Global Research

Documentario: The Revolution Business

(La dichiarazione di Srdja Popovic è a 4:20)

Discorso del presidente G.W.Bush (Czernin Palace, Praga, 5 giugno 2007)

Liban 2005-2015 : d’une « révolution » colorée à l’autre

Bolivia says it is launching a thorough investigation into revelations made public by a WikiLeaks report.

The U.S. has refuted reports that it planned to topple the government of Bolivia.

The controversy started after a report surfaced on WikiLeaks that the U.S. government had plotted an assassination attempt against President Evo Morales in 2008.

A representative described the WikiLeaks accusations as “absolutely false and absurd.”

In a strongly worded statement the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia said, “The government of the United States was not involved in any conspiracy, attempt to overthrow the government of Bolivia or assassinate President Morales. This kind of unfounded allegations does not contribute to improving bilateral relations,” said a spokesperson.

Despite the denials, the Bolivian government announced it is pressing ahead with a thorough investigation.

A government minister revealed new information from the WikiLeaks report on state television on Tuesday morning.

Carlos Romero reported meetings took place between leaders of the opposition with representatives of the U.S. Embassy between 2007 and 2008. Romero told TV Bolivia the revelations show “categorical” U.S. involvement in the coordination of “conspiracy theories” against the government of Evo Morales.

According to Romero the contents of the now revealed cables were sent from the embassy in La Paz to the State Department in Washington.

This is just another chapter in the long running saga between the two countries.

Last month another senior Minister Juan Ramon Quintana alleged that a more recent U.S. sting operation was underway in Bolivia in an attempt to discredit President Evo Morales. The allegation alluded to the possibility that Morales was somehow involved in drug trafficking.

“A covert operation is underway to target President Evo Morales, which is not only funded but also coordinated and organized by intelligence agencies and U.S. security,” Quintana said on Sept. 20.

The ‘’agencies’’ Quintana is referring to is the Drug Enforcement Administration which President Morales expelled from Bolivia in 2008 along with the then U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg.

Since then Bolivia and the U.S have been on a collision course over the best way to deal with the war on drugs. Bolivia says it is scoring notable victories against drug traffickers without any U.S. funding. The U.S. claims Bolivia is not doing enough and wants to prevent Bolivians from growing the traditional coca plant – the only country in the world granted an exemption.

Bolivia has repeatedly refused to back down and stop farmers growing coca, which has been used for centuries by Indigenous communities to brew a local tea and is used for a variety of medicines.

The division between the two nations has only deepened in recent years, but a slight thaw could be on the horizon.

At a ceremony on Monday to decorate six Cuban fighters President Morales publicly acknowledged that having a U.S. ambassador return to Bolivia is ‘’desirable’’ but not ‘’decisive’’ to helping improve relations between Washington and La Paz.

Some interpreted this as a step towards healing the rift, but given the strong sentiments coming from Morales’ administration over the latest WikiLeaks revelations others say it could be years before normal relations are restored.

‘’The relationship between the U.S. and Bolivia couldn’t be any further apart’’ says Franklyn Pareja a political analyst. ‘’They are opposed on almost everything, the ideology of the Bolivian government is anti-imperialist , anti-capitalist and for the Bolivian people the icon for imperialism and anti-capitalism is the United States,’’ he told teleSUR English.

With Morales seeking to stay on in office until at least 2025, political observers in Bolivia expect no change in the tone or rhetoric of the increasingly hostile exchanges between La Paz and Washington.

Syrian refugees have welcomed Russian airstrikes, and some may even be returning from abroad as the Syrian army advances alongside the Russian air operation. Syria’s Grand Mufti

Syria’s Grand Mufti  Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun previously said that over 800,000 refugees have returned since Russian airstrikes against terrorist targets in Syria began on September 30th. The operation has also given refugees from the conflict hope that peace would return, according to interviews AP conducted around the Aleppo province, a hub for refugees leaving Syria.

“I hope that with Russian pilots’ help, our military will advance and defeat terrorists so that we could return to our homes,” one refugee told AP.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees have entered Europe in the past several months, many of them fleeing the Syrian conflict, particularly violence by the Islamic State terrorist group.

Note: This article was originally published by Who What Why

In a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, the US made systematic torture a staple in its fight against terrorism. This revelation has resulted in international condemnation and lamentation, but nobody has been held accountable for torturing terror suspects — many of whom were released later without any charges having been filed. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hopes to change that.

“Barbaric”

On behalf of three torture victims, one of them who died while detained by the US, the ACLU filed suit against James Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen — two psychologists who helped devise the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture program.

“Mitchell and Jessen conspired with the CIA to torture these three men and many others,” said Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program.

“They claimed that their program was scientifically based, safe, and proven, when in fact it was none of those things. The program was unlawful and its methods barbaric. Psychology is a healing profession, but Mitchell and Jessen violated the ethical code of ‘do no harm’ in some of the most abhorrent ways imaginable.”

The involvement of Mitchell and Jessen was revealed by the summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the torture program, which found that the duo helped design the program even though neither of them “had experience as an interrogator, nor did either have specialized knowledge of al-Qaeda, a background in terrorism, or any relevant regional, cultural, or linguistic expertise.”

Torture Program Architects Made Millions

Still, for coming up with a series of “enhanced interrogation” techniques — as torture deniers refer to the methods used — the two of them were paid more than $1 million each. Their company, Mitchell, Jessen & Associates, received a total of $81 million.

While the two psychologists made out like bandits, the “War on Terror” was less kind to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Gul Rahman, an Afghan citizen, lived in Pakistan until he was abducted in 2002 and sent to a secret CIA site in Afghanistan. He died of hypothermia after being tortured. At the time of his death, he was naked from the waist down, chained to a wall and forced to sit on the ground. According to the ACLU, his family has never been officially notified of his death, and his body has never been returned to them for burial.

Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, a native Libyan, is the second plaintiff. Captured during a joint US-Pakistani raid, he was sent to two secret CIA prisons in Afghanistan and tortured. Ben Soud identified Mitchell as one of the men who was there when he was “interrogated.”

The third plaintiff is a Tanzanian man named Suleiman Abdullah Salim. He was also sent to CIA “black sites” in Afghanistan and tortured there. After being held for five years, he was released and received a document stating that he posed no threat to the United States.

The Lingering Effects of Torture

“The terrible torture I suffered at the hands of the CIA still haunts me. I still have flashbacks, but I’ve learned to deal with them with a psychologist who tries to help people, not hurt them.” said Salim. “This lawsuit is about achieving justice. No person should ever have to endure the horrors that these two men inflicted.”

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs were subjected to (1) solitary confinement; (2) extreme darkness; (3) extreme cold; (4) noise; (5) repeated beatings; (6) starvation; (7) excruciatingly painful stress positions; (8) prolonged sleep deprivation; (9) confinement in coffin-like boxes; and (10) water torture.

Under the Alien Tort Statute, the ACLU is seeking at least $75,000 in compensatory damages for each victim — less than 1/1000^th the defendants’ firm received for its “work.” That statute allows foreign nationals to sue in US courts if they were subject to a human rights violation committed outside the country.

“These psychologists devised and supervised an experiment to degrade human beings and break their bodies and minds,” Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, stated. “It was cruel and unethical, and it violated a prohibition against human experimentation that has been in place since World War II.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) condemned Mitchell and Jessen after their involvement in the torture program became known late last year. At the time, APA President Nadine J. Kaslow stated that “if the allegations are true, they [Mitchell and Jessen] should be held accountable for inexcusable violations of ethical principles and legal standards.” An independent investigation later found that the APA was also complicit in the US torture program.

The US judicial system rarely punishes those who violate national and international law — when the violators serve established interests. Indeed, whether it was the systematic torture of prisoners, or the spying on Americans by the NSA, the architects and authorizers of these programs have escaped all punishment.

The ACLU and its allies obviously realize that Mitchell and Jessen are cogs in a larger machine. But they presumably hope their efforts will lead to accountability further up the chain.

Mother goats fed on ‘Roundup-ready’ GMO soy produce milk that’s much lower in fat, protein and antibodies than non-GMO controls, writes Jonathan Latham, and contains traces of GE DNA. The milk also stunts their kids’ growth.

Pregnant goats fed with genetically engineered (GE) soybeans have offspring who grow more slowly and are shorter, according to a new Italian study (Tudisco et al., 2015).

Publishing in the journal of Small Ruminant Research, the researchers were testing the results of supplementing the feed of female goats with Roundup Ready GE soybeans.

Roundup Ready soybeans are engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup and are sold by agribusiness giant Monsanto. They are some of the most widely grown soybeans in the world.

The reduced growth of the goat kids was attributed by the researchers to their observation that the milk of the GE-fed mothers was significantly less nutritious and contained less of the IgG antibodies important for early growth.

“This was a carefully conducted study“, commented Dr Judy Carman, Director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia. She was not involved in the research, but told Independent Science News:

“The differences in the composition of the colostrum between the mothers fed the GE soy and the non-GE soy were particularly striking. The colostrum from the GE-fed mothers contained only 2/3 of the fat, 1/3 of the protein and close to half of the IgG of the mothers fed the non-GM soy.”

GE-fed milk: less milk, fat, antibodies; presence of GE DNA fragments

To carry out these experiments the researchers divided pregnant female Cilentana goats into four groups, 60 days before kidding. Two of the groups were fed goat food containing GE Roundup Ready soybeans (at two different concentrations). The other two groups were fed conventional (non-GE) soybeans, also at two different concentrations.

After the mothers gave birth all offspring were fed only with their mother’s milk for 60 days. The growth of these kids was measured twice. After both 30 days and 60 days the kids of GE-fed mothers were approximately 20% lower in weight and shorter in stature. Both these differences were statistically significant.

Lower offspring weights were not the only unexpected findings. The researchers also found that the milk of GE-fed goats was lower in protein and fat. This difference in milk quality was large (6% protein in both GE-fed groups versus 18% in both non-GE fed groups) for the first few weeks after birth but gradually disappeared-even though the mothers continued to be fed the GE soybeans.

Additionally, the researchers also found that the colostrum produced by GE-fed mothers had low amounts of IgG antibodies. These antibodies are important for growth and for healthy immune development.

A third difference noted by the researchers was that transgenic DNA could be detected in the colostrum of most (10/16) of the GE-fed goats. No transgene DNA was detected in the milk of goats fed non-GE soybeans. This is not the first time that transgene DNA (or non-transgenic DNA) has been found in the milk of ruminants, however.

The problem expresses in the milk

Interestingly, the researchers found that all of the kids were of similar size at birth, regardless of whether their mothers ate Roundup Ready GE soybeans or not.

The researchers therefore proposed that the stunting of the offspring of GE-fed mothers reflected a milk deficiency – presumably either the lower nutritional value of the colostrum and milk of GE-fed mothers or the colostrum antibody differences that were observed.

The authors noted that low IgG antibody levels in colostrum are correlated in other ruminants with slower growth and also that IgG antibodies are known to have a role in nutrient absorption because they promote gut development in newborns.

The researchers did not discuss whether the transgene DNA fragments found in the milk played a role in altering kid development.

This result is the strongest demonstration so far of altered growth and development in offspring of GE-fed mothers. The same researchers in 2010 showed altered activity of the lactic dehydrogenase enzyme in kids fed milk from mothers that ate GE Roundup Ready soybeans. In that previous study however, no additional effects on goat offspring were detected (Tudisco et al., 2010).

“It is already known that Roundup Ready soybeans have various defects including a Manganese deficiency“, said Dr Allison Wilson of The Bioscience Resource Project.

“Yet regulators and GMO developers have continuously dismissed credible reports of GMO crops causing apparent harm to animals, from many different research groups. Hopefully they will not ignore yet another study.“

Dr Jonathan R. Latham is editor of Independent Science News, where this article was originally published.

For further details on the studies of R. Tudesco et al see:

• R. Tudisco, S. Calabrò, M.I. Cutrignelli, G. Moniello, M. Grossi, V. Mastellone, P. Lombardi, M.E. Peroa, F. Infascelli (2015) ‘Genetically modified soybean in a goat diet: Influence on kid performance‘, Small Ruminant Research 126: 67-74.
• Tudisco R., V. Mastellone, M. I. Cutrignelli, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, N. Mirabella, G. Piccolo, S. Calabrò, L. Avallone and F. Infascelli (2010) ‘Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings‘, Animal 4: 1662-1671.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, in Cairo for an hours-long visit, affirmed the ‘congruent stances’ of Egypt and Saudi Arabia on Syria, while adding that more discussion was needed.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry has reaffirmed the compatibility of visions between Cairo and Riyadh on the crises in Syria and Yemen, again quashing reports of discord between the two states over the region’s pressing conflicts.

“There has not been [any] chasm before. Our [stances] are compatible,” Shoukry told a presser in Cairo in reference to the two countries’ purportedly diverging interests on Syria.

Saudi Arabia has staunchly insisted on the ouster of President Bashar Al-Assad’s as a precondition for any future solution for Syria’s four-year-old civil war. Meanwhile, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi has urged a political solution focused on fighting terrorism, as he made fighting Islamist extremism a main priority since coming to power last year.

Egypt has backed a recent intervention by Russia, an ally of Al-Assad, in Syria, saying the move will help eradicate the spread of terrorism in the war-torn country. Saudi Arabia, however, demanded Russia end its military strikes which it said have caused civilian casualties and failed to target militants.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, in Cairo for an hours-long visit, affirmed what he described as the “congruent stances” of both countries over the matter, while saying they “haven’t reached an agreement yet” and that more discussion on the issue was needed.

“We all want to preserve the country’s civil and military institution … We all seek security, stability and rebuilding [there],” he said.

Al-Jubeir was set to sit with President El-Sisi following the news conference this afternoon.

On Yemen, both officials said their countries are committed to stability and legitimate rule in the country.

Shoukry said quarterly-based consultations are planned between Cairo and Riyadh with the aim of reinforcing bilateral ties and cooperation on regional affairs.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, has emerged as a key backer of Egypt’s President El-Sisi and his government following the ouster of Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, providing Cairo with billions of dollars in aid.

Both Egypt and Saudi are cooperating militarily in Yemen through a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states that has been pounding Shia Houthi rebels there from the air for six months.

Arab leaders had agreed in March to form a joint military force to counter security threats in the region and to intervene in troubled areas. They were due to ratify a protocol for the force in August, but the move has been postponed.

Israeli media report he may revoke the longtime Arab population’s permanent residency status, his scheme for curbing Israeli initiated violence, a sure-fire way to increase it exponentially throughout the Occupied Territories.

The fate of over 370,000 East Jerusalemites hangs in the balance. Netanyahu’s proposed scheme sounds ominously like Hitler loading Jews on trains for death camps.

Where will this huge population go if forcibly expelled?

What does Netanyahu have in mind – greater ruthlessness and mass murder than already? For sure with full US support for whatever he does, no matter how outrageous!

Israel’s Channel 2 news said the scheme was discussed during a weekly security meeting earlier in October. Netanyahu was quoted saying:

“We need to examine the possibility of canceling their residency. There needs to be a discussion about it.”

Permanent East Jerusalem Arab residency is de facto Israeli citizenship. Imagine another nation deciding to displace, deport or otherwise remove a significant segment of its population. Overwhelming world outrage would follow, likely punitive measures slapped on the offender.

Israel already imposed unprecedented East Jerusalem movement restrictions, adding checkpoints and erecting separation barriers between Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, encircling Palestinian ones, preventing them from entering or exiting without permission, subjecting them to intrusive searches, a clear example of collective punishment ignored by the world community.

Will it remain silent if Netanyahu implements his latest scheme? Will it let him destroy a vital Arab community, home for the capital Palestinians claim for a future state, including Islam’s third holiest site?

According to Channel 2, no further discussions were held since the proposal was raised – focus so far on implementing other draconian measures.

Haaretz cited unnamed “sources in the prime minister’s bureau” saying no mass displacement plans were made. “There is no such process to revoke the residency or citizenship of thousands of people,” a source said.

Meanwhile, Israeli-instigated violence continued on Sunday into Monday. An unarmed Palestinian youth was lethally shot multiple times in front of a Beit Einun school. Israel then declared the area a closed military zone, blocked ambulance help from arriving, left him bleeding to death unattended, another of its state-sponsored crimes.

Israeli soldiers murdered a Palestinian schoolgirl, unarmed, threatening no one. Israel called her a knife-wielding terrorist, the Big Lie it repeats ad nauseam.

Eyewitnesses called her a “terrified” young girl. One said she was surrounded by seven or eight soldiers. They “checked her belongings in a schoolbag,” he said.

“She looked like she was around 14 years old. She went through a metal detector. In the school bag they found nothing and asked her, ‘Where’s the knife?’ “

“She said, ‘I don’t have a knife.’ Then they fired between her legs. She was terrified and moved back half a meter or a meter. She raised her arms in the air (again) saying ‘I don’t have a knife.’ “

“Then they shot eight to 10 bullets, but I don’t know exactly who was shooting. Then she fell on the ground.” Other eyewitnesses said soldiers prevented medical help from arriving to try saving her.

Youth Against Settlements director Issa Amer “call(ed) on the military to release video of the incident because there are several CCTV surveillance cameras that record everything in that area.” Israel wants none of its crimes revealed.

On Saturday, noted physician, political activist, human rights champion Mustafa Barghouthi was attacked by unknown assailants near his Ramallah home.

He was injured with a sharp tool, he explained – his attackers saying “let the Intifada protect you.” He reported the incident to Israeli authorities, demanding an investigation he won’t get.

Israeli security forces and settlers rampage freely against defenseless Palestinians, injuring and murdering them unaccountably.

World leaders ignore their suffering, doing no more than urging both sides to show restraint – an affront to persecuted Palestinians, a green light for Israel to continue trampling on an entire population with impunity.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html . Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The U.S. backed moderate rebel fighters from the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) have released more images from the Hama Governorate’s northern countryside; this time, the images include the mutilated heads of captured Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers that were executed by these alleged “moderates” over the weekend.

In addition to the images released, the U.S. backed moderate rebels that are allied with the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra” and formerly with the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) also issued a threat to the Syrian ‘Alawi (Twelver branch of Shi’i Islam)population, which included a promise that they would behead more Syrian Arab Army soldiers, who they consider all Alawis, despite the army being predominately Sunni.

These images were released one week after the U.S. backed moderate rebel fighters from the Homs Governorate posted photos of beheaded soldiers from the civilian-led “National Defense Forces” (NDF) after a battle inside the Al-Rastan Plains.

The U.S. backed moderate rebels have attempted to distinguish themselves as a different breed of anti-government fighters than the hardline Islamist groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra and Jund Al-Islam; however, their recent actions have led many to question their ability to deviate away from these Jihadist groups, especially the Al-Qaeda affiliates.

The catastrophic incompetency of Blair and Bush in destroying Iraq on the basis of intelligence known, or suspected as having been, false has been responsible for the calamitous Middle East instability that has led to the rise of radical Islamic groups such as ISIL and the resultant creation of the largest movement of refugees from East to West that the world has ever known.

This human and political catastrophe being the consequence of the criminal actions of two incompetent politicians who have since both become rich on the back of their inept governance when in power. There is little doubt that these men should now be brought before the International Criminal Court to face allegations of liability for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians plus thousands of American and British service personnel, dead and wounded.

Equally serious is the current threat to the continued existence of the European Union of 500,000,000 people in 28 member states now at risk as a result of the calamitous creation of millions of refugees from Syria, the Middle East and North Africa – the consequence of the actions of these two incompetents: Blair and Bush.

Should the EU collapse as a political and economic union, and/or thousands of refugees freeze to death in East and Central Europe in the approaching winter – the responsibility will lie with two of the most inept, so-called leaders in modern history.  They must be brought to account.

People sometimes wonder why is it important to investigate the alleged hijackers and others officially accused of committing the 9/11 crimes. After all, the accused 19 hijackers could not have accomplished most of what happened. The answer is that the official accounts are important because they are part of the crimes. Identifying and examining the people who created the official 9/11 myth helps to reveal the ones who were responsible overall.

The people who actually committed the crimes of September 11^th didn’t intend to just hijack planes and take down the buildings—they intended to blame others. To accomplish that plan the real criminals needed to create a false account of what happened and undoubtedly that need was considered well in advance. In this light, the official reports can be seen to provide a link between the “blaming others” part of the crimes and the physical parts.

Pushing the concept of “Islamic Terrorism” was the beginning of the effort to blame others, although the exact 9/11 plan might not have been worked out at the time. This concept was largely a conversion of the existing Soviet threat, which by 1989 was rapidly losing its ability to frighten the public, into something that would serve more current policy needs. Paul Bremer and Brian Jenkins were at the forefront of this conversion of the Soviet threat into the threat of Islamic terrorism. Both Bremer and Jenkins were also intimately connected to the events at the World Trade Center.

The concerted effort to propagandize about Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (OBL) seems to have begun in earnest in 1998. That’s when the African embassy bombings were attributed to OBL and the as-yet unreported group called Al Qaeda. The U.S. government responded with bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan and, with help from the New York Times, began to drum up an intense myth about the new enemy.

“This is, unfortunately, the war of the future,” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said. “The Osama bin Laden organization has basically declared war on Americans and has made very clear that these are all Americans, anywhere.”

In retrospect, it is surprising that this was the first reference to Al Qaeda in the New York Times, coming only three years before 9/11. More surprising is that The Washington Post did not report on Al Qaeda until June 1999, and its reporting was highly speculative about the power behind this new threat.

“But for all its claims about a worldwide conspiracy to murder Americans, the government’s case is, at present, largely circumstantial. The indictment never explains how bin Laden runs al Qaeda or how he may have masterminded the embassy bombings.”

Despite this skepticism from The Post, the reports about Al Qaeda continued in an odd mixture of propaganda and doubt. For example, The Times reported on the trial of the men accused of the African embassy attacks in May 2001. That article contradicted itself saying that “prosecutors never introduced evidence directly showing that Mr. bin Laden ordered the embassy attacks” and yet that a “former advisor” to Bin Laden, one Ali Mohamed, claimed that Bin Laden “pointed to where a truck could go as a suicide bomber.” The fact that Mohamed had worked for the U.S. Army, the FBI, and the CIA was not mentioned.

Other facts were ignored as well. That OBL had worked with the CIA and that Al Qaeda was basically a creation of CIA programs like Operation Cyclone were realities that began to fade into the background. By the time 9/11 happened, those facts were apparently forgotten by a majority of U.S. leaders and media sources. Also overlooked were the histories of people like Frank Carlucci and Richard Armitage, who played major roles in Operation Cyclone and who remained powerful players at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

In the two years before 9/11, the alleged hijackers were very active within the United States. They traveled extensively and often seemed to be making an effort to be noticed. When they were not trying to be noticed, they engaged in distinctly non-Muslim behavior. Mohamed Atta’s actions were erratic, in ways that were similar to those of Lee Harvey Oswald, and Atta appeared to be protected by U.S. authorities.

Meanwhile, leading U.S. terrorism experts seemed to be facilitating Al Qaeda terrorism. Evidence suggests that U.S. intelligence agency leaders Louis Freeh and George Tenet facilitated and covered-up acts of terrorism in the years before 9/11. Both of their agencies, the CIA and FBI, later took extraordinary measures to hide evidence related to the 9/11 attacks. And both agencies have made a mockery of the trial of those officially accused of helping OBL and the alleged hijackers.

Counter-terrorism leader Richard Clarke inexplicably helped OBL stay out of trouble, protecting him on at least two occasions. Clarke blatantly failed to follow-up on known Al Qaeda cells operating within the United States. After 9/11, Clarke was among those who falsely pointed to Abu Zubaydah as a top leader of Al Qaeda. Zubaydah’s torture testimony was then used as the basis for the 9/11 Commission Report.

Former CIA operative Porter Goss created the first official account of what happened on 9/11, along with his mentor Bob Graham. This was the report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, produced by the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress. It was greatly influenced by people who should have been prime suspects. For example, Richard Clarke was the one in charge of the secure video conference at the White House that failed miserably to connect leaders and respond to the attacks. In the Joint Inquiry’s report, Clarke was cited as an authoritative reference 46 times. CIA director George Tenet was cited 77 times, and Louis Freeh was cited 31 times.

Therefore it is imperative that the people who worked to create the background story behind OBL and the accused hijackers be investigated for their roles in the 9/11 crimes. This includes not only those who were figureheads behind the official reports, but more importantly the ones who provided the evidence and testimony upon which those reports were built. The alleged hijackers and their associates should also be of considerable interest to 9/11 investigators. That’s because what we know about them was provided by people who we can assume were connected to the crimes and what we don’t yet know about them can reveal more of the truth.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

A space-based economy will grow within a legal and regulatory framework for human activities in space. To help our subscribers and readers understand the current state of law in the U.S. jurisdiction, we asked attorney David Liechty to prepare on overview. As we watch the global growth in space investment, this is an invaluable introduction to some of the most important legal issues facing mankind.]

The Eisenhower administration’s decision to tacitly allow the USSR’s Sputnik I satellite to pass over US sovereign airspace in 1957 indicated that the challenges and opportunities afforded by outer space would require a new legal approach. The United States and the international community developed a body of domestic law and entered into various international agreements at that time to govern human activity in outer space.

Over the intervening years, the legal landscape has slowly been refined and expanded to accommodate subsequent advances in space-related activities and technology. However these changes to the legal framework have not kept pace with the speed of development in actual and potential space activity, leading to significant gaps and issues in the national and international legal landscape. This overview article will discuss key laws and treaties that form the framework governing United States civil, commercial, and military activities in space and will identify and discuss some of the many challenges that need to be addressed to adequately lay the foundation for continued progress in the evolution of space activities.

Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report, October 2015 

*      *     *

I. The Framework of United States Law Concerning Outer Space

A. 1958 US National Aeronautics and Space Act

With the launch of Sputnik I, and as a result of the then-prevalent Cold War mentality, the U.S. Congress saw a potential “credible” threat of attack on U.S. national territory, and moved quickly to create an infrastructure that could counter this threat. ¹ In 1958, it passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act (“NAS Act”).² With significant input from civilian sources, Congress was persuaded that the potential for peaceful activities in space would far outweigh that for military activities,³ and in the NAS Act, it declared the nation’s policy “that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.”⁴ Following this policy, the NAS Act placed “control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States”⁵ primarily in the hands of a civilian-led agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration⁶ (“NASA”).

The NAS Act did, however, carve out an exception to this control, for “[aeronautical and space] activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States,”⁷ which it granted to the Department of Defense (“DOD”). The NAS Act further required NASA and the DOD to “advise and consult with each other” and to “keep each other fully and currently informed” with respect to activities in their respective jurisdictions,⁸ except where one or the other concludes that it would be adverse to their responsibilities, and the President concurs.⁹

In keeping with the civilian-led tone of the NAS Act, President Dwight D. Eisenhower transferred, by executive order, the bulk of the DOD’s civilian personnel, property, and funds related to space activities to NASA in 1958.¹⁰ Since that time, the relative budgets and relationships between the U.S. civilian and military space programs have “ebbed and flowed.”¹¹ NASA’s reported fiscal year (“FY”) 2014 budget for space activities was $17.7 billion, versus DOD’s reported FY2014 budget of $10.4 billion, however, as recently as FY2012, DOD’s reported budget was $26.7 billion, which was larger than NASA’s reported $17.8 billion budget.¹² The reported DOD budget is thought to represent its full budget for both classified and unclassified space programs.¹³

B. 1962 US Commercial Communications Satellite Act

In 1962, Congress passed the Communications Satellite Act (Comsat Act)¹⁴, which brought the U.S. into international cooperation in the realm of satellite communication technology. It allowed for U.S. participation in the international communication satellite effort, Intelsat. This multinational undertaking was tasked with “providing] a legal, administrative, and technological system under which participating countries could access portions of the [electromagnetic] spectrum for use within their nations.”¹⁵ For member nations, Intelsat maintains a monopoly over the distribution of electromagnetic spectrum wavelengths.

C. 1967 United Nations “Outer Space Treaty”

The United Nations Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“UN Outer Space Treaty” or “UNOST”) entered into force in 1967.¹⁶ This treaty is the basic framework for international space law, and sets forward the following guiding principles for countries engaged in outer space activities (including activities on the moon or “other celestial bodies”):

1. Province of all mankind: All countries are free to explore, use, and perform scientific research in outer space, and all exploration and use “shall be … for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.¹⁷
2. Non-appropriation: Countries cannot appropriate property rights in outer space (including on or in “celestial bodies”) “by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”¹⁸
3. Governing law: The activities of signatory parties in outer space will be carried out in line with international law, including the UN Charter.¹⁹
4. WMDs: Signatory countries will not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or station them in outer space in any other manner.²⁰
5. Military: Signatory countries will not establish military installations, test weapons, or conduct military maneuvers on the moon or on other celestial bodies. Military personnel may be used in peaceful activities and countries may establish civilian research bases.²¹
6. Mutual assistance: Signatory countries will give “all possible assistance” to astronauts landing in sovereign territory on Earth, astronauts from one party country will assist those from another party country in carrying out activities in space, and perceived dangers to astronauts are to be reported.²²
7. National responsibility for activities in space: Signatory countries bear responsibility for national activities in space, whether by governmental or non-governmental entities, bear responsibility for conformity of these activities with the UNOST, and are responsible for authorizing and overseeing non-governmental activities in outer space.²³
8. Liability: Both signatory countries that launch objects into space and those signatory countries from whose territory or bases the objects are launched (if different) are liable for damage to other signatory countries or their people from the launched objects.²⁴
9. Jurisdiction: Signatory countries retain jurisdiction over objects carried on its registry and related personnel while they are in outer space.²⁵
10. Ownership: Ownership of launched objects, objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, or the component parts of these objects, is not affected by entry into outer space or by return to Earth.²⁶
11. Scientific Research: Signatory parties are to pursue research and exploration in outer space in a manner that avoids “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies and “adverse changes” in Earth’s environment from introduction of “extraterrestrial matter.”²⁷ Signatory countries will adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance.²⁸ Signatory parties will also consult with one another to avoid harmful interference with each other’s activities.²⁹
12. Sharing of information: Signatory will consider requests by other signatory parties to observe flight of objects launched,³⁰ report the research and results of scientific investigations,³¹ and reciprocally allow representatives of other signatory countries to visit stations, installations, equipment, and vehicles on celestial bodies.

Subsequent United Nations treaties and agreements expanded on and further refined specific aspects of this framework treaty.

D. 1968 United Nations “Rescue Agreement”

The UN Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “UN Rescue Agreement”) entered into force in 1968 and expanded on UNOST Articles V and VIII. ³² It provides further detail on the specific expectations for assistance in returning astronauts and launched objects to their countries of origin.

E. 1972 United Nations “Liability Convention”

The UN Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (the “UN Liability Convention”) entered into force in 1972 and expanded on UNOST Article VII.³³ This convention further delineates the circumstances under which signatory countries are liable for damage from objects launched into outer space. This convention includes the following specific provisions:

1. There is strict liability for damage caused by launching countries (or persons for which they are responsible) to other countries’ property or persons located on the surface of the Earth or to their flying aircraft.³⁴
2. A finding of fault is required to show liability for damage caused by launching countries (or persons for which they are responsible) to other countries’ launched objects, persons, or property located above the surface of the Earth.³⁵
3. Where the activities of two different countries causes damage to a third country, the first two countries are jointly and severally liable – with compensation split based on the degree of fault.³⁶
4. Countries jointly launching objects into space are jointly and severally liable for any damage from the launched objects.³⁷ Similarly, signatory countries that are members of an international intergovernmental organization, such as the European Space Agency, are also jointly and severally liable for damage caused by joint activity.³⁸
5. Strict liability does not apply if the damage resulted from acts, omissions, or gross negligence of the damaged country or its persons unless the country causing damage did conform with provisions of international law.³⁹
6. The Liability Convention’s provisions do not apply to damage caused to nationals of the launching country or foreign nationals participating in the launch, operation, or recovery of the object.⁴⁰
7. Only signatory countries may bring claims under the Liability Convention, and they must present those claims to the offending country through diplomatic channels.⁴¹
8. The Liability Convention’s provisions do not preclude a country or an individual that might be represented by that country from pursuing a claim in the courts of the launching country.⁴²

Being a framework of international law and primarily governing actions of nation-states, the Liability Convention has limited direct applicability to individuals and entities damaged by either their own or other countries’ launches or activities in outer space.

F. 1976 United Nations “Registration Convention”

The UN Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “UN Registration Convention”) entered into force in 1976.⁴³ This convention put in place a mechanism for the identification of launched objects in outer space, which is a necessary component for proving liability claims. The UN Registration Convention includes the following specific provisions:

1. “Launching countries” include a country that launches or “procures” the launch of an object, and the country from whose territory the object is launched, if different.⁴⁴
2. “Launched objects” include the object’s launch vehicle and the component parts of both the launched object and the launch vehicle.⁴⁵
3. Launching countries must maintain a registry of launched objects⁴⁶ and must provide certain basic identifying information concerning each launched object and its orbital parameters to the UN Secretary-General,⁴⁷ to be maintained on a UN registry.⁴⁸
4. Launching countries are to notify the UN Secretary-General when registered objects are not actually placed in orbit or are no longer in orbit around the earth.⁴⁹
5. When a damage-causing object cannot be identified using the registries, launching countries will cooperate and assist in identifying the object.⁵⁰

The UN Registration Convention was put into place to create a mechanism by which ownership of launched objects could be more easily identified and liability for damage from these objects could be more easily assigned.

G. 1984 United Nations “Moon Agreement”

Although the UN Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “UN Moon Agreement”) entered into force in 1984 with Austria’s ratification,⁵¹ relatively few countries have signed and/or ratified the agreement.⁵² The United States government has not signed this agreement, nor has Russia, China, Japan, or most of the countries involved in the European Space Agency. The agreement is not binding on non-signatory countries, but it has been adopted by the UN General Assembly, and it gives a strong indication of the direction in which international law is aimed with regard to activities on “celestial bodies” in our solar system, including the moon, Mars, and asteroids. Conversely, the fact that it has not been ratified by many nations may be seen as a repudiation of the principles in it, where these differ from the other UN space law agreements.

The Moon Agreement includes restatements of many of the principles set forward in the UNOST, but provides further clarification and elaboration on these principles, including the following:

1. Definition – The word “moon” when used in the agreement includes all “other celestial bodies within the solar system” (including asteroids, Mars, and other planets). ⁵³
2. Military activity and force – In addition to the restatement of prohibitions against placement of nuclear weapons, weapons testing, and military installations and maneuvers, the UN Moon Agreement specifically forbids the use of force or hostile acts on the moon and the threat of force or hostile acts.⁵⁴
3. Scientific research – Signatory countries may freely undertake scientific research activities⁵⁵ on or below the surface of the moon,⁵⁶ so long as the scientific research activities of other countries is not impeded.⁵⁷
4. Resource use for scientific investigation – Signatory countries may collect samples of moon substances for scientific research purposes and may use minerals and other available substances to support their missions. ⁵⁸
5. Environmental considerations – Signatory countries must take measures “to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of [the moon’s] environment,” avoiding contamination and introduction of “adverse changes” in the environment, and must advise the Secretary-General of the adopted measures.⁵⁹ Signatory countries must also inform the Secretary-General of any radioactive materials placed on the moon.
6. Civilian bases – Signatory countries may establish manned and unmanned stations on the moon, may only use the area of land required for the needs of the station, and must immediately inform the Secretary-General of the location and purposes of the station.⁶⁰
7. Assistance to persons on the moon – Signatory countries must regard “any person on the moon as an astronaut [under] article V of the [UNOST],” and as part of the crew of a spacecraft under the UN Rescue Agreement, and must provide shelter to persons in distress on the moon.⁶¹
8. Ownership of natural resources – No celestial object or part of a celestial object, including natural resources, can become the property of any country, entity, or person, and the placement of vehicles, stations, etc., does not create a right of ownership in the surface or subsurface.⁶²
9. International regime for natural resource exploitation – When exploitation of natural resources on the moon “is about to become feasible,” signatory states will create an international regime to govern exploitation of these natural resources.⁶³ This international regime will be guided by specific principles, including safe development, rational management, and equitable sharing by all signatory countries in the benefits derived from the resource exploitation.⁶⁴
10. Reporting of natural resource discoveries – To facilitate the purposes of the international regime, signatory countries are to report discoveries of natural resources to the Secretary-General.⁶⁵
11. Regulation of activities – The UN Moon Agreement reiterates the responsibility for signatory countries to regulate and supervise the activities of entities under their jurisdiction.
12. Liability – The UN Moon Agreement also reiterates signatory countries’ liability for actions of entities under their jurisdiction, and it also indicates that as activity on the moon increases, provisions on liability will need to become more detailed.

The overall sense of the agreement appears to be a restatement that the moon and other celestial bodies are the common heritage of all mankind, and that their exploration and use should be carried out in a peaceful manner and so that all people living on Earth will benefit.

H. Additional United States National Law

Beginning in 1984 with the Commercial Space Launch Act⁶⁶ and the Land Remote-Sensing Commercialization Act,⁶⁷ Congress over time produced a significant body of national domestic law that regulated not only governmental agency activity, but also activities of commercial actors in outer space.⁶⁸ In 2009 this body of law, which had been spread among various sections of the United States Code, was pulled together into Title 51 – National and Commercial Space Programs. Title 51 of the United States Code includes laws governing NASA,⁶⁹ space-related scientific research,⁷⁰ commercial opportunities,⁷¹ earth observations (remote sensing),⁷² and “access to space”⁷³ – which includes the International Space Station (“ISS”). These laws were enacted, at least in part, to fulfill the United States’ responsibilities under the UNOST and subsequent UN agreements, as outlined above, and to regulate and apportion its liability for damage.

In 2010, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010,⁷⁴ which retired the Space Shuttle and called for a dual-track program of civil government and commercial development in launch capabilities and delivery of astronauts to the ISS.⁷⁵ While the resulting Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs envision reliance on space entrepreneurs to ferry astronauts to and from the ISS while NASA builds its own capabilities, US astronauts have primarily been passengers on Russian rockets.⁷⁶

I. U.S. State Law Related to Space

In addition to United States national law, a growing body of U.S. state law has developed in recent years. These laws vary from state to state, but all involve various incentives to attract aerospace companies, and in particular emerging commercial space transportation companies. These incentives include typical financial incentives, such as lowered taxes and infrastructure assistance, but also include legal frameworks that help remove ambiguity as to how specific provisions of national and international law will affect these companies. For example, Virginia’s 2008 Zero G Zero Tax Act gives tax exemptions for certain space launch-related business activities.⁷⁷ In contrast, Virginia’s 2007 Space Flight Liability and Immunity Act⁷⁸ extends the FAA’s regulations on informed consent and further clarifies the limits on liability to companies providing human spaceflight. The Federal Aviation Administration’s publication State Support for Commercial Space Activities identifies seventeen states that have enacted some legislation relating to aerospace business development. ⁷⁹

II. Overview of Important Issues in Space Law

Multiple important issues face individuals, governments, and non-governmental entities in areas governed or touched by space law. These issues stem primarily from the framework nature of current international and U.S. domestic space law and the relatively rapid technological development regarding activities in space. To enable, nurture, and allow what truly is a nascent industry to grow and possibly flourish, the following are some of the legal challenges that need to be met and resolved.

A. Natural resource exploitation

Because of the extremely high costs involved in building and successfully launching objects into space, extracting resources has become a high-profile potential activity, as it gives the possibility of reaping a return on investment and ultimately lowering the costs of activities in space. However, in addition to the technological hurdles that must be overcome, there are multiple legal issues that must be resolved.

The most important legal issue for natural resource exploitation is the issue of property rights and the ability of private commercial actors to own resources in outer space. As indicated above, the UNOST expressly states that countries may not appropriate “outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies … by any … means.”⁸⁰ There is debate as to the applicability of this provision to private commercial actors, but the international consensus is that under the current space law regime outer space is not subject to appropriation by nongovernmental actors.⁸¹ This interpretation has found support in a U.S. Department of State letter to a private U.S. commercial enterprise claiming ownership of an asteroid (in which the Department of State representative indicated that “private ownership of an asteroid is precluded by Article II of the [UNOST]”)⁸² and in a U.S. District Court ruling that the UNOST prohibits private appropriations in outer space.⁸³

As the capabilities for actually mining asteroids, the moon, and other planets further develops, however, pressure will only build for individual countries and the international community as a whole to clarify this issue and develop appropriate regulations. The 1984 UN Moon Agreement, which reasserts the common heritage of mankind in using outer space, also asserts that an international regime needs to be put in place to govern and ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of resource extraction.⁸⁴ However, since the Moon Agreement is viewed as being an empty agreement and not in force, this provision is no more than a non-binding statement of principle. States signatory to the UNOST could opt for national legislation that interprets the UNOST as allowing private commercial ownership of resources in outer space, and the United States Congress has introduced a number of bills which appear to follow this interpretation.⁸⁵ However, even if such legislation was carefully drafted, it would most certainly go against international opinion and could have significant geopolitical consequences. Disregarding or appearing to disregard the UNOST could possibly disrupt the current space law regime and lead to significant additional challenges and tensions, especially with the promised benefits of mining in outer space at stake.

B. Environmental Contamination

The recent discovery of sizeable amounts of saline water on Mars⁸⁶ has highlighted a challenge for scientific research in outer space that will soon also apply to commercial activities, such as mining. As indicated above, the UNOST requires that signatory countries conduct their outer space activities “so as to avoid … harmful contamination” of the moon and other celestial bodies.⁸⁷ The UNOST further requires signatory countries to “adopt appropriate measures for this purpose,”⁸⁸ and the UN Committee on Space Research (“COSPAR”) is responsible for setting standards and protocols, which signatory countries follow.⁸⁹ One of the standards set by COSPAR involves “Special Regions” it has designated on Mars, where conditions are such that they could possibly support life.⁹⁰ These Special Regions include the areas where liquid water has been discovered.

The challenge that is highlighted by the discovery of water on Mars by the U.S. Curiosity rover lies in the standards set by COSPAR for space vehicles entering areas where life may exist. The Curiosity rover was designed for COSPAR category IVb missions, which have extremely strict cleanliness requirements; however, the Special Regions require vehicles designed for category IVc missions, which must be even cleaner.⁹¹ The resilience of Earth bacteria, which have been found to survive the harsh conditions of spaceflight, make category IVb landers unsuitable for exploration in Special Regions. Bacteria located on the surface of landing vehicles could find conditions in Special Regions favorable enough to thrive, thus contaminating the areas with Earth-sourced bacteria.

While scientists and policy experts grapple with questions of Martian radiation levels possibly killing the bacteria (thus rendering the question moot), this underscores the extreme seriousness with which possible environmental contamination in outer space is taken.

C. Commercial Human Spaceflight

In the emerging arena of private commercial human spaceflight, a number of issues are pertinent. Primary among these is the issue of allocation of risk and liability and the provision of insurance, without which the potential costs and liabilities of commercial human spaceflight will be prohibitively expensive.⁹²

The United States federal government, as signatory to the UNOST and the UN Liability Convention, bears ultimate responsibility for damage from activities of individuals and commercial entities under its jurisdiction.⁹³ The provisions in these documents apply expressly to foreign nationals, however, and do not apply to U.S. nationals.⁹⁴ The U.S. has taken initial steps on a federal level toward filling the existing liability gap by introducing regulations under the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments that require informational disclosures to be made by suborbital flight operators in order to obtain the informed consent of private customers.⁹⁵ Although commercial suborbital flight does not have enough of a record to clearly establish what information is sufficient to disclose to meet the federal requirement, it is clear that the U.S. government is attempting to introduce a “risk-shifting” regime between the operator and the customer that will help curb the potential exposure of
commercial enterprises.⁹⁶ Similarly, as indicated above, various state governments in the United States have also enacted liability provisions to cover human spaceflight. Given that foreign nationals may make up a significant number of the customers on commercial human spaceflights, however, it is possible that the U.S. federal government may utilize the doctrine of preemption and impose its own regulations. At any rate, there exists a need for greater clarification in the area of liability and insurance.

A related set of issues relevant to commercial human spaceflight involves regulation and oversight of the infrastructure and vehicles utilized for this purpose. At present, U.S. states are approaching the operation and oversight of commercial spaceports as they have airports, which will lead to typical relationships between local, state, and federal authorities.⁹⁷ The federal government’s obligations to supervise all U.S. nongovernmental space activity⁹⁸ may, however, require application of the doctrine of preemption in this area as well. Similarly, as technological advances continue in commercial spacecraft, which are currently legally defined as “rockets,” the definitional lines drawn between aircraft and rockets may blur significantly, and it may be more pertinent to consider regulation of the industry by international aviation law, rather than national space law.⁹⁹ Safety and licensing regulations for private commercial spacecraft, which have begun to be created by the Federal Aviation Administration,¹⁰⁰ also need to be more fully developed.

Given the extreme potential dangers inherent in spaceflight and exploration, the environment and experience of which have few parallels to our terrestrial environment, individuals undertaking space exploration (and tourism) require a greater level of cooperation from other actors in space. The UNOST reflects this need by stating that “astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties,”¹⁰¹ and both the UNOST and the UN Rescue Agreement require assistance to astronauts landing or in distress on the Earth. However, the applicability of these provisions to private individuals is not clear, and the potential liabilities for assisting private individuals in these circumstances is likewise unclear. While the Moon Agreement includes a broader category of “persons,” rather than “astronauts,”¹⁰² this agreement is not in force. A formal expansion of the definition of “astronaut” and/or a clarification of the responsibilities, expectations, and burdens toward private spacefarers is needed.¹⁰³

An additional issue related to commercial human spaceflight arises from the requirement for each signatory country to create its own regulatory regime to implement oversight and licensing of activities in space. The potential variability in regulatory regimes could lead to use of “flags of convenience,”¹⁰⁴ where spacecraft and tourism operations would be registered, launched, and operated from jurisdictions with relatively soft safety and liability provisions, as often occurs in the commercial shipping industry. This could easily also apply to the launch of other types of objects, including commercial satellites, as more jurisdictions achieve launch capabilities. Additionally, there are currently a number of countries that are not signatories to the UNOST, and as commercial space activity becomes a more distinct possibility, the potential exists for private entities to fund launch capabilities in non-signatory countries. This could lead to objects and entities in space operating outside the UN space law framework, including private operations disregarding international legal norms and principles.

D. Orbital Debris

There is a massive amount of man-made debris orbiting the Earth. The number of objects greater than 1 centimeter in Low-Earth Orbit (altitudes up to 2,000 km above the Earth’s surface) is more than 300,000¹⁰⁵ but the U.S. Air Force is only able to track approximately 23,000 of these objects.¹⁰⁶ Approximately 1,300 of the objects are active satellites¹⁰⁷ and under control, with the remainder categorized as debris. At orbital velocities, damage from collisions with objects larger than 10 centimeters is “potentially catastrophic,” and damage from objects as small as 1 centimeter “can disable or disrupt a mission”¹⁰⁸ and would be deadly to exposed astronauts.¹⁰⁹ The International Space Station must often be moved to avoid tracked orbital debris, with astronauts taking refuge in lifeboats, as happened in July 2015.¹¹⁰ Satellites are also in danger of being hit and damaged by untracked orbital debris.¹¹¹

Orbital debris is primarily of man-made origin and includes non-functional satellites and other spacecraft, abandoned launch vehicle stages, mission-related equipment, and fragments resulting from satellite collisions and past U.S., Russian, and Chinese missile tests.¹¹² Under the UNOST, ownership of “objects launched into outer space … and their component parts is not affected by their presence in outer space,”¹¹³ and therefore, every piece of man-made orbital debris is the property of some country, and likely a signatory to the UNOST. Further, a signatory country that owns a piece of orbital debris is liable under the UNOST for damage done to any other country’s property.¹¹⁴ In reality, though, it may be impossible to allocate liability for particular damage from space debris given the difficulty in identifying the actual owner of the debris.¹¹⁵ A legal regime that takes this into account and somehow apportions liability for damage fairly, or an insurer willing to underwrite the risk of damage, may be necessary for continued space activity as the amount of debris increases.

Similarly, although innovative and creative means have been conceived for collecting orbital debris,¹¹⁶ the fact remains that each bit of debris is technically already owned, and its removal by any other actor would be a violation of current international space law. To give proper incentives for private commercial or governmental efforts to remove space debris, a system analogous to maritime salvage law would need to be put into place.

E. Additional Issues Related to Satellites

Increased private commercial use of satellites and increased cross-border business activities related to space have exposed an unforeseen gap in the UN space law system related to transfer of private ownership in satellites in orbit.¹¹⁷ Because the UNOST places jurisdiction, oversight, and liability for damage from a launched object on the launching country, an issue arises when ownership of the launched object is transferred to an entity in a different country. Under the UN system, responsibility for the launched object remains with the launching country, even though it may not be able to exercise control over the object.
A second set of issues dealing with satellites involves the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”), which is the UN agency tasked with allocating radio spectrum and satellite orbits globally. The first is the problem of speculative filings, or “paper satellites.” When an entity desires to launch a satellite, it must register with its country and request the country to obtain a position on the ITU Master International Frequency Register. Securing a position on the ITU register becomes an asset in itself, and if the entity delays actual launch or secures the position solely on a speculative basis, it can lead to delays in bringing other technologies to market, as the number of orbit positions is finite.¹¹⁸ Regulations to ensure administrative due diligence in discovering a genuine intention to launch would help lessen inefficiencies in the ITU register. The second, related issue involves a suggestion for the development of a mechanism whereby ITU filings can be transferred between member countries, which would help facilitate expansion and development in the satellite industry.¹¹⁹

F. Militarization of Space

The UN system of space law does restrict some military activity in space, including placement of nuclear weapons in space and weapons testing, maneuvers, and military bases on the surface of planets. However, there are many potential aspects of military action and use of force that are not covered.¹²⁰ Transit of weapons through space, launch of weapons into space from Earth, and use of satellite technology, anti-satellite weaponry, and standard military weapons in space, are all aspects of military action that are not addressed in the UN system.¹²¹ As space warfare becomes more of a real possibility, international norms and agreements may need to be developed. The incredible dependence of modern society on satellite technology and the increasing capacities of many countries to threaten this infrastructure (such as Chinese missile test in 2007) makes the need for a cautionary approach critical.¹²²
The dual military and civilian nature of most technologies utilized in space also creates a difficulty in that regulation of the militarization of space could potentially hinder critical civilian technological development.¹²³ A related issue for private space companies in the United States is that all spacecraft, including satellites, are classified as “defense articles” on the United States Munitions List, and transfer of technology to foreign countries is tightly regulated under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.¹²⁴ This puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. One suggestion for remedying this challenge is to move non-military spacecraft from this list and on to the less-restrictive Commercial Control List maintained by the Commerce Department.¹²⁵

G. Law Enforcement

The international nature of space law as it has developed since the orbit of Sputnik I raises numerous jurisdictional questions. In the UN framework, signatory countries have ownership and therefore jurisdiction over objects launched and research bases established, but most of outer space cannot be appropriated and it remains in the international domain. Accordingly, questions of jurisdiction relating to crimes committed in outer space will need to be resolved, among other related issues.

A prime example of the challenges faced by law enforcement in space can be seen in the development and launch of satellites for secure storage of bitcoin encryption keys in orbit.¹²⁶ This one example raises questions of the possibilities of money laundering, space as the ultimate off-shore haven, and the responsibility for policing and protecting space-based assets, both real and financial. Practically speaking, as far as actual policing goes, the United States Space Command would probably take the lead, even though the UN might have formal responsibility.¹²⁷

H. Integrating Other Areas of Law

The UN space law framework does not exist in a vacuum, and this has both facilitated and caused challenges for its continuing development. The growing number of countries, entities, and individuals involved in space activities has increased the diversity of interests, often conflicting, in the use and exploitation of space, which has caused challenges for the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), tasked with developing international space law.¹²⁸ A growing disconnect between the commercial space industry and UNCOPUOS has also created similar difficulties.¹²⁹ A clear example of this can be found in the commercial satellite industry’s unkind view toward the Space Assets Protocol, which is seen as simply adding layers of unnecessary regulations onto an already working set of laws relating to granting of security in space-based assets.¹³⁰ Other well-developed areas of law that relate to and inform space law include telecommunications law, patent law, environmental law, and emerging telemedicine law.

III. Conclusion

The United Nations space law regime, together with the US’s implementing legislation and supplemental legislation at the national and state levels, has created a framework of laws that have helped foster the development of the space industry. Many gaps and challenges exist in this framework that must be addressed in order to support its continued development.

Notes

1 See Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, One Half Century and Counting: The Evolution of U.S. National Space Law and Three Long-Term Emerging Issues, 4 Harv. L. & Pol. Rev. 405, 406 (2010) (available at http://joannegabrynowicz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2010-Gabrynowicz-HLPR-4.2-405-426-US-Space-Law.pdf).

2 National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law #85-568, 72 Stat., 426 (located at http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html) (“NAS Act”)

3 Gabrynowicz, supra., at 408, (citing Press Release, NASA, Eilene Galloway, the Woman Who Helped Create NASA, Dies at Age 102 (May 4, 2009), available at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/galloway_obit.html)

4 NAS Act, sec 102(a)

5 id., sec 102(b)

6 id., sec 202(a)

7 id., sec 102(b)

8 id., sec 204(b)

9 id., sec 204(c)

10 Exec. Order No. 10,783, 3 C.F.R. 422 (1954–1958).

11 Gabrynowicz, supra., at 408

12 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 2014 Activities (located at http://history.nasa.gov/presrep2014.pdf)

13 Military/National Security Space Activities, Space Policy Online (located at http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/military/index.htm)

14 Communications Satellite Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-624, 76 Stat. 419 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. §§ 701–69 (Supp. II 2008)).

15 Gabrynowicz, supra., at 409.

16 See UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (“UNOOSA”) webpage at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html).

17 United Nations Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“UNOST”), Article I (located at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_21_2222E.pdf)

18 Id., Article II.

19 Id., Article III.

20 Id., Article IV.

21 Id.

22 Id., Article V.

23 Id., Article VI.

24 Id., Article VII.

25 Id., Article VIII.

26 Id.

27 Id. Article IX.

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Id., Article X.

31 Id., Article XI.

32 See UNOOSA website at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introrescueagreement.html.

33 See UNOOSA website at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introliability-convention.html.

34 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (the “UN Liability Convention”), Article II (located at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf).

35 Id., Article III.

36 Id., Article IV.

37 Id., Article V.

38 Id., Article XXII.

39 Id., Article VI.

40 Id., Article VII.

41 Id., Articles VIII and IX.

42 Id., Article XI.

43 See UNOOSA website at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introregistration-convention.html.

44 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “UN Registration Convention”), Article I(a) (located at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_29_3235E.pdf).

45 Id., Article I(b).

46 Id., Article II.

47 Id., Article IV(1) and Article V.

48 Id., Article III(1).

49 Id., Article IV (3).

50 Id., Article VI.

51 See UNOOSA website at http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introregistration-convention.html.

52 See Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2015, UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (located at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/limited/c2/AC105_C2_2015_CRP08E.pdf). This document shows that the UN Moon Agreement has been ratified by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Khazakstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Uruguay. Additionally, France, Guatemala, and India have signed but not ratified the agreement.

53 UN Moon Agreement, Article 1.

54 Id., Article 3.

55 Id., Article 6.

56 Id., Article 8.

57 Id.

58 Id., Article 6(2).

59 Id., Article 7.

60 Id., Article 9.

61 Id., Article 10.

62 Id., Article 11(2) and (3).

63 Id., Article 11(5).

64 Id., Article 11(7).

65 Id., Article 11(6).

66 Commercial Space Launch Act, Pub. L. No. 98-575, 98 Stat. 3055 (1984).

67 Land Remote-Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-365, 98 Stat. 451.

68 See Gabrynowicz, supra., for a discussion of the development of U.S. national space law.

69 See, e.g., 51 U.S. Code chapters 201 and 203.

70 See, e.g., 51 U.S. Code chapters 401-409.

71 See, e.g., 51 U.S. Code chapters 501-511.

72 See, e.g., 51 U.S. Code chapters 601-605.

73 See, e.g., 51 U.S. Code chapters 701-713.

74 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-267 – Oct. 11, 2010, 124 Stat. 2805.

75 See SpacePolicyOnline website (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/commercial/index.htm) for a good discussion of NASA’s Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs.

76 Id.

77 See State Support for Commercial Space Activities, FAA, above.

78 Id.; Virginia Acts of Assembly, 2007 Reconvened Session, Chapter 893 (located at http://texasspacealliance.org/docs/Virginia-Spaceflight-Liability-and-Immunity-HB3184.pdf).

79 State Support for Commercial Space Activities, Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/State%20Support%20for%20Commercial%20Space%20Activities.pdf). The states identified in this document include Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

80 UNOST, Article II.

81 See, e.g., Gabrynowicz, supra., at 423, comparing Alan Wasser and Douglas Jobes, Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate it Needs to Survive?, 73 J. Air L. & Commerce 72 (2008) (available at http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/SpaceSettlementLandClaimsRecognition-Wasser2008.pdf), with Press Release, International Institute of Space Law, Statement of the Board of Directors of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) (Mar. 22, 2009), available at http://www.iislweb.org/html/20090322_news.html.

82 Letter to Gregory William Nemitz from Ralph L. Braibanti, Dir., Space & Advanced Tech., U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Oceans & Int’l Envtl Affairs, (Aug. 15, 2003), quoted in OrbDev Appeals to State Dept for Eros Rent Ruling, SPACE DAILY, Aug. 28, 2003, http:// www.spacedaily.com/news/asteroid-03k.html.

83 see Charles Stotler, The ASTEROIDS Act and hearing: some observations on international obligations, The Space Review, September 22, 2014, available at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2604/1, quoting Joanne Gabrynowicz testimony before U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Space during the September 9, 2014 hearing on H.R. 5063 ASTEROIDS Act.

84 UN Moon Treaty, Article 11(5).

85 See, e.g., ASTEROIDS Act, H.R. 5063, 113th Congress (2013-2014) and SPACE Act of 2015, H.R. 2262, 114th Congress (2014-2015).

86 See, e.g., What Water on Mars Means for Earth, Stratfor, October 4, 2015, available at https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/what-water-mars-means-earth.

87 UNOST, Article IX.

88 Id.

89 See Lee Billings, Searching for Life in Martian Water Will be Very, Very Tricky, Scientific American, September 28, 2015, available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/searching-for-life-in-martian-water-will-be-very-very-tricky/.

90 Id.

91 Ian Sample, Water on Mars: NASA faces contamination dilemma over future investigations, The Guardian, September 30, 2015, available at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/29/nasa-crossroads-mars-water-without-contamination-curiosity-rover.

92 See Paul Ordyna, Insuring Space Flight: An Underwriter’s Dilemma, 36 Journal of Space Law 231 (2010), available at http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/jsl/pdfs/articles/jsl-36-ordyna.pdf/.

93 UNOST, Article VI and UN Liability Convention.

94 UN Liability Convention, Article VII(a).

95 Gabrynowicz, supra., at 418.

96 Id., citing Tracey Knutson, What is “Informed Consent” for Space-Flight Participants in the Soon-to-Launch Space Tourism Industry?, 33 J. Space L. 105, 108 (2007).

97 Gabrynowicz, supra., at 421.

98 UNOST Article VI.

99 Gabrynowicz, supra., at 418.

100 Matthew J. Kleiman, Space Law 101: An Introduction to Space Law, American Bar Association, available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/space_law_101_an_introduction_to_space_law.html.

101 UNOST, Article V.

102 UN Moon Agreement, Article 10(1).

103 Joanne Wheeler, Managing Space: International Space Law and Prospective Reforms, 33 Harvard International Review 4 (Spring 2012), available at http://hir.harvard.edu/archives/2929.

104 Kleinman, supra.

105 The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite Collisions, NASA, April 28, 2009, available at http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/ODMediaBriefing28Apr09-1.pdf, hereafter “Threat of Orbital Debris.”

106 The Battle Above, CBS News, 60 Minutes, April 26, 2015, (interview with Lt. General “Jay” Raymond), available at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rare-look-at-space-command-satellite-defense-60-minutes/.

107 Id.

108 Threat of Orbital Debris, supra.

109 Matthew J. Kleiman, supra.

110 John Bacon, “All Clear”: Space station survives space debris flyby, USA Today, July 16, 2015, available at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/international-space-station-debris/30231057/.

111 See, e.g., Stephen Clark, Did two more Iridium satellites collide with space debris?, Spaceflight Now, January 22, 2015, available at http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/22/did-two-more-iridium-satellites-collide-with-space-debris/.

112 Threat of Orbital Debris, supra.

113 UNOST, Article VIII.

114 Id., Article VII.

115 Wheeler, supra.

116 See, e.g., Steve Dent, Real life ‘Pac-Man’ satellite will clean up space junk, Engadget, July 6, 2015, available at http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/06/cleanspace-one-space-junk/.

117 Wheeler, supra.

118 Id.

119 Id.

120 The UN Moon Agreement does expand on the provisions given in the UNOST, but it is not a binding agreement, and even it does not ban all military activity in space.

121 Wheeler, supra.

122 See, e.g., The Battle Above, CBS News, supra.

123 Id.

124 Kleinman, supra.

125 Id.

126 Patrick Tucker, The Air Force Might Have to Protect Money Laundering in Space, Defense One, March 22, 2015, available at http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/03/air-force-might-have-protect-money-laundering-space/108132/.

127 Id.

128 Wheeler, supra.

129 Id.

130 Id.

Ukraine is headed straight toward a full-scale default on its public debt, which currently totals $70 billion, of which $40 billion is owed to foreign creditors, about half of whom are private lenders, while the others are official state or public entities (such as foreign governments and international financial institutions).

Strictly speaking, Ukraine has already defaulted, because on September 23 Kiev did not make its scheduled payment on a $500-million Eurobond. In this case, responsibilities to the private (not state or public) Eurobond holders were not met. According to some sources, these private bondholders are the Aurelius Capital and Elliott Management hedge funds, which are notorious financial vultures.  A ten-day grace period ended in early October without any moves from Kiev to pay its debts. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) issued a verdict of «technical default» on October 5, but soon the word «technical» will have to be removed.

After precisely 90 days from this declaration of Ukraine’s technical default (the period during which Ukraine can still begin to make payments on its debt), Aurelius and Elliott will start to devour the country’s assets. Ukraine will not be subject to any sanctions or lawsuits during those 90 days, but once that period ends – in early January 2016 – all of Ukraine’s debt holders will be legally entitled to employ any acceptable means of recovering those debts from Kiev.

Although the $3-billion loan from the Russian Federation will come due in December, Kiev doesn’t have that kind of money. This missed payment would qualify as a full-fledged default, so Kiev is spending these two remaining months frantically searching for a way out of this problem.

The IMF and World Bank recently held their annual summit in Lima, which included a meeting between the finance ministers of Russia and Ukraine, where Natalia Jaresko asked Anton Siluanov to take part in Ukraine’s debt restructuring, an agreement on which had allegedly been reached at the end of August. In other words, she asked him to agree to the idea of Ukraine not paying that $3 billion. The answer was «no,» which should come as no surprise.

It goes without saying that this so-called restructuring of Ukraine’s debt is highly problematic.  Holders of Ukraine’s securities, only about half of which are considered commercial debt, took part in the negotiations on this issue. But half is not much. That ratio should be at least 90%, or even better – 100%.

On October 15, Arseniy Yatsenyuk astounded everyone with the following statement: «The majority of Ukraine’s creditors – more than 75% of the votes cast at the meeting of the committee of creditors – agreed to write off a total of $3 billion of Ukraine’s debt and to restructure debt worth another $8.5 billion.» This was the prime minister’s take on the results of the scheduled round of negotiations with Kiev’s creditors that took place October 14. But at the same time Yatsenyuk announced that a new round of talks would be held on Oct. 29 in London, and he urged Russia to attend that meeting and to agree to the general terms of the «restructuring» of Ukraine’s debt.

That immediately raises several questions. First of all, if the negotiations over the restructuring concluded successfully in late August, why did the Finance Ministry hold further talks on October 14? Second, if the negotiations on October 14 ended successfully, why schedule yet another meeting in two weeks? Third, the information about the October 14 negotiations that is posted on the website of the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance is very confusing. It indicates that Yatsenyuk has once again been less than truthful. And that’s not just my opinion. In an interview with RIA Novosti-Ukraine, the president of the Ukrainian Analytical Center, Oleksandr Okhrimenko, stated, «There has not been any agreement. The meeting has still not taken place, because there has been no quorum. Seventy-five percent of the Eurobond holders had to attend, but they didn’t have that many there. Now they all have to reconvene on October 29, and hopefully all of them will manage to make it. Then the exchange process will begin [of Eurobonds for new securities – V.K.]. The ministry’s website expressly states that the meeting for the owners of bonds maturing in December 2015 will reconvene in London on October 29, because there had been no quorum at the sessions on October 14. I read this to mean that there has thus far been no vote. Therefore we will await a new vote on October 29.»

I do not think that there will be a quorum at the end of this month in London. And there would certainly be nothing for the Russian representatives to do there anyway.

Yatsenyuk must surely understand all of this, which is why he is frantically promoting «unconventional initiatives» that could preempt the nightmare of a full default in December 2015. One such initiative was the prime minister’s statement that Kiev intends to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to demand http://tass.ru/en/world/829232 that the Russian Federation pay over one trillion hryvnia for its reunification with Crimea. In addition, he is counting on getting compensation through that court from Moscow for the damages inflicted on Donetsk and Lugansk. Yatsenyuk also mentioned Ukraine’s lawsuits against Gazprom: «As a separate matter, we also have two key court cases underway against Gazprom, in regard to a contract to buy and sell gas, as well as pertaining to the transit of gas.» Yatsenyuk finished his statement on a threatening note: Kiev is ready to launch a «legal war» against Moscow.

It is difficult to understand the idea behind such statements. The goal must either be to try to put psychological pressure on Moscow to allow the suspension of debt payments and the restructuring of the $3-billion Eurobond debt, or perhaps to foist upon Moscow a scheme under which counter claims would be used to offset liabilities, freeing Kiev of the burden of all its debts to Russia (the total of which is many times higher than the Eurobond debt). Or perhaps the objective is simply to further inflame Russian-Ukrainian relations and then to take advantage of these rekindled tensions to wheedle the next allotment of money out of the West. It does not look like Kiev has a clear plan, but is operating on the principle of «anything that works.»

In regard to Yatsenyuk’s statements about lawsuits, he is, as usual, bluffing. Experts do not believe that his legal claims fall anywhere within the mandate of the ECtHR. And even if the ECtHR agrees to review those claims (for political reasons), that process will take a very long time, during which Ukraine could not only fall into full-fledged default, but foreign creditors could strip the country of 100% of its assets. The Russian president’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, immediately noted the farcical nature of Yatsenyuk’s demands: «Crimea is the territory of Russia. Donbas is the territory of Ukraine. What is this $1 trillion about? It is not clear. But when it comes to Ukraine’s public debt, the Russian position on that remains unchanged.»

In my opinion, Moscow need not hold off until December 20, 2015 – the deadline for the final payment on the loan – with its demands that Ukraine settle its debt. Under the terms of the loan, Moscow was entitled to demand that Kiev repay the entire amount of the loan back in March of this year, when, after the collapse of hryvnia, Ukraine’s debt-to-GDP ratio surpassed the threshold of 60%. And they can’t wait any longer, because by the first week in January 2016 the financial vultures will have descended upon the arena and Ukraine’s debt history will enter a critical phase.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin suggested that the International Monetary Fund give Kiev a $3-billion loan, so that money could be used to pay off Ukraine’s debt to Russia in December. This would be a simple and effective solution that would forestall Ukraine’s financial collapse. But several days have now passed without a response from the IMF.

Behind the scenes, the IMF is currently under fierce pressure from Washington to quickly rewrite the international rules in favor of Ukraine. That might mean that Russia’s loan to Ukraine in the form of Eurobond purchases in December 2013 could be treated as commercial credit. Washington is trying to use the IMF to help Kiev force Moscow to accept a restructuring of that debt. The IMF has remained remarkably silent in recent months as Kiev has suggested that Moscow agree to restructure its Eurobond debt, although the fund should have explained to Kiev that Ukraine’s debt to the Russian Federation came from an official, state-issued loan and is thus not subject to restructuring.

When it comes to Ukraine, the IMF behaves like Washington’s obedient flunky. I would not be surprised if tomorrow the fund – which is today far and away Ukraine’s biggest official creditor – announced at Washington’s behest that that it was also willing to participate in the restructuring of Ukraine’s debt, although nothing like that has ever occurred in the history of the IMF’s 70 years of existence.

Ukraine’s debt problems are a manifestation of the death throes of more than just that country’s economy. It is significant that the day in late December 2015 on which Ukraine must repay its debt to Russia falls on the anniversary of the founding of the IMF in December 1945. So Ukraine’s debt problems are also a reflection of the death throes of the International Monetary Fund, and I consider it quite possible that the fund itself might suddenly meet its demise, once its anniversary celebrations are over.

While George W. Bush is apparently proud of everything he’s ever done, Tony Blair came dangerously close to facing reality this weekend when he admitted there were “elements of truth” in the view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the principle cause of the rise of ISIS (among other catastrophic results of that invasion).

At the same time, Blair lied that the war was an honest mistake based on bad “intelligence,” and claimed there was no clearly superior alternative anyway:

“We have tried intervention and putting down troops in Iraq; we’ve tried intervention without putting in troops in Libya; and we’ve tried no intervention at all but demanding regime change in Syria,” he said. “It’s not clear to me that, even if our policy did not work, subsequent policies have worked better.”

Now, your average unindoctrinated 10-year-old might conclude that overthrowing foreign governments has been a disaster any which way it’s done, and therefore ought not to be done at all. Not our friend Tony. In the end he’s offered a non-apology on the grounds that anything else he might conceivably have done — including refraining from overthrowing the Iraqi government at all — would have been just as bad:

“I find it hard to apologize for removing Saddam. I think, even from today in 2015, it is better that he’s not there than that he is there,” Blair said. You have to hand it to Blair, for a global spreader of democracy through death, he boldly ignores any question of whether the people of Iraq agree with him. They do not. Back in 2004, the BBC bragged that it could get 49% of Iraqis (“almost half”!) to say that the invasion had been “right.” In 2007, an Iraqi poll found that 90% of Iraqis believed they’d been better off before the invasion. In 2011, a U.S. poll found that many more Iraqis thought they were worse off, than thought they were better off, because of the invasion.

Perhaps those ignorant Iraqis just can’t see how much better off they are. That would explain why they had to be invaded and occupied in the first place. But a careful examination of the death, injury, trauma, environmental damage, infrastructure loss, and societal devastation brought to Iraq by Bush, Blair, and company establishes the war on Iraq from 2003 forward as one of the world’s worst events.

Clearly the hell created in Libya in 2011 does not rival the damage done to Iraq. The hell being created in Syria does begin to rival Iraq, but it has been steadily worsened by Western efforts to overthrow the government, not by Western restraint. For that matter, it has been seriously worsened by the previous invasions of Iraq and Libya, as well as by the steady arming of the region with U.S. weapons over the past several years.

Tunisia just brought home a Nobel Peace Prize in large part due to having a couple of lucky breaks, possibly related to each other. First, Tunisia sits on less oil and gas and in the way of fewer oil and gas pipelines. Second, it has received far less “help” from U.S. and European militaries. For the most part, the Pentagon and U.K. have done to Tunisia what Tony Blair literally cannot conceive of doing in Iraq, Libya, or Syria, namely, left it the heck alone, as it found its own way to better government.

But, one might ask, how can the West just stand by as brutal governments abuse their people?

Well, the West never does just stand by. Occasionally it overthrows those governments, making everyone even worse off. Far more often it arms, funds, and supports those governments — as in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the new Iraq, etc. — keeping everyone in their current state of suffering.

In Blair’s 2010 memoir, he wrote that former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney had “wanted forcible ‘regime change’ in all Middle Eastern countries that he considered hostile to U.S. interests. . . . He would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran.” But, of course, that’s not a list of the nations doing the most damage to the world or their own people. That’s a list of the nations refusing to pledge their obedience to Washington, nations “hostile to U.S. interests.”

And there we see why Tony Blair doesn’t consider the views of Iraqi people before declaring that “it is better that he’s not there than that he is there.” From the point of view of Western weapons companies, Western oil companies, Western friends and associates of Tony Blair, he’s perfectly right. It is better that all those people were killed and the region thrown into chaos for many years to come.

One must adopt a radically different perspective to hear the meaning when I say, It is better that Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour Party, and that even CNN now tries to ask Tony Blair to answer for his crimes.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.

In late 2014 the top brass of the British army were in serious disagreement with each other over the purpose of why British troops were sent to fight in Afghanistan and indeed of the whole enterprise

The same can be said of Iraq. The purpose of the Chilcot Inquiry was to ask exactly the same question – “how and why did Britain go to war”.

In both these conflicts there is a common denominator – lack of clarity as to why Britain waged war on largely defenceless civilians. Back in March this year, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks (where the victim toll was 2,977), could be as high as 2 million.

Yet the international community has clarity on one Middle Eastern country. Since 1948, Israel has engaged in thirteen conflicts against neighbouring countries, often involving multiple adversaries such as; Egypt (5 times) Iraq (3 times), Jordan (2 times), Syria (4 times), Lebanon (2 times), Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait and Tunisia. 

In 1948, Israel killed nearly 20,000 Palestinians and several thousand Arab soldiers; thousands more were killed in 1956-7. In 1973 15,000 Egyptians, 6,000 Jordanians and 1,000 Syrians were killed and more than a half million Palestinians were displaced.

In 1978 1,200 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed by the Israeli’s.

Israel and pro-Israel rightist and Christian factions massacred 17,825 Arabs under the leadership of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who was famous for saying, “When I see dead Palestinians, while I am on the tank, I feel so happy.” For three days, Muslim Arabs were murdered, raped and brutally executed.

1,440 Palestinians were murdered in just two days back in 2009 after intensive attacks and Operation Protective Edge last summer brought the graphic details to the world when another 2100 Palestinians were killed. Civilians took the full force of Israel’s aggression where 1,462 innocents were killed, 495 of them were children.

In that time, Israel too has seen around 10,900 soldiers and 3,349 civilians killed by conflict.

Israel’s continued aggression towards the Palestinians leaves over 4 million deprived of ALL the human rights listed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nearly one million Palestinian children are confined without charge or trial to what the Catholic Church and many others have described as Israel’s Gaza Concentration Camp for the asserted “crime” of being Indigenous Palestinians living in a tiny, remorselessly bombed patch of Palestine.

Since June 1967, ‘Military Court Watch’ stated in it’s 2015 report that it is conservatively estimated that at least 760,000 Palestinian men, women and children or nearly 16,000 each year have been arrested and detained by the Israeli military.

The Israeli military authorities themselves have confirmed that out of approximately 8,000 Palestinians detained for alleged ‘security offences’ in the single year of 2013, 1,004 were minors below the age of 18 – representing 12.5 per cent of the total.

During the past 48 years reports of ill-treatment, as defined by the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention), within Israel’s military detention system have been commonplace. Concerns regarding these allegations and the application of military law in the West Bank have been raised by multiple institutions and bodies in recent years, including: the US State Department; governments of the UK, Netherlands, Slovenia and Ireland; UN Secretary-General; UN Human Rights Committee; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child; UN Committee against Torture; as well as numerous international and local rights’ organisations.

Data provided by the Israeli military and the UN has revealed that since martial law was imposed on the occupied West Bank in 1967, around 95,000 Palestinian children have been arrested by Israel, an average of more than 5 children per day.

Around two thirds of them or almost 60,000 children are believed to have been subjected to some form of physical abuse whilst in detention.

The details were revealed in a report submitted by rights group Military Court Watch (MCW) to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Over 300 pages of evidence relating to the treatment of Palestinian children held in Israeli military detention were included in the report.

It focused on evidence that included the details of 200 children arrested by the Israeli military in the West Bank between January 2013 and May this year. This was also confirmed by an investigation by UNICEF that stated “the ill-treatment of children, who come in contact with the military detention system, appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalised.”

The UNICEF report went further to say ” It is understood that in no other country are children systematically tried by juvenile military courts that, by definition, fall short of providing the necessary guarantees to ensure respect for their rights.”

Middle East Monitor reported that According to the rights group, this finding is based on recent evidence that shows that intimidation, threats, verbal abuse, physical violence and the denial of basic legal rights are still commonplace within the system. Based on the evidence, the submission also drew a link between this industrial scale abuse and the maintenance of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.”  

It concluded that in order to enable 370,000 Israeli settlers to live in the West Bank in violation of international law without serious interference, the military is required to adopt a strategy of mass intimidation and collective punishment.”

All children prosecuted for offences they allegedly committed should be treated in accordance with international juvenile justice standards, which provide them with special protection – because they are children. Most of these protections are enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These are not provided to the Palestinian children who are systematically ‘kidnapped’, illegally detained and then placed in a system that abuses them all one way or another.

In reality, only three countries within the 193 countries represented in the United Nations have not ratified this Convention: the United States (because some States wish to retain the right to execute children), Somalia and South Soudan. But Israel is a signatory.

During the previous two years there has been a significant level of official Israeli activity in response to UNICEF reports including an ongoing dialogue process, amendments to the military law and the re-issuance of standard operating military procedures.

However, UNICEF noted in February 2015 that “reports of alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer and interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in the last two years.

In the meantime, the international community and especially that of the United Nations stands idle, knowing that Israel is accused of abducting, kidnapping or arresting another five children each and every day, then abusing them at an appalling rate by one of its own member states. What does that say say about it as an organisation.

Perhaps it says they don’t care. In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution, particularly UN peacekeepers.

Gita Sahgal, prize winning journalist and director of documentaries centred around Human Rights abuse observed: “The issue with the UN is that peacekeeping operations unfortunately seem to be doing the same thing (sexual exploitation of children) that other militaries do. Even the guardians have to be guarded.”

Sahgal is right.  Such is the focus on the UN and its track record of ‘peacekeeping’ and abuse of minors that just a few days ago, even Fox News ran with the headline “Key US senator ratchets up urgency on UN sex abuse scandal” where a “culture of impunity” that the U.N.’s own experts have said still permeates the far-flung peacekeeper operations.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Arabia’s ruler Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud have pledged to further boost anti-Syrian-government militants and reiterated the need for resolving Syria’s crisis without its incumbent president involved.

In a visit to the Arabian Kingdom on Saturday, Kerry met Salman at al-Oja palace in Dareya district on the outskirts of Riyadh, where they both called for the “importance of mobilizing the international community” to what they called restoring stability to the Middle Eastern country and “the need for a transition away from Assad,” the US State Department said in a statement.

Kerry had earlier accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of “standing in the way” of peace efforts in Syria.

“One thing stands in the way of being able to rapidly move to implement that, and it’s a person called Assad – Bashar Assad,” he said during a meeting that was held in Vienna on Friday with his Russian, Turkish, and Saudi counterparts.

On September 30, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir had said Assad must leave office or face being removed via military intervention.

Kerry and Salman also expressed intensified support to the so-called “moderate Syrian opposition” operating in the war-torn country.

This is while the Pentagon has admitted that a number of US-trained “moderate” militants in Syria have handed over arms and equipment to an al-Qaeda-linked terror group in the country.

Meanwhile, Syrian armed forces, backed by the Russian air force, have made a series of new gains in the fight against the Takfiri militants of Daesh in recent weeks. Reports say large numbers of ISIS terrorists are abandoning the ranks of the extremist group amid the advances of government troops.

Syria has been gripped by foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. The crisis has claimed the lives of more than 250,000 people so far and displaced millions of others; Press TV reported.

Thousands of anti-war protesters in Italy and Spain have taken to streets to express opposition to war games conducted in their respective countries by the US-led NATO military alliance.

The demonstrators carried banners and chanted anti-NATO and anti-US slogans during their protest in the southern Italian city of Naples and Spain’s capital Madrid, insisting that the aim of ongoing military drills – dubbed ‘Trident Juncture 2015’ — is to prepare for new aggression on the horizon.

According to press reports, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization embarked on a major military exercise on September 28 in bases in Spain, southern Italy, as well as Portugal involving 36,000 air, land, and marine troops from over 40 countries and organizations. The war games – the NATO’s largest in the past 13 years — is set to continue until November 6.

The anti-war activists in Naples marched through the main streets of the city carrying placards that read in part “NATO must dissolve” and “Smash NATO.”

An anti-NATO rally in Spain (file photo)

Meanwhile, the protesters in Madrid marched through the center of the city to censure the massive military drills that are currently underway in Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

Organized by the Global Platform Against Wars, the protesters marched from Callao Square to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, waving anti-war banners and chanting slogans such as “No to NATO, bases out”, “Imperialism is terrorism”, and “Yankees go home.”

The anti-NATO protest efforts come as the military alliance has drastically expanded its war games in eastern European countries neighboring Russia, in what Moscow has censured as provocations over the persisting Ukraine conflict in a bid to expand military presence near Russia.

The nation’s most ethnically diverse state is having a huge homelessness problem—but it’s the native people who were there first that are disproportionately ending up on the streets.

At last count, there were 7,260 homeless people in Hawai‘i, giving the islands of Aloha the highest rate of homelessness per capita of any state in the nation. Hawai‘i Gov. David Ige on Friday declared a state of emergency to help the state speed up the process of building a homeless shelter for families.

Between 2014 and 2015 Hawai‘i saw a 46% increase in the number of unsheltered families living in the streets, abandoned buildings, or in other places not meant for human habitation, Scott Morishige, the state’s homelessness coordinator told The Associated Press. The state also saw a 23% increase in unsheltered homeless individuals.

In the 2014 fiscal year 824 individuals used the state’s rapid rehousing program, about 2.6 times higher than the number served in 2013, according to the Center on Family, a research group at University of Hawai’i that looks at homeless program use with the Hawai‘i Department of Human Services.

Twenty-eight percent of individuals using the state’s rehousing program were Native Hawaiians or part-Hawaiians, even though they make up 10% of the state population in Hawaii.

Natives being disproportionately affected by homelessness isn’t unique to Hawai‘i.

Nationwide only 1.2% of the population self-identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native, but they represent 4% of persons residing in emergency shelter or transitional housing, according to the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the office coordinates the Federal response to homelessness.

Experts say American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawai‘i people are all at high risk for many of the conditions that lead to and sustain homelessness, including disproportionately high rates of poverty, domestic and other violence, and behavioral health disorders, according to a 2012 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

But a panel of American Indians experts working with the homeless population convened by HHS said historical trauma “may be one reason that indigenous people are disproportionately represented among populations experiencing homelessness.”

Loveleen Mori, 27, a homeless woman living in a large encampment in the Kakaako neighborhood of Honolulu,
holds her dog as she tries to figure out where to bring her belongings as city officials start to sweep the camp, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2015.

“Traumatic events spanning more than two centuries have affected multiple succeeding generations. Displacement, genocide, forced assimilation, culture/language suppression, and oppression which happened long ago may be expressed throughout the generations as a sense of powerlessness and hopelessness,” according to the 2012 HHS report that quoted experts working with the Native American homeless population in New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawai‘i.

Another factor for homelessness among Native Hawaiians is their high rate of incarceration, said Darlene Hein, director of community services at Waikiki Health Center. Upon release many of them leave prison without access to reentry services or a place to live. The Department of Public Safety says that the state’s incarcerated population is 39% Native Hawaiian or part Native Hawaiian.

Nearly 100 years later, Native Hawaiian housing advocates say the distribution of land has not reached the groups the legislation intended to help.

So far 60,000 acres—30% of the total lands—have been issued to the general public, according to a report presented to Governor Ige by the Native Hawaiian Policy Center and other Native Hawaiian advocates.

There are currently 27,453 Native Hawaiians on the waiting list for land to live or work on, according to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.Some of them have been there for “literally decades,” according to the Native Hawaiian advocates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton Emails Reveal Foreign Meddling in Last Haitian Presidential Election (1/2). 

Real News interview to discuss the past and present influence of the international community in Haiti election results part 1,

click video here

Real News interview part 2, click video here

See, more HLLN 2015, US Election Scams in Haiti coverage, click here:

The October 25th US election masquerade in Haiti

US Drone “cameras” at the Haiti voting centers, Oct. 24, 2015. See, Des caméras et des drones devant les centres de vote

Go to: The ABCs of Election Violence in Haiti

The Diaspora’s Fly-in Militia to manipulate the selections in the poor but populous West Dept – The Trench Town Model in Haiti

“In downtown Port-au-Prince, the skinned heads are ready to party until wee hours.

Win or lose, they will claim victory. The bogeymen are a frantic rendezvous with Baron Samedi. Sadistic and cannibalistic as they are, thousands of living-beings will be slaughtered as “holy” sacrifices to save their “Nèg Bannan Nan.” But the election is largely muted by the vast majority of Haitians who see no interests in political charades. Most importantly, millions of Haitians are not foolish enough to let themselves be the cannon fodders for opportunist politicians.”–Sweet Micky in a spiritual pitch for his dude, CSMS Magazine, Oct. 24, 2015

Haiti Electoral Director Pierre Louis Opont With his Foreign Bosses deciding on the fraudulent Aug 9, 2015 “Haiti” vote

If you want to observe a racist lynch mob, go to Israel, the “world’s worst apartheid state.” After being shot by police, an innocent Eritrean immigrant was pursued by an Israeli mob that “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!’” But of course, no one will be punished, and the U.S. Black Misleadership Class will say nothing.

“Israel’s untouchability is bought and paid for by its American supporters.”

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 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 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, 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 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.

“The killer cop knows the routine about shooting black people.”

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 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 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 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 athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Serving legal documents on high visibility persons who have been involved in international criminal acts is very difficult.  However, the temptation of large honoraria for speeches in the United States tripped up a former Israeli Prime Minister who has been accused of war crimes  for his involvement in the murders of ten passengers (nine were killed immediately and a seriously wounded passenger died after being in a coma for several years) on the Mavi Marmara in the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla. 

In a telephone press conference on October 21, the international legal team that filed the lawsuit against former Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak described how “legal process service” or official notification of a legal claim filed against him was done.  The legal team knew Barak would be in Southern California giving three talks as a part of the Distinguished Speaker Series of Southern California and hired a commercial “certified process server” to deliver the court documents to Barak.

According to attorney Dan Stormer of the Los Angeles law firm Hadsell Stormer Renick LLP,on the evening of October 20 when Barak was scheduled to give a lecture in Thousand Oaks, California, the process server handed the documents to one of Barak’s security team who, in the view of witnesses, handed the documents to Barak, thereby completing the official notification of Barak that a civil case against him had been filed in U.S. Federal Court.

On Friday, October 15, 2015, attorneys for U.S. citizen Furkan Dogan, a 19 year old U.S. citizen who was shot 5 times by Israeli commandos, had filed a civil lawsuit  in the Federal District court of California, Central Division, against Barak for his role as Defense Minister in the 2010 Israeli Defense Forces raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla ship Mavi Marmara that resulted in the executions of nine unarmed civilian passengers and wounding of over 50 passengers, one of whom died after being in a coma for several years.  The lawsuit was filed using Alien Tort Claims, Torture Prevention and Anti-Terrorists legislation.

The legal documents filed in Federal District Court state: “Defendant Barak is responsible and liablefor the common plan, design, and scheme unlawfully to attack the six vessels of theGaza Freedom Flotilla and the civilian passengers on board which constituted acts of international terrorism and resulted in extrajudicial killings, torture, and cruel inhumane or other degrading treatment, in violation of customary international law.

Defendant Barak’s position as Israeli’s Minister of Defense provided him with the ability and capacity to plan, direct, control and oversee the operation against the Flotilla and the IDF soldiers who conducted the attack. Therefore Defendant Barak possessed command responsibility over the IDF forces, and knew or should have known that the unlawful attack on the Flotilla would result in torts and international law violations against Plaintiffs. Defendant Barak failed to stop the violations before and during the attack, and failed to punish those responsible for committing the violations after the attack, thereby ratifying their conduct.”

Attorney Stormer said that Barak must respond to the lawsuit within 30 days after which the discovery phase of the lawsuit will begin.  Stormer said that if the suit is successful, damages and compensation to the parents of Furkan Dogan,  could amount to “tens of millions of dollars.”  Stormer said that other families of those executed by the Israeli commandos may join the lawsuit.

British lawyer Rodney Dixon said that having Barak served the legal process in California was a “watershed” moment.  Dixon said that the Nuremburg, Tokyo, Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone war crimes trials demonstrate that political leaders who order the targeting and killing of unarmed civilians can be held accountable.

In September 2009, lawyers representing 16 Palestinians living in Britain asked a London court to issue an arrest warrant for Barak who was speaking in Britain for his role in the deaths of hundreds of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza who were killed in the Israeli 29 day attack on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009.  However, the courtruled that Barak enjoyed diplomatic immunity from prosecution as he was in office at the time.

Legal team attorney Haydee Dijkstal, who is a lawyer in The Hague, the Netherlands, said during the press conference that “there is no protection for officials who have left office” and the lawsuit against Barak could not be thrown out by the U.S. court on grounds of diplomatic immunity.

Several members of the George W. Bush administration do not travel to certain countries in Europe due to lawsuitsfiled against them in Germany, France, Spain and Switzerland for their roles the war on terror and torture.

 Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel.  She was a US diplomat for 16 years in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia.  She was a passenger on the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, and on the 2011 and 2015 flotillas.

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.