to the crime of the century? Is this why China is moving toward a physical exchange? Once they “take it out …they will take it up”!

After nearly six years of negotiations, trade ministers recently announced they had reached agreement on the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This does not mean the TPP is a done deal. The next hurdle for this rigged corporate power grab is to convince the participating governments, including Congress, to ratify it. In the United States, the trade justice movement, which has grown to be broad and diverse, can stop the TPP.

Here are two immediate actions you can take to stop the TPP: Click on the links to sign the petition telling Congress to reject the TPP and register for the mass mobilization in Washington in November.

A policewoman removes activist Kevin Zeese for protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman (R) testifies before a Senate Finance Committee hearing on “President Obama’s 2015 Trade Policy Agenda” on Capitol Hill in Washington January 27, 2015. The top U.S. trade official urged Congress to back the administration’s trade agenda on Tuesday and said an ambitious Pacific trade pact is nearing completion. Froman said the administration looked to lawmakers to pass bipartisan legislation allowing a streamlined approval process for trade deals, such as the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Both chambers of Congress must ratify the TPP by a majority vote using a process called “fast track.” The trade justice movement fought a multi-year campaign to prevent Congress from giving the president fast-track trade authority. We delayed it for much longer than the corporate traders wanted, forcing the TPP into the election year. Since the TPP is “Toxic Political Poison,” an election year is not when they wanted to consider it. The corporate traders were required to compromise to pass fast track. One key compromise was making the text of the agreement public for 60 days before Congress considers it. This is a tremendous opportunity to educate and mobilize people.

Just after the TPP negotiators reached an agreement, we asked Ralph Nader if the TPP could be stopped. He said, “It will be stopped on its demerits.” He further noted its wide impact, saying, “Its scope is everything,” and described it as a “global corporate coup … the most brazen corporate power grab in American history.” The TPP, he said, is “a major peril to our national authority” that is “ceding our sovereignty, ceding our self-reliance, ceding everything we can do within the boundaries of the United States.”

He described how it takes legislative authority away from Congress and the White House and gives it to trade officials and trade tribunals. Nader described how it undermines the civil justice system, the third branch of government, and the federal court system because of trade tribunals with corporate lawyer-judges whose decisions cannot be reviewed by the federal courts. Nader described the TPP as “democracy suppression.”

If you care about corporate power versus democracy, and about jobs, the environment, health care, food, water, energy, climate, regulation of banks and more, then stopping the TPP needs to be a top priority. The agreement comes after six years of secret negotiations — secret to the public, media and elected representatives but not to hundreds of transnational corporations, their lobbyists and lawyers.

The deal is fragile. Negotiators had been near agreement for more than a year and the final two meetings were a struggle. The controversy around this the agreement will come out when it is made public and goes through national legislatures.

The campaign to stop the TPP and other rigged corporate trade agreements is planning ongoing actions. From Nov.14 to 18, when President Barack Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman are in Asia for economic meetings, major actions will be held in Washington. Click here to register. People are sending emails to congressional leaders urging them to stop the TPP. A full-court press is planned for when the TPP is brought to Congress.

Politics of TPP getting complicated in Washington

The TPP will not have an easy time in Congress. Leading presidential candidates and congressional leaders have expressed opposition or serious reservations. And, some major corporate interests are opposed. An election year is not the time for controversial legislation, and the toxic TPP will be controversial.

The key will be the House of Representatives. Mega-transnational corporations and Obama are making passage a top priority. House Speaker John Boehner did too, and he was forced to resign because of his bullying tactics. He aggressively pressured Republicans to give Obama fast-track authority, pushing about 30 Republicans who opposed fast track to vote for it. After the vote, he punished those who opposed him, removed them from subcommittee chairmanships and from the Republican leadership. The Caucus revolted, and some of Boehner’s decisions had to be reversed. Members of the Caucus called for his replacement, and rather than fight that battle, Boehner resigned.

If this “Toxic Political Poison” can remove a Speaker of the House, will the next Speaker make passing the TPP a priority? Will he risk his career for Obama’s top priority?

“Unfortunately I am afraid this deal appears to fall woefully short” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the most important senators in the trade deal debate. (Susan Walsh/AP)

During the final negotiations key members of both parties wrote the Obama administration, warning there is no guarantee TPP will be approved by Congress. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), said they better not bring back a bad deal because Congress will not support it. After the deal was announced, Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the most important senators in the trade debate, said, “Unfortunately I am afraid this deal appears to fall woefully short.”

This week, Big Pharma expressed its anger at the TPP requiring “only” an eight year patent monopoly for biologic drugs, when 12 years are the law in the United States. The U.S. will have to harmonize its laws with the TPP. Obama held a meeting with the pharmaceutical executives at the White House to assuage them, but he failed.  The Hill Reports Big Pharma is “searching for a playbook in its effort to keep Congress from ratifying the deal next year.” Senator Hatch says that support for the TPP is shrinking in the Senate and “I’ve heard some very trying things that may very well make it impossible to pass.”  The largest recipient of pharmaceutical funding is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He is also funded by the tobacco lobby, which is trying to top the TPP.

However, we know that we can’t take anything for granted. Enough promises and arm-twisting by the president, congressional leadership and heads of transnational corporations “convinced” just enough members of Congress (with massive donations) to vote for fast tack as were needed. We will have to do more than make phone calls and write emails to stop the TPP and protect our communities.

The TPP is a bad deal. Just like every other similar agreement, it is going to outsource jobs, lower wages globally, increase the wealth divide, increase the U.S. trade deficit, undermine democracy, weaken the federal court system, degrade the environment and undermine sovereignty at every level of government. The more people who learn about this deal, the worse it will look, and if we resist it, the likelihood of passage in Congress will shrink.

And, similar to the TPP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is having troubles in Europe. Europeans see TTIP either not advancing or going in the wrong direction because of the heavy handedness of the U.S. The French negotiator said: “France is considering all options including an outright termination of negotiations.” More than 3 million people across Europe signed a petition calling on the European Commission to scrap the agreement and hundreds of thousands marched in Berlin on Oct. 10 opposing the TTIP. People realize that rather than opening up new markets, since the U.S. and EU countries already trade a great deal, it will privatize of public services for corporate profits.

As TPP struggles, protests increase

Police remove activist Margaret Flowers for protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership during a Senate hearing in January. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

The more than two year fight in Washington to stop fast track also made the environment more complicated for proponents. The battle over fast track was a brutal one. The final legislation built in requirements that cause multi-month delays from the time negotiators reach agreement to the time the TPP goes to Congress. And it built in the requirement that trade agreements be made public for 60 days before Congress begins to consider them. We will also know what laws need to be changed to comply with the TPP’s requirements. This gives the trade justice movement time to educate and mobilize people in opposition.Many of the challenges facing the negotiators are the result of people rising up all over the world against these trade agreements. This has made it more difficult for governments to negotiate, as they know if they go too far they risk rejection at home.

Even with fast track, it will be challenging to get Congress to ratify trade agreements. The timing has also put the countries involved in a bind, as multiple countries — especially the U.S. — will be in the midst of elections. The elections make it more complicated because in both parties there are key candidates like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump who oppose the agreements, as does Green Party candidate Jill Stein, making the TPP an election year issue. Members of Congress also seeking re-election know the TPP is toxic and supporting it could cost them their political careers.

Stopping the TPP and other trade agreements is going to require a mass mobilization on the streets and online. Political activists now recognize that the TPP impacts every issue, which is good for building a unified movement against it because that is necessary.

Labor leaders, environmental groups and lawmakers rally against fast-track authority for secretive trade pact

The TPP gives incredible power to foreign banks to move money in and out of countries without restrictions. It minimizes regulation of big finance to allow risk-tasking that endangers the world economy. Countries that need money will be enslaved by loans from big finance like Citigroup, and once they are in debt, they will be unable to stand up to the demands of banksters who threaten them as we witnessed recently in Greece.At its root, the TPP is about modern colonialism. It is the way that Western governments and their transnational corporations, including Wall Street banks, can dominate the economies of developing nations. To be part of the TPP, governments are required to allow foreign ownership of property, including buying land in signatory countries. The TPP allows corporate trade tribunals to overrule their laws, acquire resources cheaply and provide slave wages to workers. And, if all else fails, the U.S. and allied militaries will be there to enforce agreements.

The reality is that without trade justice there cannot be climate justice, food justice; there cannot be health justice or wage justice. Injustice in trade undermines all the issues the social movement is working to correct.

As a result the largest trade justice movement has developed and is growing. Be part of this cultural shift that will challenge corporate power and build the power of people.

Take Action:

1. Join us in writing Congressional leadership and urging them to stop the TPP.

2. Join us in taking action to stop the TPP, mobilize for November actions in Washington, DC. If you can’t make it to DC there will be opportunities for you to support these actions locally.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance.

On Friday, Lavrov met with his US, Turkish and Saudi Arabian counterparts – mainly discussing ways to resolve Syria’s long-running conflict, waged by Washington for regime change, Obama fully responsible for genocidal slaughter and mass displacement.

Media reports falsely suggested the four ministers agreed on Assad’s resignation. “Rumors have begun to circulate that we are discussing or will be discussing that President Assad must go after some time. This is not true,” Lavrov stressed.

Of course, there will be speculation. (It) appeared before this meeting even took place. I heard that the rumors are being spread already that it has been agreed on in some place or another that in some period of time Assad will step down. This is not the case.

We have confirmed our position. (It’s) very simple…The future of Syria, the future of the Syrian president, the future of any other individuals must be decided by the Syrian people alone.

We all want this crisis to be resolved through restoring Syria’s territorial integrity and independence as a sovereign state – a secular (one), where the rights of all religious and ethnic groups are guaranteed without exception.

Russia alone means it, respecting the sovereignty of all nations. Washington, Turkey and Saudi Arabia march to a different drummer. Their state terror and wars of aggression speak for themselves.

Ignore their high-minded demagogy – declared solely to deceive. You can take Russia’s word to the bank. It’s rock-solid, not phony like it’s so-called (very adversarial) partners, especially Washington.

Lavrov called Friday’s meeting useful but uneasy. He was outnumbered three to one. They agreed to disagree.

Further discussions will follow. Lavrov said maybe soon, stressing the importance of involving Iran and Egypt – Syria most of all on its own future.

Russia’s air campaign continues inflicting heavy losses on ISIS forces – no match against its superior firepower. Since September 30, 934 sorties destroyed 819 ISIS targets, an impressive performance catching Washington flat-footed, confounded on how to respond.

Using futile daily propaganda, no more effective than firing blanks. Absurd reports from unreliable sources claim wrong targets are hit and civilians killed. False on both counts. No evidence suggests either.

RT International exposed one of many examples – showing an attack killing civilians blamed on Russia came from ISIS artillery. It was ground, not air-launched.

New Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTSIOM) poll numbers show Putin’s approval reached an all-time high at almost 90% – because of his successful anti-terrorism operation in Syria.

Last December, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov attributed his popularity to popular love for Russia, especially when it’s unfairly vilified. Western propaganda disgracefully bashes Putin.

He’s the best hope for world peace, his righteous agenda vital to challenge America’s imperial pure evil.

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.

Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary session of the 12^th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Divide and Conquer: The Globalist Pathway to New World Order Tyranny

By Joachim Hagopian, October 23 2015

Ceri­mo­nia di aper­tura ieri nella base aerea di Tra­pani Birgi, della Livex, la fase «dal vivo» (con 36 mila uomini, 60 navi e 200 aerei) dell’esercitazione Nato Tri­dent Junc­ture in corso in Ita­lia, Spa­gna e Portogallo.

Serve a testare la capa­cità della «Forza di rispo­sta» (40mila uomini), in par­ti­co­lare della sua «Forza di punta ad altis­sima pron­tezza ope­ra­tiva» pro­iet­ta­bile in 48 ore fuori dall’area Nato sia verso Est che verso Sud, il cui comando ope­ra­tivo viene eser­ci­tato nel 2015 dal Joint Force Com­mand di Lago Patria (Napoli), agli ordini dell’ammiraglio Usa Ferguson.

A tagliare il nastro alla ceri­mo­nia di Tra­pani, alcuni dei mas­simi espo­nenti dell’Alleanza. Il gene­rale sta­tu­ni­tense Breed­love, Coman­dante supremo alleato in Europa (carica che, informa la Nato, spetta «tra­di­zio­nal­mente» a un gene­rale o ammi­ra­glio Usa, nomi­nato dal Pre­si­dente): Breed­love ha «due cap­pelli di comando», poi­ché allo stesso tempo è a capo del Comando euro­peo degli Stati uniti, ossia fa parte della catena di comando Usa che ha la prio­rità asso­luta, ponendo di fatto la Nato agli ordini del Pen­ta­gono. Accanto a lui, alla ceri­mo­nia di Tra­pani, il vice­se­gre­ta­rio della Nato, l’ambasciatore sta­tu­ni­tense Ver­sh­bow che ha fatto car­riera pro­mo­vendo «le rela­zioni mili­tari tra gli Usa e gli alleati euro­pei» e, allo stesso tempo, «la demo­cra­zia e i diritti umani nella ex Unione Sovie­tica»: dopo essere stato amba­scia­tore Usa presso la Nato durante la guerra alla Jugo­sla­via, rico­pre oggi la carica di vice­pre­si­dente del Con­si­glio Nord Atlan­tico, il prin­ci­pale organo deci­sio­nale dell’Alleanza nel quale, per sta­tuto, «non ci sono vota­zioni né deci­sioni prese a mag­gio­ranza», ma «le deci­sioni ven­gono prese all’unanimità e di comune accordo», ossia d’accordo con gli ordini di Washington.

Gli alleati meri­te­voli ven­gono però ricom­pen­sati: alla ceri­mo­nia di Tra­pani ha par­te­ci­pato il gene­rale fran­cese Mer­cier che, per i meriti acqui­siti nelle guerre con­tro la Jugo­sla­via, l’Afghanistan e la Libia, è stato messo a capo del Comando per la «tra­sfor­ma­zione» della Nato, il cui quar­tier gene­rale è a Nor­folk in Vir­gi­nia (Usa).

Pre­sente a Tra­pani anche il gene­rale ceco Pavel, nomi­nato pre­si­dente del Comi­tato mili­tare della Nato e, in tale veste, prin­ci­pale con­si­gliere del Con­si­glio Nord Atlan­tico, al quale tra­smette il parere «basato sul con­senso» dei capi di stato mag­giore dei paesi Nato: Pavel, già uffi­ciale dell’intelligence, ha acqui­sito grossi meriti agli occhi del Pen­ta­gono soprat­tutto quando è stato rap­pre­sen­tante mili­tare ceco al quar­tier gene­rale del Comando Cen­trale Usa a Tampa in Flo­rida e in quello avan­zato nel Qatar all’epoca della seconda guerra con­tro l’Iraq. All’ombra di que­sti grandi, il sot­to­se­gre­ta­rio alla difesa Gioac­chino  Alfano che, alla ceri­mo­nia di Tra­pani, ha avuto l’onore di par­te­ci­pare a una con­fe­renza stampa con­giunta col vice­se­gre­ta­rio della Nato, lo sta­tu­ni­tense Vershbow.

E l’Unione euro­pea cosa fa men­tre la Nato sotto comando Usa svolge in Europa una delle più grandi eser­ci­ta­zioni di guerra?

La sostiene, sia per­ché 22 dei 28 paesi della Ue sono mem­bri della Nato, sia per­ché uffi­cial­mente la Nato «resta il fon­da­mento della difesa col­let­tiva» dell’Unione. Per riaf­fer­mare tale prin­ci­pio, il pre­si­dente del Con­si­glio euro­peo, il polacco Donald Tusk, è andato il 13 otto­bre al quar­tier gene­rale Nato, accolto dal segre­ta­rio Stoltenberg.

E il 15 otto­bre una rap­pre­sen­tanza dello Staff mili­tare Ue si è tra­sfe­rita al quar­tier gene­rale della Task force con­giunta della Nato, a Sara­goza, per seguire gli svi­luppi della Tri­dent Juncture.

L’esercitazione, ha dichia­rato Ver­sh­bow ieri a Tra­pani, dimo­stra come «pos­siamo lavo­rare insieme con l’Unione euro­pea sotto pressione».

Eser­ci­ta­zioni di tale ampiezza, ha sot­to­li­neato Ver­sh­bow, veni­vano con­dotte durante la guerra fredda con­tro la minac­cia sovietica.

«Oggi fron­teg­giamo una situa­zione molto più insta­bile e poten­zial­mente più peri­co­losa» poi­ché «la Rus­sia ha ille­gal­mente annesso la Cri­mea, appog­gia i sepa­ra­ti­sti in Ucraina ed è entrata nella guerra in Siria dalla parte di Assad».

Per que­sto la Nato sta testando con la Tri­dent Junc­ture e altre eser­ci­ta­zioni (oltre 300 nel 2015) «la nostra capa­cità di muo­verci rapi­da­mente e deci­sa­mente al di là dei nostri con­fini per pro­teg­gere i nostri part­ner e i nostri inte­ressi». Una vera e pro­pria dichia­ra­zione di guerra che la Nato lan­cia dall’Italia, paese che nella sua Costi­tu­zione ripu­dia la guerra.

Manlio Dinucci

Realizou-se na segunda-feira (19) a cerimônia de abertura, na base aérea de Trapani Birgi (Itália), da Livex, que é o exercício “real” (com 36 mil homens, 60 navios e 200 aviões) da manobra militar da Otan Trident Juncture, em curso na Itália, na Espanha e em Portugal. A finalidade é testar a capacidade da “Força de Resposta” (40 mil homens), em particular da “Força de ponta com alta rapidez operacional”, projetável em 48 horas para fora da Otan rumo ao Leste e ao Sul, cujo comando operacional é exercido em 2015 pela Força de Comando Conjunto de Lago Patria (Nápoles), sob as ordens do almirante estadunidense Ferguson.

Estavam presentes na cerimômia de Trapani, alguns dos principais representantes da Aliança. O general estadunidense Breedlove, comandante supremo aliado na Europa (cargo que, segundo a Otan, é ocupado “tradicionalmente” por um almirante estadunidense, nomeado pelo presidente): Breedlove tem “dois capacetes de comando”, porque ele é ao mesmo tempo chefe do Comando europeu dos Estados Unidos, isto é, ele faz parte da cadeia de comando estadunidense que tem a primazia absoluta, subordinando a Otan de fato às ordens do Pentágono.

Ao seu lado estavam na cerimônia de Trapani o seretário adjunto da l’Otan, o embaixador estadunidense Vershbow, que fez sua carreira promovendo as “relações militares entre os Estados Unidos e os aliados europeus” e, ao mesmo tempo, “a democracia e os direitos humanos na ex-União Soviética” : depois de ter sido embaixador estadunidense na Otan quando da guerra contra a Iugoslávia, ele detém hoje o cargo de vice-presidente do Conselho do Atlântico Norte, principal órgão de decisão da Aliança no qual, segundo os estatutos, “não há votos nem decisões tomadas por maioria”, mas “as decisões são tomadas por unanimidade e de comum acordo”, ou seja, de acordo com as ordens de Washington.

Entretanto, os aliados com mérito são recompensados: na cerimônia deTrapani participou o general francês Mercier que, pelos méritos adquiridos nas guerras contra a Iugoslávia, no Afeganistão e na Líbia, foi levado à direção do Comando para a “transformação” da Otan, cujo quartel general fica em Norfolk, na Virgínia (Estados Unidos). Igualmente presente em Trapani o general Tcheco Pavel, nomeado presidente do Comitê militar da Otan e, nesta condição, principal conselheiro do Conselho do Atlântico Norte, ao qual ele transmite a opinião “baseada no consenso» dos chefes do estado maior dos países da Otan: Pavel, antigo oficial da inteligência, adquiriu grandes méritos aos olhos do Pentágono, em particular quando ele foi representante militar tcheco no quartel general do Comando Central estadunidense em Tampa na Flórida, e no comando avançado no Catar no momento da segunda guerra contra o Iraque . À sombra desses grandes, o subsecretário da Defesa da Itália, teve na cerimônia de Trapani, a honra de participar em uma coletiva de imprensa conjunta com o secretário adjunto da Otan, o estadunidense Vershbow.

E o que faz a União Europeia (UE) enquanto a Otan sob o comando estadunidense realiza na Europa uma dos maiores exercícios de guerra? Ela apoia, seja porque 22 dos 28 países da UE são membros da Otan, seja porque a Otan oficialmente “permanece o fundamento da defesa coletiva» da União. Para reafirmar este princípio, o presidente do Consleho Europeu, o polonês Donald Tusk, foi no dia 13 de outubro à sede da Otan, onde foi recebido pelo secretário Stoltenberg. E em 15 de outubro, uma representação do estado maior militar da UE se deslocou à sede da Task Force conjunta da Otan, em Saragoça (Espanha) para acompanhar o desenvolvimento da Trident Juncture. O exercício, declarou Vershbow em Trapani, mostra que “nós podemos trabalhar com a União Europeia sob pressão”.

Exercícios militares de semelhante amplitude, sublinhou Vershbow, foram realizados no curso da guerra fria contra a ameaça soviética. «Hoje, estamos confrontados com uma situação muito mais instável e potencialmente mais perigosa» porque “a Rússia anexou ilegalmente a Crimeia, apoiada por separatistas na Ucrânia e entrou na guerra na Síria ao lado de Assad”. É por isso que a Otan testa com a Trident Juncture e outros exercícios militares (mais de 300 em 2015), “nossa capacidade de agir rapidamente e de maneira decisiva além de nossas fronteiras para proteger nossos parceiros e nossos interesses”. Uma verdadeira declaração de guerra que a Otan lança desde a Itália, um país que em sua Constituição rejeita a guerra.

Fonte : Il Manifesto

http://ilmanifesto.info/a-trapani-lesercitazione-di-guerra-della-nato/

Tradução do Blog da Resistência

Vermelho.org

Manlio Dinucci : Jornalista, geógrafo e cientista político. Escreve regularmente no jornal italiano Il Manifesto

This is quite the bombshell delivered by two CHP deputies in the Turkish parliament and reported by Today’s Zaman, one of the top dailies in Turkey.

It supports Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the notorious sarin gas attack at Ghouta was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to cross President Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” and draw the United States into the Syria war to topple Assad.

If so, President Obama deserves credit for “holding the line” against the attack despite the grumbling and incitement of the Syria hawks at home and abroad.

And it also presents the unsavory picture of an al-Qaeda operatives colluding with ISIL in a war crime that killed 1300 civilians.

I find the report credible, taking into full account the fact that the CHP (Erdogan’s center-left Kemalist rivals) and Today’s Zaman (whose editor-in-chief, Bulent Kenes was recently detained on live TV for insulting Erdogan in a tweet) are on the outs with Erdogan.

Considering the furious reaction it can be expected to elicit from Erdogan and the Turkish government, the temerity of CHP and Today’s Zaman in running with this story is a sign of how desperate their struggle against Erdogan has become.  Note that the author is shown only as “Columnist: Today’s Zaman”.

I expect the anti-Erodgan forces hope this will be a game changer in terms of U.S.and European support for Erdogan.

It will be very interesting to see if and how the media in the U.S. covers this story.  In case it doesn’t acquire enough “legs” to make into US media, I attach the full Zaman piece below:

CHP deputies: Gov’t rejects probe into Turkey’s role in Syrian chemical attack

Two deputies from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) have claimed that the government is against investigating Turkey’s role in sending toxic sarin gas which was used in an attack on civilians in Syria in 2013 and in which over 1,300 Syrians were killed.

CHP deputies Eren Erdem and Ali Şeker held a press conference in İstanbul on Wednesday in which they claimed the investigation into allegations regarding Turkey’s involvement in the procurement of sarin gas which was used in the chemical attack on a civil population and delivered to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to enable the attack was derailed.

Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen. An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.

“The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the file,” Erdem said while waving the file.

Erdem also noted that the prosecutor’s office conducted detailed technical surveillance and found that an al-Qaeda militant, Hayyam Kasap, acquired sarin, adding: “Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism,” Erdem noted.

Over 1,300 people were killed in the sarin gas attack in Ghouta and several other neighborhoods near the Syrian capital of Damascus, with the West quickly blaming the regime of Bashar al-Assad and Russia claiming it was a “false flag” operation aimed at making US military intervention in Syria possible.

Suburbs near Damascus were struck by rockets containing the toxic sarin gas in August 2013.

The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government.

CHP deputy Şeker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the perception that, according to Şeker, “Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria.”

He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.

“The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities. While these people had to be in prison for their illegal acts, not a single person is in jail. Former prime ministers and the interior minister should be held accountable for their negligence in the incident,” Şeker further commented.

Erdem also added that he will launch a criminal complaint against those responsible, including those who issued a verdict of non-prosecution in the case, those who did not prevent the transfer of chemicals and those who first ordered the arrest of the suspects who were later released.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced in late August that an inquiry had been launched into the gas attacks allegedly perpetuated by both Assad’s Syrian regime and rebel groups fighting in Syria since the civil war erupted in 2011.

However, Erdem is not the only figure who has accused Turkey of possible involvement in the gas attack. Pulitzer Prize winner and journalist, Seymour M. Hersh, argued in an article published in 2014 that MİT was involved with extremist Syrian groups fighting against the Assad regime.

In his article, Hersh said Assad was not behind the attack, as claimed by the US and Europe, but that Turkish-Syrian opposition collaboration was trying to provoke a US intervention in Syria in order to bring down the Assad regime.

Peter Lee edits China Matters and writes about Asia for CounterPunch.

Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2011

The Guardian, 21 October 2011

The Herald, 21 October 2011

The Scotsman, 21 October 2011

The Sun, 21 October 2011

The Independent, 21 October 2011

The Times, 21 October 2011

Metro, 21 October 2011

Daily Mirror, 21 October 2011

Daily Mail, 21 October 2011

_______________________________

“Today, the government of Libya announced the death of Muammar Qaddafi. […]  Today, we can definitively say that the Qaddafi regime has come to an end. […]  So this is a momentous day in the history of Libya. […]

Our brave pilots have flown in Libya’s skies, our sailors have provided support off Libya’s shores, and our leadership at NATO has helped guide our coalition. Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end.

This comes at a time when we see the strength of American leadership across the world. We’ve taken out al Qaeda leaders, and we’ve put them on the path to defeat. We’re winding down the war in Iraq and have begun a transition in Afghanistan. And now, working in Libya with friends and allies, we’ve demonstrated what collective action can achieve in the 21st century.”

[U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech on the day Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi got assassinated by NATO’s mercenaries, The White House, Washington D.C., 20 October 2011]

source:  Remarks by the President on the Death of Muammar Qaddafi, The White House (offical website of the U.S. government), 20 October 2011

_______________________________

Flashback to November 2011:

“ ‘I will fight to the death’ says Bashar Assad. (*)  For God’s sake, against whom are you fighting? Fighting to the death against your own people is not heroism but cowardice.

If you can’t draw any lesson from [the fates of] these [leaders], then look at Libya’s leader who has been pointing gun at his own people, who has been making exactly the same remarks as you are making and who [ended up getting] killed, in a way none of us would desire, only 32 days ago.

Bashar Assad, if you are talking about fighting to the death against a [foreign] intervention on your territory, then this begs the question as to why you haven’t fought to the death for [recapturing] the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights? Why didn’t you show your bravery there, why can’t you show it? ”

[Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speech at the parliamentary group meeting of his Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkey’s parliament, Ankara, 22 November 2011]

source:  ‘Halkinla savasmak kahramanlik degildir Esad’, Yeni Safak, 22 November 2011

(*)  editorial note:  Mr Erdogan is referring to a recent interview of Syria’s President Bashar Assad with The Sunday Times. Instead of providing a proper transcript of this interview, The Sunday Times presented it as a news report. Here is the relevant section:

[Assad] was more preoccupied with the question of whether Arab leaders sympathetic to the West were preparing the way for international intervention, as they had in Libya. Turkey was reported to be considering proposals for a no-fly zone and a buffer area on the Syrian side of their shared border to protect civilians from bombing. Suspicion is mounting that some form of military action against Syria may follow. If so, would he fight and die, I asked. “Definitely, this goes without saying and is an absolute.” [Assad replied].

source:  Strike Syria and the world will shake, by Hala Jaber, The Sunday Times via presidentassad.net, 20 November 2011

____________________________

Flashback to March 2011:

Metro, 22 March 2011

Note: This front page was published on the third day of the NATO-led invasion of Libya.

Related:

Flashback to 2011: Libya’s “liberators” Sarkozy, Cameron and Erdogan congratulate NATO’s mercenary-terrorists compiled by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 19 September 2015

The Cult of Killing and the Symbolic Order of Western Barbarism: How the Media Worships Violence and “Ritualized Atrocities” – The Lynching of Mouamar Gaddafi by Jean-Claude Paye and Tülay Umay, Global Research, 13 April 2013 (originally published in French on November 18, 2011)

“End of a tyrant”: The Independent and The Guardian jubilant over the assassination of Libya’s deposed President Gaddafi compiled by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 21 October 2011

Democratic critics of military seizures of power commonly refer to them as military coups.  They adopt a very narrow and misleading conception of what is taking place.

Likewise, human rights activists and progressive analysts who conceptualize the reign of violence which follows, a ‘coup’ as state terror fail to take account of the systemic forces – the capitalist social order and class relations – which determine the classes which wield state power.  They ignore the specific classes and groups which are targeted and which classes direct and benefit from terror.

Concepts like ‘state terror’ and ‘military coup’ obscure as much as enlighten.  Moreover, the narrow focus on the military limits the political changes in the class structure required to avoid the repetition  of the violent overthrow of democratic governments.

In this essay we will focus on the case of Argentina, where the Central Bank has opened its archives to judicial investigators looking into the relationship between the military dictatorship (1976-83) and major capitalist enterprises.

We will also  cite the empirical research of Professor Juan Carlos “Lito” Marin ,one of Argentina’s leading scholars on the violent overthrow of the elected government. His specialty was on the social relations and class context of the killing of 30,000 Argentines during the military dictatorship.

We will especially draw on his statistical analysis of the victims found in his book (“Lucha de calles, lucha de clase’ –  Street struggles, class struggle).

Capitalist and Military Rule

According to the documentary evidence presented by the Argentine Central Bank, immediately after the military seized power, the leading manufacturers presented the military with a comprehensive list of all the trade union leaders, delegates and activists to be eliminated.  In other words the capitalist class give the military their ‘marching orders’.  They dictated who was to be arrested, tortured, killed and/or disappeared.  The military executed the orders of the capitalist class – of the 30,000 Argentines who were murdered the vast majority were unarmed industrial workers involved in workplace industrial action.

The Central Bank documents confirm the earlier detailed study of Professor Marin.  He found that over eighty percent of the ‘disappeared’, the victims of the military regime, were trade unionists, urban neighborhood activists and rural organizers.  Less than twenty percent were in any way affiliated with the urban or rural guerrillas.

In other words it was not state terror in the abstract – but violent class struggle organized according to the priorities and demands of the capitalist class which accounted for the vast majority of killings.  And the massacre set the stage for the second priority of the capitalist class, the introduction of the neo-liberal economy. The mass slaughter allowed the military to hand-over lucrative public enterprises to the capitalist class who proceeded to fire large number of employees without the problem of worker opposition.

The intellectual authors and beneficiaries of the mass murder were not a band of power hungry military officials; but highly respectable leaders and upholders of the capitalist social order.

In the run-up to the coup the capitalist class, for the better part of a decade, was engaged in a bitter class struggle with militant trade unions, which organized several successful general strikes in Cordoba  (the ‘Cordobazo’, el ‘Viborazo’), Rosario, and greater Buenos Aires.

Between 1970-71, some 5 years before the military takeover, I conducted interviews with leaders of Argentina’s principle industrial association (Argentine Industrial Union).  Without exception they looked at the “Brazilian example” as a model for Argentina.  Brazil was ruled by a business-military regime resulting from the overthrow of a democratic government in1964.  In other words, the strategic decision to seize power was taken by the capitalist class; the military made the tactical decision of when and how, in consultation with US military attaches at the Embassy

The capitalist class set several tasks for the military, according to the Central Bank documents.

First and foremost, the capitalist class demanded a comprehensive and violent purge of all levels of leaders of the working class, at work and in the neighborhoods.  But the largest percentage of killings affected militant grass roots leaders, especially shop floor delegates.

Secondly, the capitalists demanded the expropriation and dispossession of enterprises and farms owned by sectors of the nationalist, “Keynesian”, bourgeoisie and their handover to the neo-liberal business elite.  This led to the concentration and centralization of ownership and capital. Among the beneficiaries was  a powerful media conglomerate (the Clarin group) which served as a propaganda megaphone in favor of the dismantling of labor and social legislation and the privatization of public enterprises.

Thirdly, the capitalist class demanded and secured the military purge of the judiciary, police and civil service of independent voices and the appointment of  hard right officials.

In other words the capitalist social order supported and directed the military seizure of government; dictated the transformation of state institutions and targeted the social class representatives to be eliminated.

The Capitalist Coup ad the Transition to Democracy

Subsequent to the so-called “transition to democracy”, when the military ceded governance to civilian electoral parties and politicians, the entire judicial, police and administrative structure organized to promote neoliberalism and defend the power, privileges and prerogatives of the capitalist class, remained intact.

Even more important, up until the present, the capitalist class which actively participated in the identification, purge and murder of the vast majority of workers killed by the military, was never brought to trial.  In some cases, the military executioners were tried for crimes against humanity, and in Argentina (but not elsewhere), some were jailed.

The social order, the capitalist system, which presided over  mass murder was never called into question. The whole issue of class violence was reduced to an issue of “human rights” violations committed by the military elite.

 The larger context of class conflict and class struggle, which precipitated the violent seizure of power which culminated in mass murder was obfuscated.

 The key to understanding why the capitalist class prospered during the dictatorship and escaped any punishment and prosecution afterwards is found in the fact that the vast majority of worker and community leaders who would have led the majority in the quest for justice were murdered.

In other words the capitalist class’s violent political power grab and mass murder ensured the growth of profits and the consolidation of growth during the military regime, and the obfuscation of their role in the mass killings secured their illicit property grab and wealth with the restoration of electoral politics.

Conclusion

Labeling the violent seizure of power as a military coup is to adopt a one-dimensional view .  Instead, if we examine the coup as an integral element of the internal dynamics of the class struggle, which allowed the capitalist class to deepen and extend its power, we have a fuller understanding of its deeper meaning.  The continuation of capitalist power within the electoral political system allowed the bourgeoisie to continue organizing and promoting profoundly anti-democratic, anti-working class activity.

Not all military coups or reigns of state terror are linked to class struggle between capitalists and workers.  Even in Argentina, the coup served to resolve intra-capitalist conflicts between neo-liberal and nationalist-protectionist business elites.

In Africa, Asia and in nineteenth and early twentieth century Latin America, military coups were largely elite shifts in power.  However, with the growth and emergence of capitalist class relations and class conflict, the military’s role as an autonomous force diminished, as it became integrated and subordinated to the emerging capitalist order.

By the middle of the twentieth century onward, especially as class conflict intensified and class polarization deepened, the military coup became a strategic weapon of the capitalist class to advance its class interests.  This was especially the case where they could no longer retain their profits and prerogatives in a democratic electoral framework.

In other words as capitalism expands and defines the nature of the social order, the military coup is redefined as capitalist coup; and state violence deepens and expands to encompass larger sectors of the working population.

In each and every capitalist coup and in each example of organized state terror, the US imperial state is directly involved at the behest and on behalf of the capitalist class – be they multi-national corporations or banks.  The US imperial state coordinates with their multinational corporations and the Latin American capitalist class the objects and targets of the capitalist coup as well as the composition of the post-coup regime.  The US military influenced the political timing of the Argentine coup – as a former US military official operating out of the Argentine embassy once told me.  The US CIA compiled lists of working class and social activist to be targeted (murdered) in Chile after the 1973 coup, especially of those employed by US multi-nationals, as was revealed by US Senator Church’s Congressional investigation between 1974-76.

In other words, the capitalist coup and terror state has a strategic international character. It is also an integral part of imperialist conquest and anti-imperialist struggles.  The class struggle and the anti-imperialist struggles are two sides of the same process.

Image: An anti-CISA demonstration outside the U.S. Capitol building on Thursday night.  (Photo: Fight for the Future)

The U.S. Senate has moved forward the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)—legislation denounced by its many critics as “a surveillance bill in disguise.”

With bipartisan support, CISA passed 83-14 in a procedural vote on Thursday.

“The Senate just did a really bad thing,” Techdirt‘s Mike Masnick wrote Thursday, and offered a list of the senators he said “just voted to increase surveillance and decrease trust in our internet companies, thereby harming the American economy and innovation.”

As to why the legislation, touted by its supporters as strengthening national cybersecurity, is bad, Freedom of the Press Foundation‘s Trevor Timm has written that CISA is “really a surveillance bill in disguise.” He continues:

The main crux of the bill is to carve a giant exception into all our current privacy laws so as to allow tech companies like Google and Amazon to hand over huge amounts of our information without any legal process whatsoever, as long as they have a vague cybersecurity purpose.

But tech companies including Google are among those in the industry that have joined the chorus of those coming out against the legislation.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation further noted Thursday:

CISA is fundamentally flawed. The bill’s broad immunity clauses, vague definitions, and aggressive spying powers combine to make the bill a surveillance bill in disguise. Further, the bill does not address problems from the recent highly publicized computer data breaches that were caused by unencrypted files, poor computer architecture, un-updated servers, and employees (or contractors) clicking malware links.

Among the 14 senators who voted against the bill is Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who echoed Timm’s comments in stating ahead of the vote that CISA “giv[es] large corporations more liability protection and even more leeway on how to use and share our personal information with the government—without adequate privacy protections.”

The American Library Association (ALA) is also among the groups against CISA, and joined dozens of civil society organizations and security experts in issuing a letter (pdf) to senators earlier this year urging them to vote against the legislation.

“When librarians oppose a bill with ‘information sharing’ in its name you can be sure that the bill is decidedly more than advertised,” ALA president Sari Feldman stated last week, and added that CISA “could function, as a practical matter, as a new warrantless surveillance tool.”

Prompted by the vote, some of the organizations against the legislation, including Fight for the Future, CODEPINK, and Restore the Fourth, staged a CISA protest on Thursday night outside the U.S. Capitol building.

“The U.S. government’s deplorable surveillance programs and pathetic cybersecurity have already severely damaged the public’s trust in tech companies and their members of Congress,” Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement issued Friday.

“If they choose to ignore the blatantly overwhelming opposition to this bill and pass it anyway, that damage could become irreparable,” Greer’s statement continued. “This moment will go down in history, and politicians need to decide which side of history they want to be on: the side that fought for freedom or the side that gave it away.”

The legislation is set for a final vote on Tuesday. The House has already passed its version of the bill.

Is common sense severely lacking in mainstream Western journalism?

Russia’s President Putin found himself having to ask BBC journalist John Simpson if he has any common sense at all, as he pushed the establishment line that Russia is an aggressor in the world.

Putin contends that Russia is “standing up for its national interests“, and is visibly frustrated by the frankly ignorant questions that Simpson poses. Putin asks, “Why are you threatening us“, and “what business have they got there“, in reference to U.S. military bases throughout Europe.

He also notes that Russia’s annual military budget is a mere $50-78 billion, while the U.S. equivalent is around $575 billion before asking:

“And you’re telling me I’m the aggressor here? Have you any common sense at all?“

Despite this fact Russia still manages to trump NATO with the world’s best air defence system that it has now deployed in Syria, so what exactly is the Western military industrial complex doing with all that money?

Russia has massively embarrassed the West with its recent actions in Syria, refusing to hold back in its highly successful campaign against ISIS, so this move by the BBC joins other recent attempts to paint Russia as an enemy.

The following interview has been viewed, in total, over one million times, which is testament to how powerfully it really is:

Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, stressed that such reports show tremendous bias towards Russia’s military efforts in Syria.

“There are so-called mass media reports which allege that Russian aircraft bombed a field hospital in the Idlib Governorate in northwestern Syria and reportedly killed 13 people. I cannot say that these reports are written by journalists but their ingenuity delights,” Zakharova, told reporters.

She questioned the credentials of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, pointing out that it is based in Britain and has no direct access to the ground in Syria.

“This information appears with reference to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights based in London. As we all understand, it is very ‘convenient’ to cover and observe what is happening in Syria without leaving London and without the ability to collect information in the field,” Zakharova added.

She said that Russia’s role in the Syrian conflict is aimed “primarily” at “protecting civilians,” while “terrorist groups” continue to receive “reinforcements of people” and “equipment from abroad,” which is a “very dangerous tendency.”

“These facts raise a question as to whether parties involved in the Syrian conflict are really interested in a peaceful settlement and how this goal is reconciled with financial and technical support for anti-government armed groups, including those who directly cooperate with terrorists,” she said during a briefing.

MSM attacks on Russia

Since joining the fight against Islamic State, Russia’s efforts in Syria have been repeatedly attacked by the Western mainstream media, which have published manyunconfirmed reports employing scaremongering tactics.

AFP, a French media outlet, was responsible for publishing a piece titled 13 Dead as Russia strike hits Syria field hospital: monitor. The source in the story was identified as the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is run by one man – Rami Abdulrahman. Just recently, Abdulrahman told RT that the last time he had been in Syria was 15 years ago and that all the information for his reports is taken from “some of the Observatory activists” who he knows “through common friends.”

In the past, Rahman has said he relies on sources on the ground, who are among the US funded Syrian rebels.
Shortly after the report appeared, a video emerged showcasing the exact moment of the alleged Russian hospital strike. The video was uploaded by activists known as White Helmets – a rebel group which has already been caught faking evidence of civilian deaths supposedly caused by Russian strikes.

That’s information warfare – as expected Russia accused of killing civilians in Syria http://t.co/ndzk8TwQrJ pic.twitter.com/rZlO5wHG5n

— RT (@RT_com) October 1, 2015

Meanwhile, Russia said it struck a meeting place of terrorist leaders in northwestern Syria. The Russian Defense Ministry specified that it had used a KAB-500 bomb.

“A Sukhoi Su-34 bomber attacked the installation with a guided KAB-500 air bomb, which wiped the target out with everything that was inside,” MoD’s spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov said on Wednesday.
Despite the power of the explosion, a cameraman in the posted video runs through only a small cloud of dust.

Monitor: ‘Russian warplanes strike hospital’: Thirteen people including medical staff have been killed when an… https://t.co/FLGlNvarAY

— DW | Germany (@dw_germany) October 22, 2015

Experts have questioned the authenticity of the video posted by the rebels, stating that it is physically impossible to film such a powerful explosion from a few meters away and survive.

“It didn’t look like an aerial bomb dropped from an airplane. It appeared to come from an angle and the angle of the explosion appeared to be more like artillery,” a former policy analyst for the US Defense Department, Michael Maloof, told RT.

This kind of unreliable reporting is just one of the latest examples. Earlier, the Turkish military released a statement saying that it had downed an unidentified drone in Turkish airspace after issuing the aircraft 3 warnings.

It was not long before reports suggested it was Russian and being used to collect information. However, a Russian drone manufacturer denied the reports, calling the photos of the allegedly downed drone part of a poorly-staged “informational provocation.”

A Russian air strike in Syria’s Idlib province has hit a hospital, killing at least 12. https://t.co/0sro2mxepY

— RFE/RL (@RFERL) October 22, 2015

Other baseless accusations quickly followed, including British newspapers speculating that Royal Air Force Tornado jets operating in Iraq were to be equipped with air-to-air missiles and that their pilots had been cleared to fire on “Vladimir Putin’s jets” in the case of an imminent threat.

Moscow issued a formal request to the British Foreign Office, demanding an explanation. The answer came in a news blog, when the UK’s MoD’s spokesperson wrote that “There is no truth in this story.”

Another CNN story suggested that several Russian cruise missiles targeting Islamic State positions in Syria had landed in Iran. Citing two unnamed “top US officials,” the American broadcaster reported that four Russian missiles had crashed somewhere in Iran after being launched from vessels in the Caspian Sea.

The Russian Defense Ministry refuted the report, stating that missiles had hit their intended targets. “Unlike CNN, we don’t distribute information citing anonymous sources, but show the very missile launches and the way they hit their targets almost in real time,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said.

NATO military chiefs are raising alarm over what they now view as “a wider strategic plan of Vladimir Putin’s Russia to challenge the west closer to home”; they now fear Russia’s fast-developing arsenal of ship-launched cruise and ballistic missiles is able to restrict the alliance’s “ability to easily deploy military assets” in the Mediterranean.

A shocking statistic was found in a report from the U.S. Geological Survey, a study of pesticide and herbicide use from 1992 to 2012. During the two decades, an estimated 2.6 billion pounds ofMonsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide was used on America’s agricultural land. It’s been the primary herbicide used with genetically engineered crops since mid-1990s when Monsanto introduced their “Roundup Ready” corn and soybeans.

A time-lapse video with a map of United States, used in the Environmental Working Group (EWG) article “2.6 Billion Pounds of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Sprayed on U.S. Farmland in Past Two Decades,” shows the dramatic spread of the use of Roundup.

This is very troubling considering the mounting evidence of serious health risks associated with exposure to glyphosate. A Huffington Post article from April 2013 covered a study that showed a wide range of health risks possibly linked to Roundup. The list included various cancers, Parkinson’s and infertility.

The EWG time-lapse video shows that Roundup use is especially heavy in the Midwest. I checked to see if there was any evidence of higher rates of cancer in that region. According to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, “breast cancer incidence rates are highest in the Northeast, followed by the Midwest and the South. But death rates from breast cancer are highest in the Midwest.”

A June 2015 Reuters article stated that “personal injury law firms around the United States are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be ‘mass tort’ actions against agrichemical giant Monsanto Co that claim the company’s Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical.”

Though glyphosate use in America is massive, other parts of the world are banning it.

An August 2015 article in The Guardian stated, “Retail outlets across Europe are taking glyphosate – the main ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup – off their shelves, despite government officials declaring it safe to use.”

In June 2015, a Natural News article reported that France banned the sale of glyphosate.

As independent news sources have widely reported, our federal government has an incestuous relationship with Monsanto, so I don’t expect any legislation restrictingglyphosate use in the near future.

Notes:

Water.USGS.gov

EWG.org

HuffingtonPost.com

Blog.Dana-Farber.org

Reuters.com

TheGuardian.com

NaturalNews.com

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton testified for more than eight hours Thursday before the House Select Committee ostensibly established to investigate the attack on US facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, in which four Americans were killed, including the US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

As has been the case for the seven other congressional investigations into Benghazi, Republicans sought to use the incident to torpedo the Clinton presidential campaign, while Democrats sought to defend Clinton and expose the partisan motivation of her critics. More importantly, however, both parties covered up the dirty operations of the CIA and Pentagon in Libya, in alliance with Al Qaeda-linked groups, which produced the Benghazi debacle.

Only one brief exchange between Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo and Clinton touched on the relationship between the US government and Al Qaeda forces in eastern Libya which is at the heart of the Benghazi affair.

Pompeo displayed a blown-up photograph of Ambassador Stevens meeting with a top leader of an Islamist militia in Benghazi on September 9, 2012, two days before the attack which elements of that militia carried out on the US diplomatic facility. He also cited a cable sent by Stevens to the State Department recording the meeting, whose subject was the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi.

The same meeting was reported by the New York Times in a lengthy front-page article in December 2013, but identifying the American participant only as “a US official.” The Times account described the unnamed militia leaders as hostile to the American and warning him to leave Benghazi as soon as possible, but added, “They also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama’s support in their uprising against Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi.”

In other words, Stevens was meeting with leaders of the CIA-backed revolt against Gaddafi who were now turning against their American sponsors. According to numerous reports in the European press—largely suppressed by the corporate-controlled media in the United States—the CIA had organized a massive shipment of arms, equipment and manpower from the port of Benghazi in eastern Libya, through Turkey and into Syria.

That is why the CIA facility in Benghazi was large and well-defended—two US contract gunmen were killed by mortar fire, but the building was never in danger of being overrun—while the State Department facility was occupied only intermittently, not classified as a consulate, and lightly defended.

There were apparently conflicts between the US military-intelligence apparatus and its Islamist allies over what weapons would be made available—US agencies were trying to block the transfer of surface-to-air missiles from the vast stockpiles captured from the Gaddafi regime in Libya—as well as tensions over the price to be paid, and which groups in Syria would receive the weapons.

Much of this remains murky, three years later. But what is indisputable is that the CIA and Pentagon were in alliance with Al Qaeda elements in both Libya and Syria, using them in the successful regime-change operation in Libya that concluded with the torture and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, and in the similar operation in Syria that, while failing to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, has turned the country into a devastated wasteland, with half the population displaced from their homes.

Pompeo pursued his line of questioning  on contacts with Al Qaeda briefly, noting that, on the day he was killed, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable about his meeting with Wissam Bin Hamid, described previously by the US government as someone who “fought in Iraq under the flag of al-Qaeda.”

“Were you aware that our folks were either wittingly or unwittingly meeting with al-Qaeda on the ground in Benghazi, Libya, just hours before the attack?” the Republican congressman asked Clinton.

“I know nothing about this, Congressman,” she responded.

Under further questioning, she denied any knowledge of US operations to arm Islamist rebels in both Libya and Syria.

Asked if she had considered using private contractors to supply such arms, Clinton replied, “No, not seriously.”

Pompeo then produced an email from Clinton to her top adviser, Jake Sullivan, in which she proposed using just such contractors to funnel arms into Libya. Asked to respond, she said that she hadn’t “seriously” made the proposal.

On other matters, Clinton was well-prepared for the hearing, and easily turned aside most of the blatantly political insinuations from her Republican questioners, while basking in the praise and support of the Democratic minority on the committee. But she was visibly surprised by the photograph of Stevens meeting with an Al Qaeda leader in Benghazi, claimed to know nothing of it, or of the cable Stevens sent to the State Department about it. Pompeo then quickly moved on to other subjects.

As a political event, the hearing was a debacle for the Republicans. The credibility of the committee, never very great, was completely shattered this month by a series of statements by Republican congressmen and a Republican committee staffer.

First, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, seeking to defend himself against criticism by a right-wing faction of Republicans charging the leadership had done too little to fight the Democrats, cited the work of the Benghazi committee. He told Sean Hannity of Fox News, on Tuesday, October 6, that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.” He added: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

Then a senior Republican staff member, Brad Podliska, went public with allegations that he was fired because he resisted efforts to “hyper-focus on Hillary Clinton.” He revealed that following the leak to the New York Times in March that revealed Clinton’s use of a private server for her email as secretary of state, the Republican majority had shifted its attention entirely to that issue.

A second Republican congressman said October 21 that the Benghazi committee was aimed at Clinton. Speaking on a morning radio program in upstate New York, Representative Richard Hanna said, “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.”

These revelations did so much damage to the committee’s standing that on Sunday the committee chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, told a nationally televised interview program that his Republican colleagues should “Shut up talking about things you don’t know anything about.”

Gowdy did not help his claim that the Benghazi committee was non-political, however, with his own performance at Thursday’s hearing. He devoted his entire first ten-minute round of questions for Clinton to her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time Clinton aide and adviser who held no position in the State Department and had never been to Libya, but who passed on observations about the country from his business partner, former CIA operative Tyler Drumheller.

The Benghazi committee has operated for 17 months, taking longer than similar committees that investigated Watergate, Iran-Contra, the 9/11 attacks, and other national-security disasters or political scandals. Gowdy announced in the course of Thursday’s hearing that the committee was still to hear from 20 additional witnesses, suggesting that it will continue operations well into the 2016 presidential campaign.

Meanwhile the real scandal embedded in the Benghazi events—the connections between the US military-intelligence apparatus and Al Qaeda and similar Islamist forces, including ISIS—continues to be the subject of a near-total cover-up by both the Democratic and Republican parties and the corporate-controlled media.

Yu Zhengsheng, top member of the Politburo Standing Committee, China’s de facto highest ruling body, visited Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region on September 29, 2015. His visit marks important developments in the People’s Republic of China.

First of all, Beijing is concerned over the Uyghur Islamist threat. Chinese intelligence believes that about 3000 Uighur militants have been fighting at the side of ISIS and Al Nusra in Syria. Most of them get training in Afghanistan and then militants move to Syria or Iraq.

China notes that the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) provides support to them. On account of this, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence wants to remember that Saudi Arabia’s special services have a strong position in Afghanistan and links with Al Nusra. So, it’s hardly possible to believe that MIT is the only supporter of these developments.

On the other hand, Yu Zhengsheng’s public activity is linked to his possibility to become the head of the Politburo Standing Committee. Experts believe that in this case Chinese security chiefs will get more influence to impact the China’s foreign policy.

So, it will likely start to counter Islamist militant groups more actively. This will lead to the intensification of antagonisms with MIT which supports Uyghur separatists in China.

 Furthermore, the situation is already tense. On July 9, Thailand confirmed that it had deported more than 100 Uyghurs to China. This fact drew so-called “international attention from human rights groups and the Turkic-speaking community”, particularly in Turkey. Indeed, these Uyghurs were militants and used Bangkok as a transfer point on the way to Turkey. MIT was helping them in this.

In China’s case, the Ankara’s common goal to unite the so-called “Turkic world” has turned into buidling own center of influence in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Obviously, Beijing doesn’t like this. Thus, China will answer rigidly if Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will continue to try to destabilize Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. In turn, Western powers can support destabilization of the region if they believe that China is ready to start a military opeartion in the Middle East.

In any case, Beijing will prefer to act on a foreign soil, at least, in the Middle East and Central Asia. China has major economic interests in Tajikistan. It needs a stability of the regime there. Another important point is Uzbekistan. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) militant group is a main threat there. It has a major human potential. A destabilization in Uzbeksitan will definitely fire the whole Central Asia.

At the moment, activity of militants in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is obstructed by violant opposition of the Chinese authorities. The economic and military support of militants there is also more complicated than in Afghanistan or Tajikistan. But the Uygur and IMU militants are much more motivated than their counterparts in the Central Asia. Yugur separatists and IMU inspired by Taliban and ISIS successes could try to force events in China. The situation in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region also depends on the reeal results of the Xi Jinping’s visit to London on October 19. The Anglo-Saxon’s stance over the topic will strongly influence the situation. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar will hardly achieve their goals without the Western support.

Yu Zhengsheng, top member of the Politburo Standing Committee, China’s de facto highest ruling body, visited Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region on September 29, 2015. His visit marks important developments in the People’s Republic of China.

First of all, Beijing is concerned over the Uyghur Islamist threat. Chinese intelligence believes that about 3000 Uighur militants have been fighting at the side of ISIS and Al Nusra in Syria. Most of them get training in Afghanistan and then militants move to Syria or Iraq.

China notes that the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) provides support to them. On account of this, SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence wants to remember that Saudi Arabia’s special services have a strong position in Afghanistan and links with Al Nusra. So, it’s hardly possible to believe that MIT is the only supporter of these developments.

On the other hand, Yu Zhengsheng’s public activity is linked to his possibility to become the head of the Politburo Standing Committee. Experts believe that in this case Chinese security chiefs will get more influence to impact the China’s foreign policy.

So, it will likely start to counter Islamist militant groups more actively. This will lead to the intensification of antagonisms with MIT which supports Uyghur separatists in China.

 Furthermore, the situation is already tense. On July 9, Thailand confirmed that it had deported more than 100 Uyghurs to China. This fact drew so-called “international attention from human rights groups and the Turkic-speaking community”, particularly in Turkey. Indeed, these Uyghurs were militants and used Bangkok as a transfer point on the way to Turkey. MIT was helping them in this.

In China’s case, the Ankara’s common goal to unite the so-called “Turkic world” has turned into buidling own center of influence in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Obviously, Beijing doesn’t like this. Thus, China will answer rigidly if Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will continue to try to destabilize Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. In turn, Western powers can support destabilization of the region if they believe that China is ready to start a military opeartion in the Middle East.

In any case, Beijing will prefer to act on a foreign soil, at least, in the Middle East and Central Asia. China has major economic interests in Tajikistan. It needs a stability of the regime there. Another important point is Uzbekistan. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) militant group is a main threat there. It has a major human potential. A destabilization in Uzbeksitan will definitely fire the whole Central Asia.

At the moment, activity of militants in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is obstructed by violant opposition of the Chinese authorities. The economic and military support of militants there is also more complicated than in Afghanistan or Tajikistan. But the Uygur and IMU militants are much more motivated than their counterparts in the Central Asia. Yugur separatists and IMU inspired by Taliban and ISIS successes could try to force events in China. The situation in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region also depends on the reeal results of the Xi Jinping’s visit to London on October 19. The Anglo-Saxon’s stance over the topic will strongly influence the situation. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar will hardly achieve their goals without the Western support.

CAMERA is a pro-­Israel media lobby with chapters in most major US cities and Israel including New York City, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, Miami, and Boston.

More worrying for the UK is that this lobby also has an affiliate lobby in London that monitors media coverage of Israel with the intent to promote the dissemination of Israeli government policies, i.e. the propaganda of the ruling, right-­wing Likud party under Binyamin Netanyahu ­ in all British print and broadcast media.

 Explicit in its activities is its criticism of respected BBC journalists and reporters such as Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, (a war correspondent since 1989 who has reported from over 70 different countries); Orla Guerin MBE ( former London Press Club Broadcaster of the Year) and Lyse Doucet OBE, ­ BBC’s Chief International Correspondent.

 The CAMERA media lobby is closely associated with AIPAC, the US Israel lobby that influences American foreign policy through its financial support of Members of Congress who are willing to subscribe to its agenda. The AIPAC lobby is one of the most powerful (unelected) political pressure groups in the US which endeavours to impose its agenda upon the elected President and the White House through its political hold on Congress.

 In London, the Lobby’s agenda is to monitor all reporting of Israel with the intent to refute, dismiss or denigrate any report that in its partisan, political opinion does not correctly reflect the views of the current Israeli government. It attempts to promote this agenda by lobbying the elected

 Members of the House of Commons in an emulation of the lobbying of the US Congress by its counterpart in America.

 There are many who believe that such lobbying by powerful, moneyed pressure groups, in attempting to impose their vested political or financial interests, is anti-democratic and runs directly counter to the principles of Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.  There is also the contention that, where necessary, such lobbying should be declared illegal in order to maintain the principles of democratic government that acts in the interests of the majority and not in that of merely one minority group.

“This is one of the most astonishing documents I have ever read.”

-David Davis, Mail on Sunday, Oct 17, 2015

It reads like a whodunit document behind a failed criminal enterprise.  As it should –it figured as a vital step behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  And it was found in a stash of previously secret correspondence on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The Colin Powell memorandum in preparation for the Crawford summit of April 2002 (yes, that Powell, who has undertaken some considered Pilate handwashing ever since), was more damning than most. It outlined what the British role behind justifying an imminent war with shoddy grounds would look like.  More importantly, it provides ample carrion for the prosecution against Tony Blair for that often discounted charge of crimes against peace.

Ever since becoming prime minister of Britain, the greatest public relations machine to disgrace Westminster went into service for the US cause.  Blair’s role was deemed indispensable to providing the right colouration for what was coming: regime change in Iraq.

“He [Blair] will present to you [Bush] the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen the global support for our common cause.”  In return for such stitching, Powell advised that Bush made Blair look “big” on the world stage.

 Such bargaining evangelism is never attractive; evangelism in the service of war on behalf of another power? We let the most critical of juries decide that one.  Former conservative shadow home secretary, David Davis, has already made his mind up on the implications of the memorandum: “Judging from this memorandum, Blair signed up for the Iraq War even before the Americans themselves did.  It beggars believe.”[1]

 In various fora, Blair has claimed that no deal was done with Bush to go into Iraq well in advance of the 2003 attack – in this case, a year prior.  Before Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry in November 2009, he suggested that nothing of the sort had been planned at the time – Britain’s position only shifted after the private Crawford meeting in April 2002.  In his spruced memoirs heavy with mendacity, Blair reiterated the position: the diplomatic solution was still in swing.

 It was evident at the Crawford discussion that the two men wanted to be alone, or at the very least free of British advisors.  Britain’s ambassador to Washington at the time, Sir Christopher Meyer, gave evidence that he “took no part in any of the discussions and there was a large chunk of that time when no advisor was there.”  As the two men were “alone in the ranch” at the time, Meyer could not be clear “what degree of convergence (on Iraq policy) was signed in blood, if you like, at the Crawford ranch.”[2]

 That said, the meeting heralded the conflation of threats: that of al-Qaeda and the supposed “global war on terror”, with regime change in Iraq. It was in the immediate aftermath of the Crawford gathering that Blair began to express a view that the Bush administration was pushing with simultaneous enthusiasm: Saddam had to go.

 Furthermore, this stance on Blair’s part took place despite public assertions that he was in the diplomacy business – a resolution avoiding war with Iraq was always being considered.  But notwithstanding that, he is noted as putting Britain’s war machine at the service of Washington without reservations.  “On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary. He is convinced on two points: that the threat is real; and success against Saddam will yield more regional success.”

 Powell’s memorandum notes domestic opposition at all levels, including that of the UK Parliament.  At that particular point, the prime minister’s office had marginalised those in the UK Defence and Foreign ministries, effectively annexing Britannia’s strategic purpose to that of the White House.

 “A sizeable number of his MPs remain at present opposed to military action against Iraq… some would favour shifting from a policy of containment of Iraq if they had recent (and publicly usable) proof that Iraq is developing WMD/missiles… most seem to want to some sort of UN endorsement for military action.”

 There is also awareness that Britain’s own interests were taking a battering, not merely in the potential leveraging in blood in such theatres as Afghanistan, but ongoing economic disputes over tariffs in the steel industry.  In Powell’s words, Blair was ready to “insulate our broader relationship from this and other trade disputes.”  Those keen to see Blair as pet and poodle to the White House will have what they want, a grotesque act of fawning that effectively undercut British sovereignty.

 The Powell memorandum has cleared the air to a degree, though at this point, it is unlikely to delay the release of the long overdue Chilcot report. It was not that Blair could ever be trusted with upholding the values of international law.  It was far more fundamental than that: he could not be entrusted with the sovereignty of his own state.

 In holding parliamentary will, including members of his own cabinet, and that of anti-war sentiment in contempt, the memorandum goes some way in confirming Blair’s views ahead of the fateful invasion that not merely destabilised Europe, but unleased a religious conflagration in the Middle East.

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

Notes

The United States does not have a monopoly on the lynch law murder of black people. Israel, both America’s client state and master, is awash in racist state-sponsored violence. Palestinians are usually the intended targets, but Africans are inevitably caught in this terrorism too. The mob murder of Mulu Habtom Zerhom [3] reveals everything that the world needs to know about Israeli apartheid and the settler mentality which it exemplifies.

Zerhom was an Eritrean asylum seeker living in Israel, confined to one of the camps used to hold Africans. He was at a bus station where a Bedouin man shot an Israeli soldier. Zerhom was trying to flee but was himself shot by the police. Video footage shows him lying bleeding and incapacitated [4] as a mob of Israelis kicked him, threw chairs and benches at his head and shouted “son of a whore,” “break his head” and more to the point, “Kill him!”

News reports say that Zerhom was mistaken for a terrorist but the truth is simpler. Like his American counterparts the policeman lies about Zerhom attacking him. Another video shows Zerhom on all fours [5], trying to get away from the chaos. The killer cop knows the routine about shooting black people. Just claim to feel endangered and all is right with the world. He may have thought that Zerhom killed the soldier or he may have instinctively reacted the way so many white people do when they see a black face.

Israel is the world’s worst apartheid state. The Palestinian population is physically separated from the Jewish settler community, they are subjected to arbitrary arrest, abuse and outright murder. When they attempt to resist their oppression they are met with a brutal response. Actually they don’t have to resist, they only have to exist and they can be burned to death in their homes or shot by police who plant evidence [6] on their dead bodies.

The Palestinian people are victims of Israeli violence on a daily basis. They risk police brutality, theft of their land, the destruction of their homes and of course murder. While the IDF and Israeli police perfect the art of brutalizing occupied people, their American counterparts arrive like pilgrims, learning how better to subjugate their own population.

Israel would not exist at all without America’s direct intervention in 1948. Its continued existence is the result of American acquiescence and genuflection to what is technically a client state. But in a strange role reversal politicians from presidents down to local city council members regularly travel to Israel in hopes of receiving political patronage from Zionists in this country.

This hold on the political system is so complete, so entrenched, that no one dares to fight against it. Members of congress who buck this system immediately pay a price and face well-funded opponents. Americans who want to advocate against the continued financial and military support of this monstrous system are left with nowhere to turn. Israel’s untouchability is bought and paid for by its American supporters. Zarhom was killed on camera but not one politician in New York or Washington has spoken a word of protest.

Prime minister Netanyahu blandly warned against citizens taking the law into their own hands, but no one has been arrested for a crime committed on camera. It shouldn’t be too hard to find people clearly photographed especially when two of them gave interviews to the media. One identified himself as Dudu [7] and claimed to feel remorse. “If I would have known he wasn’t a terrorist, believe me, I would have protected him like I protect myself. I didn’t sleep well at night. I feel disgusted.” Another man named Meir Saka [8]admitted to being an accessory to the crime. “I was guarding over him with a chair to make sure he wouldn’t move . . . and then I heard gunshots and I realized he wasn’t even a terrorist. There was this atmosphere; everyone who came in, it didn’t matter who was there, boom, kicked him.” In other words, “My bad.”

The black misleaders say nothing about Israel. Israel may bomb Gaza into oblivion, kill children playing football on a beach, or use them as human shields. The obvious violations of human rights never merited condemnation. There is no reason to believe these same lackeys will speak up for Zerhom either.

In 2014 much media coverage was given to basketball team owner Donald Sterling [9] when his racist remarks were revealed to the public. Hardly anyone remembers what he said about Israel. “You go to Israel, the blacks are treated just like dogs.” Sterling hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement. Israel is an American occupier state in miniature with an indigenous population and immigrants who are treated like criminals. The two countries have more in common than the Zionist boosters want to admit.

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [10]Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Notes:

The idiom “divide and conquer” is said to have originated with the Latin maxim “divide et impera” meaning divide and rule. Julius Caesar used it in reference to defeating the Gauls during the Gaelic War. While its first usage in the English language began circa 1600, through the centuries it’s carried a commonly understood meaning.

The retention of power by utilizing a deliberate strategy of causing those in subordinate positions to engage in conflicts with each other that weaken and keep them from any unified effort to remove the status quo force from power. This policy of maintaining control over subordinates or potential opponents by encouraging or causing dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition to pose any serious threat to the existing power structure is a very familiar story throughout history. It’s an age old formula having multiple applications, most commonly used in the political arena but also in the military, sociological and economic realm as well.

Machiavelli formulated the divide and conquer strategy as an axiom in his Art of War where the enemy can be forced to break up their forces or where the mutual trust between the opponent’s leader and his men can be sabotaged and broken. Economically in the corporate world it’s used to gain advantage by triggering smaller competitors to take business away from each other and in effect canceling each other out, leaving the larger corporation to move in to reap greater profits, an indirect way the bigger fish eat the littler fish. Business models also use it to successfully tackle a large project by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable components. Sociological application of the divide and conquer strategy involves causing discord and conflict amongst racial/ethnic groups, or exploiting class, religious, age or gender differences to divide and diminish power of various groups according to these sociological classifications.

History is ripe with examples of its successful implementation. One illustration of its sociological application was during the 17^th century when the Virginia elite quelled a rash of uprisings from ex-indentured servant white men unified with black slaves by enacting race laws that elevated the rabble status of poor whites so far above the slaves that it effectively eliminated the threat of their ever joining forces in armed rebellion again. This divide and conquer stratagem was frequently repeated by European colonial powers typically pitting competitive tribal, ethnic and religious factions against each other to ensure they would not conspire revolt against the ruling imperialists. In Asia the British took full advantage of Moslems versus Hindus in India as well as creating conflict between Indians and Pakistanis. In the African colonies of Rwanda and Burundi Germany and Belgium created conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus that’s continued right into the genocidal 1990’s. For centuries the Rothschilds made it a family tradition funding both sides in a long series of wars in Europe and America guaranteeing them as the sole benefactors of waging war over the long haul.

This constant thematic thread of divide and conquer permeates the twentieth century on an epic, never before seen scale. The globalist-internationalists intentionally instigated both World War I and II as well as every major rise and fall of the stock market. The German militarization that led directly to WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution that violently evolved into both the Soviet and eventual Chinese Communist regimes along with Hitler’s rise to power (compliments of the likes of globalist George H.W. Bush’s father Prescott) were all examples of how the ruling elite directly funds and willfully creates conflict amongst competing powers, thereby covertly consolidating and expanding their own power base.

Their heinous crimes against humanity for their own selfish gain resulted in the two most destructive, bloodiest conflicts in human history.

As an outgrowth of World War II, the globalists devised the diabolical scheme of carving up the world by political ideology, promoting a relatively permanent, ready-made solution. The so called free world’s chief nemesis would be the Communist enemy.

Fervent anti-Communist and noted New York-Hollywood writer, director and producer Cecil Fagan in the late 1960’s recorded The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations:

The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism/communism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other. The internationalists discreetly gave away American technology and large sums of cash to the Russians while Senator Joe McCarthy domestically led his Red Scare inquisition. To ensure this Communist scare really got off the ground guaranteeing the rise of the military industrial complex and more unstoppable war, the Rockefellers and their fellow Western globalists also saw fit to secretly finance and back Mao’s power grab taking control over China’s mainland, conveniently splitting the Chinese people into Red Communists while covertly undermining yet publicly supporting Chiang Kai-shek’s island retreat to Formosa (later Taiwan).

Using these same divide and conquer tactics elsewhere in Asia, at the end of WWII the globalists using longtime Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and future Secretary of State Dean Rusk [1961-1969] to arbitrarily split Korea at the 38^th parallel (a nation and people that for centuries had always been unified) into two separate enemy camps.

And to this day the US maintains a strong military presence in South Korea despite sentiments voiced last year by South Korea indicating it desires reunification. But in this polarized geopolitical world compliments of the globalists’ re-installment of Cold War 2, NWO puppet Obama’s been busily militarizing East Asia in his feebly aggressive “pivotal” push toward military confrontation with the East. As a result, tensions are heating up with Beijing asserting its emerging leadership role in the region taken by the Washington neocons as a direct threat and challenge to Empire’s global hegemony.

Within a decade after the Korean War was over, the globalists were at it again replicating this same proven lethal formula fueling another cold war wedge in Asia, this time with the divided Vietnamese population. Again with the Communists in the North and another corrupt US supported puppet in the South, once the globalists got rid of Kennedy who’d vowed to return all US military advisors and thereby avoid war in Vietnam entirely, less than a year after JFK’s murder, co-conspirator Lyndon Johnson plunged the imperialistic Empire into its longest running war in US history under the pretense of yet another false flag lie in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964. Nine years later, three more million Southeast Asians lay dead along with 58,000 more Americans. But this time America suffered its first humiliating military defeat in its exhaustive warring history (at war 93% of the time).

But military defeat nor heavy loss of human life would ever phase psychopathic globalist-bankers always out to make their greedy killing feeding their imperialistic greed and Empire’s hegemonic control. After all, war profiteering in Asia had become an American pastime and big business for the globalists. At the turn of the twentieth century as the first Asian bloodbath ended, the Spanish American War witnessed the US military brutally slaughtering close to a million Filipinos (per Filipino historians). This level of violence was meant to send the chilling message to the Third World that nothing would stop US imperialism from having its way with lesser powered nations. By the way, the internationalist robber barons were behind the false flag excuse to start that war too. Media mogul Randolph Hearst knew yellow journalism – “Remember the Maine?” Fact: each and every war in the bloodiest century known to man was initiated by yet another premeditated globalist false flag event.

Unsurprisingly, pro-New World Order globalists’ true but largely hidden ideology has always leaned far closer to their supposed Communist totalitarian enemy than any real democracy. They’ve always been about killing off all competition for the sake of maintaining monopolized control of an anything but free market. They’ve used their secret fraternity to retain their global power into the fewest hands. And their lust for Third World exploitation, theft and violence is so insatiable that any foreign national leader who actually attempts to practice democratic principles directly benefiting and uplifting their native population is simply not tolerated and through the globalists’ secret private army the CIA that answers to no one in government, that leader is quickly assassinated and/or overthrown. Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and Chile’s President Salvador Allende in 1973 are but two among many examples of international leaders who were violently cut short from continuing their noble work improving the economic lives of their people. Because they were loyal to their own citizens and nations and United States business interests were not given high enough priority, the CIA made sure they were eliminated from power.

Again straight out of organized crime’s playbook, the message to all nations on earth is either you play ball allowing the mighty US bully to come rape and pillage your country or your leader will suddenly be gone in a heartbeat. With near total impunity for more than 60 years the CIA’s been covertly deployed around the world engaging in state sponsored terrorism as the globalists’ mercenary death squad constantly violating every international law, UN Charter and Geneva Convention rule in order to subversively wreak havoc around the globe, again protected with complete impunity by US’ deep state exceptionalism.

Indeed there are very few regions on earth where US Empire has not actively supported or organized coup d’états or otherwise overthrown and/or assassinated foreign leaders and governments. One readily can see that the alphabetical shortlist that follows is actually very long:

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Colorado, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Dakota, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, USSR, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire

And the list above doesn’t even include assassinations committed by government insiders inside the US of such prominent American leaders as JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and RFK. With thousands of murderous hitmen posing as federal agents undoubtedly never serving even one day in prison for committing so much murder, mayhem and chaos over so many years on such a colossal global scale, it’s mind boggling to even fathom how their sins go unpunished.

Speaking of getting away with murder, despite the CIA getting caught red-handed committing unlawful acts of torture (euphemistically called enhanced interrogation techniques) on a regular basis during the Bush-Cheney years, Obama refused to prosecute because he more than likely allowed it to continue on his watch. So says the imprisoned CIA officer turned whistleblower John Kiriakou who ended up doing serious time because he did the right thing courageously exposing the widespread inhumane practice while the perpetrators got away with their crimes. But then consistent with history, good deeds go punished and evil ones don’t.

Despite each US president paying lip service to both domestic and international law explicitly prohibiting political assassination, the exceptional Empire-crime syndicate’s track record proves that through the CIA the US government regularly engages in tampering with other nation’s sovereignty to the extent that coups de tats, murders, at least 50 attempted murders and 600 assassination plots of foreign leaders in the last 50 years are commonplace. The divide and conquer strategy is easily met by separating another sovereign nation from its deposed leader, thus conquering and subjugating both the people and the next US installed handpicked puppet. The two examples Shah of Iran and General Pinochet as selected past US puppets were both infamous tyrants and war criminals guilty of viciously killing thousands of their own people. But since birds of the same criminal ilk flock together, they gave the predatory US vultures everything they wanted and demanded.

While war criminal-globalist with the rock star status Henry Kissinger was being selected as Nobel Peace Prize winner, similar to Obama years later, Kissinger was busily orchestrating Allende’s death on Chile’s own 9/11. Bottom line reality, globalist-led US Empire neither encourages nor permits independence and prosperity to reign in any nation, especially ones endowed with a wealth of natural resources that must be milked, mined and stolen by the elite.

Active membership in the globalist dominated Council on Foreign Relations or any number of other globalist organizations like the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, Yale’s Skull and Bones Society automatically places you at the head of the class as a prime mover and shaker of world events and developments. Since 1921 CFR globalists have remained a permanent, very visible fixture in Washington operating at the power pyramid pinnacle within all branches of the federal government, over-stacked especially in the executive and legislative branches. Over the last century most US presidents and nearly all heads of their State, Defense, Treasury and Justice Departments as well as the key Congressional powerbrokers have all been CFR plants pushing relentlessly toward their New World Order.

Famed American historian, John Kennedy’s award winning biographer, confidant and globalist Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1995 remarked in the CFR publication Foreign Affairs, “We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money.”

With a bloody full century behind them of blatant dividing, conquering and destroying other peoples and nations at will, at the start of this century the geopolitical stage was already set for globalists to step up their despicable low-bar standards by sinking even lower, committing unprecedented, unthinkable acts of evil. Since 9/11 they’ve been turning to their tried and true divide and conquer methodology at an accelerated clip paving the way to their endgame scenario – a New World Order complete with a one world government and a cashless, micro-chipped feudalistic society. At this late stage in their game, 2015 so far has been the year they’re smelling blood and closing in for the kill.

For many years the US Empire has been employed to do the global elite’s dirty bidding. After using Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda originally to defeat an overextended Soviet Empire in the world’s empire graveyard Afghanistan throughout the 1980’s, forcing the breakup of the Soviet Union nearly a quarter century ago, the US Empire then used its clout as the world’s only superpower to ensure that Russia and China would never challenge US hegemony and full spectrum dominance again. The globalists proceeded on an ambitious worldwide quest to increase dominance and control by embarking on an agenda to destabilize the entire world. Though the US has focused its most destructive power on the Middle East and North Africa, the sheer madness of destabilization has spread deeper into the sub-Saharan African continent as well.

Their favorite method of achieving this objective involves employing their divide and conquer strategy that’s embodied in the imperialistic operational term “balkanizing.” It most accurately describes the Modus Operandi by which the elite’s quest to global destabilization has been accomplished. But as Pebe Escobar aptly says, ”Empire of Chaos isn’t working out too well for them.” For all its destructive power to destroy other nations, the US appears to also be self-imploding. Of course that’s what empires do, just like the sun, they rise and they fall, and currently the sun’s fast setting on the American Empire.

This presentation aims to address the cold hard reality that it’s clearly no accident but purely by globalist design that as the US powers-that-be so zealously and willfully export their most dubious, most skilled commodity – bombing other nations around the world into oblivion – the global elite also desires to simultaneously bring down America as the most powerful country on earth. The modern roots to this tragic tale with such a seemingly sad ending for so many is conspicuously embedded in plain sight in the not so distant past.

Fresh off the cold war with the Soviet breakup, in the 1990’s globalist Bill Clinton used NATO’s dirty bombs to soften the resistance for Osama’s US mercenary band of al Qaeda terrorists that had been hired to move Afghan heroin from the Balkans into the West while killing demonized Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo. The end result was the systematic destruction of the former Yugoslavia, balkanizing the country by breaking it up into a half dozen separate ineffectual pieces as failed nation-state puppets for US transnationals to divvy up their predatory claims with first dibs reserved for US military expansion.

Thus, the US quickly installed yet more killer machine airfields and military bases (near a thousand dot the Empire occupied planet) as part of a strategy to seal off Russia’s borderland nations, quickly turning them into anti-Russian, pro-NATO vassal enclaves. Next came the proliferation of installing warhead missiles aimed directly at Moscow from such close doorstep vantage points as Poland and Romania with the strategic goal of stretching them into Central Asia. As suicidal insanity, currently the neocons are both prepping and pressing US-NATO for a preemptive nuke strike against Russia.

The location hub of Eastern Europe in Russia’s backyard has always served empires well for nearby military incursions into the Middle East and Central Asia. US military bases in Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria along with the strategic Eurasian gateway ally Turkey offered the necessary precursor launching pad for the neocons’ Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) post-9/11 US invasion-occupation-destabilization-regime change-failed state endgame war agenda scenario across the Middle East and North Africa.

The major players in the international crime cabal government occupying Washington when not at their home away from home Tel Aviv, that infamous neocon Bush-Cheney gang holding so many dual US-Israeli citizenships as both the 9/11 and war-on-terror architects (in cahoots of course with Israeli Mossad and the Saudi royals) are clearly responsible for carrying out the bloodiest, most ambitious and diabolical false flag in history on 9/11.

Their Project for the New American Century from a couple years earlier prior to 9/11 was the blueprinted plot laying bare their new century’s aggressive foreign policy-on-steroids. Under the false pretext of their war on terror, they’ve engaged in multiple regime changes (their plan called for seven in five years per General Wesley Clark) after executing their “new Pearl Harbor event,” they’ve consistently employed their divide and conquer strategy to destabilize, weaken and destroy targeted Muslim nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

And those very same treasonous Washington neocons holding dual US-Israeli citizenship who pulled off the 9/11 coup are incredibly still driver-seated in power still plundering the globe today. But make no mistake, all along they’ve been receiving their marching orders directly from the globalists in charge, representing the 1% wealthiest people on earth that own more than the rest of us 7 plus billion combined!

The growing list of US victimized nations-turned-war-ravaged failed states include Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Central African Republic, Congo, Ukraine and a few others we likely still don’t know. By using oil rich, corrupt Muslim monarchy Gulf states as their co-conspiring vassals – namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan along with Turkey, together creating the scourge of well-funded, well-trained, well-armed and well-supplied proxy mercenary terrorists ISIS, the US-Israeli-NATO alliance controlled by the globalists have – again by design – pitted Muslim nation against Muslim nation, Shiites against Sunnis, Western white Christians against Muslims worldwide. And that’s not even counting the thousands of Muslim family members who’ve lost relatives due to US war and drone strike transgressions over the last decade and a half that’s acting as an ideal recruiting station for Islamic extremism. Undoubtedly many vowing to avenge the death of their loved ones are now fighting against the US as ISIS jihadists. But then that feeds right into the globalist strategy to keep fresh angry recruits fighting their manufactured war of terror.

As if this tragic mess created in the Middle East and North Africa isn’t enough for the bloodthirsty globalists, in 2014 enter Hillary and Soros’ NGO-led coup in Ukraine and the globalists with one illicit stroke reignited Cold War 2 that currently has the Western world on the brink of triggering a possible nuclear war against the powerful Eastern alliance of Russia-China-Iran. By their shameless demonic design, the globalists’ deceitfully delivered war of terror with its $6 trillion price tag and counting has bankrupted the globalist-created Ponzi scheme of a house of cards economy, made our only planet the most armed and dangerous in recorded history, and is now rapidly pushing humans toward yet another world war and/or human-induced mass extinction that might well spell the end of all life on earth. With the stakes never higher, the lethal culmination of their divide and conquer strategy being fulfilled through this century’s escalating events and developments are unfolding upon us now at breakneck speed.

At the behest of Israel, the US seized the opportunity for more dividing and conquering by “balkanizing” the entire MENA region into weakened failed states for superpower’s global hegemony and further blood-for-oil plundering. Subsequently Iraq has been partitioned off by ethnic-sectarian divide reserved for more manageably designated Sunni, Shiite and Kurd states. Of course the destabilizing presence of ISIS invading Iraq in June 2014 seizing an undefended Mosul conveniently allowed the US excuse to reinstall its military posts back in Iraq, something the then quickly deposed Maliki had obstinately refused when US military departed Iraq in December 2011. But two weeks ago this Middle East quagmire by globalist design compliments of US Empire of Chaos just got jolted by Putin’s game-changing wakeup call at the UN.

Until Putin’s recent no nonsense interventions to start snuffing out ISIS in Syria where Obama for over a year was playing his pretend game to “hunt them down,” the determined US agenda for over four years had been to regime change Assad, destabilize and balkanize Syria a small nation into weaker factions so the oil-gas pipeline war against Russia could be won on the way to claiming the final grand prize in the region – taking down Iran as Israel’s and hence Empire’s foremost thorn in its side. Just months before the US-P5-Iran nuke agreement, the CFR’s Foreign Policy was still frothing at the mouth calling for an Iran regime change.

The same globalist/US design to destabilize through balkanization is either in process or been deployed in Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Pakistan, Congo, Sudan, the South Caucasus, Myanmar, Thailand and other places where Black Ops go that we don’t know. But regardless of where, we do know America’s destabilizing agenda has everything to do with its transparently futile attempt to cut off, isolate and weaken renewed cold war adversaries Russia and China as well as nemesis Iran. With US Special Operations Forces secretly deployed in 135 nations around the world, terrorism-r-us comes in the form of a destabilizing meat cleaver gone global. After all, the US Empire of Chaos is carving up yet more of the geopolitics chessboard using divide and conquer tactics straight out of its favorite Machiavellian playbook “the art of war.”

Another alarming consequence of this NWO agenda that’s never been more glaringly obvious is the out of control refugee migration crisis presently spreading throughout Europe. Unfortunately by globalist design the failed foreign policy of Western governments spearheaded by the United States Empire has also led directly to this manufactured human crisis. The neocon plan to destroy the Middle East and North Africa through prolonged military occupation, continued air strike bombing and forever war spilling blood into its second decade along with the fabrication of the fake enemy ISIS has singlehandedly created the migration crisis in Europe.

But with Obama’s open door policy operating for nearly seven years now along the southern US-Mexican boundary line, last summer’s 50,000 kids from Central America converging at the border fueled the immigration crisis that was capturing all the headlines in America. A similar policy in the Western Hemisphere concocted a long fake war on drugs that’s been maintained by an illicitly covert US-Latin American crime cabal. Washington has been in partnership with the Latin American drug cartels, their criminal gangs and their national governments when not staging coups. Recall the numerous failed attempts in Venezuela and the one Obama and Hillary pulled off in 2009 when they overthrew another democratically elected leader in Honduras. Obama is simply following orders from the globalists to carry out a border policy that’s allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States. The refugee migration crisis in both America and Europe is part of the globalist divide and conquer agenda, specifically designed to create racial tensions and conflicts between the native populations and the new arrivals. It also conveniently provides the perfect cover for yet more false flag terrorism in both the US and Europe.

Too many ignorant distressed Americans and Europeans latch onto the old blame the victim game, increasingly resenting and scapegoating darker-skinned outsiders as the mistaken cause of all their perceived problems such as lack of jobs they insist illegals are stealing and paying high taxes to support a welfare state the illegals are allege to be abusing. Obviously this globalist mixing of races and religions is causing mutual distrust, enflaming racial discrimination and open hostilities triggering massive protests and an alarming rise of racially motivated hate crimes across both North America and Europe.

A sizeable portion of the largely white Westerner holds the foreign migrant population in total contempt for forever literally changing the complexion and national and cultural identity of their homeland. Europeans are justified in their complaints citing wealthy Middle Eastern nations like Israel, Saudi Arabia and other oil rich Gulf states that have largely caused the crisis are adamantly refusing to take in any refugees. To take some of the political heat off, the Saudis just pledged Jordan that’s overrun with Syrian refugees $10 billion. As dire conditions unfold, many Europeans’ concerns are legitimate but as the crisis grows, so are people’s intolerance and anger. Yet too many out of ignorance and kneejerk reactivity may simply be giving the globalist culprits another free pass despite the elite’s premeditated agenda to spawn this ongoing deepening mess carrying  untold heavy long term consequences.

Last year globalist Peter Sutherland, former BP CEO, non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and active Bilderberger and Trilateral Commission member, speaking before the British House of Lords, candidly disclosed the globalist plan a full year ahead of today’s full blown crisis:  

The European Union should do its best to undermine the homogeneity of its member states, because the future prosperity of many EU states depends on them becoming multicultural, [adding]… migration is a crucial dynamic for economic growth in some EU nations however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states.The ruling elite intentionally pursued a horribly violent, criminally inhumane policy that knowingly would create dire conditions in war ravaged nations that would ensure that hordes of fleeing, displaced outsiders flood into nearby nations and eventually begin spilling over into Western countries to specifically create the racial and religious divide using the deceptively benign excuse of “multiculturalism.”

In turn, the elite can exploit a new source of cheap slave labor that results in bringing down wages across the boards for workers. The globalist agenda is all about raising profits at the expense of human beings, inducing conflict, crisis and civil unrest amongst different population groups that in turn only opens the door for increased government oppression. This self-feeding, circular dynamic of the Hegelian dialectic combined with the divide and conquer strategy simultaneously moves nations closer toward the ultimate globalist agenda of a one world government. Enter the final diabolical piece to this horror show, the so called “free trade” agreements TPP and TTIP that will totally undermine and completely destroy whatever national sovereignty is left and their sweet dream becomes our nightmare come true.

Only by becoming aware of the pervasive grip that globalists wield in promoting their emerging New World Order can we citizens of the world come together to make every effort to thwart the elite’s sinister design. A good start is crushing the trade agreements. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was recently agreed upon by the twelve trade ministers representing the nations involved. Within about four months it will reach US Congress for the all-important vote to ratify or not. Fortunately numerous organizations have long been admirably and actively opposing the trade agreements and will welcome all the help and support we can give them. Since they’ve been toiling away in the trenches and already accomplished some remarkable results, let’s learn from their experience and knowledge so that we can cohesively come together to produce optimal results. Citizens from their respective countries need to mobilize as activists and ensure their voice is heard by their governing representatives. Together we must and will stop these Trojan horse enemies dead in their tracks.

Regarding a strategy to best deal with the existing and coming migration crisis and its array of adjunctive issues, the same committed drive and collective resolve we take to generating constructive action to defeat the trade agreements, we must also bring to responding to this formidable humanitarian crisis as well. Attempting to resolve the complex, multi-tiered issues and challenges facing all citizens, we will need to work in close partnership together with an ever-cognizant awareness as much as we humanly can to transcend the negative, powerfully divisive forces intended to divide, weaken and even break us. We need to come together as open-minded problem solvers recognizing that what we face isn’t a refugee problem or an immigrant problem, nor an outsider vs. insider problem, nor a “him or me” problem. What we collectively face is a shared human problem not of our making that requires a meeting of open, overlapping minds and values. We’ll need to think creatively outside the box both practically and judiciously, as much as possible always with humanitarian understanding and compassion.

Finally, we will need to interface and work with those at all levels of our governing bodies, exercising patience and tolerance when encountering negativity, incompetent bureaucracy and the systemic dysfunction so pervasive in institutional settings. Finally, many of the individuals we encounter hold positions aligned with the elite diametrically opposed to working in our best interests. Again, approach the challenge of finding solutions to our human problems, knowing where there is a will, especially goodwill, it’s always possible there is also a way.

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/

First published by WhoWhatWhy

As you watch, perhaps with alarm, as 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.

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 first 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. by David Talbot, HarperCollins Publishers, 2015.

PLOTS, PANIC, AND RUMORS OF CIA INVOLVEMENT

It was Cuba that created the first fracture between Kennedy and his national security chain of command. But while the Bay of Pigs was still dominating the front pages, the CIA mucked its way into another international crisis that required the president’s urgent attention. The Cuba invasion has all but erased this second crisis from history. But the strange events that occurred in Paris in April 1961 reinforced the disturbing feeling that President Kennedy was not in control of his own government.

Paris was in turmoil. At dawn on Saturday morning, April 22, a group of retired French generals had seized power in Algiers to block President Charles de Gaulle from settling the long, bloody war for Algerian independence. Rumors quickly spread that the coup plotters were coming next for de Gaulle himself, and that the skies over Paris would soon be filled with battle-hardened paratroopers and French Foreign Legionnaires from Algeria. Gripped by the dying convulsions of its colonial reign, France braced for a calamitous showdown.

After de Gaulle was elected president in 1958, he sought to purge the French government of its CIA-connected elements. Dulles had made heavy inroads into France’s political, cultural, and intelligence circles in the postwar years.

The threat to French democracy was actually even more immediate than feared. On Saturday evening, two units of paratroopers totaling over two thousand men huddled in the Forest of Orleans and the Forest of Rambouillet, not much more than an hour outside Paris. The rebellious paratroopers were poised for the final command to join up with tank units from Rambouillet and converge on the capital, with the aim of seizing the Élysée Palace and other key government posts.

By Sunday, panic was sweeping through Paris. All air traffic was halted over the area, the Metro was shut down, and cinemas were dark. Only the cafés remained open, where Parisians crowded anxiously to swap the latest gossip.

Général Maurice Challe Photo credit: Screenshot Entertainment-Education WebTV / YouTube

News that the coup was being led by the widely admired Maurice Challe, a former air force chief and commander of French forces in Algeria, stunned the government in Paris, from de Gaulle down.

Challe, a squat, quiet man, was a World War II hero and, so it had seemed, a loyal Gaullist. But the savage passions of the war in Algeria had deeply affected Challe and left him vulnerable to the persuasions of more zealous French officers. He had promised Algeria’s French settlers and pro-French Muslims that they would not be abandoned, and he felt a soldierly responsibility to stand by his oath, as well as by the memory of the French servicemen who had lost their lives in the war. In his radio broadcast to the people of France, the coup leader explained that he was taking his stand against de Gaulle’s “government of capitulation … so that our dead shall not have died for nothing.”

De Gaulle’s enemies in Paris and Washington were also convinced that the French president’s awkward steps toward granting Algerian independence threatened to create a “Soviet base” in strategic, oil-rich North Africa.

Richard M. Bissell, Jr., the CIA’s Chief of Covert Action in 1961 who helped
run ZRRIFLE, an “Executive Action” program. Photo credit: CIA.GOV

De Gaulle quickly concluded that Challe must be acting with the support of US intelligence, and Élysée officials began spreading this word to the press. Shortly before his resignation from the French military, Challe had served as NATO commander in chief, and he had developed close relations with a number of high-ranking US officers stationed in the military alliance’s Fontainebleau headquarters. Challe and American security officials shared a deep disaffection with de Gaulle.

The stubborn, seventy-year-old pillar of French nationalism was viewed as a growing obstacle to US ambitions for NATO because he refused to incorporate French troops under allied command and insisted on building a separate nuclear force beyond Washington’s control. De Gaulle’s enemies in Paris and Washington were also convinced that the French president’s awkward steps toward granting Algerian independence threatened to create a “Soviet base” in strategic, oil-rich North Africa.

In panic-gripped Paris, reports of US involvement in the coup filled newspapers across the political spectrum. Geneviève Tabouis, a columnist for Paris-Jour, zeroed in directly on Dulles as the main culprit in an article headlined “The Strategy of Allen Dulles.”

Other news reports revealed that Jacques Soustelle — a former governor-general of Algeria who joined the Secret Army Organization (Organisation de l’Armée Secrète, or OAS), a notorious anti-de Gaulle terrorist group — had a luncheon meeting with Richard Bissell in Washington the previous December.

De Gaulle’s foreign ministry was the source of some of the most provocative charges in the press, including the allegation that CIA agents sought funding for the Challe coup from multinational corporations, such as Belgian mining companies operating in the Congo.

“WE WILL NOT FAIL AS WE DID IN CUBA”

Ministry officials also alleged that Americans with ties to extremist groups had surfaced in Paris during the coup drama, including one identified as a “political counselor for the Luce [media] group,” who was heard to say, “An operation is being prepared in Algiers to put a stop to communism, and we will not fail as we did in Cuba.”

Stories about the CIA’s French intrigues soon began spreading to the American press. A Paris correspondent for The Washington Post reported that Challe had launched his revolt “because he was convinced he had unqualified American support” — assurances, Challe was led to believe, “emanating from President Kennedy himself.” Who gave these assurances, the Post reporter asked his French sources? The Pentagon, the CIA? “It’s the same thing,” he was told.

Dulles was forced to issue a strong denial of CIA involvement in the putsch. “Any reports or allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency or any of its personnel had anything to do with the generals’ revolt were completely false,” the spymaster declared, blaming Moscow for spreading the charges.

C.L. Sulzberger, the CIA-friendly New York Times columnist, took up the agency’s defense, echoing Dulles’s indignant denial. “To set the record straight,” Sulzberger wrote, sounding like an agency official, “our Government behaved with discretion, wisdom and propriety during the [French] insurrection.This applies to all branches, [including] the CIA.”

Years later, investigative reporter Carl Bernstein exposed the ties between Sulzberger and the CIA. “Young Cy Sulzberger had some uses,” a CIA official told Bernstein. “He was very eager, he loved to cooperate.” (Bernstein conveniently left unexamined the long history of cooperation between the CIA and his own former employer, The Washington Post.)

But The New York Times’s Scotty Reston was more aligned with the sentiments of the Kennedy White House. Echoing the charges circulating in the French press, Reston reported that the CIA was indeed “involved in an embarrassing liaison with the anti-Gaullist officers.”

Reston communicated the rising fury in JFK’s inner circle over the CIA’s rogue behavior, in the wake of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the French escapade: “All this has increased the feeling in the White House that the CIA has gone beyond the bounds of an objective intelligence-gathering agency and has become the advocate of men and policies that have embarrassed the Administration.”

DEEP HISTORY OF CIA IN FRANCE

Allen Dulles was once again making his own policy, this time in France. There was a long history of acrimony between Dulles and de Gaulle, dating back to World War II and the complex internal politics of the French Resistance.

As OSS chief in Switzerland, Dulles favored a far right faction of the Resistance that was opposed to de Gaulle. In his war memoirs, de Gaulle accused Dulles of being part of “a scheme” that was determined to “silence or set aside” the French general. Pierre de Bénouville, a right-wing Resistance leader on Dulles’s OSS payroll, was later accused of betraying Jean Moulin, de Gaulle’s dashing representative in the French underground, to the Gestapo.

After he was captured, Moulin was subjected to brutal torture before being beaten to death — by the notorious war criminal Klaus Barbie, according to some accounts.

After de Gaulle was elected president in 1958, he sought to purge the French government of its CIA-connected elements. Dulles had made heavy inroads into France’s political, cultural, and intelligence circles in the postwar years. According to some French reports, during his visits to Paris the spymaster would set himself up at a suite in the Ritz Hotel, where he would dispense bags full of cash to friendly politicians, journalists, and other influential figures. Some were wined and dined and enticed with beautiful Parisian call girls.

De Gaulle was particularly determined to shut down the secret “stay-behind army” that Dulles had organized in France — a network of anti-Communist militants with access to buried arms caches who were originally recruited to resist a potential Soviet invasion but were now aligned with the rebellious generals and other groups plotting to overthrow French democracy.

De Gaulle ordered his young security adviser, Constantin Melnik, to shut down the murky, stay-behind network of fascists, spooks, and criminals, which Melnik agreed was “very dan- gerous for the security of France.”

But Melnik, who was trained at the RAND Corporation, a leading think tank for the US national security complex, was another admirer of Dulles, and the stay-behind under-ground continued to operate in France. Melnik — who was the son of a White Russian general and the grandson of Czar Nicolas II’s personal physician, who was executed along with the imperial family — was as passionately anti-Soviet as his US security colleagues.

In May 1958, when de Gaulle returned to power in Paris after a twelve-year absence, Dulles flew to Paris for a face-to-face meeting with the legendary Frenchman to see if their differences could be resolved. Dulles had great confidence in his personal powers of persuasion. But the proud de Gaulle refused to see the spymaster, handing him off to one of his close associates, Michel Debré.

A formal dinner was organized for Dulles and Jim Hunt, the CIA station chief in Paris, which was also attended by Melnik. Dulles seemed unfazed by de Gaulle’s slight. But, as French journalist Frédéric Charpier later commented, “Upon returning to the Ritz Hotel, Dulles drew some lessons from the evening, which confirmed his fears. De Gaulle promised to be a tough and hostile partner who was sure to put an end to the laissez-faire attitude which up until then had characterized the [French government].”

World leaders defied Allen Dulles at their peril — even leaders like Charles de Gaulle, whose nation’s warm, fraternal relations with the United States dated back to the American Revolution. After Dulles flew home to Washington, the CIA’s reports on de Gaulle took a sharper edge. At a National Security Council meeting convened by Eisenhower in September 1958, gloomy prognostications were made about the French leader’s ability to settle the Algerian crisis to America’s satisfaction.

The possibility of overthrowing de Gaulle and replacing him with someone more in tune with US interests was openly discussed, but the idea was discarded at that point as too risky. However, by the time Kennedy took office in January 1961, the CIA was primed for a power switch in Paris.

French President Charles De Gaulle and the Six-Year War Video credit: National Archives / Archive.org

Next: Part 2.

As growing numbers of refugees seek asylum from the wars raging in Syria and Iraq, governments throughout Europe are moving to seal their borders, slash social assistance for migrants, and carry out mass deportations.

This week, the Bild newspaper reported that the German government plans to use military aircraft to deport tens of thousands of refugees whose requests for asylum have been denied. According to the newspaper, the government is planning to use C-160 military transport planes to deport nearly 200,000 people who have been declared by the German state to be “economic migrants” and ineligible for asylum.

Image: A German army C-160 Transall cargo transport airplane

The newspaper said that the use of the military for deportations, unprecedented in Germany’s postwar history, will be part of a dramatic crackdown on refugees. Germany will not honour its unofficial moratorium on deportations during the winter months, and will cease giving refugees advance warning that they will be deported to prevent them from fleeing.

In addition, the German government is preparing to set up “transit zones” along its border, in substance little different from concentration camps, where refugees are to be held while their applications are processed.

German government officials did not deny the newspaper’s revelations. “Obviously, the usage of the Transall [troop carrier aircraft] is not ruled out,” Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared. She added, with chilling casualness, that the aircraft would be made available “if it does not affect the German army’s priority missions.”

Image: Children sleeping on the ground at a refugee processing center in Berlin, Germany (Photographer Ludwig Niethammer)

The revelations follow the passage of a bill in the German parliament that slashes social aid to refugees who qualify for assistance and expands the number of countries from which refugees are to be denied asylum in accelerated proceedings.

Meanwhile, the countries on the major transit routes into Europe are intensifying their crackdown on refugees. The parliament of Slovenia approved the deployment of its army to the border on Tuesday night. An initial 140 soldiers are being stationed on the border and will have the authority to detain refugees and issue orders to local residents.

Shocking scenes are playing out on the borders between Slovenia and Croatia, Hungary and Croatia and Macedonia and Greece. Refugees are wading through ice-cold rivers, knee-deep in mud, soaked to the bone by rain or shivering from cold in temporary tent camps without heating and often having to sleep overnight on the ground.

“This is inhumane. We fled from war, from destruction. We lost everything: our families, our children. The bombs killed us,” Haidar, who fled from Iraq and is currently stranded on the Greek-Macedonian border at Gevgelija, told the German public broadcaster ARD.

The situation facing refugees on the so-called Balkan route has worsened dramatically following the closure of the Hungarian-Croatian border last Friday. Since then, refugees have been forced to extend their travel through Slovenia in order to reach northern and central Europe.

Over 12,000 refugees arrived in Slovenia on Thursday, and a further 12,100 refugees remain in Serbia awaiting passage into Croatia.

A fire broke out at a hugely overcrowded refugee camp in the Slovenian border town of Brezice on Wednesday, burning the majority of the emergency tents. It remains unclear whether the fire was set by refugees in protest of the abysmal conditions at the camp, or was the result of refugees using fires to keep warm in the cold rain.

On Wednesday, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, High Commissioner for Human Rights, accused the Czech Republic of violating the human rights of refugees in order to deter them from entering the country.

In a statement, Zeid said:

“According to credible reports from various sources, the violations of the human rights of migrants are neither isolated nor coincidental, but systematic. They appear to be an integral part of a policy by the Czech Government designed to deter migrants and refugees from entering the country or staying there.”

Measures cited by Zeid include the strip-searching of refugees in order to confiscate their money, which is then allegedly used to pay for their detention.

This week the EU opened the first “hot spot” internment camp on the Greek island of Lesbos. Refugees are to be registered there and have their asylum applications processed in expedited proceedings by officials from the Frontex border protection agency. The camp at Moria is expected to hold 2,500 people. But over the weekend, 5,000 new refugees arrived.

Last weekend alone, 16 refugees drowned on the crossing to Greece. On Friday, the Greek coast guard recovered the bodies of four children near the island of Kalymnos, and another boy remained missing. A further twelve refugees drowned near the Turkish coast when their boat capsized on the way to Lesbos.

According to the International Organization for Migrants, 473,000 refugees have arrived in Greece since the beginning of the year, overwhelmingly from the war zones in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 150 have lost their lives.

Meanwhile, conditions confronting refugees stranded at the French port of Calais awaiting the chance to cross the Channel Tunnel have worsened catastrophically. The number of refugees in the camp has doubled to 6,000 in recent weeks. The refugees, including families with children, live in tents and huts they have built themselves.

“We stand on the verge of collapse,” said Jean-Francois Corty, director of French operations for Doctors of the World. The French government has proposed the construction of a new tent and container camp, but it would accommodate a mere 1,500 people and would not be ready until after winter.

The EU’s “humanitarian” response to the crisis has been largely nonexistent. The high-profile plans to resettle 160,000 refugees from Italy and Greece into other member countries has remained a dead letter, with just 19 refugees having been flown from Greece to Sweden. And from the much talked-about €2.8 billion for refugee aid, only a small fraction has been made available.