The Dutch Safety Board report concludes that an older model Buk missile apparently shot down Malaysia Airline Flight 17 on July 17, 2014, but doesn’t say who possessed the missile and who fired it. Yet, what is perhaps most striking about the report is what’s not there – nothing from the U.S. intelligence data on the tragedy.

The dog still not barking is the absence of evidence from U.S. spy satellites and other intelligence sources that Secretary of State John Kerry insisted just three days after the shoot-down pinpointed where the missile was fired, an obviously important point in determining who fired it.

On July 20, 2014, Kerry declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.

Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.

But such U.S. government information is not mentioned in the 279-page Dutch report, which focused on the failure to close off the eastern Ukrainian war zone to commercial flights and the cause of the crash rather than who fired on MH-17. A Dutch criminal investigation is still underway with the goal of determining who was responsible but without any sign of an imminent conclusion.

I was told by a U.S. intelligence source earlier this year that CIA analysts had met with Dutch investigators to describe what the classified U.S. evidence showed but apparently with the caveat that it must remain secret.

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

Last October, Der Spiegel reported that German intelligence, the BND, concluded that the Russian government was not the source of the missile battery – that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base – but the BND blamed the ethnic Russian rebels for firing it. However, a European source told me that the BND’s analysis was not as conclusive as Der Spiegel had described.

The Dutch report, released Tuesday, did little to clarify these conflicting accounts but did agree with an analysis by the Russian manufacturer of the Buk anti-aircraft missile systems that the shrapnel and pieces of the missile recovered from the MH-17 crash site came from the 9M38 series, representing an older, now discontinued Buk version.

The report said:

“The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

Last June, Almaz-Antey, the Russian manufacturer which also provided declassified information about the Buk systems to the Dutch, said its analysis of the plane’s wreckage revealed that MH-17 had been attacked by a “9M38M1 of the Buk M1 system.” The company’s Chief Executive Officer Yan Novikov said the missile was last produced in 1999.

Who Has This Missile?

The Russian government has insisted that it no longer uses the 9M38 version. According to the Russian news agency TASS, former deputy chief of the Russian army air defense Alexander Luzansaid the suspect warhead was phased out of Russia’s arsenal 15 years ago when Russia began using the 9M317 model.

“The 9M38, 9M38M, 9M38M1 missiles are former modifications of the Buk system missiles, but they all have the same warhead. They are not in service with the Russian Armed Forces, but Ukraine has them,” Luzan said.

“Based on the modification and type of the used missile, as well as its location, this Buk belongs to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. By the way, Ukraine had three military districts — the Carpathian, Odessa and Kiev, and these three districts had more than five Buk anti-aircraft missile brigades of various modifications – Buk, Buk-M, Buk-M1, which means that there were more than 100 missile vehicles there.”

But Luzan’s account would not seem to rule out the possibility that some older Buk versions might have gone into storage in some Russian warehouse. It is common practice for intelligence services, including the CIA, to give older, surplus equipment to insurgents as a way to create more deniability if questions are ever raised about the source of the weapons.

For its part, the Ukrainian government claimed to have sold its stockpile of older Buks to Georgia, but Ukraine appears to still possess the 9M38 Buk system, based on photographs of Ukrainian weapons displays. Prior to the MH-17 crash, ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were reported to have captured a Buk system after overrunning a government air base, but Ukrainian authorities said the system was not operational, as recounted in the Dutch report. The rebels also denied possessing a functioning Buk system.

As for the missile’s firing location, the Dutch report said the launch spot could have been anywhere within a 320-square-kilometer area in eastern Ukraine, making it hard to determine whether the firing location was controlled by the rebels or government forces. Given the fluidity of the frontlines in July 2014 – and the fact that heavy fighting was occurring to the north – it might even have been possible for a mobile missile launcher to slip from one side to the other along the southern front.

The Dutch report did seek to discredit one alternative theory raised by Russian officials in the days after the shoot-down – that MH-17 could have been the victim of an air-to-air attack. The Dutch dismissed Russian radar data that suggested a possible Ukrainian fighter plane in the area, relying instead of Ukrainian data which the Dutch found more complete.

But the report ignored other evidence cited by the Russians, including electronic data of the Ukrainian government allegedly turning on the radar that is used by Buk systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian government to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.

The Dutch-led investigation was perhaps compromised by a central role given to the Ukrainian government which apparently had the power to veto what was included in the report. Yet, what may have spoken most loudly in the Dutch report was the silence about U.S. intelligence information. If – as Kerry claimed – the U.S. government knew almost immediately the site where the fateful missile was launched, why has that evidence been kept secret?

Given the importance of the conflict in eastern Ukraine to U.S. intelligence, it was a high-priority target in July 2014 with significant resources devoted to the area, including satellite surveillance, electronic eavesdropping and human assets. In his rush-to-judgment comments the weekend after the crash, Kerry admitted as much.

But the Obama administration has refused to make any of its intelligence information public. Only belatedly did CIA analysts brief the Dutch investigators, according to a U.S. government source, but that evidence apparently remained classified.

The second source told me that the reason for withholding the U.S. intelligence information was that it contradicted the initial declarations by Kerry and other U.S. officials pointing the finger of blame at the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stood accused of giving a ragtag bunch of rebels a powerful weapon capable of shooting down commercial airliners.

Despite Russian denials, the worldwide revulsion over the shoot-down of MH-17, killing all 298 people onboard, gave powerful momentum to anti-Putin propaganda and convinced the European Union to consent to U.S. demands for tougher economic sanctions punishing Russia for its intervention in Ukraine. According to this source’s account, an admission that a rogue Ukrainian group was responsible would take away a powerful P.R. club wielded against Russia.

Among the organizations that have implored President Barack Obama to release the U.S. intelligence data on MH-17 is the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of mostly retired U.S. intelligence analysts.

As early as July 29, 2014, just 12 days after the shoot-down amid escalating Cold War-style rhetoric, VIPS wrote,

“As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. …As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence.”

But the release of the Dutch report – without any of that data – indicates that the U.S. government continues to hide what evidence it has. That missing evidence remains the dog not barking, like the key fact that Sherlock Holmes used to unlock the mystery of the “Silver Blaze” when the sleuth noted that the failure of the dog to bark suggested who the guilty party really was.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on MH-17: Dutch Safety Board Report Does Not Mention Supposed US Intelligence Data

EU Directly Funds Israeli Military Companies and Institutions

October 14th, 2015 by European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine

Israeli military, police and settler violence against Palestinians is intensifying quickly. Over the past week, at least 900 Palestinians have been injured, at least 60 with live fire. Only on Saturday October 10th, six Palestinians in Gaza were shot dead by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on a demonstration. These peaks in lethal violence are a part of the systematic violence Palestinians are subjected to under Israel’s Apartheid regime

Aside from maintaining this siege and engaging in direct military attacks on Gaza, the Israeli army’s primary ongoing task is to enforce the Occupation of the Palestinian land and people. Israeli arms companies benefit enormously from European Union expenditure. With a total budget of nearly €80 billion, Horizon 2020, the new EU research and innovation programme, is one of the world’s largest research and innovation programmes. Israel is associated to Horizon 2020 allowing Israeli entities to participate in the programme. Already during the previous funding cycle (FP7), Israeli entities participated in over 1500 projects.

On February 9th 2015, the Israeli R&D Directorate for the European Research Area (ISERD) published a document announcing that the EU had already approved 205 projects with Israeli participation with a total value of €452,3m1 within the Horizon 2020 research cycle.

Participating companies include Elbit, Israel Aerospace Industries, Technion, deeply implicated in the occupation of Palestine and Israeli military industry. Elbit is a partner in EU Flysec projects funded by the European taxpayer’s money totalling 4 141 375 EUR.

Palestinian and European civil society has mounted sustained campaigning efforts to pressure the EU not to use taxpayers’ money to finance Israeli occupation, apartheid and colonialism through its funding cycles.

 Horizon 2020: Israeli military companies and military related institutions

ELBIT SYSTEMS LTD is one of the most iconic accomplices of Israeli violations of international law and a notorious war profiteer2. Just after the military aggression on Gaza in July/August 2014, Elbit’s shares rose 6.6%. Elbit is deeply complicit in Israeli military aggressions against the Palestinian people and one of the world’s most important promoters of the use of drones in war and population control and directly involved in the construction of the Wall and the settlements, including their surveillance. For various reasons relating to Elbit’s violations of international law, various pension funds and financial institutions within the European Union have already divested from the company3 and the UN Special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 2012 has called for the company to be boycotted4.

Elbit has so far received an EU contribution of €403,750 for its participation in the FLYSEC project, which on the technical side, integrates new technologies on video surveillance, intelligent remote image processing and biometrics combined with big data analysis, open-source intelligence and crowdsourcing5. Such dual-use technology is widely used in military applications such as security and surveillance systems.

ISRAEL AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES (IAI) provides equipment used in Israel’s illegal Wall and supplied drones to Israel that were used in attacks against civilians during the 2008-09 attack on Gaza. IAI’s Heron UAV systems (drones) were used in the attacks on civilians condemned by Human Rights Watch as being in violation of international law6. IAIs subsidiary also provides surveillance systems for the Wall7. IAI is currently involved in Horizon 2020 projects through which the company received grants of over €2 million8.

TECHNION – ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY is coming under increasing scrutiny from academics concerned with its involvement in and collaboration with the Israeli military and Israeli arms companies. The institute conducts a wide variety of research into technology and weapons used to oppress and attack Palestinians. For example, Technion researchers have developed special unmanned vehicles that aid the Israeli army in carrying out demolitions of Palestinian houses. By knowingly developing technology used in house demolitions, Technion is actively and directly complicit in the violations of international law. The institute also provides special tailored courses and programs for military officials and Israeli arms company executives Technion has a history of deep collaboration with Elbit Systems, including receiving research grants and opening a joint research centre. Through Horizon 2020, Technion is participating in over 30 projects and receives over €17 million of EU taxpayers money.

By allowing Israeli actors that perpetrate or are complicit accomplices to unlawful acts and impediments to Palestinian self-determination to participate in research projects that it funds and administers, including projects that are developing technology that may be used in future unlawful acts, the EU lends legitimacy to Israeli violations of international law and renders assistance to the maintenance of these unlawful acts in a way that calls into question whether the European Union and member states are in violation of their own obligations under international law.

Funding for Israeli military and homeland security companies, such as Elbit Systems, will not only run counter to the growing call for a military embargo on Israel but violate the EU Commission’s commitment against dual use funding. According to the EU Commission: “In accordance with rules drawn up by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission, funding for projects under Horizon 2020 can only be drawn down for research that will be applied for civilian purposes only9. Elbit’s research and technology – as showcased by the LGI technology – is inevitably liable to be used to perpetrate violations of international law by the Israeli military, as well as technology manufactured by IAI and Technion.

EU funding to companies/institutions with confirmed involvement with the Israeli military (on-going research)

Israeli military company/institution EC Contribution
Elbit €403750
Israel Aerospace Industries €2000
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology €17,000, 000 +
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem €12,450, 000 +
Motorola Solutions LTD €906,727
Total                                                                     €32,760, 477 +

We call on the European civil society, members of the European and national parliaments and governmental representatives to lobby and pressure the relevant EU institutions to exclude Elbit Systems and any other Israeli entity involved in the state’s military-industrial-scientific complex (including their subsidiaries) from EU financial mechanisms and cooperation.

 Notes

1)  http://www.iserd.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/ISERD_STAT_H2020_09022015.pdf

2) http://www.stopthewall.org/briefing-supporting-israeli-apartheid-eu-funding-elbit-system

3) The most elaborate justification has been published by the Norwegian Pension Fund Council on Ethics already in 2009: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/160311fdf03347bca414b1fdd7aefc35/tilradning-elbit-engelsk.pdf

4) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43376#.VWzYUVxViko

5) http://www.cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194906_en.html

6) http://www.hrw.org/report/2009/06/30/precisely-wrong/gaza-civilians-killed-israeli-drone-launched-missiles

7) Execution Aspects, Israeli Defence Ministry http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/execution.htm#2

8) http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193408_en.htmlhttp://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193379_en.html

9) http://horizon2020projects.com/global-collaboration/israel-boycott-petition-receives-irish-support/ 


 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU Directly Funds Israeli Military Companies and Institutions

While most of the world is chuckling with Schadenfreude over the US’ apparent $500 million waste on training “moderate rebels” in Syria, American taxpayers are furious at their government’s perceived ineptitude in wasting such an astronomical sum for the sake of only 60 fighters. It seems as though the policy was such a miserable failure that not a single success could be gleaned from it, hence what most people falsely assumed was the project’s full cancellation last Friday. That’s not exactly what happened, however, in either sense – the scheme wasn’t as bad of a failure as the US is purposely making it out to be (although it was definitely an absolute embarrassment relative to its publicly stated goals), and secondly, it was tweaked, not scrapped. Let’s pull back the curtain for a moment and see what’s really going on with what everybody assumes is the US’ largest covert flop in decades.

Exposing The False Narrative

The popular understanding among most people is that the US ran through half a billion dollars in less than a year, all in the name of vetting and training what turned out to be a little more than half a hundred “moderate rebels”. Reuters has contributed to this myth by calculating that the cost came out to around $10 million per trained fighter, leading readers to assume that the money had already been spent in full and solely on those individuals. Well, if that truly was the case, then the program would ironically have been the US government’s most ‘successful’ one ever, as it would mean that unlike anything else ever attempted by Washington (let alone its intelligence agencies), for once all of the funds went entirely and solely towards their stated objective, no matter how failed it ultimately turned out to be.

Of course, when viewed from that perspective, the myth is dispelled and it becomes clear that such a scenario isn’t at all what happened. Looking at the facts, no US government representative ever indicated that the full sum was entirely spent, and there’s no conceivable way that it could ever cost that much money to vet and train such a small amount of people. The New York Times also reported that the US “will instead use the money to provide ammunition and some weapons for groups already engaged in the battle” as per its tweaked policy, thus confirming that enough of it still exists from January to fund the reworked and expanded operation. Nonetheless, Washington seems content with cleverly feeding the myth that the whole initiative was a failure, and it’s doing this to distract attention away from what it was really up to this entire time.

A Convenient Excuse

Between when Congress allocated the money in January until the time that the program was terminated in early October, the casual information consumer is led to believe that the US government was clumsily bungling its Syrian-directed efforts on this epic mess of a project, and that it somehow occupied all of its time and resources. Average people all across the world are so overwhelmed with the ubiquitous criticism of the moment that many of them have forgotten that the American destabilization of Syria actually began as early as the mid-2000s, as documented by independent investigative journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh in “The Redirection”. With the US’ grand strategy in forcefully creating “The New Middle East” being dramatically disrupted by the Russian anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, Washington is eager to look for an excuse to occupy the masses’ attention until it can fully formulate its response, and the globally flogged scapegoat of the “moderate rebel” program fits the role perfectly.

Not only that, but the US also wanted to retroactively obscure its prior activity in Syria through the unveiling of a ridiculously expensive program that would ‘justify’ any of its earlier investments that might accidentally leak out to the public. For example, the American arming of ISIL , Al Nusra, and other terrorist groups could now be explained away as a ‘mistake’ of “rebel weapons” “falling into the wrong hands”, be it through “surrender”,” retreat”, or “accidentally” airdropping such equipment to them. It doesn’t matter if such evidence emerged before the program was publicly announced or even if it happened in Iraq and not Syria, since the intended narrative was always to pin it on this project, ‘for better or for worse’. The problem was that the ‘plausibly deniable’ intermediaries, the so-called “moderate rebels”, never materialized in the number that they were supposed to, but such a point is moot and never dwelled on by Washington’s narrative guiders, who have shifted all Syrian-related criticism to this much-hated project.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., (left) and Jack Reed, D-R.I., hear testimony on operations against ISIS from Gen. Lloyd Austin, Sept 2015

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., (left) and Jack Reed, D-R.I., hear testimony on operations against ISIS from Gen. Lloyd Austin, Sept 2015

Using the $500 million “moderate rebel” program as the unquestionable scapegoat for the US’ failures in Syria is copied from the same tactic that it uses against Russia to explain away whatever happens in Eastern Europe. The massive weapons-running operation that the US conducted throughout the course of the War on Syria (including looted deposits shipped from post-Gaddafi Libya by former US Ambassador Christopher Stevens) and the ‘untraceable’ Toyotas that it supplied to the Wahhabis can always, if push came to shove, somehow be linked to the training program in order to absorb any domestic criticism. And that’s the thing – this psychological operation of self-effacing ‘civil servants’ ‘admitting’ the supposed grand failure of one of their previous plans is only aimed at the domestic (Western) public, not at the multipolar media or foreign intelligence agencies that know better. By accepting one highly publicized false failure (which as was explained, only failed in the sense of not establishing the proper media cover for terrorist-destined weapons and equipment transfers), the US can shield itself from rising public anger over its other unsavory actions towards Syria, which are increasingly being brought to light by international media outlets such as Sputnik.

From The Darkness To The Light

This brings one to the topic of what the US’ tweaked program actually looks like in practice, and how much it really differs from that which was going on before it. Remember, it was reported that the US would give “ammunition and weapons” to its allied proxies in Syria, and no sooner was this announced than an entirely new umbrella organization was created called the “Democratic Forces of Syria”, described by Reuters as compromising “ the [Kurdish] YPG, various Arab groups including Jaysh al-Thuwwar (Army of Rebels) and the Arab tribal Jaysh al-Sanadeed, and an Assyrian Christian group”, with the Arab gangs forming a subgroup called the “Syrian Arab Coalition”. The same day that it was announced, it was revealed that the US airdropped 50 tons of weapons to the northeast Syrian-based entity, thus proving that it had a hand behind its formation and intends for the group to be its on-the-ground proxy from now on (or until it’s defeated by or surrenders to ISIL, at least).

When one thinks about it, the only thing that’s changed between the ‘failed’ policy and the tweaked one is that what was previously being done covertly is now being carried out in the open. The US has been arming and equipping militants in Syria since before the conflict first started, it’s just that back then, it vehemently denied that this was the case. When irrefutable evidence continued to emerge that the US was lying, it invented the meant-to-fail spectacle of the “moderate rebel” training program to ‘explain away’ all the material that ended up in the terrorists’ hands, even if it’s means of doing so were intellectually sloppy and acceptable only to the largely uninformed and politically naïve American public. The scarecrow diversion of the ‘failed’ “moderate rebel” training program has served its domestic purpose, since it’s engendered such anger on both sides of the partisan divide that Democrats and Republicans have gone through the playacting of ‘uniting’ to support its ‘stepped-up’ successor, which in reality is neither a ‘stepped-up’ program nor a ‘successor’. The only difference between then and now is that what was previously done in the darkness is openly being admitted to in the light.

The End Of The Charade

The US had initially planned to keep the ‘failed’ “moderate rebel” program running indefinitely, as it provided a perfect cover for directly supporting terrorism in the Mideast and ‘justifying’ the huge expenses involved with maintaining a private army of jihadists. Plus, it’s the perfect scarecrow for absorbing all sorts of domestic criticism related to the US’ Mideast policies, as there’s near-unanimous hate for the program among the American people and it makes for a self-effacing distraction from the bigger problems that Washington has cooked.

This charade was brought to an abrupt halt after Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention forced the US’ hand into the open, since Washington suddenly became desperate as it watched Moscow mop up its proxies in the course of a week. From the American standpoint, there was no foreseeable way that it could continue to retain any influence whatsoever over Syria (no matter how rapidly fading) if its depleting forces were still supplied via covert channels, so it publicly pulled the plug on its made-to-fail ‘covert’ “moderate rebel” project in order to replace it with its ‘tweaked’ overt counterpart.

Therefore, out of strategic desperation, the US has shifted gears by confirming to Americans what the rest of the world already knew as an open secret – the US has always had a direct role in supporting all manner of anti-government forces in Syria. But, in accordance with domestic political and media imperatives, because this ‘revelation’ was announced with a dash of readily believable self-effacing criticism and misleadingly appeared to be a lot better than its ‘predecessor’, the easily manipulated American public has been tricked into cheeringly welcoming something that it never would have accepted over four years ago, and that’s official acknowledgement that the US is playing a direct and guiding role in managing the War on Syria.

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentaror currently working for the Sputnik agency.

Hamsa Haddad is the Syrian researcher based in Moscow.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Training “Moderate Terrorists”: A Half-A-Billion-Dollar Waste…Or Was It?

There is probable cause the U.S. committed a war crime.

In one of the most despicable incidents of the United States’ 14-year war in Afghanistan, U.S. troops bombed a hospital in Kunduz, killing 22 people, including patients, three children, and medical personnel from Doctors Without Borders, or MSF. Thirty-seven people were injured, including 19 staff members in the Oct. 3, 2015, attack.

U.S. forces knew they were targeting a hospital because MSF, as it does in all conflict contexts, had provided its exact GPS coordinates on multiple occasions over the past months, including most recently on Sept. 29. There was a nine-foot flag on the roof that identified the building as a hospital. After the first strike, MSF contacted U.S. officials and reported the hospital was being bombed and begged them to halt the attack. Nevertheless, the U.S. AC-130 gunship continued to pummel the hospital repeatedly for more than one hour.

Wounded Afghan boys, who survived a U.S. air strike on a Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, receive treatment.

Wounded Afghan boys, who survived a U.S. air strike on a Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, receive treatment. | Photo: Reuters

“Our patients burned in their beds,” said MSF International President Joanne Liu. “Doctors, nurses and other staff were killed as they worked.”

She added, “Our colleagues had to work on each other. One of our doctors died on an improvised operating table – an office desk – while his colleagues tried to save his life.”

In attempting to explain why they had bombed a hospital, U.S. military leaders changed their story four times. On Saturday, the day of the bombing, U.S. spokesman Col. Brian Tribus said the strike occurred “against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility.” On Sunday, Gen. John Campbell, U.S.-NATO commander in Afghanistan, claimed the strike occurred “against insurgents who were directly firing upon U.S. service members … in the vicinity of a Doctors Without Borders medical facility.” On Monday, Campbell announced, “Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support” and “several civilians were accidentally struck.” By Tuesday, Campbell said, “the decision to provide aerial fire was a U.S. decision, made within the U.S. chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a medical facility.”

Since the Pentagon has access to video and audio recordings taken from the gunship, they must know what actually occurred. Daily Beast reported that the recordings contain conversations among the crew as they were firing on the hospital, including communications between the crew and U.S. soldiers on the ground. Moreover, AC-130 gunships fly low to the ground so the crew can assess what they are hitting.

But members of Congress who oversee the Pentagon have been denied access to the classified recordings.

Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, “Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the parties to the conflict.”

International law expert Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, said, “The critical question for determining if US forces committed a war crime was whether they had notified the hospital ahead of the strike if they understood the Taliban to be firing from the hospital.”

MSF has said they were never notified that the hospital would be bombed. “Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the MSF hospital compound prior to the U.S. airstrike on Saturday morning,” according to MSF General Director Christopher Stokes.

Parties to a military conflict have a duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and civilians and their facilities cannot be targeted. If the hospital were being used for military purposes, the strike must be proportionate to the military advantage sought, and the U.S. forces had a duty to warn the people inside the hospital that it would be struck. No one in the hospital said it was being used for military purposes, and even if it was, the U.S. forces never warned those in the hospital before striking it.

The U.S. strike was a precise attack on the hospital, because no other buildings in the MSF compound were hit. MSF executive director Jason Cone said, “I want to reiterate that the main hospital building where medical personnel were caring for patients was repeatedly and very precisely hit during each aerial raid while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched. So we see this as a targeted event.”

MSF is demanding an independent investigation by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC), established under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. But the United States must consent to the investigation. The U.S. government says there are enough investigations – one by the Pentagon, one by a joint US-Afghan group, and one by NATO. But none of these is independent and impartial.

Historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter has written three articles about three different internal investigations the U.S. military used to cover-up operations that should have led to criminal prosecutions against U.S. officers. Why should we believe that this will be any different?

The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court provides several bases for war crimes prosecution. They include willful killing; willfully causing great suffering or serious bodily injury; intentional attacks against civilian or civilian objects; intentional attacks with knowledge they will cause death or injury to civilians when clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage; and intentionally attacking medical facilities which are not military objectives. Although the United States is not a party to the Statute, there could be jurisdiction over U.S. leaders if the Security Council referred the matter to the Court. That will not happen because the United States would veto such a referral. If US leaders are found on the territory of a country that is a party to the Statute, that country could send them to The Hague, Netherlands for prosecution. But the Bush administration blackmailed 100 countries into signing “bilateral immunity agreements,” promising they would not send US nationals to The Hague on penalty of losing U.S. foreign aid.

Other countries can prosecute foreign nationals under the well-established doctrine of “universal jurisdiction.” But since Bush initiated his war on Iraq, no nation has been willing to incur the wrath of the United States by maintaining such an action against a U.S. leader.

Nick Turse and Bob Dreyfuss documented the killing of as many as 6,481 Afghan civilians by U.S. forces from October 2001 through 2012. The U.S. government has killed large numbers of civilians in its drone attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. But Obama rarely apologizes to or compensates the victims. It is only because a Western-based organization was hit and the attendant media coverage has been so overwhelming that led Obama to apologize to MSF.

MSF’s advance provision of the hospital’s coordinates to U.S. forces, its notifications during the bombing, its denial that any fire was coming from the hospital, and the Pentagon’s shifting rationales for the bombing constitute probable cause that a war crime was committed.

Obama should consent to a full, independent, impartial investigation of the hospital bombing by IHFFC. If that investigation shows that war crimes probably occurred, appropriate prosecutions of the U.S. chain of command should ensue.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is “Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.” See www.marjoriecohn.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Kunduz Hospital Bombing. The US has Committed War Crimes. “Prosecutions of the U.S. Chain of Command should Ensue”

Indian agriculture is in crisis. Indian farmers are in crisis. These crises are human made. Over 300,000 farmers have committed suicide in India during the past 18 years. Most of these are due to farmer indebtedness resulting from economic liberalisation, expensive inputs and the production of cash crops for export. In Punjab, the original ‘poster boy’ of the green revolution, there are falling water tables and cancer rates have increased markedly. Indian soils are being severely depleted due to chemical-intensive farming, and now the government is considering introducing genetically modified food crops into the country in a non-transparent way, against the recommendations of a series of major high-level reports.

What is happening in India is a microcosm of all that is wrong with modern agriculture: the imposition of cash monocrops and the subsequent undermining of local food security (leading to food-deficit regions and to a reliance on imports); the introduction of costly and hazardous (to health and environment) chemical inputs and company seeds; crop failure (or, in many cases, the inability to secure decent prices on a commercial market dominated by commodity speculators in the US or rigged in favour of Western countries); and spiralling debt.

The situation for India’s farmers is dire across the board. Consider that 670 million people in India’s the rural areas live on less than 33 rupees a day (around 50 US cents) a day. And consider that than 32 million quit agriculture between 2007 and 2012. Where did they go? Into the cities to look for work. Work that does not exist.

Between 2005 and 2015, only 15 million jobs were created nationally. To keep up with a growing workforce, around 12 million new jobs are required each year. Therefore, if you are going to displace hundreds of millions from the land and put them at the mercy of the ‘helping hand’ of giant agribusiness companies or the whims of the market, you may well be consigning them to the dustbin of history given the lack of options for making a living out there.

In fact, that is exactly what the Indian government is doing by leaving farmers to deal with agribusiness and the vagaries of the market and having to compete with heavily subsidised Western agriculture/agribusiness, whose handmaidens at the WTO demand India reduces import restrictions.

While the West tries to impose its neoliberal agenda of cutting subsidies to agriculture and dismantling price support mechanisms and the public distribution system (that if effectively run would allow Indian farmers to receive a decent stable income), farmers are unsurprisingly leaving the sector in droves as agriculture becomes economically non-viable. Forcing farmers to leave the land is a deliberate strategy. Just like it is a deliberate strategy to give massive handouts to industry and corporate concerns who are not delivering on jobs. It’s all about priorities. And farmers are not a priority. They are being driven from farming, while all the advantages are being given to a failing corporate-industrial sector.

So what can be done to reverse this trend?

Mines as economic platforms for rural development?

Before the British arrived, India was a pre-eminent global economic powerhouse. Economist Angus Maddison noted that India was the richest country in the world and had controlled a third of global wealth until the 17th century. India was an exporter of spices, food grains, handicrafts, handloom products, wootz steel, musk, camphor, sandalwood and ivory items, among other things, and was highly agriculturally productive.

The village was the lynchpin of a rural economy and a centre of entrepreneurship. But the British Raj virtually dismantled much of this this system by introducing mono-crop activities and mill-made products, and post-independent India has failed to repair the economic fabric and seems intent on destroying it completely. As a result, rural/village India is thus too often (wrongly) depicted a ‘basket case’.

But a businessman called Charles Devenish reckons he has the answer to reinvigorating rural India and returning it to its former status. He recently contacted me and said he had a solution for India’s agrarian crisis and the plight of farmers. He revealed his background in mining; thoughts about the mayhem being caused by the extraction industries in the tribal belt, secretive Memorandums of Understanding and para-military violence driving people from their lands immediately sprang to mind.

But as far as Charles is concerned, maybe I was missing something. It turns out that Charles has a vision for India. And he is very passionate about it. It involves bringing people together under the banner of a Gandhian dream of an Independent Village Republic… centred on mining.

His vision for rural India is based on a commercial model of raising capital for mineral exploration and mining development and then using the resulting wealth to reinvest in agroecology, social infrastructure and rural enterprises. Charles listed his company Deccan Gold Mines on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) in 2003 to raise capital for mineral exploration and mining and get the public involved and interested in this field. He says that it has been a difficult road, but the company now has 20,000 shareholders and a “great package of assets.”

In 1958, at 17, Charles walked much of the way from northern France to India. His journey through Pakistan and India was a big turning point. Nehru and Congress were in full swing. Charles met up with student groups from Delhi University and became caught up in the general spirit of the development of a nation.

At some stage, he bought a run-down jewellery shop in Australia. It lasted 35 years and morphed into what was probably one of Australia’s top jewellery business enterprises. One day a customer came into the shop with an emerald crystal. It became his first introduction to mining. Over the years, mainly through his huge customer base in the shop, he became involved in various mining companies. Charles listed his first diamond exploration company in about 1986 and was responsible for opening the first diamond mine in Zimbabwe.

He says:

The general attitude of my board members was make money and to hell with everybody else. It was that mine that really gave me the clear picture of what not to do and what enormous potential a mine has for regional development. Unfortunately my board had a different view.

Charles helped open the first diamond mine in the US. He started the first ruby cutting factory in Hanoi, shipped the first container of buffalo meat from Delhi to Angola, operated for five years exploring in Angola during the civil war and was responsible for opening the first zinc mine in Burma in partnership with the Chinese.

His view on business is simple:

It should be social capitalism with a small ‘c’. I am a strong advocate of the “The Small is Beautiful,” concept and the Gandhian view of small cottage industry. And I strongly believe that this is where India needs to go and not follow the Western, Chinese model of large soul-destroying mass production.

While Charles (74) brings his mining expertise to the table, his associate Stuart Newton (77) has dedicated his life to botany. Charles says that Stuart has totally opened his eyes to the amazing aspects of Indian agriculture and what could happen if a few simple steps were taken.

Charles reckons India is sitting on a wealth of minerals that it currently imports but has no need to, given what is beneath the ground. This is the untapped wealth that could reinvigorate farming and villages.

In April I994, he was invited to a mining conference sponsored by the United Nations in Delhi. The Government of the day announced that they were open for business and there was to be complete transparency and single window clearances and that companies could apply for unlimited areas for exploration.

Charles says:

Based on our knowledge of the geology of India, we moved quickly and covered most of the critical gold areas surrounding the famous Hutti and Kolar gold mines. We also covered areas covering zinc, copper and nickel. This was the start of years of pain and grind. Just for the rights to risk our money on exploring, we had to travel to 140 desks before the granting of our first exploration license… The more we explored from the North East to the South of India the more we became aware of the enormous untapped resources of India.

As the years went by, Charles and Stuart began to appreciate how these mines, if properly developed in a holistic manner, could become the engines for agricultural growth.

Charles continues:

This is the nation’s wealth and it belongs to society and must be extracted in a way that it can maximise the benefit to as many people as possible and especially to communities existing close to the mine.

He says that 95 percent of mineral wealth is still lying buried and untouched and can never be discovered by government agencies as they lack the billions of dollars that are required for high-risk exploration. He also argues that government also lacks the technical expertise for modern exploration.

Since the 1994 Delhi mining conference, India’s gold production has gone from 3 tons to 2 tons, whereas Chinese production has gone from 3 tons to 425 tons. During this same period not one single gold mine has been discovered by government agencies in India (no new discovery of a single diamond or nickel mine either for decades).

Charles calls for a friendly Mining Act based on international best practices. He also believes in making mandatory regulation and tax incentives to help mining boost agriculture. Crucially, he believes that all funding for mine development should have strict agricultural development clauses.

The extraction industries are a mixed bag. I have seen some of the best mines with some if the best social support systems in the world in Jharkhand and Orissa. The cynics only look at the land rapists, which is a pity.

He adds:

I want to create independent small-scale business in the rural sector, using the mine as the economic platform. I want the miner to spend part of his revenue stream to go into agricultural co-operatives where he takes a minority shareholding for helping to organise and finance the co -op. These are profit making ventures for which the miner gets a vested financial interest. I see the co-op with attached soil lab, supplying correct fertiliser and trace elements for the particular soils. The co-op will provide high quality seeds, advice, marketing and new niche high-value crops.

What is important here is that the vision is for an agriculture that rejects the petro-chemical/GM model and is based more on indigenous developed agro-ecological approaches.

He describes his vision for mining, investment in rural infrastructure and the role of rural co-operatives:

My dream for Jonnagiri in AP is an underground gold mine. A large solar farm at the surface with panels at least 12 ft off the ground and horticulture underneath these panels. The farmer hopefully will get a small gold revenue stream, energy revenue stream for allowing the panels on his land and then of course his agricultural cash flow. This is the ideal model that I would like the co-op to achieve. My investors have to support this, but one thing is for sure: if we do not help the farmer, our mining business will never really succeed. Shareholders have to learn that it must be a win-win for all participants. If that model is adopted by miners then we will see wonderful results.

His current mining lease covers 600 small farms, but his company will be mining on only a small part of the lease. Charles wants to bring these farms under a co-op and make farmers feel like partners in the project, not least by helping to increase production with basic soil management and agroecology practises.

What is described above has the potential for keeping farmers on the land. It is in contrast to the current model which is running down the rural economy and driving farmers from the land. But should we question some of the motives behind Charles Devenish’s model and its emphasis on mining and private enterprise?

I asked him whether the concern about Indian agriculture was not a public relations tactic in order to help get his mining interests off the ground.

He replied:

I have no interest in money apart from it putting food on the plate and a roof over my head. My granddaughter works with me and understands fully what our mission in life is all about and that is to make the Gandhian Independent Village Republic become a reality. 600,000 villages, virgin untouched mineral resources and enormous agricultural potential excites my imagination. I see middle class India buying into this dream as investors. I want a bit of that $70 billion they are spending annually on gold and gambling come into the BSE. The BSE can drive this mineral revolution, but for this to happen we need a minimum of at least 100 listed BSE exploration companies similar to Deccan Gold Mines.

His company currently has 20,000 shareholders. He wants a million and feels Deccan Gold Mines and raising capital via the BSE is the ideal platform for developing mining and exploration. He asserts that India does not need international mining concerns but small to medium-size enterprises. It has its own first-class geo scientists and its own potential investors.

From 20 years of exploration in India, Charles has discovered potential for at least 100 new mines. Based on his experience in Zimbabwe, he says the economic ripple effect of a diamond mine there impacted positively on child malnutrition up to as far away as 70 km from the mine. In India, 100 new mines would involve a capital expenditure each of $100 million, an average production annually of $100 million and a cost of production of about $40 million. According to Charles, this would have an economic ripple effect of up to 100 km from the mine. In terms of the impact on agricultural development, including cottage industries, by implication there would then be 100 economic platforms all over India each with an economic reach of 100 km.

There is an underpinning to the vision outlined here that places a certain amount of faith in capitalism and the private sector to deliver for the poor in an age of rampant neoliberalism, which has boosted inequality and place added burdens on ordinary folk and the poor. If the agriculture sector is to be reinvigorated then there are other ways of doing this that do not involve mining (for example, see this ‘Manifesto for farming’, here, here and here). It is just that the political will is lacking to move in an appropriate direction.

However, for the time being, not least because of the specific small-is-good Gandhian-type model being proposed, we should keep an open mind regarding what Charles Devenish is passionate in proposing: a vision for unlocking the potential of mining and ultimately rural India.

What Charles Devenish proposes can be examined in more detail in this report:

THE CRISIS IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE AND HOW THE MINING INDUSTRY COULD HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM (1)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Goose that Lays the Golden Egg: Mining, Capitalism and Gandhi, a Catalyst for Agriculture and Rural Development in India?

The Dutch Safety Board just released their investigation into the MH17 crash last summer and they concluded that the Malaysia Airlines 777 was brought down by the Ukrainian government.

Just kidding. They blamed it all on those dastardly Russians, of course. Or at least that’s what every MSM headline west of Donbass will tell you. The reality, as always, is somewhat less propagandistically perfect.

The report, titled simply “Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17” was released by the Dutch Safety Board this morning along with supplementary materials like “About the Investigation” and even a Brochure synopsis of the report’s findings.

The headline story is that the investigation has concluded that the plane was brought down by the detonation of a warhead to the left and above the cockpit of the plane. According to the report:

mh17-being-hit-with-a-missileAs a result of the explosion and the impact, the aeroplane broke up in mid air: the cockpit and the floor of the business class tore away from the fuselage almost instantly and crashed. The rest of the aeroplane continued to fly for approximately 8.5 kilometres in an easterly direction. Sections of the upper side of the aeroplane were torn off as air currents, moving at a speed of approximate 900 kilometres per hour (480 knots), took hold of the damaged aeroplane. Both wingtips broke away and the rear section of the fuselage fractured, causing the tail section to detach itself from the centre section.

Interestingly, the Russian delegation to the Dutch Safety Board investigation did not contest that the airplane was brought down by a warhead detonation. Even more interestingly, the Russians strongly contested the DSB’s placement of that detonation. The technical details of this disagreement are covered in Appendix L of the report, but the upshot of the wrangling is that the investigation pins the blame on a 9N314M warhead delivered by a BUK missile system from rebel-held territory and the Russians believe the culprit to be an outdated 9M38 warhead fired from government-held land. Or, in plain English, the Dutch are pointing the finger at the Russians and the Russians are pinning the blame on the Ukrainians. No surprises there.

The Russians, for their part, have an intriguing video of an experiment carried out by Almaz-Antey to back up their claims about the nature of the damage and its implications for determining the type of warhead that brought down the plane. The video shows two experiments, one conducted in July and one in October, in which BUK missiles are detonated near the cockpits of decommissioned Ilyushin Il-86 passenger airliners. According to the Russians, there is no indication that the DSB took these tests or their findings into account in their determination of the likely cause of MH17’s downing.

Although the finger-pointing is obviously going to dominate the headlines in the coming days, assigning blame for the crash is not even part of the DSB investigation’s purview. Instead, the actual criminal investigation into the crash is being conducted by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consisting of investigators from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine, with Malaysia as a “participant.” As Julie Levesque pointed out in a thorough article for Global Research last year, that JIT is not only under a “gag order” whereby the results of its investigation will be classified unless all members agree to its findings, but in that scheme Malaysia is not even entitled to the classified report if the other nations do not agree to it. Essentially, the Ukrainians are the co-investigators of an event that they are suspects in, and the Malaysians are junior partners who aren’t even worthy of full disclosure.

The actual point of the DSB investigation was to make recommendations on how to avoid a repeat of this event in the future. On that count, they raise an interesting point:

In the months before the crash, at least 16 military airplanes and helicopters were shot down in the eastern part of Ukraine. Ukrainian authorities were aware of this. They stated that, occasionally, weapon systems were used that could reach the cruising altitude of civil airliners. Yet, despite of all this, Ukraine did not close its airspace.

Indeed, why wasn’t the airspace over Eastern Ukraine closed to civilian air traffic at the time? Why were 160 flights passing over that region on the day of the MH17 shootdown alone? Unsurprisingly, answers to these questions are not forthcoming from Kiev.

PUTINmissilePerhaps the most interesting part of the whole report, however, is that its release comes at a time when blatant propaganda against the big, bad Ruskies is hitting a fever pitch. With the western hypocrisy in Syria being laid bare for the world to see by the latest Russian air strikes, can there be any doubt that the hyperventilating war hawks of the establishment press will jump on this report as another chance to blame the evils of the world on Moscow? Just as the original MH17 crash itself was immediately blamed on Putin (literally), kicking off the “new Cold War” in earnest, so this report will be used to whip the public into the next stage of Russophobia…despite the fact that almost no one will actually bother to read it.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dutch Safety Board Releases MH17 Report: Guess What They conclude?

Israeli prime minister targets Palestinian leaders in Israel as his ‘Mr Security’ image takes a beating 

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced a crackdown on Palestinian political leaders in Israel, blaming them for the current unrest, in what appeared to be an attempt to bolster his severely dented image as ‘Mr Security’.

After a lengthy meeting of the security cabinet on Sunday, Netanyahu directed officials to assemble the evidence to make possible the outlawing of the northern wing of the Islamic movement.

Led by Sheikh Raed Salah, the organisation is generally regarded as the most popular Islamic party among Israel’s 1.6 million Palestinian citizens, who comprise a fifth of the population.

Over the past two decades the movement’s standing among Palestinians has risen as it has taken an increasingly central role at the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City. Salah has accused Israel of trying to engineer a takeover of the site.

After Netanyahu’s announcement, he told reporters: “We are conducting exhaustive and meaningful discussions into the question of outlawing them. There is no question that we will take strong action.”

Separately, Netanyahu urged Israel’s attorney general to indict Haneen Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, or Knesset. She faces an investigation for incitement over an interview in which she reportedly called for Palestinians to converge on al-Aqsa to launch a “popular intifada”.

Ban on mosque visits

Last week the prime minister barred Palestinian Knesset members from accessing the al-Aqsa compound, after facing massive criticism from the right for his decision to ban Jewish MKs from visiting the site. He had said the measure would help “restore calm”.

Palestinian MKs have argued that Netanyahu has no authority to ban them from al-Aqsa, which under a long-standing agreement is managed jointly by Islamic religious authorities and Jordan.

Ahmed Tibi said treating alike the Palestinian MKs and settler leaders in the Knesset was “like saying a homeowner and the burglar who stole from him are the same”.

The MKs have vowed to demand entry to al-Aqsa on Wednesday, in defiance of the ban.

The site is seen as holy by Palestinians and by Jews, who refer to it as Temple Mount. The ruins of two Jewish temples are believed to lie underneath the compound.

Tensions have been rising in recent years as increasing numbers of Jews have begun visiting the site, often at the expense of Muslim worshippers. Israel has imposed restrictions on prayer and access for Palestinians, with men under the age of 50 repeatedly denied access.

Restrictions at al-Aqsa and the scenes of mounting casualties in the occupied territories have triggered protests in all major Palestinian towns in Israel in recent days, often ending in clashes with the police. More than 100 demonstrators have been arrested, including many minors.

At the weekend police chief Aharon Aksol accused the northern Islamic Movement of being the “guiding hand” behind the clashes and recent attacks on Israeli Jews.

Slump in poll ratings

Netanyahu’s hard line comes as his poll ratings have slumped following the upswing in violence, which has been accompanied by concerted attacks from rightwing rivals, including from within his own governing coalition. A survey of Israeli Jews at the weekend found 73 per cent were unhappy with his performance.

Both Avigdor Lieberman, of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Naftali Bennett, of the settler party Jewish Home, were more trusted to deal with the current crisis, the poll found.

“Netanyahu has no solutions for ending the unrest so he needs to find someone to blame,” said Asad Ghanem, a political scientist at Haifa University. “The Arab leaders in Israel generally, and the Islamic Movement in particular, are convenient scapegoats.”

The Islamic Movement split into two regionally led branches in the late 1990s over ideological differences. Salah’s wing, unlike the southern movement, rejects participation in the Knesset and is seen by Israel as more extreme.

Zoabi belongs to a democratic nationalist party, Balad, whose MKs have repeatedly fallen foul of Netanyahu. A joint Jewish-Arab Communist party has also come under fire after its leader, Ayman Odeh, was appointed earlier this year to head the Joint List, a coalition of all the Arab parties in the Knesset.

Conflicting pressures

Netanyahu’s difficulties have been exacerbated by the conflicting pressures he faces domestically and internationally.

At the weekend John Kerry, the US secretary of state, phoned him and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, urging them to reduce tensions.

But Netanyahu’s political rivals, from both the centre-left and right, have demanded tougher measures against Palestinians in the occupied territories and Israel, leaving Netanyahu looking indecisive and weak.

Lieberman called on Monday for Abbas’ Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to be overthrown, while Bennett has insisted on intensified settlement-building.

Meanwhile, Isaac Herzog, leader of the centre-left Zionist Union, demanded that the West Bank be sealed off. Netanyahu was forced to reject this measure after army commanders warned it would not reduce attacks and would open Israel to criticism that it was collectively punishing Palestinians.

“Netanyahu cannot admit the true causes of this kind of intifada are his occupation policies in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” said Amneh Badran, a Palestinian politics professor at al-Quds University in East Jerusalem.

Badran observed that Netanyahu had targeted the Islamic Movement because he was struggling to find a plausible group to blame in the occupied territories. Abbas’ PA and Islamic rivals Hamas have been effectively barred from Jerusalem, where the worst violence has taken place.

“The northern Islamic Movement is very organised and active in Jerusalem, and has been at the forefront of clarifying what Israel is doing at al-Aqsa,” said Badran. “Netanyahu sees the Islamic Movement as an obstacle that needs to be removed.”

Banned from al-Aqsa

The Islamic Movement has provided the main presence at the compound since Israel formally ended the PA’s links to Jerusalem in 2001 with the closure of Orient House. Fatah as an organised political movement in Jerusalem quickly faded afterwards.

Israel also cracked down harshly on Hamas representatives in Jerusalem following their success in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

Salah and many of the movement’s leaders are already banned either from visiting al-Aqsa or from entering Jerusalem.

Badran said outlawing the Islamic Movement would be certain to escalate tensions and clashes in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Israel’s domestic security service, the Shin Bet, is reported to have made a similar assessment.

Last week, Salah denounced what he called “unbridled incitement” against his wing of the movement, adding: “We will not yield to threats intended to cow supporters of Jerusalem and al-Aqsa.”

Zeki Aghbaria, a spokesman for the movement, told Middle East Eye: “Netanyahu has no authority to decide anything at al-Aqsa. We will continue the struggle to defend it whatever he decides.”

Last month, Israel also banned the Mourabitoun, a cadre of Islamic students based at the mosque. Clashes in the Old City and neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem increased dramatically in the days after the ban was imposed.

The group, which enjoys close ties to the northern Islamic Movement, has repeatedly confronted Jewish ultra-nationalists who also stake a claim to the site.

Salah and his followers believe Israel wishes to encroach on Islamic sovereignty at al-Aqsa so that the compound can be divided between Muslims and Jews, as occurred in the 1990s at the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron.

‘Hysterical aggression’

In an apparent reference to the Islamic Movement during his speech at the Knesset’s opening on Monday, Netanyahu said Israel’s “enemies” were “using mendacious propaganda about Temple Mount to make trouble”.

Underscoring his demand that Zoabi be tried for incitement, he accused her of calling for “wholesale terror against Israeli citizens”.

Zoabi told MEE Netanyahu had twisted her comments to suggest she was calling for an armed struggle. “I was arguing the opposite: that Palestinians in the occupied territories need to concentrate on a popular, non-violent intifada as a way to raise their morale and liberate themselves.

The stabbings we see every day are an expression of individual Palestinians’ sense of frustration and hopelessness. The attacks will end when Palestinians collectively find a better way to resist.

Of the attacks on her and the Islamic Movement, she said: “Netanyahu is falling back on his favourite trick – creating an enemy to generate fear among his followers. He has lost the issue of Iran, so now he needs me and the Islamic Movement.”

His hysterical aggression really reflects the fact that he is growing ever more politically impotent.

Comparison with Islamic State

Ghanem said the Israeli prime minister had sought to blur the differences between Salah’s movement, which disavows violence, and militant groups in the region.

Netanyahu has compared the northern movement both to Hamas, which fights Israel through its military wing, and to Islamic State, which has been leading violent campaign through Iraq and Syria, and has been linked to two large-scale suicide attacks in Turkey.

Ghanem said the Islamic Movement’s policies had not changed in the past 20 years. “They do not call for violence. They live in Israel and accept they must work within the laws.”

Netanyahu has been actively considering the closure of the northern Islamic Movement since last summer. However, the Shin Bet has previously warned him off a ban, fearing it would drive the movement underground.

On Monday a northern Islamic Movement leader, Sheikh Yusef Abu Gammah, was arrested, accused of inciting violence and organising an illegal gathering in the Bedouin town of Rahat in southern Israel.

Ghanem said he feared Netanyahu would not stop with Salah and his followers.

If Israel takes this major step against the northern Islamic Movement, there is a real danger that it will target next the Balad party [of Haneen Zoabi] and the southern Islamic Movement.

Netanyahu’s approach only serves to expose to the Arab population in Israel their true situation. They will react to this and relations will deteriorate still further.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Unrest Grows in Israel and Palestine, Netanyahu Seeks Scapegoats

EU Protests against the US initiated TTIP Trade Deal

October 14th, 2015 by Political Concern

As news comes today of the huge rally in Berlin we look back to Birmingham’s part in an April Global Day of Action that saw cities from across Europe saying no to TTIP. Hundreds of demonstrations took place across the weekend from London to Barcelona and tens of thousands marched in Germany alone.

Birmingham Friends of the Earth said: “TTIP threatens our NHS, our public services, our health and safety protections and, through decisions made in secret international courts, our democracy itself.

According to the Huffington Post, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table. TTIP includes Investor State Dispute Settlement, a provision giving companies the ability to sue governments for any regulations or interventions which damage their profits, making it much more difficult for governments to take meaningful action on climate. TTIP could also mean the EU accepting imports of Tar Sands oil and Shale Gas”.

A subservient EC?

In May the Guardian reported on recent revelations that in 2013, a high-level delegation from the American Chambers of Commerce (AmCham) visited EU trade officials to insist that the bloc drop its planned criteria for identifying EDCs in favour of a new impact study. Minutes of the meeting show European Commission officials pleading that “although they want the TTIP to be successful, they would not like to be seen as lowering the EU standards”.

 Health concerns

Draft EU criteria could have permitted the banning of 31 pesticides containing endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), but – amid fears of a trade backlash stoked by an aggressive US lobby push – legislation planned for 2014 was delayed until at least 2016, despite estimated health costs of €150bn per year in Europe from endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss, obesity and cryptorchidism – a condition affecting the genitals of baby boys. EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility were also shelved following pressure from US trade officials over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade deal.

Continuing to look at the 43 TTIP-related items on our database

In June we noted a SNJ report that Green MEP for the South West, Molly Scott Cato, ‘hit the stage at Glastonbury’. The Stroud-based economist joined campaigner Charlotte Church, civil liberties activist Shami Chakrabati and veteran politician Ken Livingstone to talk politics at the festival’s ‘Left Field’. She has been an outspoken critic of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade deal, describing it as a ‘corporate charter’. Greens have been at the forefront of the campaign against TTIP and this issue has seen the largest volume of correspondence from her constituents in the last year.

In July a reader from Tokyo (Pacific Rim countries are beset by a similar TPP negotiation) sent a link to this TTIP news:

ttip news

It recorded the remarkable extent to which the revolving door between the public and private sectors – featured on a number of blogs on this site – is helping to grease the wheels of the TTIP corporate lobby.

Five days ago Business Insider reported that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the transatlantic Safe Harbour agreement, which lets American companies use a single standard for consumer privacy and data storage in both the US and Europe, is invalid. The agreement is seen as crucial if the EU and US are to press on with their plans for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership free-trade deal.

Their reporters, James Cook and Rob Price, add that there is a growing mistrust with the US in Germany, the primary reasons being:

  • the scandal over mass electronic surveillance of Germans’ communications
  • and the escalating refugee crisis, which many see as a result of failed American policies in the Middle East.

A widely shared distrust.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU Protests against the US initiated TTIP Trade Deal

“Terrorist International” Takes Shape … Against Russia

October 13th, 2015 by Boris Volkhonsky

On October 1, Turkey and six other countries of the US-led coalition published a joint declaration expressing concern over Russia Air Force strikes against the militants in Syria. The signatories include the United States of America (as expected), the monarchies of Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Qatar that were also expected to join), as well as Great Britain, Germany and France.

The statement actually does not say anything extraordinary. Russia stole the initiative from the West. Instead of following the example of «anti-terrorist coalition» and delivering strikes against Syria’s government forces (which together with Kurds conduct combat actions against the militants of so-called Islamic State), Russia bombed the positions of the terrorists. It allowed the legitimate Syrian government to regroup forces, get a break and finally launch a ground offensive to clear the territory from the terrorist plague.

The expression of concern by the United States is logical and natural: Washington has spent great effort to train the «moderate» Syrian opposition (which mysteriously has turned into a source of weapons and manpower for «immoderate» groups). The start of the Russian operation may incur direct financial losses, let alone damage the image of the US.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that the monarchies of Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were eager to sign the statement. One may forget what country Osama bin Laden and the majority of terrorists, who seized the aircraft on September 11, 2001, came from. But it’s impossible to reject the fact that the Gulf monarchies (no matter all the real or imaginary contradictions and disagreements dividing them) are the main sponsors of major terrorist groups operating in the Greater Middle East – from Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and, especially, in Pakistan. In case of Saudi Arabia the overthrow of Bashar Assad is just the first step on the way to do away with Iran, its main opponent in the region.

It’s easy to explain why the declaration was initiated by Turkey. Ankara views the Islamic State as the only force able to nip in the bud the aspiration of Kurds, the divided people, for statehood. It makes pale such things of ‘little importance’ like cheap oil exported by militants from Iraq and Syria with Turkey being the main customer.

It’s worth to mention the position of Europe. The fact that London signed the declaration can be explained by the inability of the 51st US state to stop playing the role of American poodle on a leash. It obediently dances to the US tune. The participation of France and Germany seems to be a bit irrational.

So many things have happened in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Berlin and Paris could have realized that the events seemingly not interconnected meet the logic of US strategy aimed at creating an axis of instability. Its only goal is to preserve the unipolar world where West Europe plays the role of a passive satellite, not an independent actor.

The events in Ukraine occurred exactly when a Europe-Russia energy alliance started to loom and the US-led talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership got stalled. Just a coincidence, of course.

All these events let the United States to partially achieve the main goal – it has succeeded in driving a wedge between Europe and Russia, but the talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership did not make much progress. The United States had another ace up its sleeve. The civil war in Syria gave rise to the massive migrant flows threatening the very foundation of the European civilization and making European allies meekly ask the big brother overseas for help.

Russia’s resolute actions in Syria leave no chance for these plans. Supposedly, Europeans should breathe a sigh of relief. But it has not happened as yet.

What is the reason? Has the habit to snap to attention become so deeply enrooted? Have the Europeans left any thoughts about having a choice? Some analysts believe that the US National Security Agency has acquired serious compromising material to blackmail European leaders into agreement with Washington.

The hope is still looming that after some time Europe will realize where its real interests lie. The abovementioned declaration of the seven looks more like a creation of a new instrument of Washington. This time it has the form of an international alliance to support terrorists of the so-called Islamic State.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Terrorist International” Takes Shape … Against Russia
The Conservatives’ commitment to owning, renewing and using the UK’s nuclear weapons was cheered to the rafters at their party conference, writes David Lowry. But it has left them vulnerable to Corbyn at tomorrow’s Prime Minister’s Questions – should he decide to expose their nuclear hypocrisy.

Right now Jeremy Corbyn and his strategists are hard at work on a question of immense importance – tomorrow’s Prime Minister’s Questions.

And it’s just possible that they haven’t realised that David Cameron’s and Michael Fallon’s speeches to the Conservative Party conference have left Corbyn facing a gaping open goal.

And yes, it’s on a matter on which Corbyn is meant to be on the defensive, not the attack: nuclear weapons. Ever since he was elected as Labour Party Leader, he has come under heavy fire for his principled opposition to nuclear weapons of mass destruction in general, and Trident in particular.

The trouble kicked off with Corbyn’s unequivocal pledge last month never to use nuclear weapons. “I don’t think we should be spending £100bn on renewing Trident. That is a quarter of our defence budget”, Corbyn said in an interview on BBC Radio’s Today Programme.

“187 countries don’t feel the need to have a nuclear weapon to protect their security, why should those five need it themselves? We are not in the era of the Cold War any more … I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.”

Response: widespread media condemnation, and his own MPs and even Shadow Cabinet members denouncing his position in clear and certain terms, among them Hilary Benn, Angela Eagle and Andy Burnham.

Cue Tory Party conference

Pressing home his apparent advantage, Cameron told Andrew Marr on BBC1’s Sunday morning politics programme: “If you … believe like me that Britain should keep the ultimate insurance policy of an independent nuclear deterrent, you have to accept there are circumstances in which its use would be justified … If you give any other answer then you are, frankly, undermining our national security, undermining our deterrent.”

He went on to wax lyrical on the topic in his set-piece leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester: “My first duty as Prime Minister is to keep people safe. Our belief in strong defence and sound money …

“In government, I have a team who keep us safe at home and abroad … Justine Greening, Michael Fallon, Philip Hammond and Theresa May. And because our independent nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy, this Government will order four new trident submarines.”

The PM’s pro-Trident comments followed the equally robust backing given to nuclear weapons by defence secretary Michael Fallon, who made a typical red-meat rant to the swivel-eyed Tory faithful ‘representatives’. Having played the ‘Tories are the true patriots’ card, he turned to Labour’s equivocation over Trident (Leader against; Party against; most MPs for):

“How did [Labour] respond to their election defeat? By electing a leader who would weaken our national security – who would scrap Trident, leave NATO, and can’t think of circumstances in which he would use our Armed Forces. This is no time for Britain to retreat from the world, to let terror triumph, or to put our people in peril.

“The biggest investment decision this Parliament will have to take is to replace the ballistic missile submarines that provide our nuclear deterrent. For 46 years our deterrent has been deployed every hour of every day. Anyone thinking of ending this unbroken patrol has to be absolutely certain that no nuclear threats will emerge in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s.

“I’m not prepared to take that gamble so we will ask MPs of all parties to put national security first and support building four new ballistic missile submarines. And we won’t let any coalition of left-wing Labour MPs and the SNP stop us.”

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond maintained the theme in his own speech: “We now have a Labour Party which poses a serious risk to our national security … while we are renewing Britain’s nuclear deterrent, he wants to scrap it … Standing up to Russia because our security depends on upholding international law and punishing those who breach it.”

Tory sheep in wolves clothing?

The British public would never guess from these apparently diametrically opposite views that Corbyn and Cameron – and his defence and foreign secretaries – actually agree on the importance of nuclear disarmament.

Eight months ago, Mr Hammond foreign office mandarins hosted a two day high-level meeting at its London conference venue, Lancaster House, of senior diplomatic representatives of the other four members of the self-appointed nuclear weapons club on the United Nations Security Council, the so-called Permanent Five (P5).

This brought to London Wang Qun, Director General, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament for China; Hélène Duchêne, Director for Strategic Affairs for France; Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security for the United States; and Grigory Berdennikov, Ambassador-at-Large for Russia, to meet with the FCO’s top disarmament diplomat, Peter Jones, Director for Defence and International Security.

Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood told MPs at the time: “The London P5 Conference covered a wide range of issues relevant to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, encompassing disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

After their meeting on 6 February the P5 diplomats issued a joint statement through the Foreign Office stressing, in a very interesting passage co-signed by Russia:

“At their 2015 Conference the P5 restated their belief that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains the essential cornerstone for the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and is an essential contribution to international security and stability …

“The P5 reaffirmed that a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament that promotes international stability, peace and undiminished and increased security for all remains the only realistic and practical route to achieving a world without nuclear weapons.”

Barely weeks before, Mr Fallon had told MPs in a Parliamentary debate on Trident: “we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.” (Hansard, 20 January 2015, column 105)

You would scarcely believe it from the red-blooded rants at the Tory conference last week. You would not believe either from the British mainstream media’s jingoistic tub-thumping pro-bomb reportage that opposition to nuclear weapons is the norm outside our narrow, myopic politics.

So here is the trap that Corbyn can set for Cameron in tomorrow’s PMQs: challenge him to agree with the earlier  statements on the necessity of nuclear disarmament made by his own ministers and agreed by the P5.

If Cameron agrees, victory for Corbyn. If he dissents, the deadly follow-up question: “Is the Prime Minister aware that these statements with which he so vehemently disagrees are those of his own ministers?”

But the real point has to be, not to score points in PMQs, but to bring about a much needed restoration of nuclear sanity in British politics.

The broad movement against nuclear weapons

There is in fact nothing ‘extreme’ or ‘unpatriotic’ in the idea that the world should get rid of nuclear weapons.

For example, peaking at the Hay literary festival in 2013 the hugely respected international statesman and former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix pointedly asked if Trident was “required to protect UK independence or UK pride?” He went on to insist that it is time for Britain to halt its Trident nuclear programme.

Harold Wilson led the Labour Party to victory in the 1964 General Election – at the height of the Cold War and only two years after the Cuban Missile crisis – backed by an anti-nuclear election manifesto that stated:

“We are not prepared any longer to waste the country’s resources on endless duplication of strategic nuclear weapons. We shall propose the renegotiation of the Nassau agreement” to buy Polaris, the predecessor of Trident.

“Our stress will be on the strengthening of our conventional regular forces so that we can contribute our share to Nato defence and also fulfil our peacekeeping commitments to the Commonwealth and the UN. We are against the development of national nuclear deterrents.”

Last month on 29th September, the Senate of Jordan held a special session on nuclear abolition which was attended by all 75 members. Abdur-Rauf Rawabdeh, President of the Senate, stated: “Israel’s insistence on possessing nuclear weapons and its refusal to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty will most likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the region.”

For this reason, Mr Rawabdeh added, “it is vital to increase political will for a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons”, and to “support the Iran deal as an important step towards the achievement of such a zone.” Countries must, he continued, “activate the United Nations Charter that bans war and stipulates that conflicts should be resolved through negotiations and international law.”

Jordan’s position is a modern day reflection of the very first resolution of the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, held in London in January 1946, which included the bold call for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.”

That was followed, in 1955, by the Mainau Declaration against nuclear weapons, signed by Albert Einstein – perhaps the greatest scientific genius of the last century – and over 50 other Nobel laureates.

We must welcome the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has brought the spirit of the UN’s admirable first resolution and the Mainau Declaration home to British politics. We can only hope that his sanity is contagious – both within his party, and across the spectrum of British politics.

Dr David Lowry is Senior research fellow, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain’s WMD: Jeremy Corbyn’s Chance to Strike a Blow for Nuclear Sanity

Exponentially Rising Global Terrorism

October 13th, 2015 by Stephen Lendman

Washington’s war on terror is a war OF terror on humanity, largely responsible for exponentially rising incidents worldwide.

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) recorded around 18,000 in 2013, up 60% over the previous year – holding ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Taliban most responsible.

All are US creations. Washington’s so-called war to defeat terrorism increased it exponentially, what lunatics in Washington intended.

GTI reported 3,361 incidents in 2000, up dramatically to 11,133 in 2012 and 17,958 in 2013, likely 20,000 or more when final 2015 figures are published. US imperialism bears full responsibility for the exponentially rising numbers.

As long as US direct and proxy wars rage, expect terrorist incidents to keep rising annually. In 2013, 80% of terrorist fatalities occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Nigeria, said GTI.

The Homeland Security-funded University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) publishes a Global Terrorism Database (GTD), beginning with the 9/11 attacks, its figures differing somewhat from GTI’s.

Saying since George Bush declared “war on terror” post-9/11, global terrorists attacks increased ninefold – from 1,882 in 2001 to 16,818 in 2014.

It names the same five countries as GTI, accounting for 80% of the incidents, it said.

These indexes and similar reports exclude what’s most important to know. Wars are acts of state terrorism. What’s absent from the above numbers are the millions of fatalities they cause, post-9/11 alone – from violence, diseases, starvation and overall deprivation.

America is an unparalleled state terrorist, responsible for more willfully caused deaths in its history than any other rogue state by far, greatly exceeding the most notorious regimes.

Its killing machine keeps operating unrestrained, waging endless wars on humanity at home and abroad.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Exponentially Rising Global Terrorism

Russia shook Western military expectations last week by using its Caspian Fleet to launch a surprise cruise missile strike against Syrian-based terrorists. The US and its allies were totally caught off guard by this development, and their sloppy response to it proves so. Having not anticipated this scenario whatsoever in advance, they reacted by initiating a feeble and completely predictable psychological war against Russia, alleging without any proof whatsoever that some of the missiles crashed in Iran en route to their destination.

This unimaginative response reveals the extent of how desperate the US is to publicly react to what Russia had done. To understand why the US establishment is currently in a panic so acute that it can’t even carry out its propaganda operations properly (not that it ever had before, but the latest dud is quite embarrassing), consider what strong and clear messages Moscow conveyed to the rest of the world through its recent Caspian cruise missile strike:

The US Wartime Cruise Missile Monopoly Is Over:

Russia proved that it, too, can use cruise missiles to assist in its ongoing military operations, thus confirming that it has achieved the battlefield-tested experience to practice what had hitherto been the exclusive strategic domain of the US military. This puts Russia in the same elite league as the US when it comes to this capability, thus prompting the Pentagon to nervously wonder whether the Kremlin has in fact finally reached a certain level of parity when it comes to conventional force projection. If the US reluctantly (and belatedly) recognizes that this is the case, then it might perhaps adjust its provocative posture towards Russia by taking this ‘new’ military realization into consideration.

The Caspian Is Key For Mideast-Central Asian Operations:

Military commentator Ilya Kramnik put it best when he said that Russia demonstrated “that [its] navy can carry out strategic missions from deep inside the continent”, meaning that the ‘inland lake’, long thought by the West to be useless from a typical naval perspective, is actually key for projecting military force throughout the Mideast and Central Asian regions. The latter space is especially relevant in the event that the Kremlin ever needs to take immediate and decisive action against ISIL’s Afghanistan-based Russian terrorists, although doing so would require gaining the emergency airspace approval of its Turkmen and Afghan counterparts.

Furthermore, the fact that the missiles traveled through Iranian and Iraqi airspace on their way to Syria underlines not only the military cooperation between all parties, but also that a broad Caspian corridor has been created to directly connect them all. This air corridor can be used not only for missile strikes (some of which could realistically hit Iraqi-based terrorists upon Baghdad’s request), but also the transport of Russia air assets into Syria and/or Iraq.  Also of note is that the 1,500 kilometers that the Kalibr missiles travelled are long enough to make the Persian Gulf-based Fifth Fleet think twice about whether it’s still safe from potential Russian-based targeting.

Brzezinski Is Outed As A False Political Prophet:

Former National Security Advisor and influential American-Polish strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski was proven to be the reckless ideologue that Russians have always known him as. Writing for the Financial Times just days before the cruise missile strike, he provocatively suggested that “The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland. They could be “disarmed” if they persist in provoking the US.” Lo and behold, Russia publicly humiliated him by demonstrating that his assessment wasn’t true at all, and that Caspian-based naval assets could be used to support the country’s units in Syria. By responding in a manner that had been so unexpected for Brzezinski to conceive of, Russia’s strategists highlighted just how stale the thinking of the US’ geopolitical ‘gray cardinal’ has become.

Russia Will Muster All Domains To Fight Terrorism:

NATO was aghast at what Secretary General Stoltenberg termed “a troubling escalation” after the cruise missile strikes were launched, but what really troubles the military bloc is that Russia has once more shown its willingness to harness all available domains when involved in a conflict. While ground troops are out of the equation, the armaments, equipment, and training that Russia provides to the Syrian Arab Army make for a suitable substitute in this situation, and the Russian Aerospace forces had previously taken the lead in the anti-terrorist struggle. Now, one can add the Russian Navy to the list of the country’s armed forces that are active in the war, and the sea-air interaction between it and its Aerospace counterparts is what really scares NATO the most.

There Are No More Excuses For US Civilian Causalities:

The US and its associated information organs had made quite a stink over the past couple of years about how far ‘behind’ Russia supposedly is when compared to the West, especially in the military sphere through its accused deference to ‘hybrid wars’, hence why it should have been all the more surprising to their citizens (and the policy makers that actually believe their own propaganda) that Russia could carry out a 1,500 kilometer-long cruise missile strike with pinpoint precision.

Russia’s military success in accurately hitting all far-off targets comes right after a US airstrike in Afghanistan “mistakenly” destroyed a less distantly located hospital operated by the Doctors Without Borders NGO. Put another way, Russian missiles purposefully hit the right terrorist targets from as far away as the distance between Washington DC and Miami, but American gunships can’t hit the Taliban from a distance at most equivalent to the length of Washington DC. This dramatic comparison says all that one needs to know about the inexcusability of American-inflicted casualties across the globe, and questions whether they’re just the result of poorly trained operators or part of a more nefarious “shock-and-awe” strategy of intimidation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Moscow Conveyed Through Its Caspian Cruise Missile Strike against Terrorist Strongholds in Syria

Two rockets have reportedly hit the Russian embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus, with no further details available at this point.

Early reports on Tuesday morning indicate that Takfiri terrorists fired two shells at the embassy as scores of people had gathered around the compound to express appreciation for Moscow for its air support in Syria’s battle against militants in the country.

An AP report said that the fist shell struck an area inside the Russian embassy in central Damascus and “smoke billowed from inside.” It added that the next shell landed in the area as people were fleeing the site.

This is while Russian press reports cite eyewitnesses as saying that “several shells” exploded “outside” the Russian embassy.

There has yet been no report of casualties following the attack.

‘Act of terrorism’

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is cited by the local RIA Novosti news agency as saying that Russia considers the shelling of its embassy compound in Damascus as an act of terrorism.

The foreign-backed terrorists on the outskirts of the Syrian capital have targeted the Russian embassy in the past but it was not immediately clear whether the Tuesday morning attack was intended at the pro-Russia demonstration or the embassy itself.

Russia launched an aerial campaign against terrorists in Syria on September 30 at the request of the Damascus government.

More than 250,000 people have lost their lives in the violence fueled by foreign-backed Takfiri groups in Syria since March 2011. The Syrian army has been engaged in heavy battles against the extremist militants on many fronts across the country over the past four years.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rockets hit Russian Embassy in Damascus. Al Qaeda Terrorists Fired Two Shells at Embassy

The ego of Janet Yellen has broken into a thousand pieces. The new data published some days ago by the US Department of Labor confirms the hypothesis of economist Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, who has maintained since last year that the United States’ labour market was much more fragile than was presumed by the head of the Federal Reserve.

In her public discourses, the president of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, has avoided the serious problems that the United States economy suffers. When in mid-September the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) took the decision to maintain the federal funds rate between zero and 0.25% the target of Yellen’s worries was directed to China[1] and the debts of emerging economies[2].

In accord with the President of the Federal Reserve, the process of recovery of the North American economy has been strengthening for considerable time. And, because of this, if the FOMC has not raised the cost of credit is due, above all, to a high rate of “obligation” and “responsibility” with the rest of the world.

Nevertheless, the truth is that the United States economy is not exactly in good health. The labour market data published during the 12 months before March of 2015 is not as robust as was presumed by the Federal Reserve: the Department of Labor recognized recently that it had overestimated the jobs created by the private sector by at least 255,000[3].

On the other hand, during the month of September the non-agricultural employment reached 143,000, much less than the 200,000 hoped for[4]. The greatest reversals were in sectors tied to external trade and energy. The rise of the dollar, and the fall in prices of commodities and the extreme weakness of global demand with the rest of the world precipitated the structural deterioration of the US economy.

The bad news does not end here: the numbers of the jobs generated in July and August were also lower[5]. Now we know that in August only 136,000 jobs were created, rather than the 176,000 originally reported: while in the month of July there were created 21,000 fewer jobs than those counted in the previous revision.

Hence with the data actualized by the Department of Labor, in the United States there were registered an average of 167,000 new jobs between July and September, an amount that represents less than 65% of the 260,000 (average per month) that were created during the previous year.

The policies of the Federal Reserve are not capable of increasing the economy by their own efforts[6]. Yellen bet everything on a reduction of the unemployed, hence businesses would be pressured to increase wages, so that the acquisitive power of families and price levels would increase (inflation).

This has not happened. While the rate of unemployment fell from 5.7 to 5.1% between January and September of this year, hourly wages hardly increased 2.2% in annual terms the past month, still far from the levels reached before the crisis, when increases above 4% were noted. Inflation has not succeeded in passing 2% in more than 3 years, the objective of the US central bank[7].

Hence it is now clear that the fall of the unemployment rates in recent months depends more on the reduction of the rate of participation in the labour market — as a consequence of the despair of thousands of US citizens — and less on the creation of quality long range jobs: on Friday October 2 it was announced that in September 350,000 persons abandoned the search for work[8]. There is no turning around, in the United States job growth has been submerged in stagnation.

Ariel Noyola Rodriguez is an economist who graduated from the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Translation: Jordan Bishop.

 

Notes:

Russia Today.

[1] «Look to China for clues on when the Fed will raise rates», John Authers, The Financial Times, September 18, 2015.

[3] «Current Employment Statistics Preliminary Benchmark Announcement», U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 17, 2015.

[5] «Grim Jobs Report Is Likely to Delay a Move by the Fed on Rates», Patricia Cohen, The New York Times, October 2, 2015.

[6] «Fed’s decision to hold rates adds to the uncertainty», Dan McCrum, Robin Wigglesworth & Elaine Moore, The Financial Times, September 25, 2015.

[7] «Deflation is the worst nightmare for the United States», by Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, Translation Jordan Bishop, Russia Today (Russia), Voltaire Network, 20 September 2015.

[8] «What the Terrible September Jobs Report Means for the Economy», Neil Irwin, The New York Times, October 2, 2015.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Federal Reserve is in Panic: the Growth of Employment is “Submerged in Economic Stagnation”

Israel: The Most Dangerous Place in the World for any Jew

October 13th, 2015 by Anthony Bellchambers

Out of a global Jewish population of 14.3 million, the minority of the 6 million who currently live in Israel are, statistically, substantially at far greater risk of political or religious inspired violence than any Jew in America or Europe.

The primary cause of the now endemic violence is the inability of the indigenous population of the region to accept the imposition of a Jewish state in a Middle East that has been predominately Muslim for well over a thousand years.

It is now clear that, in view of the increasing enmity engendered in both Arab and Jewish populations since 1948, when the State of Israel was established by the then minority representative United Nations, there will now never be a settlement between the opposing factions. On the contrary, violence is currently increasing exponentially as positions harden.

That being the case, it would seem that any voluntary immigrant into Israel is placing themselves at personal risk of violence. Not, one might well conclude, an ideal place for retirement and many are coming to the inevitable conclusion that ­ despite an element of occasional, mainly low­key, anti-Semitism ­ there is now a strong case to be made for dumping Israeli residence in favour of the obvious security of New York, Philadelphia, Paris, Toronto and London ­ where Jewish communities have lived peacefully since before Mr Netanyahu was born, and still do.

As for the Holy City of Jerusalem: now is the time for the UN to take control of what has already been designated an ‘international city’ and to implement that control with a permanent contingent of UN troops whose remit must be to allow free access to all faiths, in perpetuity.

 

Notes:

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Palestine:

 The resolution recommends that the United Kingdom (as mandatory power for Palestine) evacuate; armed forces should withdraw no later than August 1, 1948; independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem administered by the United Nations should come into existence; the City of Jerusalem should preserve the interests of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths.


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel: The Most Dangerous Place in the World for any Jew

Last year, I stopped travelling to Indonesia. I simply did… I just could not bear being there, anymore. It was making me unwell. I felt psychologically and physically sick.

Indonesia has matured into perhaps the most corrupt country on Earth, and possibly into the most indoctrinated and compassionless place anywhere under the sun. Here, even the victims were not aware of their own conditions anymore. The victims felt shame, while the mass murderers were proudly bragging about all those horrendous killings and rapes they had committed. Genocidal cadres are all over the government.

Don’t get me wrong: there is really nothing wrong with maturity. But instead of maturing elegantly into something noble, like a precious wine, Indonesia just decayed into disgusting vinegar, or spoiled milk, or most likely into something much, much more sinister – a monstrous decomposing carcass in the middle of a once socialist, progressive and anti-imperialist Asia.

After the 1965 coup backed by the US, Australia and Europe, some 2-3 million Indonesians died, in fact were slaughtered mercilessly in an unbridled orgy of terror: teachers, intellectuals, artists, unionists, and Communists vanished. The US Embassy in Jakarta provided a detailed list of those who were supposed to be liquidated. The army, which was generously paid by the West and backed by the countless brainwashed religious cadres of all faiths, showed unprecedented zeal, killing and imprisoning almost everyone capable of thinking. Books were burned and film studios and theatres closed down.

Women from the left-wing organizations, after being savagely raped, had their breasts amputated. They were labeled as witches, atheists, sexual maniacs and perverts.

Professional militant Christian cadres from Holland and other Western countries landed in Indonesia well before the coup. They were entrusted with the radicalization of Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics and the Indonesian military. They labeled Communists and other leftists as “dangerous atheists” and began an indoctrination and training campaign aimed to liquidate them.

The right-wing Chinese individuals, mostly traitors who just escaped from their Communist revolutionary homeland, happily joined the fascist putsch-nick clique and later the murderous, whoring and treasonous regime of General Suharto. They joined it as snitches and “preachers”. The Chinese minority in Indonesia, while undoubtedly suffering from certain discrimination, had joined the most oppressive domestic and foreign forces, shamelessly collaborating with military fascism, Western imperialism and the savage capitalist system, which it itself had helped to establish. Because of its control over the crucial part of the local “economy” (read: plunder of the natural resources) and its ownership of the countless brainwashing media outlets and private educational facilities, the Chinese minority in Indonesia has been playing a decisive and devastating role in the spectacular collapse of post-1965 Indonesia.

After the slaughters of 1965/66, everything resembling the Revolution and the People’s Republic of China was banned and obliterated in Indonesia, including red color, the Chinese language, and the word “Communism” itself. Some of it was “inconvenient”, but overall, the Chinese right-wing anti-Communist émigrés in Indonesia finally had it their way! Suharto’s fascism was definitely closer to their hearts than the anti-Western-imperialism and the power sharing between the progressive Muslim leader Sukarno and his “golden child”, the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI).

After the genocide, the great selling of Indonesia began. Corruption and privatization went hand in hand. Ideological and intellectual blindness were administered to the population.

The murder and rape of millions, theft of everything that used to belong to the nation…

Thus was committed the greatest treason of the 20th century.

Roughly 50 years after this disaster took place, I broke my self-imposed ban and visited Indonesia once again.

*

This time, I did not come to Indonesia for academic work. In fact, I have fully divorced myself from academia, now considering it as prostituted and defunct as journalism. Philosophy has to break itself free from academia and its institutions. Philosophy deals with life, while contemporary academia represents intellectual death.

My damning book, “Indonesia: Archipelago of Fear”, was published more than 3 years ago by Pluto in London, then translated and published by Badak Merah into the Indonesian language. Other translations followed. Enough of theory!

I came back once again to breathe polluted air and to see the ruins of Indonesian society – ruins visible all over the capital. I came to observe the uninspired expressions on people’s faces, to once again experience the totally collapsed infrastructure. I came to face the society that had liquidated almost all science, philosophy and arts, and where local workers are now unable to even put two simple tiles together in a matching manner, much less construct a spaceship or passenger jet.

I returned to shout and to curse, and to write this as a warning to those who still think that a savage capitalism could actually work, that a country that would allow its “elites” to turn it into a doormat (or worse) of the West, could simply survive, let alone thrive.

I came to say what is clear but “forbidden” to say: “Indonesia died! It is finished. It was murdered some time between 1965 and now. It will never get back to its feet. People living there do not really live in a country, but inside a horrific, decaying cadaver.”

The only way forward would be a revolution, as Pramoedya Ananta Toer used to say. A total revolution, a reset! Return to what was destroyed in 1965. Bury the corpse, put on trial all those who have been committing treason, and start from zero, from the beginning!

This is reality, and it does not require footnotes or quotations!

*

But back to the deal between Empire and local “elites”:

The deal was clear: the West allowed the putsch-nicks and their religious and “educationalist” lackeys to rob the nation, tolerating the lowest forms of corruption. But, in exchange, they had to guarantee that the Indonesian people would to be kept thoroughly brainwashed and uneducated, never demanding the return of the Communist Party, never striving for great patriotic ideals and never questioning market fundamentalism and the indiscriminate looting of Indonesia’s natural resources.

The Christians that were put “in charge” were those from the most deranged evangelical sects, braced by the imported army of North American and Australian intelligence/religious cadres. “Prosperity Gospel” and “Pentecostals” were the most successful implants. The preachers listening to Voice of America and reading Western economic journals were suddenly in control.

Saudi-style Wahhabi Western allies shamelessly sidelined almost all socialist brands of local Islam, and the most militant and intolerant varieties of otherwise progressive and socialist Muslim religion began their destructive, totalitarian and intellectually ruinous activities.

The West, its media and academia, started unashamedly backing all fascist cultural dogmas: including regressive religious and family structures.

Not only that – they kept spreading the most grotesque lies: about “how tolerant Indonesia became”, and “how moderate” it is. “Third largest democracy” was how the Western demagogues have constantly described the country without one single pro-people or anti-imperialist political party. Indonesia is called “the largest economy of Southeast Asia”, a totally misleading definition, considering that Indonesia has more than three times more people that any other nation in the region. And could it really be called an “economy”, something that produces hardly anything and lives predominately from the unbridled plunder of its natural resources, as well as from the resources of colonized Papua, where Indonesia has been committing horrific and silent genocide?

The local media has continuously quoted all this propaganda and disinformation, quite logically, considering that corrupt business interests own virtually all of it.

After the regime murdered around 40% of teachers in Java alone, the education system fell to the hands of totally ignorant but zealous morons: themselves collaborators with the West. These people were nothing more than cynical and money hungry businessmen and businesswomen, but definitely not educators. Spreading ignorance and stupidity was not only their mission; it was a natural way of expressing themselves, their method of interacting with the world.

After years of the horrid plunder of the resources, of incongruous religious gaga, of censuring of everything deep and creative, and after preventing Indonesian youth from getting real knowledge about the world, the country of Indonesia began eventually resembling what it is not: a nation of 300 million people (the government lies about the numbers, too, as I was told by several leading UN statisticians while I was working on my book) without one single thinker (now that people from the PKI and Sukarno era, like Pramoedya Ananta Toer, passed away), without one single internationally recognizable scientist or a musician or  public intellectual…

Dirt everywhere, horrendous immoral social contrasts on every corner… Range Rovers and Gucci boutiques right next to open sewers and children showing clear signs of malnutrition. There are hardly any parks in Indonesia, no waste treatment plants, and hardly any sidewalks or public playgrounds for children. There are no public educational television channels, while public libraries are almost-not existent – a shocking contrast to Malaysia. Water is, of course, privatized.

The nation stopped reading. One bookstore after another is closing down. It only translates a few hundred titles each year, most of them commercial. Translations are of horrendous quality.

Nothing, almost nothing, works. There are constant blackouts, and the roads are uneven and narrow. Even trans-Java “highways” are two-lane, narrow potholed tracks, of a worse quality than some village roads in Thailand or Malaysia. Traffic jams are all over, in the cities and countryside, as even poor people have to rely on private vehicles and infrastructure that has already collapsed many years ago.

Internet and phone signals are so bad that when I was editing my films, I was forced to fly to Singapore in order to upload some larger files.

Old ferries are sinking, airplanes are falling from the sky, and trains keep derailing.

No forests are left intact. The entire nation is logged out, mined out – ruined, screwed!

And the West is dancing on that horrid Indonesian carcass, celebrating! Yes, celebrating! It loves, it adores this “democratic”, “tolerant” nation which is in ruins. Instead of thinking, Indonesia is listening to some repulsive pop, grinning idiotically, producing incomprehensible squeaks and giggles befitting a mental institution, sacrificing itself oh-so-generously to the wellbeing of Western corporations and governments!

*

And so I came again, for just a few days, to show my feature documentary film at a small, new film club at TIM in Jakarta… the only film club, with 45 seats for an entire nation of 300 million inhabitants. I came to show my film about the 1965 Coup, called “Terlena – Breaking of A Nation”, which I produced some 11 years ago. It was the first feature documentary film ever made about the 1965 “events”.

I watched my own film and suddenly felt devastated, because my old friends had “departed” several years ago, and I missed them… Abdurrahman Wahid, a former President of Indonesia, a progressive Muslim leader and a closet socialist, who was “discreetly” overthrown by the “elites”…  Pramoedya Ananta Toer, the greatest Indonesian thinker and paramount Southeast Asian writer…

I looked as their faces on the screen, faces so dear to me, and I thought: “How alive you were! Even when you were old and ill, how strong and determined was your will. How alive was your generation that grew up on the socialist fervor of great President Sukarno, father of the non-aligned movement… how alive you were compared to this cynical, greedy, brainwashed “young generation” of the corporate whores, of covetous nitwits, of the pathetic, emotionless, selfish and empty moral and intellectual degenerates!”

After the screening, predictable questions came from the audience: “what is to be done?” and later: “what do you think about the young generation in Indonesia?”

I thought about some of those young social media damsels, who had come to me in the past, begging to be ‘educated’ and ‘brainwashed back into reality’… They ‘wanted to work for humanity’, they said. I thought about how they were faking and lying, and how they betrayed and ran away, always, at the slightest sign of danger… How they ran back to their fascist clans whenever they were whistled for, how they dove immediately and directly into the rectums of their corrupt and venomous parents and grandparents… I also thought about the students at the University of Indonesia – arrogant, disinterested, banging into their phones and eating shit food during the lectures, even when presented with some tiny bits of essential information.

“Young generation?” I wondered. In Indonesia, they felt like some old nomenclature, even at the age of 15: endless idiotic Barbie dolls on thin legs… Those of the “elites”, I mean… the rest were just slaves, exploited, humiliated and fully conditioned not to ask and not to know. “Young elites” – embarrassing parodies of the movers and shakers from Wall Street. So pathetic! No individuality, dreams, talent, hard work; no revolutionary and rebellious spirit! The same crappy, sugary pop music and Hollywood films, the same Starbucks lattes…  While outside, the nation was burning, choking on its own smoke and excrements, collapsing and murdering in some of the most horrendous genocides in the modern history – East Timor before, and Papua now.

Damned collaborators with the Western fascism! Bloody ass-lickers of the colonialists! And nobody thinks about shaving their head as punishment for selling themselves and the country to the Empire! That Indonesian boo-boo, coo-coo, absurd “young” (really, young?) generation!

I spoke. They listened. Then they went home. I think my shouting provided some entertainment. Nothing more. I was not shouting in Quito or Caracas. I was shouting in Jakarta. Most likely, nothing could be revolutionized here anymore.

*

The next day, I wanted to see a rhino at “Safari Park”, outside the city of Bogor, but police decided to torture people and it blocked, for no apparent reason, the highway exit. They did it for several hours, just to show that it could… This way the thugs were able to sell their junk, and ‘guides’ could take motorists through back roads. Booty was shared with the police, of course. Everything was corrupted: even a motorway could be blocked so police and gangs could make extra cash! I somehow managed to leave the highway, after my lungs began threatening to collapse from pollution.

I tried to make it to Bogor, to those old and famous Botanic Gardens, that were until recently one of the very few public places in Indonesia. But when I arrived, I saw devastation: the gardens were now systematically destroyed by some horrid construction project. Ancient trees have been cut down to give way to yet another revolting sprawl of parking lots. A historic bridge had been torn down and a new one was being built, obviously in order to change a predominately pedestrian area into a driveway. Instead of serenity, there was loud pop junk music, coming from all directions.

Then I was going on yet another stretch of clogged highway… and then I witnessed and smelled a mountain of garbage burning in the middle of Jakarta.

There were some deformed, gangrenous beggars in the middle of the highway and at several major intersections…

In Jakarta, a former bookstore that I used to frequent was now converted into a fruit shop. For dinner, I ate disgusting food at overpriced restaurants, where the waiters were clearly “somewhere else”, unable to even keep their eyes open, or to concentrate on what they were being told.

Several Ferraris were in between all this, and also a few Prada stores… and those enormous, monstrous advertisement billboards promoting cigarettes as something cool and hip.

There was no beauty in sight. No beauty at all. All gone.

While in the traffic jams, I tried to work. But how could I? The Internet was collapsing, and mobile phones hardly functioned. I’d written about it so many times, so why was I surprised?

*

50 years since the coup. A real anniversary – what many Indonesians are genuinely proud of! Their moment in the limelight! Their betrayal of all great ideals and their submission and surrender to the West.

Again, I wanted to run away. I felt physically sick here: a revolutionary, a rebel, and a philosopher in this land of obedience and intellectual collapse.

So, I ran. From canals clogged with unimaginable filth, garbage… from deformities of children and adults, but with Louis Vuitton boutiques in the background… from sickening betrayals, and from constant lies, from long uninterrupted silences, from the inability to rely on almost anyone, from the absolute and total lack of poetry, and from joylessness, from bleakness, from the absence of love. Yes, above all, from the absence of love.

During the 72 hours that I spent in the place that I consider to be the closest to hell (and I have seen more than 150 countries on this Earth), I suddenly recalled so many things that I tried to bury and forget: from the stench of the mutilated bodies of gang raped women in Ermera, East Timor, to those hundreds of poor animals slaughtered in the Surabaya zoo, so that some corrupt “international” project could go on.

I recalled how, after the tsunami in Aceh, the Indonesian soldiers and police, instead of helping traumatized victims, were blackmailing the volunteers, demanding money and threatening to cut with their knives those precious barrels of drinking water if the bribes were not forthcoming. I remembered bodies decomposing in the pits, because no government worker would lift his finger and operate heavy equipment without being “greased”.

Oh Indonesia, you are a true daughter of turbo-capitalism, of the lowest religious aspirations, of senseless obedience, notorious lack of education and knowledge, and unimaginable brutality and lack of compassion!

I saw so much shit during the 20 years that I tried to document your downfall!

I saw deranged Christian preachers, their sadistic and fanatic eyes popping in ISIL-style zeal, locking up, for years, their adult daughters, simply because they wanted to marry non-Christian men.

I witnessed Christian religious services in Surabaya malls, where totally molded idiots preachers were declaring with absolute conviction: “God loves the rich, and that is why they are rich!” I observed some English-language church services performed by US and Australian intelligence apparatchiks… complete with bizarre and repulsive pop gospels, accompanied by ass wiggling of thrilled matrons and young girls. I saw racist, bigoted extremist Sunni Muslims, paid and conditioned by the Saudi Wahhabis, destroying Shi’a villages in the middle of backward and desperate island of Madura.

I saw a little girl running away from a burning mosque in Ambon, and a Christian boy trying to escape from a gang of Wahhabi youth. They cut him to pieces, at the end, with their machetes…

I saw so many fires and ashes, and so much intolerance, stupidity and hate! I saw what replaced a once great and proud nation governed by a progressive Muslim President who trusted and relied upon the great and democratic Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI).

I saw clearly what capitalism, what imperialism, ignorance and fascist indoctrination can do!

*

And deep inside I swore: “I will re-edit Terlena! I will re-edit that film of mine, damn it!”

I swore, and it made me feel much better.

Indonesia is the greatest untold story that I know – the story about what imperialism is capable of doing!

Entire islands deforested, robbed: enormous Borneo and Sumatra… Tortured elephants and great apes… Corruption and theft… Filth everywhere, on the surface of the earth, and inside people’s brains.

The collapse of humanism… the collapse of humanity. The persistent ruin of intellectualism, creativity, compassion and tenderness…

I ran, but as I did, I felt those millions and millions of hands trying to hold me, trying to slow me down. “We are alone, we are forgotten” I heard voices. “Stay little bit longer… Write a few more books, write a few more essays, and make films… Do not abandon us!”

I knew I would do what they were asking. I would leave and come back again. For those slaughtered and defenseless creatures, for the ruined rainforest, for the millions of interrupted lives…

I would come back out of spite for those who ruined Indonesia.

I would come back to warn the world.

I would come back, so I could call murderers by their real names, and give collaborators the titles that they deserve.

As I was leaving, I knew I would soon return and expose the full horrors of the Indonesian experiment that has been conducted on the local people by the sadistic Western regime, by its religions and its capitalist dogmas.

I knew that I would expose local collaborators. That is how revolutions begin!

I would give back, years and decades after they passed away, at least some dignity to those Indonesians who lived and fought and were killed. To those Indonesians who knew how to love passionately and desperately, fully and selfishly, each other and their Nation, and who were therefore eternally alive!

I knew one day soon I would return and re-make my film. For “them”! And my film would be, with some luck, damn good!

But as I was leaving, it was all smoke, stench and rubbish.

Indonesia died. Silently.

No more lies! Right now, the Indonesian people have no country. It was taken away from them by Western imperialists, by their own corrupt and treasonous “elites” and by the military. Only after they realize what has been done, they will be able to struggle and build their new motherland.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  Fighting Against Western Imperialism.  Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western TerrorismPoint of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Indonesia: 50 Years After the Coup and the CIA Sponsored Terrorist Massacre. The Ruin of Indonesian Society

The near slanderous assaults on Jeremy Corbyn continue like calculated outpourings of hysteria, finding room in columns, and taking shape across the papers and commentary of the British political spectrum. No paper is seemingly sympathetic to this movement that still continues to stun the establishment, from toff to technocrat. 

The people’s labour movement is being sneered at, from the greyish, haemorrhoid  fold of the Times, to the sceptical, constipated ranks of the Guardian.  The former tends to be obsessed by Corbyn’s supposed inability to lead, given his evident lack of a nuclear edifice complex; the latter is characterised by regular reports that Corbyn has lost another portion of the electorate with the next statement, or principled stance.

Polly Toynbee provided an example of the latter, suggesting that Corbyn’s principles – because we cannot have a politician who obviously has any – potentially lost him a good deal of support because he would not, under any circumstances, push the nuclear button.  Like Christ, Corbyn had readied himself for the crucifixion.[1]

This needs a moment of consideration: a politician is regarded as suspect because he does not, under any circumstances, countenance the use of weapons that would exterminate living matter, rather than resolve a human dispute.

At the end of last month, Corbyn told the BBC’s Radio 4 that he opposed the £100bn renewal of the “obsolete” Trident weapons system.  Far from suggesting that such money be used to turn swords into ploughshares, Corbyn had heeded the views of many in the military who wished to “see it spent on conventional weapons.”

In any case, if he did win office in 2020, he would refuse to direct the generals to use it.  “I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons.  I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.”[2]

Trident is psychological imperial refuse, a reminder of British insufficiency and self-compensation, rather than viable potency. There is nothing virile about having nuclear weapons in your closet, a sort of political Viagra when the chips are very down and people are walking away.  Such potency suggests, as Germaine Greer did of Ernest Hemmingway, that when you cannot get it up anymore, you are bound to blow your brains out.

It is Corbyn’s honest sanity on this score that is so unnerving, frightening those tenured illusionists who think that Britain’s strategic relevance is tied to a weapons system that could never be used, despite those sanguinary bomb lovers who think otherwise. Corbyn has arrived to tell them the solemn truth.  “Why should those five [declared nuclear states] need them to protect their security?  We are not in the cold war any more.”

Britain’s current Prime Minister has no fear of falling out of love with Trident, having announced that four new nuclear submarines are on the way.  At the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, David Cameron explained why.  “If you… believe like me that Britain should keep the ultimate insurance policy of an independent nuclear deterrent, you have to accept there are circumstances in which its use would be justified.”[3]

This nonsensical circularity is evidenced by the assertion that the presence of weapons is justified because the use of such weapons is justified.  One follows from the other, a seamless contrivance.  This recipe for delusion and state sanctioned murder is unimpeachable for Cameron, who seeks to end any arguments to the contrary by claiming that any other answer suggests that “you are, frankly, undermining our national security, undermining our deterrent.”

The Labour Party conference evidently agreed, finding their own political Viagra hard to avoid. Corbyn’s attempt to even place the motion abandoning Trident for debate never materialised.  He had to yield to his reptilian colleagues who fear the next unit dip in the polls.  The main source of opposition came from the Unite and GMB unions who have demonstrated their own infatuation with the bomb complex.

Corbyn’s own shadow cabinet is also permeated by nuke love.  Lord Falconer, shadow justice secretary, threatened resignation over the issue of losing Britain’s military sweetheart. His remarks say much about the British nuclear fetish – Trident as a pedestal bound lover, generally unreachable but available on the off chance that humanity has taken sense of reason. “As far as Trident is concerned, it is really important to me.”

Labour’s shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle used Cameron-styled logic to justify why such a weapons system was needed.  “It has been our position for decades that Britain needs a credible independent nuclear deterrent while taking a lead internationally to push for a world without nuclear weapons.”[4]

In taking this position, Eagle has to be credited with stellar marks in staged, perpetual hypocrisy, both in the British policy context, and that of international disarmament.  (She did so before the party conference podium in front of the Labour slogan: “Straight talking.  Honest politics.”)  By all means we should insist on a world without nuclear weapons and an independent nuclear deterrent. Never say that British Labour cannot be the party of jingoes and the disingenuous when needed.

In any case, such a weapons system is unusable, unless you have joined the ranks of the suicidal, mad or both.  Some argue that the nuclear option can be put down more to diplomatic heft than actual usability.  But this thinking is itself covered in the grime of obsolescence.  Islamic State fighters could hardly care one jot whether Britain, France, or the US for that matter, can resort to such weapons.  They simply won’t.

The nuclear deterrent is the grandest lie of military history, and it continues to be sold as a well respected product.  That such tendencies are acceptable, long assimilated in feeble military doctrine, says much about the durability of the ruse.  The problem is not Corbyn, but the nuclear Viagra complex that needs systematic deconstruction.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Loving” Trident Weapons Systems and the “Nuclear Button”, Crucifying Corbyn
According to CNN US army C 17 cargo planes have dropped Tons of ammunitions and explosives to the militants in Northern Syria’s Hasaka province.

“C-17 cargo planes dropped ammunition on 112 pallets to be retrieved by opposition fighters on the ground from a US-vetted group called by Washington the Syrian Arab Coalition,” CNN quoted an unnamed US official as saying on Monday.

The CNN claimed that this was a first step in a US effort to boost support to what the White House refers to “as moderate opposition forces fighting regular Syrian troops loyal to President Bashar Assad.”

The US calls Al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the Al-Nusra Front, and the Free Syrian Army whose members have almost all joined the ISIL and the Al-Nusra Front as moderate forces.

Reports given out by several western think-tanks said some 34 to 36 militant groups are fighting the government in Syria, all of which are “extremists and the difference is only in the level of extremist ideologies that they pursue.”

The newly-named Syrian anti-government force was first mentioned by policy undersecretary at the US Defense Department Christine Wormuth during Congressional testimony in September.

She said the group was being trained as part of a train-and-equip mission for “anti-Assad opposition factions in Syria;” Farsnews reported.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Cargo Planes Drop Ammunition and Explosives to “Moderate Terrorists” in Northern Syria

Last week the biggest event that took place in Syria as part of Operation Hmeymim was the use by the Russian Navy’s Caspian Flotilla of 26 seaborne land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) that hit 11 Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra military targets inside Syria, which were located about 1,500 km. away from the missile launch site:

A massive blow using Kalibr-NK LACMs was struck from the southwestern Caspian Sea. The objects of the attack were factories producing shells and explosives; command posts; ammunition, weapon, and fuel depots; and terrorist training camps in the Syrian Governorates of Raqqa, Aleppo, and Idlib. The cruise missiles, with a Circular Error Probable of about three meters, hit every one of their targets that had been set two days earlier.

The Dagestan, a missile-armed frigate with a displacement of about 2,000 tons, acted as the flagship of the Russian naval assault force accompanied by the small missile patrol ships the Veliky Ustyug, the Grad Sviyazhsk, and the Uglich (with a displacement of about 1,000 tons). Kalibr-NK missiles are extremely difficult to detect: when maneuvering, an LACM flies at high speed in stealth mode, meaning that it emits no signals that would allow it to be tracked by radar.

Russia informed the leaders of Iraq and Iran about the trajectory of these missiles. And in order to ensure the safety of civilians, the LACMs’ flight path was routed over an uninhabited area.

What are the military and political implications of the launch?

This was the first time that Russia’s armed forces had deployed this type of weapon in an actual combat situation – not during exercises – at targets that were so far away. The second important point is that every one of the 26 missiles that were launched struck their intended targets, none deviated from their previously calculated trajectory, not one experienced a technical glitch, and none fell to earth while still on its approach to the object of the attack. (CNN’s incorrect report about four missiles crashing in Iran has been discredited, not only by Russian and Iranian sources, but also by  State Department and  Pentagon speakers). Some targets were dealt a double blow.

Kalibr-NK reach zone from Caspian (right circle) and Black Sea area.

Kalibr-NK reach zone from Caspian (right circle) and Black Sea area.

Thanks to a successful Caspian Operation, the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces have added an entirely new and quite significant element to their air-combat capabilities in Syria. The most important feature of an LACM is that it strikes instantly and with unparalleled accuracy. They have a hugely demoralizing effect on the enemy, because even if the moment of launch is detected, he can not even predict in what geographic area they will hit. True to form, the US persists in demanding that Moscow ban such missiles, insisting that they violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (but in fact that treaty prohibits only land-based LACMs).

This initial real-world use of long-range LACMs by Russia has significant strategic importance, because the carriers of such systems (surface vessels and submarines), stationed elsewhere in the ocean, can minimize the potential use of nuclear weapons and offensive antiballistic systems by those states that still consider the Russian Federation to be their “biggest potential enemy,” an “aggressor state,” and an “annexing state.” These high-impact weapons systems could be used for preemptive or retaliatory strikes with both nuclear or non-nuclear warheads.

Also, the landlocked Caspian Sea takes on strategic importance for Russia, because from there Russia can inflict surgical strikes using LACMs at the whole Middle East region, without risking countermeasures from NATO’s naval forces.

Now that the Russian armed forces have debuted such high-precision weaponry, the Pentagon can stop throwing away its money trying to build up its military options that are aimed squarely at Russia. In other words, there is no need to spend significant amounts to station American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe or to deploy its land- and sea-based antiballistic infrastructure in Romania and Poland – or in the Asia-Pacific region – since it is perfectly clear that from now on all of that will stay in the cross-hairs of not only Russian LACMs, but quite soon of some even more effective hypersonic, high-precision long-range weapons equipped with non-nuclear warheads.

One might hope that not only the Islamic State, but also Washington and NATO will arrive at immediate, tactical, and deeply strategic conclusions based on the Caspian Operation and will thus end their threats to use force against Russian aircraft and will understand that although they cannot be friends or “strategic partners” with Moscow, they must live in peace.

Vladimir Kozin is Head of Advisers’ Group at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Operation Hmeymim”: Strategic Implications of Russia’s Cruise Missiles’ Launch, Targeting Terrorists in Syria

The MH 17 Crash Report: Predictably, No Evidence Against Russia

October 13th, 2015 by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Predictably the upcoming long-awaited (from July 2014 to October 2015) report on MH-17 does not present one shred of evidence incriminating the Russian Federation or President Putin. So maybe those media outlets accusing Russia and her President of the downing of the MH-17 would like to stand up and apologize?

To apologize, you need fiber, morals, substance, backbone and character. To sling accusations all you need is to be a foul-mouthed guttersnipe, all you need is looseness of morals, an absence of character and a general nastiness. To refuse to apologize after slinging the mud shows pure spinelessness, spitefulness and worthlessness.

I could end the article here because after this, what else is there to say? To those who blamed Russia, to those who aired parents of children, in mourning, asking for “President Putin” to give back their children, there is much to say. For a start, the stance in this column has been from the beginning respect for the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in first place. In second place, respect for the families and loved ones of the victims. In third place, respect for the families and loved ones of the victims.

And now for the rest. My position has been from day 1 wait for the report (quite how it took one year and two and a half months to generate defies logic) and see if the report incriminates Russia, and then let the accusations fly. The fact of the matter is, as I predicted, that the report in no way incriminates Russia or its leadership but the accusations already started a long time ago.

So suppose we now demand an explanation from those who were grandstaging, using the horrific tragedy, using the victims and their grief, to paint (another) scary picture about Russia? The slanderous and libelous accusations should not go unanswered.

As for the insinuations that there may be a case in the International Criminal Court at The Hague, what a joke. The following accusation was drawn up by others and by myself against NATO and was sent to the ICC. It did not even merit the courtesy of a reply, as predicted (See indictment of NATO).

And now back to the report itself. OCSE monitor Michael Bociurkiw in an interview shortly after the incident on July 17 stated that there are two or three pieces of fuselage which show indications of heavy machine-gun fire and no evidence of missile damage. The same monitor declared later that certain pieces of the fuselage looked different a few days after he had first seen them. On July 22, he stated to the BBC that certain sections of the fuselage “do look different than when we first saw them”.

What about the eye-witness reports of two Ukrainian Air Force fighter jets trailing the plane at the time of the incident? How to explain the circular holes bend inwards at impact, when such holes are made by bullets from machine-gun fire? Shrapnel from a BUK missile system would have caused tears in the fuselage more of a triangular shape and would not have concentrated on and targeted the cockpit specifically. Furthermore, fuselage sections on another part of the aircraft have outward-bent impact marks, showing that the MH-17 was being fired at from two different directions.

Why were Facebook accounts disproving the western theories closed down, why were blogsites disproving the western theories hacked, why did evidence disproving the western theories disappear from the Net?

Turn on your microphones, full blast, copy and paste this link into a fresh browser window and watch this:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a BUK (Beech) missile system in action. Did you notice the plume of smoke behind the missiles? So why was there no plume of smoke when the MH-17 was shot down in daylight hours?

And here is the cherry on the cake. As was the case with the accusations recently that Russian missiles landed in Iran, accusations made before the missiles were launched, we have the same crass error. A videotape of the NAF (Novorossiya Armed Forces) commanded Bes was uploaded to the Net containing a supposed conversation he had about the downed aircraft, placing the time of the incident 35 minutes before it happened.

Remember the doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the Net which proved Saddam Hussein had a weapons program which posed “an immediate and direct threat to the USA and its Poodles, sorry, Allies”? Remember the forged document stating Saddam Hussein was procuring yellowcake uranium from “Nigeria”? (The country is called Niger and he wasn’t). Remember Rumsfeld’s claim that the USA knew where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction were, namely “Baghdad and Tikrit and north, south, east and west of there”?

As for linking Russia to the “rebels” or NAF, how puerile. Is Britain responsible for the numerous British terrorists fighting in Syria against the democratically elected Government of President al-Assad? Ditto Australia, the USA, the Netherlands?

I continue not to understand why does the downed aircraft show cladding damage characteristic with pin and shrapnel warheads (air-to-air systems), much more characteristic of R-27 TOPOR or R-73 missiles used on the Ukraine military MIG-29 and SU-27 aircraft?


Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist who has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects,  ([email protected])

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The MH 17 Crash Report: Predictably, No Evidence Against Russia

Dr. Judy Carman, an appointed expert on GMOs, has much to teach us about the dangers of biotech’s tinkering with our food supply. Not only does she point out some very obvious flaws in the regulatory process of approving genetically modified organisms in the US, Australia, and New Zealand, but she also details the holes in the argument of ‘substantial equivalency’ that companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta try to use as reason to continue selling GM crops to the world. 

Dr. Carman points 5 significant points about GMOs and the lack of sufficient scientific testing in a recent talk.

1. GMOs are Not ‘Substantially Equivalent’ to Non-GMO Foods

gmo_apples_label_680

Proving GMOs substantially-equivalent to their non-GM counterparts is a laughable task. As Dr. Carman points out, there is no definition by regulatory agents of what is needed in an organism to pass and what is recognizable in one that would fail. She says “it’s like trying to fail at a speed test when there is no speed.”

2. GMO Safety Testing is Fragile

gmo_apples_blue_680

In government ‘safety testing’ of GMOs, both here and abroad, more than one gene can be inserted into a plant without any safety testing. That means the FDA, EPA, USDA, and regulatory bodies in Australia, as elsewhere, can say that a food is safe without any safety testing.

Dr. Carman points out the obvious fallacy in this ideology. She uses the analogy of taking one drug, and then ignoring the possible interactions if other drugs are added to the mix. This is the same concern which is being ignored in plants that have multiple genetic alterations. One is worrisome enough.

Scientists really have no idea what happens when you add several genetic mutations. More than a third of corn grown in the US is ‘stacked’ with both herbicide-tolerant and Bt genes.

3. GMO Crops Likely Spark Gut Ailments

gmo_gut_digestion_health_680

Bt gene-alteration causes a protein to be released in a ‘grub’ that eats genetically modified BT corn, for example, and causes pores in the gut which rupture. If it does that to an insect, is there any doubt about why there is so much incidence of leaky gut syndrome and other bowel health issues today with all of the GMOs consumed?

4. ‘Feeding Studies’ are Not ‘Required’ by Biotech

animal-rat-mouse-study-680

The ‘industry,” meaning Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, etc., can do feeding studies if they ‘want to,’ but are not required to do these studies at all. Of course, when they report back to agencies, it is always the insider scientists hired by the company that reports on the company’s product. Conflict of interest anyone?

As Dr. Carman points out, these ‘studies’ usually amount to obtaining a protein (usually genetically modified also, but not necessarily the same exact protein that GM crops would contain, i.e., not the actual GM crop itself) and feeding it to rats to see if they die in 7 to 14 days. Not much of a study when they only wait two weeks to look for adverse effects on health, and often don’t even feed the rats the actual GM foods.

5. Biotech Funds its own Studies

money_corrupt_deal_680

It is clear that most studies promoting GM crops ‘come from the industry’ itself. Enough said.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on United Nations Doctor Outlines 5 Key GMO Dangers in Recent Talk

Turkey Gripped by Protests against Erdogan Government

October 13th, 2015 by Chris Marsden

Opposition to the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to mount in Turkey, following the suicide bombings that claimed close to 130 lives at a peace rally Saturday.

The suicide bombs—the deadliest in the history of the Turkish Republic—went off as people began gathering in front of the Ankara Train Station for a “Labour, Peace, Democracy” anti-war rally.

The organisers of the rally, the Confederation of Progressive Labour Unions (DİSK), the Public Workers Labour Unions Confederation (KESK), the Chamber of Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) and the Turkish Medical Association (TTB), issued a joint statement convening a two-day general strike beginning yesterday and continuing today.

Thousands attended funerals of those slain in the towns of Tunceli and Suruc yesterday, while hundreds marched on a mosque in a suburb of Istanbul where other funerals were held, denouncing Erdogan as a murderer.

All efforts by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to exploit the attacks politically and mount a crackdown have backfired. Although Erdogan issued a statement condemning the “heinous” bombings, he has not spoken in public since the attack. He left this to Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who said Sunday that groups including Islamic State (IS), the PKK and the far-left Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C) were all capable of carrying out such an attack and that “Work is continuing to identify the corpses of the two male terrorists who carried out the suicide bombings.”

The claim that the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) would attack a march by its own supporters was made even as Davutoglu and the media said that IS was the most likely culprit. He told NTV, “Looking at how the incident took place, we are probing Daesh (IS) as our first priority. DNA tests are being conducted … We’re close to a name, which points to one group.”

Security sources said the investigation would be “completely focused” on IS, noting that 36-40 arrests had been made, related to an IS faction in Turkey, known as the Adiyaman Ones, named after the southern province, including several potential suicide bombers. The Haberturk newspaper quoted police sources that one of the Ankara bombers was suspected to be the brother of the Suruc suicide bomber Abdurrahman Alagoz.

The July bombing of a pro-Kurdish youth rally in the southern town of Suruc on the Syrian border killed 33 people. The PKK blamed the bombing on the government, due to its collusion with Islamist opposition groups in Syria, including Islamic State. The bombing signalled a resumption of military hostilities between the government and the Kurds.

Erdogan had hoped to utilise anti-Kurdish sentiment to secure 400 AKP MPs in the June 7 general elections so he could change the constitution to grant himself absolute authority. Instead, the AKP lost its overall majority for the first time since it came to power in 2002, largely due to the pro-Kurdish HDP securing 13.12 percent of the vote and 80 parliamentary seats to become Turkey’s fourth biggest party.

Unwilling to form a coalition with any of the opposition parties, the AKP called new elections for November 1 and whipped up a climate of fear and intimidation in the hope of securing an increased majority. However, a recent survey by Metropoll found that the AKP would only increase its vote by 1 percent—and that was before the suicide bombing.

Most people believe that the AKP either allowed the attack to take place or even had a direct hand in it. The BBC reported its correspondent, Mark Lowen, as saying that critics of the Turkish government believe it is using Islamic State “as a scapegoat—and that murky elements of a so-called ‘deep state’ are to blame for the bombings, aiming to shore up [Erdogan’s] support ahead of the elections.”

Announcing the calling of the general strike, TTB President Bayazit İlhan said, “We know who the murderers are, they’re the ones whose dreams of dictatorship fell through in the June 7 general election. They’re the ones who have plunged Turkey into a war because they couldn’t get their 400 MPs.”

Kani Beko, president of DİSK, said,

“We are not unfamiliar with these massacres: on May Day 1977, in the towns of Maraş and Sivas; and recently with the killings in Diyarbakır and Suruç; we have seen similar attacks. We have lost our friends here, in a meeting that was authorized 20 days ago. We will continue struggling until this fascist AK Party government and its tradition of murders are held accountable.”

The pro-Kurdish HDP, which had a major presence at the peace rally, supported the strike call.

Addressing tens of thousands of mourners in the capital at the weekend, the HDP’s co-leader Selahattin Demirtas said, “The state which gets information about the bird that flies and every flap of its wing was not able to prevent a massacre in the heart of Ankara.”

“The AKP’s hands are red with blood and they support this terror,” he told reporters at HDP headquarters in Ankara. “It reminds us of the Suruc explosion.”

Also at the weekend, hundreds of people, many wearing doctors’ uniforms, gathered at the main train station in Ankara to lay red carnations but were blocked by riot police.

Lawyers at an Istanbul courthouse Monday chanted, “Murderer Erdogan will give account.”

The board of the Ankara Bar Association has filed a criminal complaint against the minister of the interior, the governor of Ankara, Ankara’s police chief, the head of intelligence and others officials on charges of “professional misconduct” to find out who was responsible for the bombing.

Erdogan is set on continuing a policy of military escalation against the Kurds, while trying to combine this with efforts to secure a key role in the US intervention in Syria, which utilises the threat from IS—the sworn enemy of the Kurds—and is proposing to provide the Kurds with arms and air support.

On Saturday, the PKK announced that it would unilaterally suspend all attacks before the polls. But the Turkish army still conducted more air raids on southeast Turkey and northern Iraq, killing 49.

The HDP said that it is considering cancelling all of its election rallies, stating, “Our electorates feel under constant threat in every social space and political activity they attend.”

There have been 120 coordinated attacks on the party’s offices around the country, while protesters have attacked newspapers accused of misquoting Erdogan. A number of journalists have been arrested, including the editor-in-chief of the English-language newspaper Today’s Zaman, Bülent Keneş.

None of this is improving the AKP’s election prospects. The HDP has been bullish in its response. “We’re eager for the election, whereas the dictator in the palace is fleeing the election,” said its honorary president Ertugrul Kurkcu.

In such circumstances, Turkey’s future may not be decided at the ballot box. The entire country is unstable, wracked by ethnic, political and class tensions and is ready to erupt at any moment. The Financial Times commented, “Recent polls indicated that Turkey could be heading for another coalition government after November’s vote. But the bombings in Ankara at the weekend indicated how violent, unpredictable and volatile Turkish politics has now become.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Gripped by Protests against Erdogan Government

Welcome to Obamaland, the mysterious, schizophrenic world where the truth is inverted. 

Washington is rapidly losing the microscopic amount of respect it had around the world, as US propaganda is becoming more childish by the week. Any rational person who is even remotely informed just sits back in amazement at the volume of deceptive, deceitful, and outright ludicrous statements constantly spewing from the mouths of top US officials. One of the latest comical episodes was when the US President, Barack Obama, actually tried to argue that Russian airstrikes against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS/IS/ISIL) are “only strengthening ISIL”:

The moderate opposition in Syria is one that, if we’re ever going to have a political transition, we need. And the Russian policy is driving those folks underground or creating a situation in which they are [debilitated], and it’s only strengthening ISIL.

467459320So in Obama’s mind, Russia pounding key ISIS positions and other affiliated terrorist groups isn’t halting the groups rise, but “strengthening” it. In the real world however, Russia has been severely weakening ISIS and fellow extremist forces in Syria through bombing terrorist command centers, weapons warehouses, training camps and other enemy positions.  Russian airstrikes have illuminated the complete sham of the US-led coalition against ISIS, as Russian airstrikes have been far more effective already, comparative to America’s campaign.

Russia has once again outmanoeuvred the West in relation to Syria, after a stroke of diplomatic genius from Moscow in 2013, which led to the Syrian government giving up their chemical weapons arsenal and averting a full scale invasion by Western forces.

Obviously, the Western narrative that there are “moderate” terrorists fighting in Syria which we can trust and we should arm, is (and always has been), a total fallacy. In reality, from the beginning, there were never any moderates, as Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article for New Eastern Outlook: US Complains As Russia Bombs its Terrorists. “The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” was the assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency in their declassified intelligence report from 2012. Just in case Obama doesn’t understand his own intelligence reports, al-Qaeda does NOT qualify as a “moderate” rebel group, they are as extreme as you can possibly get!

US Bombs a Hospital One Day after Claiming Russia Targets Civilians

 You just can’t make this stuff up. One day after numerous countries – including the US – accused Russia of targeting civilians in Syria; the US committed a war crime by bombing a hospital in Afghanistan, which was run by Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)). This abhorrent, repugnant and inexcusable act, killed at least 19 civilians (including at least three children), and wounded 37.

The previous day, large sections of the Western media had been filled with false stories that Russian airstrikes had killed civilians in Syria, with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, even calling on Russia to “cease attacks on civilians”. Quoted in an article by Sputnik, Putin replied to these accusations by stating:

As for any information in the media on civilians suffering [from Russian airstrikes], we were ready for such information attacks. I draw your attention to the fact that the first reports on civilian casualties emerged before our planes even left the ground.

Author and independent researcher, Vanessa Beeley, wrote an excellent article for 21st Century Wire where she dissects the humanitarian propaganda promulgated by the West, and the role played by organisations such as the George Soros connected group, the White Helmets, in spreading this disinformation. Beeley also documents the fact that the US-led coalition in Syria and Iraq has killed civilians, a reality that other news outlets such as the Guardian have reported on – the US-led coalition is accused of killing civilians in 71 separate air raids.

Could John McCain Be More Hawkish?

In an interview with Fox News, US Senator John McCain was asked: “If you were President… would you shoot down those Russian planes?” to which McCain said “no”, but he then went on to state that: “I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago, to give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes – that equipment is available.” I suppose US policy is quite consistent, as the US was also aiding extremists in Afghanistan by supporting the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets.

The interviewer then asks the US Senator “who would be shooting them down?” and McCain replied: “The Free Syrian Army,just like the Afghans shot down Russian planes after Russia invaded Afghanistan.” McCain also asserts that “we need to have a no fly zone” and “a buffer zone for refugees” in Syria.

The US Senator has been one of the most prominent public figures who has called for the overthrow of the Assad government. In 2013, he was accused of illegally  entering Syria in violation of the country’s sovereignty to meet Syrian rebels, with McCain even beingphotographed talking with the so-called caliph of ISIS, Ibrahim al-Badri (who is also known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi). 

Syria: Where the Wolfowitz Doctrine Dies!

 There won’t be many people in Washington who are more distraught at the news that Russia is pounding the West’s proxy armies, than Paul Wolfowitz. Regime change in Syria has been an objective of Wolfowitz since as far back as 1991, a man whose previous roles include serving as the President of the World Bank, and the US Deputy Secretary of Defense. In a 2007 speech, former four star general and NATO commander, Wesley Clark, discusses a meeting he had with Wolfowitz in 1991:

It came back to me, a 1991 meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz. In 2001 he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, but in 1991 he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy – it’s the number three position in the Pentagon… I said to Paul (and this is 1991): Mr Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in desert storm? And he said: Well yes, but not really. Because the truth is, we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn’t… But one thing we did learn; we learned that we can use our military in the Middle East, and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, [and] Iraq – before the next great superpower comes along to challenge us.

Clark adds that the US “was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup; Wolfowitz, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and you could name another half dozen other collaborators from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, [and] make it under our control.”

I have previously written about the PNAC group, and their desire to topple the governments in “North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria”. How the neoconservative war hawks will respond to Russia’s policy in Syria is difficult to predict, but most probably it won’t result in the US peacefully backing down.

The proxy armies of the West, Gulf states, Turkey and Israel, are getting annihilated by Russian airstrikes, which moves Syria one step closer to stability and a lasting solution to the refugee crisis.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on When the Truth is Inverted: Obama Says Russian Strikes on ISIS are “Strengthening” ISIS

The U.S. Government Supplied ISIS’ Iconic Pickup Trucks

October 13th, 2015 by Washington's Blog

U.S. counter-terror officials have launched an investigation into how ISIS got so many of those identical Toyota pickup trucks which they use in their convoys.

They don’t have to look very far …

The Spectator reported last year:

The [Toyota] Hilux [pics] is light, fast, manoeuvrable and all but indestructible (‘bomb-proof’ might not, in this instance, be a happy usage).  The weapons experts Jane’s claimed for the Hilux a similar significance to the longbows of Agincourt or the Huey choppers of Nam. A US Army Ranger said the Toyota sure ‘kicks the hell out of a Humvee’ (referring to the clumsy and over-sized High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle made by AM General).

***

The fact is the Toyotas were supplied by the US government to the Al Nusra Front as ‘non-lethal aid’ then ‘acquired’ by ISIS.

Al Nusra Front is literally Al Qaeda.

Public Radio International – an American public radio outlet – also documented a specific shipment of Toyotas by the U.S. State Department in 2014:

Recently, when the US State Department resumed sending non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels, the delivery list included 43 Toyota trucks.

Hiluxes were on the Free Syrian Army’s wish list. Oubai Shahbander, a Washington-based advisor to the Syrian National Coalition, is a fan of the truck.

“Specific equipment like the Toyota Hiluxes are what we refer to as force enablers for the moderate opposition forces on the ground,” he adds. Shahbander says the US-supplied pickups will be delivering troops and supplies into battle. Some of the fleet will even become battlefield weapons.

That’s exactly what happened …

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The U.S. Government Supplied ISIS’ Iconic Pickup Trucks

Militarization of the waterways between Europe and the oppressed nations cannot halt migrations

A further militarization in the Mediterranean has been approved through a resolution within the United Nations Security Council passed on October 9. Millions of people have been dislocated throughout Africa, the Middle East and Asia which has created the worse refugee crisis since the conclusion of World War II.

A vote by the Security Council of 14 to 1 empowers European Union (EU) Naval forces to purportedly halt and turn back vessels that are transporting migrants across the Mediterranean into Southern Europe. Only the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela abstained in the decision.

This renewed effort is called “Operation Sophia” consisting of six naval war ships from the EU in constant patrols off the coast of Libya. These vessels have been given the ability to halt, seize, detain and destroy boats utilized by human traffickers bringing thousands to Europe every week.

A statement issued by the EU operations said “Assets will conduct boarding, search, seizure and diversion, on the high seas, of vessels suspected of being used for human smuggling or trafficking.” One Italian aircraft carrier, a French frigate and another from Britain, along with a Spanish ship and two German ones will be spearheading the mission, which follows in the same pattern as the EU anti-piracy expeditions off the Horn of Africa.

France 24 news agency said of the current situation that “At least three other vessels supplied by the Belgian, British and Slovenian navies are expected to arrive in the area at the end of October to complete the force, which also includes four aircraft and 1,318 personnel. But the operation is a drop in the ocean compared to the huge scale of a problem that has seen 630,000 migrants illegally enter the EU this year as people flee conflict in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.” (Oct. 7)

Imperialists Seek to Maintain Unity Amid Crisis

The migrant crisis has deeply divided the EU member-states prompting the leaders of France and Germany to issue a joint statement calling for unity within the imperialist-led bloc of states.

Other countries such as Hungary have erected fences to keep migrants out of their territory while abusing those who have entered through the use of detention centers, the beating and gassing of seniors, men, women and children.

European states were hit hard by the world capitalist crisis of 2007-2009, increasing the high rates of unemployment and poverty even in relatively wealthier countries such as France, Germany and Britain. Racial tensions between oppressed communities in these European states and their governments have intensified over the last decade.

Nonetheless, the leading economies in Europe recognize that if they do not present a more liberal posture towards the international community that it would prove even more difficult to assert their right to maintain their military presence in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. At the same time with the existing position of Germany and France in framing the migrant and refugee crisis as a “humanitarian mission”, which although claiming to assist people are in actuality designed to continue in their neo-colonialist role, the Europeans are attempting to defuse a potential calamity of rupture within the EU structures.

Mustapha Karkouti, a writer for the Gulf News noted in an article that “The two European giants, Germany and France, have recently warned that Europe is facing a serious split over Syria, as both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande have called on the 28 countries comprising the European Union (EU) for unity. Standing side-by-side addressing the EU parliament last Wednesday (Oct. 7) in Strasbourg, they jointly tried to persuade member states that are inward-looking that they will be better off if they remain in the European bloc.” (Oct. 10)

The inter-imperialist rivalry between the EU member-states in competition with the United States and Canada necessitates fomenting the illusion of unity as it relates to the migrant crisis. However, the more recent members such as Hungary which were formerly socialist-oriented states in alliance with the-then Soviet Union, are in a weaker position economically and politically particularly in light of right-wing political parties which are in power in several of these countries.

This Gulf News article continued saying “The appearance of both the leaders in the European parliament is the first since former chancellor Helmut Kohl, the architect of Germany reunification, and former French president Francois Mitterrand, the architects of the Maastricht Treaty that established the EU, appeared together on the same platform in 1989, also stressing the strategic significance of Europe…. The process of enlargement itself has had its own consequences on Europe’s politics and on European life, particularly the gradual rise of right-wing and nationalist trends.”

Long Term Implications of the Migrant Crisis on Europe and the Oppressed Nations

Hundreds of thousands of migrants, many of them from Syria and other states throughout the Middle East, Asia and Africa, have escalated their travels during this year creating a humanitarian and political crisis, with more than three thousand killed so far in 2015.

Images of floating bodies within the sea washing up on the beaches are a profound symbol of failed imperialist policies over the last thirteen years since the beginning of the Afghanistan and later Iraq wars. These photographs and videos of migrants dying in Mediterranean are an extension of the invasions by the Pentagon and NATO forces allied with their political surrogates within the impacted geo-political regions.

In specific reference to Syria, the White House of President Barack Obama is still attempting justify its role in destroying large swaths of territory within this once stable and prosperous Middle Eastern state. The Russian Federation air campaign against armed opposition groups in Syria is a direct challenge to the imperialist wars of regime-change that have characterized U.S. policy in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Media reports indicate that over $500 million in tax revenues of working people has been wasted in a failed attempt to create a so-called “moderate anti-Syrian army” where after several years of efforts, only five of these persons have actually been able to remain within the framework established by the U.S. Despite these claims, there are obviously other groups fighting against the Syrian government that are armed by Washington.

All that these militias have been able to do is to cause monumental deaths, destruction and displacements. Many people around the world as well as within the Middle East have welcomed the intervention of Moscow and Iran in order to defend the Syrian state.

Divisions among the EU member-states will not shield even France and Germany from inevitable social unrest and greater expressions of anti-migrant hostility and xenophobia throughout the continent. Washington has announced that it will welcome anywhere from 10,000-100,000 Syrians into the U.S. which is completely inadequate considering that it is the military and political policies of Washington and Wall Street that lies at the base of the crisis in Syria, Central Asia, Libya, Yemen and Iraq.

These migrants are a direct result of U.S.-led imperialist militarism in various geo-political regions as well as the ongoing world capitalist crisis. Turkey, a NATO state, is heavily involved in the destabilization of Syria raising questions about the source of the bombing in Ankara on October 10 which killed nearly 100 people.

The only real promise of reversing the situation in the Mediterranean, the affected war-ravaged states on three continents and the workers and oppressed within the imperialist countries suffering from the draining of national resources through war and destabilization efforts, is to unite the peoples of these oppressed nations along with the workers and oppressed within the industrialized states in order to force the Pentagon, CIA and NATO forces out of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Then the people of these regions will be able to resolve their own internal problems aimed at bringing genuine peace and security.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Security Council Authorizes EU Naval Forces to Attack Vessels Transporting Refugees in the Mediterranean

Just days after terminating its disastrously failed program to arm and train US-backed “rebels” in Syria, the Pentagon announced Monday that US Air Force C-17 cargo planes escorted by fighter jets airdropped some 50 tons of arms, ammunition and grenades to anti-government forces.

“This successful airdrop provided ammunition to Syrian Arab groups whose leaders were appropriately vetted by the United States,” Pentagon spokesman Colonel Patrick Ryder said in a statement.

The Pentagon failed to disclose the names of the the groups led by these “vetted” leaders or the location where the arms were dropped. Media accounts have referred to the Syrian Arab Coalition, a name invented by the Pentagon itself, to describe various militias that it has decided to aid militarily.

An unnamed “senior defense department official” told Fox News, “All the pallets reached friendly forces.” He said that the arms had been taken from stockpiles that had been intended for the “train and equip” program to field a militia force trained and armed by the US military in Turkey and Jordan.

“So now we are more focused on the ‘E’ [equip] part of the T&E [train & equip]” program, the official said.

The earlier program failed spectacularly, with General Lloyd Austin, the commander of US Central Command, admitting to Congress last month that only “four or five” US-trained fighters were on the ground in Syria at the time, and barely 100 more were undergoing training. This was after some $40 million had been spent out of the $500 million allocated to the Pentagon for the program.

Within just weeks of Austin’s startling admission, a second group of US-trained and armed rebels was sent back into Syria, where they promptly surrendered their US-supplied vehicles and weapons to Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate, the al-Nusra Front.

In what increasingly seems like a policy devised by the criminally insane, Washington is now dumping tons of weapons into a civil war zone where, in all likelihood, they will fall quickly into the hands of forces like al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which the Obama administration claims to be fighting.

The US is engaged in an increasingly desperate attempt to rescue the Syrian adherents of Al Qaeda, a force which the American people have been told for the last 18 years is their most deadly threat, to be countered with endless war and sweeping attacks on democratic rights.

Ten days of a Russian bombing campaign have done far more to drive back these forces than over a year of airstrikes carried out by the US and its so-called coalition, consisting largely of Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni monarchical dictatorships of the Persian Gulf, which are the principal financiers of al-Nusra and ISIS.

Russia has doubled its number of daily airstrikes in Syria. On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry said it had hit 53 targets including command centers, training camps and fuel and ammunition dumps belonging to ISIS and other “terrorists.”

Washington and its European allies have repeatedly denounced the Russian intervention, claiming that it is focused not on ISIS, but rather on non-ISIS forces opposed to the Moscow-backed Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

They make little or no attempt to identify these alleged non-ISIS targets, however. In large measure this is because the main “rebel” force being struck in these attacks is the Army of Conquest, a collection of Sunni Islamist militias whose strongest component is the al-Nusra Front.

Russia has launched many of its attacks in northwest Syria in an attempt to reverse the defeats suffered by government forces at the hands of these Al Qaeda-linked elements, particularly in the provinces of Idlib and Hama, and to drive them back from the northern coastal province of Latakia. With its large Alawite population, Latakia is a stronghold of the Assad government.

Washington is in a de facto alliance with al-Nusra and similar elements, which, together with ISIS, represent the most potent anti-government forces in Syria’s bloody four-year-old civil war.

Both Washington and Moscow claim to be fighting for the same goals in Syria: the destruction of ISIS and a negotiated settlement of the conflict.

In reality, however, under the cover of these supposedly shared aims, the US and Russia are pursuing diametrically opposed objectives, placing them on a collision course.

The US, in alliance with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Sunni oil sheikdoms, instigated, armed and funded the sectarian civil war in Syria. It is determined to achieve regime change, just as it did in Iraq and Libya. However, while demanding the ouster of Assad and the imposition of a US puppet in his place, Washington does not want to see the complete collapse of the Syrian state and the assumption of power by ISIS, al-Nusra and similar forces that have been doing its dirty work.

Its aim is to weaken the regime to such an extent that it is prepared to capitulate to American demands. To this end, Washington has assured a steady flow of arms and money to the anti-government forces to assure that the war grinds on.

As for ISIS, the Obama administration had no problem with its atrocities as long as they were being carried out inside Syria. It only responded once ISIS columns overran roughly a third of Iraq in the summer of 2014. Since then, it has carried out a remarkably ineffective air campaign against ISIS, which appears aimed at most at rolling back its advances in Iraq, while containing and preserving it as a fighting force inside Syria.

This cynical policy, together with the chaos and carnage unleashed in the region by the previous US imperialist wars in Iraq and Libya, bears principal responsibility for the deaths of over a quarter of a million Syrians and the turning of millions more into homeless refugees.

Russia, on the other hand, wants to defeat both ISIS and the other Islamist militias like al-Nusra that are often referred to in Western government and media circles as “moderates.” Its position is that a negotiated settlement is possible only once the Assad government is secure. As Russian President Vladimir Putin put it Sunday, Russia’s military actions were designed to “stabilize the legitimate authorities and create conditions for finding a political compromise.”

Its objective is to assure that a regime friendly to Russian interests—with or without Assad—remains in power in Syria, which is Moscow’s sole ally in the Middle East and the site of its only military base outside of the former Soviet Union, the naval installation at the Mediterranean port of Tartus.

A successful American regime change operation in Syria would cut across definite interests of the Russian state and the ruling class of criminal oligarchs that it represents. These include the likely use of Syria as a new pipeline route to bring gas from Qatar to the European market, thereby undercutting Gazprom, Russia’s largest corporation and biggest exporter. Assad’s refusal to consider such a route played no small role in Qatar’s pouring tens of billions of dollars in arms and funds into the Syrian civil war.

The threat that the increasingly explosive situation in Syria will bring the world’s two largest nuclear powers into direct conflict, posing the threat of a third world war, was underscored again Monday with a report that British warplanes had been given the go-ahead to fire air-to-air missiles at Russian jets if threatened.

Britain’s defense attaché in Moscow, summoned to the Kremlin for an explanation, denied the report, while reiterating London’s opposition to Russia’s air war in Syria.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Airdrops Arms in Syria as Russia Escalates Bombing Campaign

Due to falling sales of its biotech seeds and herbicides, Monsanto has announced it will be cutting 2,600 jobs, setting up a plan to reduce their 22,500-employee workforce by about 12 percent over the next two years.

This is the first time the company has laid people off since 2009, when it cut 900 jobs.

The extreme measures are a result of a near half a billion dollar loss Monsanto suffered in its fiscal 4th quarter this year.  Shares in Monsanto stock have dropped 26% since the beginning of 2015.  The lay-offs and reorganization of the company will cost them roughly $850 million.

Monsanto is on its heels after a global awakening of the dangers of pouring toxins on food.  Countries across Europe, Asia and South America have banned glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

In March of 2015, the World Health Organization rescheduled glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen, announcing that it probably causes cancer.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto Tanking: Posts $495 Million Quarterly Loss and Plans to Eliminate 2,600 Jobs

Dezenas de milhões de imigrantes europeus e norte-americanos, legais e ilegais, inundam cidades e campos, na Ásia, na América Latina, e até mesmo na África. Western imigrantes estão atacando desenfreadamente  como touros, e o chão está tremendo sob seus pés; eles estão fugindo da Europa e da América do Norte em hordas. No fundo elas não podem suportar suas próprias vidas e suas próprias sociedades, mas você dificilmente irá ouvi-los a dizer isso. Eles são muito orgulhosos e muito arrogantes! Entretanto, depois de reconhecer inúmeras áreas do mundo como adequadas para as suas necessidades pessoais – como seguras, atraentes e baratas – eles simplesmente fazem as malas e para lá vão!

Somos informados de que algumas poucas centenas de milhares de exilados africanos e asiáticos estão causando uma grande “crise de refugiados” por toda a Europa! Os governos e a mídia estão espalhando pânico, as fronteiras estão sendo re-erguidas e as forças armadas estão a interromper a livre circulação de pessoas. Tem-se entretanto que o número de estrangeiros que entram ilegalmente na Europa é incomparavelmente menor do que o número de imigrantes ocidentais  que estão inundando, muitas vezes ilegalmente, praticamente todos os cantos do mundo.

Não “paraíso secreto” pode ser escondido por muito tempo, e nenhum país pode manter o seu preço razoável assim como a sua estrutura. Potenciais imigrantes europeus, norte-americanos e australianos saem determinados a enriquecer-se por qualquer meio mesmo que seja as custas das populações locais. Eles estão constantemente procurando pechinchas, fazendo um monitoramento de preços em todos os lugares, prontos para mover-se no momento adequado, contanto que o lugar premeditado ofereça alguns bons e grandes negócios, tenha lax leis de imigração, e um fraco enquadramento jurídico-legal.

Tudo puro e inexplorado fica corrompido. Com uma velocidade relâmpago, imigrantes ocidentais vão arrebatando a preços razoáveis imóveis e terrenos. Em seguida eles já começam a impor o seu estilo de vida em todos os “territórios recém-conquistados”. Como resultado todas a culturas atacadas estão em colapso ou mudança além de reconhecimento. Em geral os imigrantes ocidentais são arrogantes e obstinados não apresentando sinais de pena para os países que estão inundando. O que os rodeia é apenas um colorido de fundo para suas vidas preciosas. Eles são incapazes de, além de não estarem dispostos, a adotar os costumes locais, porque eles estão acostumados com o fato de que a cultura deles é a “cultura-líder” – a cultura que controla o mundo. Eles vêm o que lhes pode ser útil e levam tudo o que podem, muitas vezes a força bruta. Depois, quando não há quase nada mais para a pilhagem, eles simplesmente mudam de lugar. Depois deles “nenhuma grama poderá crescer”; tudo é queimado, arruinado e corrompido. Como Bali, Phuket no Sul do Sri Lanka, grandes partes do Caribe, do México e da costa Oriental de África, só para citar alguns lugares.

O que representa a maior “ameaça” : – os cerca de 300.000 refugiados “ilegais” fugindo dos países desestabilizados, ou simplesmente destruídos pelo ocidente, ou os milhões de ocidentais que anualmente fogem de seus deprimente estilos de vida e egoisticamente impõem-se a tantas economias mais fracas nas mais vulneráveis partes do mundo? Eu acredito que a resposta é óbvia.

Pessoas de países devastados muitas vezes são deixados sem escolha. Muitos estão vindo para os seus algozes. Eles são forçados pelas circunstâncias a aceitar condições totalmente irazoáveis, condições de humilhação e marginalização. Eles têm de trabalhar muito. Eles têm de aceitar trabalhos que os ocidentais pensam “bom demais” para si mesmos, e eles são esperados, são na realidade mesmo ordenados, a “adaptar-se” culturalmente. Eles passam por terríveis exames e entrevistas, e quase todos e tem que degradar-se apenas para sobreviver e alimentar os seus filhos. Apenas uma minoria é permitida a estadia. Os que permanecem contribuem para a economia local. Claro, esta é uma parte do truque sujo: o ocidente precisa dos estrangeiros; ele não pode sobreviver sem os imigrantes, sem a sua mão de obra barata. Mas ele nunca iria admitir isso abertamente. Antes de “aceitá-los”, ele tem que os humilhar e quebrar aqueles de quem ele precisa desesperadamente. Eles precisam de continuar a humilhar ainda mais aqueles cujas nações já foram roubadas de tudo, e até mesmo jogadas na guerra pela política externa do ocidente imperialista, e pelo terrorismo corporativista.

Os imigrantes ocidentais encontram condições totalmente diferentes na maioria dos países que estão inundando. Para começar, Western imigrantes não precisam de visto para entrar na maioria dos países. Décadas atrás o imperialismo já tinha aberto por força bruta quase todos os “países em desenvolvimento”. Os ocidentais são tratados preferencialmente e geralmente vistos como uma “fonte de renda” por regimes locais. São principalmente as multi-nacionais oidentais que estão dividindo entre si a pilhagem da Ásia, África e países do Médio Oriente, mas uma parte do espólio sempre acaba nos bolsos das pessoas comuns europeias e norte-americanas principalmente na forma de planos de aposentadoria, ou de outros benefícios sociais.

Depois tem-se que dezenas de milhões de ocidentais, armados com fundos resultados do roubado do “mundo em desenvolvimento”,  batem a estrada anualmente, tentando fazer o seu dinheiro render mais, e isso nos lugares onde os seus fundos na verdade originaram-se! Não é segredo que western-imigrantes estão então aproveitando a pobreza, os baixos preços e os sistemas jurídicos pouco desenvolvidos e estabelecidos dos países que inumdam. A sua chegada desencadeia uma enorme subida de preços para a moradia e terrenos. Eles deixam milhões de pessoas locais literalmente sem-teto. Os preços de alimentos e serviços básicos para a população local torna-se desastroso. Pode-se dizer que as pessoas em muitos países pobres são assaltadas duas vezes: uma pelas corporações ocidentais e, em seguida, novamente, por western-imigrantes. Mas esses países danificados não enviam a guarda costeira para interceptar imigrantes ocidentais, não havendo mesmo deportações. Pode ser entretanto que aqueles que se atrevam a comprometer ou criticar o sistema veiam a ser expulsos.

Eu vi ilhas inteiras sendo comidas vivas por imigrantes ocidentais. Quase não há áreas costeiras deixadas para a população local em ilhas da Indonésia, de Lombok e Bali. As máfias escandinavas, da Europa, da Austrália … O roubo alcançou proporções inimagináveis. De quando é ilegal a compra de terras os europeus e os norte-americanos unem-se com as gangues locais, forjando caminhos, ou esquemas que incluem casamentos com mulheres locais. Os imigrantes ocidentais são muito sabidos! Há sempre alguma forma de contornar as leis e de se aproveitar de pessoas pobres nos lugares mais miseráveis do mundo.

A “aquisição” italiana da costa do Quênia… a prostituição infantil lá.

As ilhas da Tailândia simplesmente desapareceram.  Nenhuma cultura permanece. Quase não há casas que pertenção ao povo local… quase nenhuma faixa costeira foi deixada intocada. Há apenas algumas horríveis infraestrutura turísticas, e milhões de imigrantes ocidentais assando ao sol, durante todo o ano, com a suas grandes barrigas de cerveja expostas, usando flip-flops, de mão em mão com as suas culturalmente desenraizadas companheiras e companheiros. O que essas pessoas trazem para a Tailândia? Liberdade? A prosperidade? A alta cultura? Sério! Honestamente, não é isso tudo uma corrupção moral e uma total ruina cultural? Existem literalmente milhões de pessoas – talvez até mesmo dezenas de milhões de ocidentais (principalmente europeus) vivendo em todo o Sudeste da Ásia. Os números exatos são desconhecidos. Não há estudos ou estatísticas fiáveis. Muitos imigrantes ocidentais no Sudeste da Ásia são na verdade “ilegais”. Alguns estão em condições “semi-legais”, com os seus constantes “vistos-renovados”, falsos casamentos e “sombra-investimentos”.

O Camboja é um dos lugares que tem vindo a atrair os mais depravados imigrantes ocidentais. Festas sexuais a 2 dólares por trepada. Pechinchas foram descritas em detalhe em vários livros coloridos. Eu encontrei muitos “expatriados” e “imigrantes” quando eu era o primeiro a investigar e depois ajudar a fechar uma das mais notórias criança-centros de prostituição na terra. Os chamados “Quilômetro 11”, localizado nos arredores da capital, na cidade de Phnom Penh. Lá, milhares de meninas sequestradas, muitas delas menores de idade, foram forçadas a servir uma clientela predominantemente Europeia. Algumas delas tinham sido sequestradas e estupradas por traficantes, no caminho de qundo arrastadas para lá de todo o Camboja e do vizinho Vietnã. As meninas viviam em cativeiro, guardadas por gangsters viciosos. E por todo a parte, sacudindo suas barrigas de cerveja encontravam-se os alegres imigrantes europeus de meia-idade acabados de mudar-se para aqui e como o feito e dito: “transar com uma menor de idade é muito mais barato do que tomar um copo de cerveja de merda”.

Um local Reuters correspondente e eu conseguimos entrevistar algumas meninas de 14 anos de idade. Alguns delas estaam claramente a morrer de SIDA. Mais tarde quando começamos a fotografar a cena do carro uma multidão de homens começou a atacar, de garrafas de cerveja em mãos, shorts cair a partir de sua parte de trás, prontos a matar. Um grande ganho para o país do Camboja, esses imigrantes europeus!

Eu lutei com todas as minhas forças contra imigrantes alemães venenosos em Colónia Dignidade, no Sul do Chile. Lá, muitos cristãos europeus, fanáticos religiosos, estavam a configurar o seu estado dentro do estado chileno, colaborando estreitamente com os EUA e apoiando a ditadura de Pinochet. Bormann, assim como outros importantes nazistas estiveram lá. Após se instalar em sua “nova pátria”, os imigrantes alemães desse grupo estiveram lá ocupados com o “trabalho” de violentar crianças, realizando experiências médicas nos orfanatos, e sem dó nem piedade a torturar os opositores da ditadura fascista. Claro, eles não foram apenas para o Chile; milhões de europeus fascistas chegaram a todos os cantos da América do Sul. [O responsável pelo assassinato de Che Guevara foi um deles – Klaus Barbie (1913-1991) … “transferido da Alemanha para a Bolívia em 1951 ele rapidamente se tornou em chefe dos serviços secretos bolivianos onde ele veio a prender e executar Che Guevara” – Veja “A Guerra Secreta na Alemanha” – “Les Armèes Secrètes de l´OTAN” pour Dr. Daniele Ganser – ou veja em Artigos Políticos–“4” Guerra Secreta https://artigospoliticos.wordpress.com ]

Os mais proeminentes deles foram enviados para lá pelos serviços de inteligência Britânicos. Enquanto a propaganda ocidental continua a falar sobre imigrantes ilegais e da travessia para os EUA a partir do México, muito pouco se fala sobre essas dezenas de milhões de pessoas que estão continuamente a imigrar para a América Latina partindo de toda a Europa, fixando-se no Paraguai, Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela e em outros lugares. Antes das revoluções na América Latina, que finalmente garantiram a igualdade e respeito para com os povos indígenas do continente, muitos imigrantes europeus conseguiram implantar uma profunda segregação racial e social. Em alguns lugares como Peru e Bolívia, a situação de perto lembrava do apartheid Sul-Africano. Até recentemente, os imigrantes europeus tinham empurrado a população nativa a extrema margens, roubando suas terras e fazendo suas culturas irrelevante. Isso foi feito em toda a América Latina e ainda é feito em muitas outras partes do mundo. Agora “o que vamos fazer com esses milhões de imigrantes ocidentais?” Podemos realmente dar-nos ao luxo de tê-los em nossos países? Podemos acomodá-los? Podemos pagar por suas necessidades, pela sua agressividade, e seus selvagens e violentos padrões culturais e de comportamento? Podemos permitir-lhes tomar tudo até mesmo daqueles que nada mais tem muito a perder?

Eu ouvi inúmeras histórias desesperadas. Mas, ao contrário daquelas profundas e comoventes histórias contadas pelos imigrantes dos países destruídos pelo ocidente, as histórias de western imigrantes eram principalmente egoístas, centradas no desejo de melhorar suas vidas, ou o desejo de escapar condições desagradáveis em seus países de origem. A maior parte do tempo, a sua presença não trouxe nada de positivo para os países para onde eles conseguiram mudar. Em seu icônico livro “Carma-Cola”, um escritor Gita Mehta da Índia descrevia, já um quarto de século atrás, esses milhões de ocidentais que inundaram o Sub-Continente em busca de “iluminação”, estilos de vida alternativos, e outros produzidos em massa pelas ocidentalizadas tendências cultural-religiosa. Muitos acabaram como imigrantes ilegais, apodrecendo em ashrams e bizarros municípios, alguns até mesmo vendendo seus passaportes para sobreviver.

O mundo tem sido paciente – eu diria que até muito paciente demais com imigrantes ocidentais ! Esta paciência deve ter fim por causa da brutalidade, mesmo selvageria, que a Europa tem recentemente demonstrando para com homens, mulheres e crianças, pessoas desesperadas tentando escapar de seus países, que assemelham-se a “navios naufragando”, como navios torpedeados pelo imperialismo ocidental. O mundo não deve nada para o ocidente, ao contrário!

Portanto, visas e políticas de imigração deveriam ser estipuladas em bases recíprocas. Essa é exatamente a abordagem de vários países da América Latina. Praticamente falando existem muitos mais legais e ilegais imigrantes ocidentais que vivem na Indonésia ou Tailândia, do que o contrário. O mesmo vale para países como o Chile. Depois de horríveis séculos, durante os quais o colonialismo e o imperialismo ocidental conseguiram destruir milhares de milhões de vidas humanas em todos os cantos do mundo, a Europa ainda se atreve a tratar suas desesperadas vítimas pior que animais.

Eu recentemente vi o seu desrespeito para com os refugiados que chegavam na Grécia, na França, na Alemanha e na República Checa. E depois do que eu vi, eu me sinto indignado e chocado. Já é o suficiente! Com suas guerras, campanhas de desestabilização, terror econômico, e a sua pilhagem do planeta, o ocidente continua a demonstrar quão baixa e brutal sua cultura realmente é. As “crises de refugiados” é apenas o mais recente capítulo do interminável show de horrores neo-colonialista. Enquanto navios europeus tentam interceptar lamentáveis barcos cheios de pessoas lutando por suas vidas, os exércitos da Europa vão re-erguendo os controles de fronteira. Vários países da América Latina, que agora são governados por governos progressistas, incluindo a Argentina e o Chile, tem vindo a demonstrar uma tremenda superioridade moral, de solidariedade e de internacionalismo, convidando e cuidando de milhares de sírios e palestinos refugiados mas tratando-os com grande dignidade e bondade!

Em um dos hotéis de São Paulo, Brasil, em um bar, tarde da noite, ouvi uma conversa entre um visitante empresário suíço, e o seu homólogo chileno: “Você sabe, aqueles imigrantes que chamamos de ‘sem papel'”, lamentou o suíço homem. “Muitos deles… muitos! Devemos simplesmente jogá-los diretamente para o mar; devemos afogá-los! Nós não precisamos de tais borra-botas na Europa.” Alguns dias antes, um meu amigo, oficial do governo do Equador, baseado em Quito, me contou uma história: “Ultimamente, muitos europeus continuam chegando para o Equador e para outros países da América Latina, procurando emprego, tentando imigrar. As suas economias estão em colapso, mas não há humildade quando eles vêm aqui, apenas arrogância.

Outro dia um espanhol veio candidatar-se a um emprego. Eu perguntei a respeito do seu CV. Ele me olhou com uma total indignação: “Mas eu sou um Espanhol!” ele gritou. ‘E daí?’ Eu respondi. “Estes dias são do passado, camarada; dias em que sendo um branco europeu seria o suficiente para conseguir-lhe um emprego em qualquer lugar da América Latina!'”

O mundo não-ocidental simplesmente não pode tolerar um afluxo anual de milhões de imigrantes ocidentais! Primeiro, ele é atacado pelo ocidente, depois roubado, e no final tem que tolerar enormes hordas de imigrantes ocidentais tentando engolir o pouco que foi deixado para trás pelas corporações e governos ocidentais.

Regimes de visas recíprocas deveria ser introduzido. Quadros jurídicos deveriam ser reforçados para evitar a corrupção, e a especulação com terrenos e imóveis. Potenciais imigrantes ocidentais deveriam ser forçados a mostrar como a sua presença beneficiaria o país para onde querem mudar-se, que as suas competências são realmente necessárias, assim como todos os imigrantes africanos e asiáticos são obrigados a provar quando eles querem estabelecer-se na Europa, na América do Norte ou na Austrália. E mais uma vez: não nos esqueçamos de que existem muitos mais imigrantes ocidentais tentando estabelecer-se no exterior, do que há pessoas de países pobres requerindo para residência no ocidente. Imigração crises? Sim, é claro! Mas não é realmente uma “crise” para o ocidente! Quem não percebeu isso deve verificar os números!

Certamente, muitos de nós compreendemos como deprimente para muitos ocidentais suas vidas na Europa e na América do Norte se apresentam, sendo desagradáveis e confusas num eterno nevoeiro acinzentado, emocionalmente falando. Nós realmente entendemos também o quanto eles querem ir para um mais quente tanto em termos de tempo como em termos de relações humanas, em outras partes do mundo. E se eles pudessem humildemente admitir o que sentem em vez de demonstrar sempre a sua arrogância e superioridade… se pudéssemos ter tudo em aberto… se as mesmas regras se aplicassem a todos…

Direitos comparáveis para quem quer imigrar para a Europa, para os EUA, para a Ásia, a África ou América Latina (…), então, tenho certeza de que pelo menos algumas pessoas estariam dispostos a mostrar a sua simpatia e considerar a aceitação de pelo menos alguns dos mais desesperados imigrantes ocidentais.

Mas não pode haver simpatia se não há justiça. Conquanto os ocidentais acham que podem livremente imigrar para onde quer que desejem, a Europa está agora a encaminhar seus militar para intimidar, humilhar as assaltadas e torturadas vítimas do Império!

Andre Vlchek

 

Artigo original :

Some of the millions of people who have fled Syria. Photo credit: The UN Refugee Agency / G. Gubaeva

Fleeing Europe and North America. Stop Millions Of Western Immigrants! publicado o 10 de outubro de 2015

Traduzido por Yandex/Anna Malm, respectivamente https://translate.yandex.ru e https://artigospoliticos.wordpress.com

Andre Vltchek é um filósofo, escritor, cineasta, e jornalista de investigação. Ele cobriu guerras e conflitos em dezenas de países. Seus últimos livros são: “Expor Mentiras Do Império” e “Luta Contra o Imperialismo Ocidental”. Discussão com Noam Chomsky: Western- Terrorismo. Ponto de Não Retorno – é o seu aclamado romance político. Oceania – um livro sobre o imperialismo Ocidental, no Sul do Pacífico. Seu provocativo livro sobre a Indonésia: “a Indonésia – O Arquipélago de Medo”.

André está fazendo filmes para a teleSUR e a Press TV. Depois de ter vivido muitos anos na América Latina e Oceania, Vltchek atualmente reside e trabalha no Leste da Ásia e no Oriente Médio. Ele pode ser contatado através de seu website ou em seu Twitter.

 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Eles estão fugindo da Europa e dos Estados Unidos: Ponha ponto final a esses milhões de imigrantes!
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.

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.

Iraqi Forces Seize US-Supplied Anti-Armor Missiles from ISIL in Fallujah

On Saturday, the Iraqi forces discovered US-made military hardware and ammunition from terrorists in the town of 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, according to a Monday report of the Arabic-language information center of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

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”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Aid to Terrorists: Iraqi Forces Seize US-Supplied Anti-Armor Missiles from ISIS in Fallujah

The speed at which the Russian military operation in Syria was conducted what a big surprise for the US intelligence community (which I can hardly blame as I was just as surprised myself).

Make no mistake here, the Russian force in Syria is a small one, at least for the time being, and it does not even remotely resemble what the rumors had predicted, but it is especially the manner in which it is being used which is very original: as a type of “force multiplier” for the Syrian military and a likely cover for the Iranian one. This is a very elegant solution in which a small force achieves a disproportionately big result. This is also a rather dangerous strategy, because it leaves the force very vulnerable, but one which, at least so far, Putin very successfully explained to the Russian people.

According to the most recent poll, 66% of Russian support the airstrikes in Syria while 19% oppose them. Considering the risks involved, these are extremely good numbers. Putin’s personal popularity, by the way, is still at a phenomenal 85% (all these figures have an margin of error of 3.4%). Still, these figures indicate to me that the potential for concern and, possibly, disappointment is present. The big advantage that Putin has over any US President is that Russians understand that wars, all wars, have a cost, and they are therefore nowhere as casualty-averse as the people in the USA or Europe. Still, while combat footage taken from UAV is a good start, Putin will have to be able to show something more tangible soon. Hence, probably, the current Syrian army counter-offensive. Still, the current way of triumphalism in Russia makes me nervous.

The reaction in the West, however, has been very negative, especially after the Russian cruise missile attacks (which mark the first time ever that the Russians have used their non-nuclear but strategic forces in a show of force aimed less as Daesh than at the USA).

On October 8th, the US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, declared:AshCarter

We have not and will not agree to cooperate with Russia so long as they continue to pursue this misguided strategy. We’ve seen increasingly unprofessional behavior from Russian forces. They violated Turkish airspace, which as all of us here made clear earlier this week, and strongly affirmed today here in Brussels, is NATO airspace. They’ve shot cruise missiles from a ship in the Caspian Sea without warning. They’ve come within just a few miles of one of our unmanned aerial vehicles. They have initiated a joint ground offensive with the Syrian regime, shattering the facade that they’re there to fight ISIL.

This will have consequences for Russia itself, which is rightfully fearful of attack upon Russia. And I also expect that in coming days, the Russians will begin to suffer casualties in Syria (Source:http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/622454/press-conference-by-secretary-carter-at-nato-headquarters-brussels-belgium)

On the next day, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov replied by saying:

IgorKonashenkov

Representatives of the Russian Defense Ministry, in their evaluation of the actions of the US military and the various operations they are engaged worldwide, have never sunk down to the level to publicly express the hope for the death of US servicemen or, even less so, of ordinary Americans. Today’s announcement by Pentagon chief Ashton Carter, unfortunately clearly illustrates the current level of political culture of some representatives of the US government or, should I say, their level of cynicism towards the rest of the world. I am sure that no US general would ever have allowed himself to express such feelings. (Source:http://tass.ru/politika/2331242)

Does that not remind you of something? Does that not sound like a repeat of the threat made by Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan‘s threat to unleash ‘Chechen’ terror attacks against Russia? At the very least, this is, yet again, a sign that the US controls or, rather, thinks that it controls the Wahabi crazies and can unleash them against any opponent.

Typically, there are two basic ways the West handles any Russian military operation: they are either presented as mass murder and butchery or as gross, primitive and ineffective. CNN chose the second option and reported that “A number of cruise missiles launched from a Russian ship and aimed at targets in Syria have crashed in Iran, two U.S. officials told CNN Thursday”. Both Russia and Iran immediately denied that, as for the State Department and the Pentagon, they have refused to confirm or deny these reports.

CNN_Screenshot

Maria Zakarova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry reacted with disgust to these reports on her FB account and wrote: “I have read the CNN reports claiming that “Russian cruise missiles fell in Iran.” I wonder, do they write that out of impotent anger, or what? As for the constant references to “sources” they remind of the channeling of water from the sewer”.

Clearly, the Russians are rather disgusted with the rather pathetic US reactions to the Russian military operation. As for US officials, they appear rather clueless as to what do do next.

However, these appearances can be deceiving: this “game” is very far from being over.

MariaZakarova

As I have written in a recent column, the notion that Russia has established a no-fly zone over Syria is plain false: four SU-30MS, even if backed by six SU-34s are not enough to establish any kind of no-fly zone. The real mission of these SU-30MSs is to protect the Russian Air Force from any overzealous Turkish or Israeli fighter, not to establish a no-fly zone. In fact, according to the commander of the USAF operation over Syria, the US flies many more sorties than the Russians. What he does not add is that most of these US sorties do not include the release of weapons whereas all the Russian ones do. But, really, this is comparing apples and oranges. The USAF can fly as many sorties as it wants, only the Russian aircraft are operating in close coordination with Syrian and Iranian ground forces.

What worries me most is that people on both sides like to engage in cheap bravado and say things like “the Americans/Russians would never dare to attack a Russian/American aircraft”. This is a very dangerous way of thinking about what is going on because it ignores all the historical evidence for decision-makers making very dumb decisions to try to avoid appearing humiliated by the other side (Ehud Olmert in 2006, immediately comes to mind). The fact that Obama and the USA look totally out-smarted is nice, of course, but also potentially very dangerous.

The good news is that, at least for the time being, neither Russia nor the USA are directly threatening each other, at least not on a military level. The USAF apparently has decided on a 20 miles “avoidance radius” and while the Russians have not made any statements about this, I am pretty sure that they also go out of their way not to interfere with the Americans, much less so threaten them directly. Still, this situation is inherently dangerous.

Since this is a real combat zone and not just some peacetime patrol area, Russian and American aircraft have to use radar modes which are normally associated with a hostile intent: not just scan the skies for any potential enemy, but also actively track any detected aircraft. This is a very delicate situation because once a radar has acquired an aircraft and is actively tracking it all the pilot has to do to attack is press one button. For the pilot in the aircraft being tracked, this is similar to having a gun pointed at you – it makes you very nervous. To make things worse, modern aircraft can actually engage each other without using these radar modes and they can try to hide their radar signals, but that only adds to the tension. It is precisely because the US and Russia are two nuclear powers that it is crucial that neither side count on the other one to “blink first” or play any game of chicken. The politicians can indulge in this kind of nonsense, but I hope that the generals on both sides will do everything in their power to avoid any such situation. Right now, the situation appears to be under control, but it could get worse very fast. Hopefully, the Pentagon and the Russian General Staff will come to an “de-conflicting” agreement soon.

There are numerous reports that Iran is preparing a major intervention in Syria. These reports come from many sources and I consider them credible simply because there is no way that the very limited Russian intervention can really change the time of the war, at least not by itself. Yes, I do insist that the Russian intervention is a very limited one. 12 SU-24M, 12 SU-25SM, 6 SU-34 and 4 SU-30SM are not a big force, not even backed by helicopters and cruise missiles. Yes, the Russian force has been very effective to relieve the pressure on the northwestern front and to allow for a Syrian Army counter-offensive, but that will not, by itself, end the war. For one thing, should things get really ugly, the Daesh crazies can simply repeat what they have already done in the past: cross the border into Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. Furthermore, you cannot hold any ground from the air. For that, “boots on the ground” are needed and Russian boots are not coming – Putin has unambiguously stated that (although he did leave a small door open for a future change of strategy by saying that a ground intervention was not in the “current plans”). Regardless, anything short of a minor or very short intervention would be fantastically hard to sell in Russia and I therefore still don’t believe that it will happen. My bet is on the Iranians. Well, when I say “Iranians” I mean Iranians and their allies, including Hezbollah, but not necessarily in Iranian uniforms.

Chances are, the Iranians and the Syrians will want to keep the magnitude of the Iranian involvement as hidden from view as possible. But, of course, they won’t be able to fool the USA, Turkey or Israel for very long, at least not if a large Iranian force is involved.

So the big question for me is this: what will the USA do if (when?) Iran intervenes in Syria?

Chances are that the Iraqis will request the Russian help to defeat Daesh exactly at the moment when the Iranians make their move. If the Russians agree, and it looks like they might, the Russian Air Force will, in fact, be providing air cover for the Iranian forces moving across Iraq towards Syria. My guess is that the Russians will try to get some UNSC Resolution to allow an international intervention in Syria or that, failing that, they will try to get some kind of deal with the USA. But that is going to be awfully hard, as they Neocons will go ballistic if the Iranians actually make a big move into Syria.

Right now the Russian Air Force does not have the resources needed to support an Iranian move into Syria, and that might be the reason for a reappearance of the rumor about “six MiG-31s” going to Syria. I personally have seen no evidence for that, at least not form any halfway dencent source, but if that does really happen, then this will become a major game-changer because one thing is certain: MiG-31s will never be used against Daesh or even a few isolated Turkish or Israeli fighters; if the MiG-31s ever really show up in the Syrian skies, their goal will be to keep control of the Syrian airspace and that implies a direct and credible threat against the US and its allies. The same goes for the actual deployment of S-300s. Thank God,we are not there yet. But unless the Syrian Army manages an extremely successful offensive against Daesh, a large Iranian intervention will become very likely. Then things will become very dangerous indeed.

In the meantime, NATO is still busy making big statements about being “ready to defend Turkey” while McCain declares that the US and Russia are engaged in a “proxy war”. We ought to be grateful for such loud emissions of hot hair because, hopefully, as long as the western leaders feel that their empty talk makes them look credible, they will not be tempted to do something truly stupid and dangerous.

These are definitely dangerous times.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Week One of the Russian Military Intervention in Syria. Dangerous Times. What Next?

The Fakery of ‘The Free World’

October 12th, 2015 by Eric Zuesse

13 October 2015 is the release-date of the report from the fake investigation — by the governments of Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and later Malaysia — into who and what and why caused the shoot-down of the Malaysian MH17 Boeing airliner over the conflict-zone in Ukraine on 17 July 2014. That’s the plane which, at the last moment, was inexplicably instructed by the Ukrainian Government’s Air Traffic Control to go off the normal course avoiding the Ukrainian civil war zone over the east, and to go instead right into the war-zone.

The airliner got shot down with all 298 aboard dead. Obama and his coup-installed Ukrainian Government blamed Russia immediately, and the European Union (which knew that he had actually taken Ukraine in a bloody February 2014 coup that was staged to look like a ‘revolution’) promptly caved to Obama’s demand to hike the anti-Russia sanctions that had been instituted in March 2014, when Crimea rejected Obama’s Ukrainian-coup-imposed government and held a referendum which resulted in Crimea’s switching to become again a part of Russia, of which Crimea had been a part for hundreds of years until the Soviet dictator in 1954 had it transferred to Ukraine — and so Russia is now being punished for enabling self-determination, real democracy, for the residents of Crimea.

But Western government-and-‘news’-media lying is hardly only about Ukraine. For example, look at this:

Screen Shot 2015-10-12 at 1.24.21 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kji6Jnuj1XY

Click onto that link right below the image of the video. Right at the start, you see CNN showing this alleged ‘ISIS training video,’ in which the jihadists’ tents are emblazoned with “US”, and yet CNN isn’t drawing any conclusion that this obviously fake video implicates the U.S. Government.

No: instead, at 0:18, the announcer asserts “This is the latest ISIS propaganda.”

Oh, really — ISIS  is promoting the U.S.?

No, that’s not what CNN is trying to convey: at 0:30 onward, you instead see military expert Anthony Cordesman calling it “a stage set,” “and this isn’t really a training exercise, it’s a video exercise.”

Maybe he’s noticed the “US” on those tents? Well, that’s fine, because it really is “a video exercise” (Cordesman’s euphemism for “propaganda”), but Cordesman tactfully doesn’t assert whose propaganda this is. Instead, CNN’s ‘reporter’ does that, but lies because the truth about it isn’t what he’s being paid to report here: At 0:50, this same CNN ‘reporter’ who had, just seconds earlier, introduced the video as constituting “the latest ISIS propaganda,” concludes, again, “It’s propaganda.” Immediately then, he simply goes off onto a different tangent, about how dangerous ISIS is. He ignores the stupidity of his having presumed, at the very start of his ‘report,’ that it’s “ISIS propaganda,” when it’s obviously instead U.S. propaganda. And instead of his now correcting that lie of his, he just leaves it, uncorrected. He ignores the falsehood that he had earlier stated (and headlined), and just goes off onto an anti-ISIS tangent. That’s how much contempt the U.S. mainstream ‘news’ media have of their own audience.

They have contempt not just for the public but for the victims of the MH17 mass-murder.

This is the ‘news’ media of a dictatorship, not of a democracy. It’s propaganda, not news. It misrepresents, misdirects, misinforms, and places blame where it doesn’t belong.

And that’s why Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, discussing on October 7th, French President Francois Hollande’s suggestion that Russia should cooperate with “the moderate rebel groups in Syria,” or “the Free Syrian Army,” made reference to

the so-called Free Syrian Army. However, we do not know where it is and who heads it. But if we assume that this military wing that constitutes a so-called healthy part of the opposition, if it were even possible to combine their efforts into the fight against the common enemy, the terrorist organizations — al-Nusra and others like them — then it would create good preconditions for further political settlement in Syria.

Perhaps he was thinking that the supposed rebel fighters who were shown in that video constitute the “moderate rebels” that the West was backing, and which CNN called “ISIS”?

What can Western leaders do, except have big guffaws about how stupid their audience must be, to go for their lies?

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Fakery of ‘The Free World’
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia and Saudi Arabia Agree on Common Goals, Deepening Crisis in Ukraine

Washington has been continuing to develop measures against the Russian strategy in Syria. First of all, the US has to demonstrate the existence of the so-called “moderate rebels”. For that reason the topic of the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) became popular in the US and European media. But what is the FSA?

FSA units were created about half a year after the start of the Syrian war.Turkey supported this idea. However, it always was a PR myth and never was a real power in the battlefield. The first FSA activity was noted in 2011 when its leader, a former colonel of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Riad al-Asaad made a statement about the creation of the FSA. Sunni deserters from the SAA became the core of the group. Turkey started supplies of arms and equipment, but there weren’t any confirmed reports of FSA operations.

In 2012, Riad al-Asaad was injured in a car incident and lost a leg. After this event FSA’s level of activity dropped even lower. Moreover, the local FSA units didn’t comply with Ankara orders. There wasb no central commander or a chain of command. In 2012, Turkey abandoned its attempts to turn the FSA into a real power in Syria. Separately, Washington didn’t support the FSA because of its minor role in Syria.

In the end of 2012, the FSA went into liquidation. Nonetheless, separate units still exist in the battlefield. Turkish intelligence services use them for their own purposes. In general, these units are based at Homs, Aleppo and in southern Syria. Another part of the FSA joined terrorist groups such as Al Nusra.

The so-called “Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army”, indeed, isn’t a part of the FSA. It consists of tribal people living at the border of Syria and Jordan.They fight only to defend their settlement zone. The 700 militants who surrendered to the Syrian government in Daraa were members of this tribal militia.

Indeed, the US has never supplied arms and equipment to the FSA. The FSA units didn’t include Qatari or Saudi mercenaries. It has always been a failed Syrian project.

Instead, Saudi mercenaries and members of the Saudi Special Forces have been actively participating in the Jabhatal-Nusra terrorist group and similar entities.

Thus, 90% of the so-called “Syrian rebels” are clearly terrorists supported by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other foreign players.

The moderate opposition doesn’t exist, or at most it controls minor areas in some parts of Syria. So if the White House wants to prove that Russia bombs the wrong terrorists, it should show leaders of these so-called “moderate rebels”, their history of rebellion and distinct areas of their control. Otherwise the complaints about hitting wrong targets are pure and simple lies.

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/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Myth of Syria’s “Moderate Rebels”. Ninety Percent of the “Syrian Rebels” Supported by Washington are Terrorists

Recognizing Neocon Failure Shows Obama Has Come To His Senses?

October 12th, 2015 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge and others are misinterpreting Steve Kroft’s interview with President Obama.  They see weakness and confusion in Obama’s responses and conclude that Kroft shredded Obama.  

What I see is entirely different.  Steve Kroft is either a neoconservative or he is inculcated into the neocon mind-set that the US must prevail everywhere.  Kroft’s view is that weakness and indecision on Obama’s part is the reason the US is not prevailing in Syria.  Kroft’s purpose is to embarrass Obama and push him into escalating the situation.

However, Obama is too strong for him. I read the interview as Obama saying that the neocon program has turned out not to be in America’s national interest.  At the end of the Syria section of the interview, Obama says:

“If in fact the only measure [of US strength] is for us to send another 100,000 or 200,000 troops into Syria or back into Iraq or perhaps into Libya, or perhaps into Yemen, and our goal somehow is that we are now going to be, not just the police, but the governors of this region, that would be a bad strategy.  If we make that mistake again, then shame on us.”

The interview shows me Obama’s strength in recognizing and stating the failure of the neocon program to which his administration was hitched by policymakers in the government.  There is hope in this demonstration of strength that in his final year as President he will pull back from the crazed, insane neoconservative agenda of US world hegemony.

Those who dislike Obama, and those inculcated by years of propaganda into the neocon view that America must always and everywhere prevail, will see what they want to see.  They will not see the hope.

To prevent the neocon policymakers and the neocon press from squashing this hope, we must do what we can to support Obama.  It is the neocon policy that has failed.  In recognizing this failure, Obama is trying to take America off the neocon road to failure and more war.  This is a very lonely and dangerous position for Obama to take in Washington.

Here is the part of the interview that is about Syria:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-11/obama-defends-failure-his-syria-policy-beligerent-60-minutes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Recognizing Neocon Failure Shows Obama Has Come To His Senses?

economy-crisisOversold Markets, Rising Equities, the Derivatives Implosion, The Fed Looses Credibility

By Bill Holter, October 12 2015

Last week was a true dichotomy of fantasy and reality. We witnessed a massive short squeeze and the best week for U.S. equities in over a year. While the markets were oversold and due a bounce, the “bounce” came with a backdrop of very dire news! Day after day brought forth new and consistently worse news.

economy-crisisState Repression and the US Economic Crisis: Claims of “Recovery” and “Prosperity” Ring Hollow …

By Abayomi Azikiwe, October 12 2015

Note: This address was given at the Detroit Workers World public meeting held on Saturday October 10, 2015.

Saudi FlagRussia Supplants the U.S. in Global War Against “Jihadists”. Saudi Arabia Favors “A Political Solution in Syria”

By Eric Zuesse, October 12 2015

A meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Defence Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman (son of King Salman) ended on early Monday, October 12th…the fact that the Saudi King sent his son to Russia to negotiate with Putin about Syria is yet another indication that the key player in settling the Syrian civil war is now Putin, not at all U.S. President Barack Obama.

media_propaganda_against_putinPutin and the Press: “The Demonology School of Journalism”

By Prof. James Petras, October 12 2015

The major influential western print media are engaged in a prolonged, large-scale effort to demonize Russian President Putin, his politics and persona. There is an article (or several articles) every day in which he is personally stigmatized as a dictator, authoritarian, czar, ‘former KGB operative’ and Soviet-style ruler; anything but the repeatedly elected President of Russia.

netanyahuAlarmed European Jews Want Netanyahu Replaced with a Leader for Peace

By Anthony Bellchambers, October 12 2015

A significant number of Europe’s 1.4m Jews are now alarmed at the continued occupation and illegal settlement of Palestinian land by the right­wing, extremist government of Binyamin Netanyahu ­ one that holds the UN, the EU and the US in contempt.


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Fed, The Mainstream Press, US Imperialism, and Netanyahu Are All Losing Credibility

Last week was a true dichotomy of fantasy and reality. We witnessed a massive short squeeze and the best week for U.S. equities in over a year. While the markets were oversold and due a bounce, the “bounce” came with a backdrop of very dire news! Day after day brought forth new and consistently worse news.

In no particular order of importance;

  • Deutsche Bank reported a $6.5 billion loss (10% of their net equity),
  • UBS joined the derivatives implosion party and required a capital raise,
  • Glencore ‘fessed up to $100 billion in debt versus the previous $19 billion (with three or four other major commodity firms in the same boat),
  • the Bank of England required their banks to disclose how much of this debt they were exposed to, China’s yuan surpassed the yen in the settlement of global trade,
  • China also went live with their alternative settlement of trade in yuan (non dollars), Saudi Arabia and Norway disclosed they are now in deficit and thus no longer “buyers” of dollars (are they now sellers?) …
  • and the U.S. was effectively kicked out of the Middle East!

I might add that several recent economic reports even though fudged, massaged and outright falsehoods were unable to hide the reality of global AND U.S. recession and decline in the real economic sectors.

To top all of this off, the U.S. Fed has now attracted naysayers including our (their) own bought and paid for media. They have effectively lost credibility. Since the last Fed meeting, the world has collectively come to the conclusion they have no options left and credible monetary policy is not a possibility.

In fact, Mr. Trichet of Europe’s central bank has admitted that global central banks

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/central-bank-cavalry-no-longer-191849195.html can no longer save the day or even buy time. On the other side of the financial coin,

John Boehner resigned a couple of weeks back and his proposed replacement Congressman Kevin McCarthy withdrew http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/08/house-speaker-john-boehner-surprised-kevin-mccarthys-withdrawal-race/73586678/ his name from consideration. Please understand what this really means, the U.S. House of Representatives has now been hijacked by a minority which controls the majority. Normally this might be a good thing as a divided Congress cannot spend money (it does not have). Currently I believe this is a very bad event because it proves the further loss of credibility in U.S. leadership is valid.

If you look at what happened last week from a distance and with neutral eyes, it may have been the worst week for the U.S. in any living person’s lifetime. We were effectively kicked out of the Middle East (by Russia) in less than 10 days! This, while China warned Washington not to interfere in the South China Sea. It is clear the U.S. no longer carries a big stick and has no more “bluffs” left as Mr. Putin and China clearly have called it! This has horrific ramifications for the dollar as it has been hanging on for years out of pure “confidence” which has now been broken easily by a patient China/Russia.

Do not think to yourself the timing was any coincidence, China announcing their alternative to SWIFT settlement was simply offering an alternative clearing system AFTER Russia raised the stakes and exposed U.S. weakness. Every step forward for China is a step backwards toward obscurity for the U.S.. They fully understand we are broke. They know we have depleted our gold reserves and leveraged our finances beyond anything in history. The banks, the brokers, the derivatives, state and federal governments …are all over leveraged and reversal will wipe out any remaining equity VERY FAST!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Oversold Markets, Rising Equities, the Derivatives Implosion, The Fed Looses Credibility

A meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Defence Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman (son of King Salman) ended on early Monday, October 12th. Agence France-Presse headlined “Vladimir Putin Meets Saudi Prince on ‘Political Solution’ in Syria,” and reported that, whereas the son of the Sunni fundamentalist Saudi King says that his father still insists on removing the Shiite secularist leader Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria and on ending Syria’s alliance with Shiite Iran, Prince Salman said that the Saudi King is “in favour of a political solution in Syria.” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was more forward in his statement about the meeting. He said: “The two parties confirmed that Saudi Arabia and Russia have similar objectives when it comes to Syria. Above all, it is to not let a terrorist caliphate take over the country.”

Nothing was quoted from the Saudi side about any such opposition to ‘a terrorist caliphate,’ however; the Sauds have been the chief financial backers of Islamic jihad. (And here is what their followers in Syria are actually like.) However, the fact that the Saudi King sent his son to Russia to negotiate with Putin about Syria is yet another indication that the key player in settling the Syrian civil war is now Putin, not at all U.S. President Barack Obama.

The highly reliable German news-source, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DWN), headlined on October 11th (translated here as) “Russia and Iran Assume Leadership Role in Iraq, without the U.S.,” and reported that Russia has, upon the request of the Iraqi government, already gone beyond its anti-jihadist operation in Syria, and has “extended the fight against terrorism into Iraq, with the express permission of the Iraqi government.” DWN goes on to say, “In early October, the Iraqi government gave a free hand to Russia to extend the attacks against ISIS into Iraqi territory. One of the conditions for this was prior coordination of the air strikes with Iraq’s government.”

That is the same arrangement Russia has had, since the end of September, with the Syrian government. And, so, a Joint Intelligence Coordination Center (JICC) was established by Russia in Baghdad. This was announced on September 29th, when Reuters reported that, “Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said … an information center was being established in Baghdad to share information between Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Russia has also agreed a separate such mechanism with Israel.”

Israel too is therefore also recognizing the handwriting on the wall, the switch from the U.S. to Russia, and is doing what it must to defeat ISIS; it’s joining behind Russia’s leadership in the effort. However, because of Israel’s hostile relationships with the other non-Russian members of the JICC, Russia has agreed to wall-off, or separate entirely, Israel’s Russian alliance, from the other nations’ Russian alliance. Russia is in a position to do this, because Russia, with its space-satellites and its other global intelligence-gathering assets, is at the hub-position on this entire intelligence gathering wheel about Syria. All of the other nations that are participating trust Vladimir Putin’s intelligence operation, to keep each participant’s shared interests in defeating jihadists, separated from all other issues within the Russian alliance. The alliance with Russia will thus not affect their respective unrelated security-interests. This is in Russia’s interests, because it maximally empowers Russia to crush the Saudis’ international jihadist operation, an operation that started when the U.S. and its long-time ally the Saud family, were joined together by Zbigniew Brzezinski of the U.S. Jimmy Carter Administration, to crush the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, by funding, training, and arming, “mujahideen” or fundamentalist Wahhabist Sunni (that is, Saudi) fighters to go there to kill supporters of the pro-Soviet government and other secular or non-Sunni influences there. The Sauds’ main competitor in the international oil-markets has been the leading former Soviet country, Russia.

The U.S.-Saudi alliance began in earnest in 1945, when the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Cold War was just starting; and it has continued after the U.S.S.R.’s breakup, because Western oil companies and Sunni Arabic aristocrats (led by the Sauds, who had granted the Rockefellers’ oil companies the exploration-rights there) wanted the Cold War to continue even after Soviet Communism and the Soviet Union ended. This conflict is also a Western war against Shiite-majority nations, because the Sauds’ imperial ambitions are specifically jihad for a restoration of the Sunni Caliphpate but on a global level; and this is specifically the Saudi Wahhabist Salafist, the most aggressively fundamentalist, form of Sunni Islam. For examples: Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban, are all Wahhabist Salafist Muslims, and all have been funded mainly by Saudi royals.

The U.S. had started, in 1979, late in Jimmy Carter’s Administration, to arm the Saudi ‘mujahideen’ fighters who then were coming into Afghanistan to overthrow the pro-Soviet government there, so as to lure the Soviets into invading Afghanistan. “I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war’,” Carter’s National Security Adviser, David Rockefeller’s protégée (and co-Founder along with Rockefeller, of the Trilateral Commission) Brzezinski, said in a 1998 interview. After Brzezinski had succeeded at that, and the Soviet Union and its communism ended, Brzezinski has continued to advise American Presidents on what he sees as constituting the need now, to defeat Russia — a ‘need’ that U.S. President Barack Obama has strongly endorsed, such as by officially designating Russia as being by far the most “aggressive” nation of all. (Lots more ‘aggressive,’ for example, than the U.S.)

DWN continues: “Sources close to the Iraqi armed forces leadership give the current mood in the Iraqi security forces: The Russian air strikes against ISIS produced in the first week alone, more success than those of the US-led alliance in the entire last year. The establishment of a joint [Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-Russian] intelligence-gathering center in Baghdad [the Joint Intelligence Coordination Center, or ‘JICC’] is therefore an expression of disappointed Iraqi expectations regarding the United States. … So, the US has announced that it will restrict the exchange of information with Iraq’s security forces.”

In other words: Iraq is, in a sense, switching from the U.S. side to the Russian side, in America’s resumption of its Cold War against the Soviet Union (but this time being waged by America against Russia alone).

On October 10th, Iran’s PressTV bannered, “US pulls aircraft carrier out of Persian Gulf as Russian ships enter,” and reported:

The United States has pulled the USS Theodore Roosevelt – a massive, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier – out of the Persian Gulf as Russian warships have entered the area.    

For the first time since 2007, the US Navy has now no aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, according to NBC News.

The warship was withdrawn from the Persian Gulf on Thursday, a day after Russia fired 26 long-range cruise missiles from its Caspian Flotilla against terrorists in Syria, Pentagon officials said. 

US military officials claimed that the aircraft carrier, which houses about 5,000 sailors and 65 fighter jets, was withdrawn because it needed to undergo maintenance.

On October 3rd, I had headlined “The Western Alliance Is Crumbling,” and explained how the Obama Administration’s bombing campaigns in 2011 in pro-Russian Libya, and in 2013 in pro-Russian Syria, had created so many refugees now pouring into Europe, that it has ended up precipitating the end of the American Century, and the start of the end of the American empire, which had been rationalized until the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of communism there, as having been instead an ideological conflict, but now is clearly exposed as having been and as still being actually an attempt to extend the American Empire (the “Western Alliance,” The Atlantic Council, NATO, CENTCOM), not only up to Russia’s borders, but into Russia itself, the juiciest natural-resources prize of all.

Obama therefore won’t likely now be able to deliver, to his financial backers, Russia and its resources, such as he had been hoping to achieve in his second term — to start privatizing Russia’s oil and other natural resources to America’s aristocrats.

Perhaps his Barack Obama Presidential Center won’t be quite as palatial as he has been hoping. Perhaps far fewer people will have to die now in order to get it up and running. Perhaps the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies won’t go to nuclear war against Russia, after all. Perhaps NATO, which should have ended when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact did, in 1991, will now soon end.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia Supplants the U.S. in Global War Against “Jihadists”. Saudi Arabia Favors “A Political Solution in Syria”

They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.

Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.

These donors’ fortunes reflect the shifting composition of the country’s economic elite. Relatively few work in the traditional ranks of corporate America, or hail from dynasties of inherited wealth. Most built their own businesses, parlaying talent and an appetite for risk into huge wealth: They founded hedge funds in New York, bought up undervalued oil leases in Texas, made blockbusters in Hollywood. More than a dozen of the elite donors were born outside the United States, immigrating from countries like Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and Israel.

But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs. While such measures would help protect their own wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that would allow others to prosper, too.

Mostly Backing Republicans

 

Republicans 138 Democrats 20

“It’s a lot of families around the country who are self-made who feel like over-regulation puts these burdens on smaller companies,” said Doug Deason, a Dallas investor whose family put $5 million behind Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and now, after Mr. Perry’s exit, is being courted by many of the remaining candidates. “They’ve done well. They want to see other people do well.”

In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for the Democratic Party and its economic policies. Two-thirds of Americans support higher taxes on those earning $1 million or more a year, according to a June New York Times/CBS News poll, while six in 10 favor more government intervention to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly seven in 10 favor preserving Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.

Republican candidates have struggled to improve their standing with Hispanic voters, women and African-Americans. But as the campaign unfolds, Republicans are far outpacing Democrats in exploiting the world of “super PACs,” which, unlike candidates’ own campaigns, can raise unlimited sums from any donor, and which have so far amassed the bulk of the money in the election.

The 158 families each contributed $250,000 or more in the campaign through June 30, according to the most recent available Federal Election Commission filings and other data, while an additional 200 families gave more than $100,000. Together, the two groups contributed well over half the money in the presidential election — the vast majority of it supporting Republicans.

“The campaign finance system is now a countervailing force to the way the actual voters of the country are evolving and the policies they want,” said Ruy Teixeira, a political and demographic expert at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Like most of the ultrawealthy, the new donor elite is deeply private. Very few of those contacted were willing to speak about their contributions or their political views. Many donations were made from business addresses or post office boxes, or wound through limited liability corporations or trusts, exploiting the new avenues opened up by Citizens United, which gave corporate entities far more leeway to spend money on behalf of candidates. Some contributors, for reasons of privacy or tax planning, are not listed as the owners of the homes where they live, further obscuring the family and social ties that bind them.

But interviews and a review of hundreds of public documents — voter registrations, business records, F.E.C. data and more — reveal a class apart, distant from much of America while geographically, socially and economically intermingling among themselves. Nearly all the neighborhoods where they live would fit within the city limits of New Orleans. But minorities make up less than one-fifth of those neighborhoods’ collective population, and virtually no one is black. Their residents make four and a half times the salary of the average American, and are twice as likely to be college educated.

Most of the families are clustered around just nine cities. Many are neighbors, living near one another in neighborhoods like Bel Air and Brentwood in Los Angeles; River Oaks, a Houston community popular with energy executives; or Indian Creek Village, a private island near Miami that has a private security force and just 35 homes lining an 18-hole golf course.

Sometimes, across party lines, they are patrons of the same symphonies, art museums or at-risk youth programs. They are business partners, in-laws and, on occasion, even poker buddies.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Funding of the 2016 US Presidential Election: America’s 158 Billionaire “Families”

Breaking the Silence on the Destruction of Yemen

October 12th, 2015 by James Corbett

No matter how you boil it down, the script is as sad as it is predictable. Once again international powers are using a conflict in a strategically located country to advance their own agendas and enrich their military contractors at the expense of the ordinary Yemeni.

It seems one of the riskiest things you can do in Yemen these days is get married. This past Wednesday two Saudi airstrikes on a wedding in Dhamar province, 50 miles south of the capital, Sanaa, killed between 23 and 30 people (depending on the report).

This just one week after Saudi airstrikes targeted a wedding party in Taiz province, killing 131. That strike was the deadliest single incident since the start of Saudi airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi-led rebels in March.

But as horrifying as the civilian death toll numbers are — with the UN estimating 5000 civilian deaths since fighting began earlier this year, including 500 children — these numbers are only the most visible symptom of a much deeper problem. Many of the 131 civilians that died at the wedding in Taiz last week, died, according to Hassan Boucenine of Doctors Without Borders, “because the Mokha hospital is closed because of supply — no drugs, no fuel, no electricity, no nothing, so the staff left.” Instead, the injured had to be transported to Hodeida province in trucks typically used for transporting livestock, with many dying en route.

This problem is not isolated to Taiz. Across the country, more than 1.4 million people have had to flee their home due to the fighting and up to 10 million Yemeni children are at risk of death from preventable diseases due to lack of basic medical care.

Despite this unfolding disaster, the war in Yemen has been met with virtual silence in the west. Coverage of the latest deadly incidents are consigned to isolated, context-free reports and are generally confined to the back pages of the newspaper and the “world in brief” newsflashes on TV network news.

Amidst this deafening silence, at least a short form summary of the conflict is necessary for many in the west who have never had the story properly explained to them.

From the formation of modern-day Yemen in 1990 until the so-called “Arab Spring” of 2011, the country was formally ruled by Ali Abdullah Saleh, a Colonel in the North Yemeni Armed Forces who became president of the predecessor Yemen Arab Republic (the former North Yemen) in 1978. Informally, the actual running of the country came to settle on three men: Saleh; Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, an influential army general who helped set up the Islamist “Islah Party” with Saudi support; and Abdullah ibn Husayn al-Ahmar, the head Sheikh of the Hahsid tribal federation and main bagman for Saudi patronage payments to the Yemeni tribes.

The system they created was inherently corrupt, relying on patronage payments and a divvying up of the country’s economic benefits, but it remained relatively stable until the early 2000s, when Saleh began trying to steer some of the country’s lucre toward his son. As the delicate balance of power destabilized, factions formed not just within Yemen’s ruling elite, but outside it, too, with (Shiite) Houthi rebels and southern seperatists emerging to vie for power.

By 2011 Yemenis certainly did have a lot to complain about: living in the poorest country in the Middle East, the average Yemeni faced a bleak future with little hope of advancement, perpetual corruption among the ruling class, and Saleh’s new proposal to loosen presidential term limits, presumably so he could become President For Life. This culminated in an uprising that became part of the “Arab Spring” narrative, and like the rest of that narrative, here, too, the genuine rage of the Yemeni people was directed and channeled by key figures with help from foreign powers.

An example of this phenomenon is helpfully highlighted by the Royal Institute for International Affairs in their September 2013 report on the country. They point to the story of Atiaf al-Wazir, whom they refer to as “One of the voices of the uprising,” who just happened to be an ordinary, everyday Yemeni protester…who was flown to London by the British Government just before the uprising began to speak at a conference on online activism alongside co-speakers like Hillary Clinton and Carl Bildt. There she was given a tour of the ongoing Occupy London encampment and sent back to Yemen to tweet the play-by-play of the social media Twitter revolution “Day of Rage” as @WomanFromYemen for a foreign, English-speaking audience. Oh, and she worked for several years as a “Program Officer” for the National Endowment for Democracy. Yes, that National Endowment for Democracy.

Whatever the agenda behind the uprising, the end result was a transfer of power in early 2012 to Saleh’s deputy, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Interestingly, Obama specifically pointed to the Yemeni transition as the “model” for what the US wanted to see happen to Assad in Syria.

But this nice, heart-warming, US State Department-approved Color Revolution-style fairy tale of oppressed-people-spontaneously-rising-up-against-a-dictator-and-appointing-an-American-approved-dictator was not to last. The country continued unraveling, with Houthi rebels, Islah members, and al-CIAda all vying for power. In September 2014 the Houthis attacked and captured Sanaa, forcing Hadi out of power and causing General Ali Mohsen to flee the country. In February of this year Hadi declared a provisional government in Aden, and in March of this year Saudi Arabia began their bombing campaign against Yemen, a country with no air defenses.

Let’s be clear: this conflict, like all conflict between would-be ruling warlord chieftains (aka politicians) does not have a “good” side and a “bad” side so much as two “bad” sides. Arguments over lesser-of-two-evils notwithstanding, one thing is certain: the Saudi bombardments are destroying the infrastructure of the country, displacing millions, and threatening the lives of an entire population. Whatever solution is going to come to this crisis, any rational observer can understand it is not going to come through bombing weddings, disrupting hospitals, ravaging cities and forcing millions to relocate.

The question, of course, is why the Saudis are leading this “coalition” against the Houthis and how they are able to do so.

The first question is best answered with slightly more nuance than the “Iran-Saudi Proxy War” narrative pumped by the mainstream western press. Although there are certainly ties and affinities between the Shiite Houthis and the Shiite Iranian government, and while the Houthis are from the northern area of Yemen on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep and have fought battles in Saudi’s southern Jizan Region, to say that this is simply an extension of Iranian-Saudi rivalry is too simplistic. After all, as Gareth Porter points out, the Houthis main source of arms and military support is not Iran, but deposed ex-dictator Saleh, who was himself armed by (who else?) the US. The west’s desperation to see the Houthis as Iran’s puppets is just another ploy to paint Iran as a dangerous threat to the region.

Instead, as Narwine Sharwani argues, it is more fruitful to consider this conflict as an extension of an overall regional struggle between two power blocs: the Neo-Colonial Axis of US/Israeli/British/France-backed governments and monarchies, and the Resistance Axis of the post-Iranian Revolution anti-imperialists. This power bloc thesis helps explain how forces are shaping up in the Syrian war (with Russia and China teaming up with Iran, Iraq and Syria to tackle the Saudi/Qatar/Turkey/US/Israeli ISIS boogeymen) and the conflict between the Saudis and Houthis in Yemen. Certainly one of the big winners in this bombardment of Yemen is the Saudi-spawned Al-CIAda, which continues to act as the terror boogeyman requiring US military involvement in the region and/or the CFR’s best friend as circumstances require.

Martha Mundy, an anthropologist with extensive experience in Yemen, muses in CounterPunch that the Yemen bombardment is a test run for a new type of conflict to emerge in this competition of the power blocs. In this thesis, the attempt is to run a “Neo-Colonial Axis” led Israeli-style aerial bombardment war without the bad press that followed Tel Aviv’s last bloodbath in Gaza.

If the results so far are anything to go by, they’ve certainly been successful at keeping their blatant war crimes under the table. Just last week the Saudis managed to squash a Dutch attempt for an independent probe into war crimes in the ongoing Yemen conflict and replace it with Saudi Arabia’s own plan. The move is particularly brash for the country that is directly responsible for the ongoing carnage, but was preictably supported by the US, who are the main underwriters of the Saudi bombardment.

No matter how you boil it down, the script is as sad as it is predictable. Once again international powers are using a conflict in a strategically located country to advance their own agendas and enrich their military contractors at the expense of the ordinary Yemeni.

If there is any hint of a ray of hope on the horizon for those beleaguered Yemenis, it’s that the Houthis have reportedly agreed to accept the terms of peace talks with the Saudis. Saudi Arabia, for its part, has yet to respond.

Let’s not hold our breath. The last attempt at a brokered peace agreement ended with the firing of the UN representative overseeing the plan and the cutting out of the Houthis from further talks. The Saudis are still calling the shots in this conflict, and now, as chair of the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council that lent “moral legitimacy” to the destruction of Libya, they are likely content to continue bombing weddings for the foreseeable future.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Breaking the Silence on the Destruction of Yemen

Since we now have the agreed text, we’ll be including some paragraph references that you can cross-reference for yourself—but be aware that some of them contain placeholders like “x” that may change in the cleaned-up text.

Also, our analysis here is limited to the copyright and Internet-related provisions of the chapter, but analyses of the impacts of other parts of the chapter have been published by Wikileaks and others.

Binding Rules for Rightsholders, Soft Guidelines for Users

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you’re looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that’s how it’s meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you’ll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

Expansion of Copyright Terms

Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120 year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term.

New to the latest text are the transition periods in Section J, which allow some countries a longer period for complying with some of their obligations, including copyright term. For example, Malaysia has been allowed two years to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 years. For Vietnam, the transition period is five years. New Zealand is the country receiving the most “generous” allowance; its term will increase to life plus 60 years initially, rising to the full life plus 70 year term within eight years. Yet Canada, on the other hand, has not been given any transition period at all.

Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM)

The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be “independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyright and related rights,” yet the final text includes just that requirement.

The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.

The parties’ flexibility to allow DRM circumvention also requires them to consider whether rightsholders have already taken measures to allow those non-infringing uses to be made. This might mean that rightsholders will rely on the walled-garden sharing capabilities built in to their DRM systems, such as Ultraviolet, to oppose users being granted broader rights to circumvent DRM.

Alongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition (QQ.G.13) on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.

The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed (QQ.H.9), posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.

Criminal Enforcement and Civil Damages

On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder’s election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.

No exception to these damages provisions is made in cases where the rightsholder cannot be found after a diligent search, which puts the kibosh on ideas for the introduction of an orphan works regime that would cap remedies available against those who reproduce these otherwise-unavailable works.

One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family’s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.

In some cases (QQ.H.7), the penalties for copyright infringement can even include jail time. Traditionally, this has because the infringer is operating a business of commercial piracy. But under the TPP, any act of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale renders the infringer liable to criminal penalties, even if they were not carried out for financial gain, provided that they have a substantial prejudicial impact on the rightsholder. The copying of films that are still playing in movie theaters is also subject to separate criminal penalties, regardless of the scale of the infringement.

Trade Secrets

The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.

Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN’s flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

The TPP’s prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration’s own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.

ISP Liability

The provisions on ISP liability (Appendix Section I), as we previously found in the last leaked text, are not quite as permissive as we hoped. It will still require most countries to adopt a version of the flawed U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown system, albeit with a few safeguards such as penalties for those who issue wrongful takedown notices, and allowing (but not requiring) a Japanese-style system of verification of takedown notices by an independent body of ISPs and rightsholders.

It is true that Canada’s notice-and-notice regime is also allowed, but effectively only for Canada—no other country that did not have an equivalent system as of the date of the agreement is allowed to benefit from that flexibility. Even in Canada’s case, this largesse is only afforded because of the other enforcement measures that rightsholders enjoy there—such as a tough regime of secondary liability for authorization of copyright infringement.

Similarly Chile’s system under which ISPs are not required to take down content without a judicial order is explicitly grandfathered in, but no other country joining the TPP in the future will be allowed to have a similar system.

In addition, although there is no explicit requirement for a graduated response regime of copyright penalties against users, ISPs are still roped in as copyright enforcers with the vague requirement (Appendix Section 1) that they be given “legal incentives…to cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyright materials”.

Good Points?

Quite honestly there are no parts of this agreement that are positively good for users. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not improved over the earlier, horrendous demands of the U.S. negotiators. Some of the areas in which countries rightly pushed back against the U.S., and which are reflected in the final text are:

  • The exhaustion of rights provision (QQ.A.11) that upholds the first sale doctrine of U.S. law, preventing copyright owners from extending their control over the resale of copyright works once they have first been placed in the market. In particular, this makes parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works lawful—and complementing this is an explicit authorization of devices that bypass region-coding on physical copies of such works (QQ.G.10, though this does not extend to bypassing geoblocking of streaming services).
  • A thoroughly-misguided provision that would have extended copyright protection to temporary or “buffer” copies in a computer system was one of the earliest rightsholder demands dropped by the USTR, and rightfully so, given the damage this would have wreaked to tech companies and users alike.

But we have struggled to come up with more than two positive points about the TPP, and even then the absence of these tragic mistakes is a pretty poor example of a positive point. If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Final Leaked “Secret” TPP Text is All That We Feared. Top Down Control of the Internet

“As always, it seems Julian Assange has exposed divisions right in the heart of the establishment.” James Wells and Adam Crafton, The Tab, Oct 11, 2015

When will these village gossipers understand that a platform for speech has rarely anything to do with a person’s character so much as ideas?  The gallery of history’s personalities are filled with the unpalatable and questionable.  The question then falls for those debating unions at prestigious universities as to whether a certain person should, or should not, speak.

It was just a matter of time before Julian Assange’s name made an appearance as a possible suggestion for the Cambridge Union’s speaker list, a debating society that advertises itself as the oldest in the world, the largest in Cambridge, and one “celebrating 200 years of free speech and the art of debating.”

The result of even having Assange as a consideration certainly tested the free speech aspect of the body, having precipitated what is often termed in institutional circles a “meltdown” among committee members. It is unclear whether Assange was the cause of it, but there is little doubt that he cast his disruptive shadow from the Ecuadorean embassy.

The Union committee on Friday decided after a prolonged six hour discussion to go ahead with an online referendum which will be held on October 22.  It reads: “Do you agree with that the Cambridge Union should host Julian Assange via video link on November 11th at 7pm?”

The Women’s Officer, Helen Dallas, had a sanctimonious moment over the affair and resigned.  There were suggestions that she might have been prompted to ask questions of Assange during proceedings.  A spate of resignations also followed, though it is by no means clear whether these were related to Assange.[1]

Oliver Mosley, the term’s President, gave an insight into the committee’s world.  “Many suggestions were made to make the hypothetical event as balanced a forum as possible to ensure marginalised voices were heard, including asking the CUSU Women’s Officer to ask the first question.”  Perhaps potential GCHQ and MI5 recruits might have been asked as well – they, no doubt, feel marginalised in a WikiLeaks-Snowden world.

Let us take the obvious point that seems to have troubled committee members: Assange’s character.  The Cambridge Union is hardly alien to presenters unsavoury and unpleasant.  Former terrorists, outcasts and activists have taken the podium.

Then come the self-censorship platforms that decide to quash discussion because of a suggestion, rumours, or allegations. Such gossiping tendencies even afflict forums with a two hundred year history dedicated to “free speech”.  The suggestion that someone with Assange’s resume should surrender himself willingly to Swedish authorities on allegations that are themselves suspect is the height of clean linen absurdity. This attitude is outrageously naïve, suggesting an objective, uninfected legal approach to a political, and politicised figure.

Even the Swedish Court of Appeal found in 2014 that the prevaricating prosecutor in the case had breached her duty in refusing to progress with questioning Assange after 5 years. But appearances in the world of village gossip have little to do with evidence.  Hints, suggestions, and rumours, tend to have the gangly legs, while leaden facts languish.  And sex, or allegations as to how it is engaged in, have the longest ones.

Whether the village gossipers hold sway over allowing Assange to speak at the Cambridge Union is not a trivial point. It is the same tactical line that intelligence agencies, bureaucracies and corporations use to kill conversation and noisy queries. Do not trust Chelsea Manning because of gender confusions.  Do not trust Edward Snowden because he is a plant and fled to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  Do not trust Assange because he might, just might, have pressed the flesh in Sweden, irrespective of a notoriously muddied, bungled case. Besides, he is a bolter.

More to the point, it is the personalising of an individual’s character that is used against their ideas and merit, if those ideas even fly with the establishment.  This is the whistleblower’s dilemma, to have the message obscured by allegations of dubious credit and personal deficiency.  Forget the pertinent information; forget revelations of the uninhibited surveillance establishment, gross violations of privacy or hidden atrocities.  The village gossip’s brief trivialises and ultimately dismisses.

The Cambridge Union’s Assange affair also casts light on another dangerous trend that seems to have radiated through university campuses (though Oxbridge shuns the term).  It is an aversion to ideas whose time, in such circles, are said not to have come.  There is a voluntary self-cleansing of the ideas stable.  Cathedrals of learning are having their altars stripped.

University class rooms are now replete with “trigger warnings” – will you be offended by a graphic image in class, or a text in the vernacular that might turn your middle class sensibility into black pudding?  Campus culture, as Laura Kipnis suggested in the Chronicle of Higher Education back in February, is riddled with the politics of sexual paranoia, “offensive environment” guidelines, humour policing and a general indifference to converse with the dangerous.[2]

Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt have also taken that baton up in September’s issue of The Atlantic, noting how, “A movement [in US colleges] is arising, undirected and even driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.”[3]

Complaints are made by the sensitivity mafia that certain subjects should not be taught – no “rape law” for the faint hearted please.  Only a highly streamlined form of comedy is tolerated – sensitive college students have become the humourless vanguard in holding comedians at bay, with Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld noting the constipated air of “non-offensive” culture on campuses.

So, for those getting online to vote later this month, consider how not allowing Assange to speak might just be a total acquiescence, not merely to the dystopia of the mindless regulated university run by behavioural juntas and speculative gossips, but to State powers who do not see the public as worthy citizens so much as submissive, monitored, and ultimately daft subjects.

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

Notes

 
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Speaking at the Cambridge Union: Julian Assange and the Village Gossipers

 A recent US Senate hearing regarding Russia’s ongoing air campaign in Syria plumbed dark depths when it was actually proposed by retired US Army General John M. Keane that “free zones” be established for armed militants, and populated with refugees to deter Russian attacks. In essence, General Keane’s plan is to use refugees as human shields, and leverage any attack on this established “free zone” as a means of manipulating public opinion.

The US Strategy Until Now The recent multinational anti-terror operation led by Russia at the request of the Syrian government has dealt the United States and its narrative regarding its own military intervention in Syria a severe blow.It has become abundantly clear that not only has the United States been arming and funding extremists inside of Syria, including groups operating in tandem with listed terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, it also appears that the US has feigned its campaign against the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL).While the US now poses as determined to “defeat” ISIS in Syria, just last year talking points circulatedabout instead “containing” the terrorist organization within Syria – essentially letting it ravage the country, degrade the fighting capacity of the Syrian government and hopefully, lead to the collapse of Damascus.

Within the pages of the Brookings Institution – a corporate-financier funded think-tank whose policymakers have helped engineer much of America’s plans now playing out on the global stage – was a report titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” It stated:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all. 

However the instability the US claims ISIS is sustaining itself on was created by the US itself as it attempts to violently overthrow the Syrian government, intentionally dividing and destroying the country in the process. “Containing” ISIS in Syria is not unlike an assassin “containing” a poisonous snake under the covers of their sleeping victim until they are bitten and die.

But as abhorrent as it is to create, unleash, and “contain” a terrorist threat within a targeted nation to ravage it, the US seems ready to stoop lower still.

Using Refugees as Human Shields 

With Russia and its allies setting out to destroy all terrorist groups operating within Syria and making moves to cut them off from their foreign sponsors, the strategy of waging a proxy war as the US has been doing through Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and ISIS is no longer viable.

At a recent US Senate hearing on Russian strategy and military operations, sitting US Senators, retired generals and representatives from various think-tanks and lobbying groups attempted to produce a response to Russia’s most recent move.

Rather than interpreting Russia’s actions as a welcomed addition to the supposed “War on Terror,” the hearing appeared to interpret the entire Syrian conflict as a mere pawn in a wider proxy war Washington clearly believes it is waging against Moscow. Those attending the hearing admitted to the deterioration of American foreign policy, its global legitimacy and credibility, and the diminishing returns US State Department media operations are having worldwide.

In this context, many of the solutions regarding Syria centered not on how to stop ISIS or restore peace and stability to the country, but rather how to foil Russia’s military operations aimed at terrorist organizations, how to humiliate and turn global public opinion against Moscow.

It was among these discussions that retired US Army General John Keane stated:

If we establish free zones – you know, for moderate opposition forces – but also sanctuaries for refugees, that gets world opinion support rather dramatically. If Putin is going to attack that, then world opinion is definitely against him.  You take this issue right off the table in terms of why he’s in Syria and if you’re doing that [attacking free zones] and contributing to the migration that’s taking place by your aggressive military actions, then world opinion will have some rather – I think – significant impact on him. 

One must wonder – if players among US policy circles believe Syrian refugees are pawns of potential use in turning public opinion against Russia in Syria itself, did they not also see them as pawns that could be used to flood Europe and turn public opinion in favor of waging wider and more direct war on the Syrian government itself?

While ISIS begins repositioning its weapons and fighters in mosques and other heavily populated areas to use human shields to evade Russian airstrikes, a prominent retired US general is suggesting CIA trained terrorists likewise be repositioned within protected “free zones” using refugees as human shields to also evade Russian airstrikes.

It should also be noted that America’s proposed “free zone” is located in precisely ISIS’ last remaining supply corridor leading from Turkey. Should Syrian and Russian forces finally seal off the border, ISIS’ fighting capacity within northern and eastern Syria would quickly collapse.

An abominable proposition echoing through the halls of one of America’s highest institutions, met with either nodding heads or silent approval, portend the next chapter of American intervention in Syria.

A Dangerous Policy Born of Desperation 

Keane’s testimony, provided by the official US Senate’s website (pdf), also includes the following points:

Putin has begun a proxy war with the U.S. when Russian combat aircraft struck, continuously, moderate rebel forces trained by the CIA. This was no accident, targets were provided by the Syrian regime and they were accurate. How can the U.S. stand by and do nothing? U.S. military should have been given the mission to retaliate. Options likely to be considered among others: crater the Al Assad runway, establish free zones that are sanctuaries for refugees, strike Assad’s helicopter fleet that is barrel bombing, just to name a few.

Similar testimony and agreement was also provided by retired US Marine Corps General and former USMC Commandant James Jones, as well as Heather Conley and Stephen Sestanovich representing a milieu of corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks. Their talking points can be heard echoing across the summation of American and European policy circles and in turn, repeated faithfully by the Western media.

Besides American hegemony, what purpose would “cratering” Russia’s airbase in Syria serve? Would that aid in the battle against ISIS? Would it be worth triggering a potential war with Russia to protect militants the entire world has come to understand are in fact terrorists no different or any less dangerous than the ISIS threat itself?

That US policymakers and politicians are not asking themselves these questions before they propose such “solutions” publicly gives the world some insight into the intellectual and moral deterioration taking place within America’s ruling elite itself – which has in turn directly fed the deterioration of American influence, power, and legitimacy globally.

Using refugees as human shields will most likely not turn world opinion against Russia. The practiced liars across the Western media that would be charged with doing the turning, have already entered a terminal crisis of credibility. Instead, General Keane’s suggestions, if taken seriously, will only further compound America’s unraveling global primacy.

For American policymakers, they may want to explore the qualities that actually make a nation great, rather than qualities useful in only creating the illusion of greatness.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Senate Hearing Suggests that US Sponsored “Moderate Terrorists” in Syria Use Refugees as Human Shields

(Please read previous section before this article)

This section examines how and why the two formerly most stable states in the Mideast (at least according to conventional Western understanding) have become the ones facing the greatest prospects of full-scale destabilization:

The Saudis Are Running Scared

Biting The Russian Hand:

The combined effect of the Coalition of the Righteous’ (COR) successes sends chills down the Saudis’ spine, since they’re watching their regional proxies get wiped out to the benefit of geopolitical rival Iran. The author had earlier tried to analyze the nature of the closed-door Russian-Saudi diplomacy that had been ongoing for most of the year, eventually coming to a conclusion that Moscow was trying to provide Riyadh with a ‘face-saving’ retreat from the Syrian battlefield. The tacit understanding here was that the withdrawn proxy forces could then be redeployed elsewhere, perhaps to Yemen, which is inarguably seen by the Kingdom as its number one security issue at the moment.

The proposal sounded good on paper, but the Saudis attempted to double-deal the Russians by instead contracting Gulf forces to bear the brunt of most of the War on Yemen’s brutal ground campaign, thus allowing them to leave their proxies in Syria as they continued to pursue their regime change ends there. As is now being seen in hindsight, the author’s assessment has been vindicated, since it’s now clear that Russia was indeed giving Saudi Arabia the opportunity to covertly withdraw its associated fighting forces prior to the coming onslaught, which they of course weren’t notified about before in advance. The House of Saud thought it could finagle some type of extra benefit by declining to call its associated armies out of Syria, leading to a major miscalculation that that is seeing the Kingdom’s proxies decimated in the course of a week and its strategic planners in full-blown panic mode.

Sinking In The Sand:

The entire Mideast was aware of the Russian-Saudi discussions, and now that Russia has assembled the COR and is directly fighting terrorism in the region, the Saudi’s proxy forces such as the “Army of Conquest” must now be asking themselves why their patron abandoned them as sitting ducks on the battlefield. It’s not realistically thought that Russia informed the Saudis in any way whatsoever of their coming military campaign, but for the Islamists on the ground being killed by Russian airstrikes, it sure seems like a possibility, and they may be seething with anger against the Saudis for being set up. Already, over 3,000 terrorists have already fled Syria for Jordan, likely en route back to Saudi Arabia, and the Kingdom’s security establishment must surely be aware of the threat this entails. Couple the returning jihadis with the homegrown ISIL terrorists that already struck in the country before, and a cocktail of domestic disaster is being mixed before the Saudis’ own eyes, and their military establishment is too bogged down along the Yemeni border to adequately focus on it. This dire state of affairs could be made even more severe if the Ansarullah are successful enough in their attacks against the ‘Arab NATO’ that some of its Gulf members (especially Qatar and the UAE) pull out, which would then force the Saudis to compensate with their own overstretched forces. Furthermore, their paranoid fantasies of “Iranian-Shia encirclement” are probably kicking into high gear right now, meaning that it can’t be guaranteed that the country will react rationally to any threats that it perceives. In connection with this, a heavy-handed crackdown, whether against suspected terrorists or Shiites, can’t be discounted, and this would obviously add to the country’s domestic destabilization.

From Supreme Power To Second-Rate State:

Approaching the country from an international perspective, it’s evident that Saudi Arabia’s regional influence is waning as the COR’s steps up its anti-terrorist campaign and drives its proxies out of Syria and Iraq. In the near future when ISIL and other terrorists are defeated in these states, the Saudis (if they’re still a unified country) will be forced to accept a second-rate status in the Mideast, nothing at all like the position they had enjoyed since 2003. Additionally, they will find themselves increasingly relying on Russia in order for Moscow mediate between the Kingdom and the Islamic Republic and help maintain the “cold peace” that’s expected to settle over the Gulf (as the authorpreviously forecast in his “Pivot of Pragmatism” scenario). The US’ diminished role in the Mideast will be a fait accompli by this point, signaling that the Saudis’ days of fully relying on it for its security guarantees will be long gone. Also, the energy war between the two might by that time have placed the Kingdom in a weakened economic position, especially if it’s not as successful as it hopes to be in diversifying its economy through financial instruments. Overall, the geopolitical forecast for Saudi Arabia looks quite gloomy, and it’s a sure bet that it’s moving towards what might be the hardest times its ever experienced in its history, which will present an existential challenge that will strain its government to the maximum.

Turkish Turmoil

The Current State Of Affairs:

The author forecast this scenario in his most recent article for The Saker, but it’s definitely worth citing again and exploring more in-depth because it looks ever more likely that it’ll transform into a reality. The gist of the idea is that Turkey is undergoing such strenuous domestic difficulties at the moment (civil war, left-wing terrorismIslamist terrorist bombings [which may have been a false flag]) that there’s a real possibility that it could become ‘the next Syria’ of absolute destabilization if the government and/or military (through a coup) doesn’t regain full control soon. The situation was already precarious even before the COR’s anti-terrorist crusade, but now Turkey faces the very real prospect of its own Islamist proxies retreating northwards to their nest just as the Saudis’ are doing in the southern direction.

With the Turkish military focusing most of its attention on the Kurdish-dominated southeast, it’s dubious whether or not it even has the capability to fully secure its border now that it literally has the pressing security urge to finally do so. An influx of experienced terrorists into the Turkish heartland is literally the last thing that the security establishment needs during this already turbulent time, and depending on the level of political uncertainty after the snap November elections, it could very well be that the military decides to once more take matters into its own hands and restore order in the country. If that happens, then it might be the decisive moment needed to push the country towards a full-on Eurasian Pivot, which in that case would completely dismantle the US regional security architecture and send shockwaves through the rest of NATO.

The Unintentional Flank and Turkish/Balkan Stream:

erdogan-2Continuing with the topic of a Turkish military coup, the author feels the need to explain his forecast in detail so that it is properly understood by the reader, but in order to get there, some contextual information is necessary. To begin with, Russia’s military involvement in Syria has completed the unintentional fait accompli of flanking Turkey. In fact, if one uses this perceptive lense to reexamine the past three conflicts that Russia partook in, then it: (1) secured the Abkhaz coast and neutralized any future Georgian naval expansion, thus projecting Russian power across the entire eastern Black Sea; (2) secured Crimea and guaranteed Russian control of the northern part of the Black Sea; and (3) positioned Russian air assets south of the Turkish border. It is not at all to suggest that the pursuit of these results played any motivating influence whatsoever in guiding Russia’s role in these three conflicts, but the final facts are indisputable – Russian naval forces project power along Turkey’s northern coast, while its aerospace ones (and to an extent, certain naval ones as well) do the same along the southern border.

In this context, Turkish/Balkan Stream was an olive branch of friendship meant to reassure a strategic energy ally that Russia means no harm, and actually intends to peacefully strengthen bilateral relations, not weaken them, despite each side’s polar opposite approach to Syria. Despite this, talks on the project had stalled as of late, as Erdogan foolishly attempted to follow the Saudis’ lead by turning what could have been mutually beneficial and pragmatic diplomacy with Russia into some type of grand geopolitical game, and just like with King Salman, ‘Sultan Erdogan’ also failed in his gambit. Now that the country is unable to form a government at least until the November elections, the project has been frozen until December or January at the earliest, frustrating Russia’s plans to accelerate its Balkan Pivot, playing to the US’ relative advantage, and undermining Turkey’s business reputation similarly to how France’s was self-slurred by the Mistral affair (although not yet past that dramatic point of no return).

Erdogan’s Imaginary War Against Russia:

The geopolitical situation is a lot different today than it was a few months ago, however, with Turkey now mired in civil war and Russia having completed its unintentional flanking of the country through the basing of air units along its southern border. There’s no sane scenario where Russia would ever decide to launch a first strike against its NATO neighbor, but still, the present distribution of forces indicates that Russia certainly has acquired a strategic upper hand in any evebt. Turkey’s overreaction to the unintentional violation of its airspace by a Russian jet this week was due in large part to its political establishment’s increasing paranoia about this, played up of course by the US andNATO for their own strategic ends. Nevertheless, with the Turkish military being stretched between Kurdistan, the Syrian border, and every soft terrorist target in between, the last thing its top brass needs is to become entangled in Erdogan’s imaginary war with Russia. The more that the political leadership tries to press the point of Russian “aggression”, the more likely it is that the military will rebel against it and take steps towards an actual coup, since it, more than any other actor in Turkey, understands the falseness behind this claim and the absolute futility in pursuing it, especially in light of the existentially threatening circumstances that Erdogan has presently and completely unnecessarily gotten the Republic of Turkey into.

The Military’s Mindset:

The Turkish military is being gorged on the horns of a multisided dilemma. First off, it’s stuck fighting a bloody civil war in the southeast which was sparked by Erdogan’s failed pre-election ploy. Secondly, this conflict has already gone international, with limited Turkish ground and air strikes in Iraq, demonstrating the growing operational complexity of this mission. Thirdly, the Turkish military needs to counter the very real threat that thousands of retreating Syrian-based jihadis will return to their Turkish training base. On top of that, the political leadership is pressing it to simultaneously remain on standby in the event that an ill-fated decision is made to conventionally intervene in Syria. Already, these four simultaneous pressures (civil war, Iraqi intervention, “anti-terrorist” responsibilities, and Syrian standby) are pulling the Turkish military to the breaking point, and that’s not even considering the very real danger that Erdogan’s imaginary war with Russia could have on the country’s stability.

To explain the last point, Russia’s unintentional flanking of Turkey has put it in a position where it could inflict significant damage to the country if attacked, which, of course, is in nobody’s interests (not even Erdogan’s, as personally fickle and prone to temper tantrums as he is). So, in the event of any hypothetical Turkish antagonism against Russia (for example, over its anti-terrorist operations in Syria), then the feasible scenario arises where the Russian-Kurdish-Iranian members of the COR extend some form of tangible support to the Turkish-based Kurdish separatists, which might be enough to fatally tip the balance of power against the Turkish military and lead to its removal from the entire southeast portion of the (former) country. Rhetorically speaking, if Turkey can involve itself in Russia’s domestic affairs in Crimea (potentially even through militant means), there’s nothing at all stopping Russia from doing the same in Kurdistan, even if it doesn’t announce it as arrogantly as Erdogan did. Remember, this is a rhetorical/hypothetical situation – no proof exists that Russia has any intent to do this – but military strategists, in this case those from Turkey, as per their job responsibilities, must consider and plan for all scenarios, so it’s likely that this one has entered the minds of at least a couple of people in Ankara.

A Geopolitical Blessing:

Already stretched to the limit as it is, there’s no way that the Turkish military would also be able to manage an emboldened Kurdish insurgency that was strengthened by Russian, Iraqi Kurdish, and Iranian support, which would thus lead to the independence of the region and the dismantling of Turkey’s territorial integrity and Eurasian energy nexus plans. In the military’s mindset, it’s logically much better for Turkey to avoid provoking Russia and prompting it to play out this scenario, because as is obviously understood, it would quickly lead to the unravelling of Turkish statehood. This is why the Turkish military could realistically be pushed towards acting on any preexisting coup ideas it may have if Erdogan continues to press ahead with his provocations against Russia. In fact, a post-coup Turkey might actually be very beneficial for Russian-Turkish relations, since the country would finally have a capable enough leadership in power that understands the essence of the bilateral partnership and could seek to intensify it for maximum mutual advantage, notably by rapidly moving forward with Turkish/Balkan Stream and de-facto disengaging from NATO.

The reader must never fail to remember that Turkey is already very close to a military coup as it is, but that the anti-Russian agenda being pushed by the Erdogan government might very well be the point that breaks the military’s patience and pushes it to carry out its plans. The regime change would be entirely self-inflicted and with no external party to blame whatsoever (let alone Russia), but it could fortuitously become a geopolitical blessing if the military administration decides to follow the above recommendations and unyieldingly turn towards the multipolar community of Eurasia.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentaror currently working for the Sputnik agency.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The New Middle East”: Russian Style. The Saudis are Running Scared

You know about President and General Dwight Eisenhower’s prescient warning about the “military-industrial complex” as he left the White House?

Well, it turns out that he was really warning about the “military-industrial-congressional” complex.

42-year CIA veteran Milton Goodman explains:

In the spring of 1961, I was part of a small group of undergraduates who met with the president’s brother, Milton Eisenhower, who was then president of Johns Hopkins University. Milton Eisenhower and a Johns Hopkins professor of political science, Malcolm Moos, played major roles in the drafting and editing of the farewell speech of January 1961.

The actual drafter of the speech, Ralph E. Williams, relied on guidance from Professor Moos. Milton Eisenhower explained that one of the drafts of the speech referred to the “military-industrial-Congressional complex” and said that the president himself inserted the reference to the role of the Congress, an element that did not appear in the delivery of the farewell address.

When the president’s brother asked about the dropped reference to Congress, the president replied: “It was more than enough to take on the military and private industry. I couldn’t take on the Congress as well.”

And see this:

Indeed, Congress members – part of the fatcat club which makes money hand over fist from war –  areheavily invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information … perhaps even including planned military actions.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Eisenhower REALLY Said About the “Military Industrial Complex”. The Complicit Role of the US Congress

Over the past five years, the increasingly ridiculous propaganda against President al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has ranged from the scripted (OTPOR fomented -“revolution“) “peaceful protesters under fire” rhetoric, to other deceitful lexicon like “civil war,” and “moderate rebels.”

As the intervention campaigns continue with new terrorist and “humanitarian” actors (literally) constantly emerging in the NATO-alliance’s theatre of death squads, it is worth reviewing some of the important points regarding the war on Syria.

Million Person Marches

On March 29, 2011 (less than two weeks into the fantasy “revolution”) over 6 million people across Syria took to the streets in support of President al-Assad. In June, a reported hundreds of thousands marched in Damascus in support of the president, with a 2.3 km long Syrian flag. In November, 2011 (9 months into the chaos), masses again held demonstrations supporting President al-Assad, notably in Homs (the so-called “capital of the ‘revolution’”), Dara’a (the so-called “birthplace of the ‘revolution’”), Deir ez-Zour, Raqqa, Latakia, and Damascus.

Mass demonstrations like this have occurred repeatedly since, including in March 2012, in May 2014 in the lead-up to Presidential elections, and in June 2015, to note just some of the larger rallies.

In May 2013, it was reported that even NATO recognized the Syrian president’s increased popularity. “The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support” the Assad government. At present, the number is now at least 80 percent.

The most telling barometer of Assad’s support base was the Presidential elections in June 2014, which saw 74 percent (11.6 million) of 15.8 million registered Syrian voters vote, with President al-Assad winning 88 percent of the votes. The lengths Syrians outside of Syria went to in order to vote included flooding the Syrian embassy in Beirut for two full days (and walking several kilometres to get there) and flying from countries with closed Syrian embassies to Damascus airport simply to cast their votes. Within Syria,Syrians braved terrorist mortars and rockets designed to keep them from voting; 151 shells were fired on Damascus alone, killing 5 and maiming 33 Syrians.

For a more detailed look at his broad base of popular support, see Professor Tim Anderson’s “Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad.”

The Reforms

Prior to the events of March 2011 Syrians did have legitimate desires for specific reforms, many of which were implemented from the beginning of the unrest. In fact, President al-Assad made reforms prior to and following March 17, 2011.

Stephen Gowans noted some of those early reforms, including:

  • Canceling the Emergency Law;
  • Amending the the constitution and putting it to a referendum [8.4 million Syrians voted; 7.5 million voted in favour of the constitution];
  • Scheduling, then holding, multi-party parliamentary and presidential elections

The constitution, according to Gowans, “mandated that the government maintain a role in guiding the economy on behalf of Syrian interests, and that the Syrian government would not make Syrians work for the interests of Western banks, oil companies, and other corporations.”

It also included:

  • “security against sickness, disability and old age; access to health care; free education at all levels”
  • a provision “requiring that at minimum half the members of the People’s Assembly are to be drawn from the ranks of peasants and workers.”

Political commentator Jay Tharappel further articulated:

The new constitution introduced a multi-party political system in the sense that the eligibility of political parties to participate isn’t based on the discretionary permission of the Baath party or on reservations, rather on a constitutional criteria….the new constitution forbids political parties that are based on religion, sect or ethnicity, or which are inherently discriminatory towards one’s gender or race. (2012: Art.8)

No surprise that NATO’s exile-Syrian pawns refused the reforms and a constitution which ensures a sovereign Syria secure from the claws of multi-national corporations and Western banks.

In his article, “Decriminalising Bashar – towards a more effective anti-war movement,” writer Carlos Martinez outlined Syria’s positives, including its anti-imperialist, socialist policies; its secularism and multiculturalism; and—poignantly—its continued support for Palestinians and anti-Zionist stance.

These are all points that contradict the lies spewed over the past nearly five years, and shatter the feeble justification for continuing to wage war on Syria.

Twisting the Numbers to Serve the War Agenda

The number and nature of Syrians killed varies depending on which list one consults. Many talking heads draw from one sole source, UK-based SyrianRami Abdulrahman of the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights(SOHR) (run out of his home and based on information provided largely by unnamed “activists”). Abdulrahman hasn’t been to Syria for 15 years, and, as Tony Cartalucci noted, is “a member of the so-called ‘Syrian opposition’ and seeks the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.” Further, Cartalucci explained, “Abdul Rahman’s operation is indeed funded by the European Union and a “European country” he refuses to identify.” So not an impartial source.

In her February 2012 “Questioning the Syrian Casualty List“, political analyst Sharmine Narwani laid out the logistical difficulties of collating the number of deaths, including:

  • Different casualty lists and difficulty confirming accuracy of any of them.
  • Lack of information on: how deaths were verified and by whom and from what motivation.
  • Lack of information on the dead: civilian, pro or anti government civilians; armed groups; Syrian security forces?”

She found that one early casualty list included 29 Palestinian refugees “killed by Israeli fire on the Golan Heights on 15 May 2011 and 5 June 2011 when protesters congregated on Syria’s armistice line with Israel.”

Jay Tharappel looked at two of the other prime groups cited regarding casualties in Syria: the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) and the Violations Documentation Center (VDC).

He noted that neither of the groups “are ‘independent’ in the sense that they function merely to provide facts, they’re all open about their agenda to overthrow the Syrian government…and for the imposition of a no-fly zone on behalf of the ‘moderate rebels’, whoever they are.”

Further, according to Tharappel, “the SNHR doesn’t provide any evidence to substantiate its assertions about the numbers killed by government forces. They claim to have ‘documented [victims] by full name, place, and date of death,’ however none of these can be found on their website.”

Regarding the VDC, he wrote, “there are good reasons to believe the VDC is listing dead insurgents as civilians, as well as mislabeling dead government soldiers as FSA fighters.”

One example he cited was the listing of a Jaysh al-Islam militant, ‘Hisham Al-Sheikh Bakri’, killed by the SAA in Douma (infested with Jaysh al-Islam terrorists), in February 2015, which al-Masdar News reported. The VDC alsolisted ‘Hisham Abd al-Aziz al-Shaikh Bakri’, “however this one is listed as an adult male civilian and not a Jaish Al-Islam fighter,” Tharappel wrote.

Even embedded war reporter Nir Rosen, Tharappel recalled, in 2012 wrote:

Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.

It would be an understatement to say there are considerable, and intentional, inaccuracies in the lists of these groups. In fact, most of the aforementioned groups fail to note what commentators like Paul Larudee did:

The UN estimates 220,000 deaths thus far in the Syrian war. But almost half are Syrian army soldiers or allied local militia fighters, and two thirds are combatants if we count opposition fighters. Either way, the ratio of civilian to military casualties is roughly 1:2, given that the opposition is also inflicting civilian casualties. Compare that to the roughly 3:1 ratio in the US war in Iraq and 4:1 in the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008-9. (The rate of Palestinian to Israeli casualties was an astronomical 100:1.)

“Leftists” Keeping the Myths Alive

Public figures like Owen Jones, and pro-Palestinian sites like the Middle East Eye and the Electronic Intifada, have a following for their more palatable (and safe) solidarity stance on Palestine, but routinely spew rhetoric against Syria, which is then echoed by their well-intentioned, if very misinformed, followers.

Much of grassroots “Leftists”’ anti-Syria propaganda is as poisonous as corporate media. Routinely, at ostensibly anti-war/anti-Imperialist gatherings, the anti-Syria narrative is predominant.

For example, at the March 2015 World Social Forum in Tunis, some Syria-specific panels spun the fairy tale of “revolutionaries” in Syria, one panel alleging: “The protests in Syria were peaceful for almost six or seven months; 6-7000 unarmed people were killed; only then did ‘rebels’ eventually take up arms.”

Yet, it is known that from the beginning, in Dara’a  and throughout Syria, armed protesters were firing upon, and butchering, security forces and civilians. Tim Anderson’s “Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa” pointed out that police were killed by snipers in the March 17/18 protests; the Syrian army was only brought to Dara’a following the murder of the policemen. Additionally, a storage of protesters’ weapons was found in Dara’a’s al-Omari mosque.

Prem Shankar Jha’s, “Who Fired The First Shot?” described the slaughter of 20 Syrian soldiers outside Dara’a a month later, “by cutting their throats, and cutting off the head of one of the soldiers.” A very “moderate”-rebel practice.

In “Syria: The Hidden Massacre” Sharmine Narwani investigated the early massacres of Syrian soldiers, noting that many of the murders occurred even after the Syrian government had abolished the state security courts, lifted the state of emergency, granted general amnesties, and recognized the right to peaceful protest.

The April 10, 2011 murder of Banyas farmer Nidal Janoud was one of the first horrific murders of Syrian civilians by so-called “unarmed protesters.” Face gashed open, mutilated and bleeding, Janoud was paraded by an armed mob, who then hacked him to death.

Father Frans Van der Ludt—the Dutch priest living in Syria for nearly 5 decades prior to his April 7, 2014 assassination by militants occupying the old city of Homs—wrote (repeatedly) of the “armed demonstrators” he saw in early protests, “who began to shoot at the police first.”

May 2011 video footage of later-resigned Al Jazeera journalist Ali Hashem shows fighters entering Syria from Lebanon, carrying guns and RPGs (Hashem stated he’d likewise seen fighters entering in April). Al Jazeera refused to air the May footage, telling Hashem to ‘forget there are armed men.’ [See: Sharmine Narwani’s “Surprise Video Changes Syria “Timeline””] Unarmed protesters?

The Sectarian Card: Slogans and Massacres

What sectarianism we see in Syria today was delivered primarily by the Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and by Turkey, with NATO’s blessing and backing. The cross-sect make-up of both the Syrian State and the Syrian army alone speaks of Syria’s intentional secularism, as well as the prevalent refusal of average Syrians to self-identify along sectarian lines.

On the other hand, from the beginning, the West’s “nonviolent protesters” were chanting sectarian slogans, notably, “Christians to Beirut, Alawis to the grave.” Other popular chants included: calling for the extermination of all Alawis; pledging allegiance to Saudi-based extremist Syrian Sheikh Adnan Arour and to extremist MB supporting Egyptian Sheikh, Yusuf al-Qardawi.

Qatar-based Qaradawi advocates killing Syrian civilians: “It is OK to kill one third of the Syrian population if it leads to the toppling of the heretical regime.” The inflammatory Arour said about Syria’s Alawis: “By Allah we shall mince them in meat grinders and feed their flesh to the dogs.”

The NATO alliance’s terrorists have committed numerous massacres of Syrian civilians and soldiers, many of which were intended to sow sectarianism, including:

  • The June 2011 Jisr al Shugour, Idlib, massacre of up to 120 people (soldiers and civilians) by between 500-600 so-called FSA terrorists; blamed on the SAA as having killed “military deserters”. [see Prem Shankar Jha’s  article “Syria – Who fired the first shot?”]
  • The Houla massacre of over 100 civilians on May 25, 2012, which only 2 days later the UN claimed—without an investigation— had been committed by the Syrian Army. [See Tim Anderson’s detailed rebuttal, “The Houla Massacre Revisited: “Official Truth” in the Dirty War on Syria” In the same article, Anderson also looked at the August 2012 Daraya massacre of 245 people and the December 2012 Aqrab massacre of up to 150 villagers.
  • The August 2013 massacre of at least 220 civilians (including a fetus, many children, women, elderly) and kidnapping of at least 100 (mostly women and children) in villages in the Latakia countryside.
  • The December 2013 massacre of at least 80 residents (many “slaughtered like sheep”, decapitated, burned in bakery ovens) in Adra industrial village.
  • The continued terrorist-mortaring of civilian areas and schools; the repeated terrorist-car-bombing of civilian areas and schools. [see: “The Terrorism We Support in Syria: A First-hand Account of the Use of Mortars against Civilians”]

Yet, in spite of outside forces attempts to sow sectarianism in Syria, the vast majority of Syrian people refuse it. Re-visiting Syria in July 2015, Professor Tim Anderson recounted that Latakia alone “has grown from 1.3 million to around 3 million people – they come from all parts, not just Aleppo, also Hama, Deir eZorr, and other areas.” He also visited Sweida, a mainly Druze region, which has accommodated “135,000 families, mainly from Daraa – others from other parts”. Mainly Sunni families.

The Syrian “Civil War”?!

Given that:

  • At least 80,000 terrorists from over 80 countries are fighting as mercenaries in Syria;
  • Israel has repeatedly bombed Syria [examples herehere and here];
  • Israel is treating al-Qaeda terrorists in their hospitals and enabling their transit back and forth into Syria, as well as arming them—even Israeli media have reported that Israel is providing aid to al-Qaeda terrorists; even the UN has reported on Israeli soldiers interacting with Jebhat al-Nusra in the occupied Syrian Golan;
  • Turkey is not only arming and funneling terrorists into Syria but also repeatedly co-attacks Syria;
  • the whole crisis was manufactured in imperialist think tanks years before the 2011 events;

…“Civil war” is the absolute last term that could be used to describe the war on Syria.

In 2002, then-Under Secretary of State John Bolton added Syria (and Libya, Cuba) to the “rogue states” of George W Bush’s “Axis of Evil,”…meaning Syria was on the list of countries to “bring democracy to” (aka destroy) even back then.

Anthony Cartalucci’s “US Planned Syrian Civilian Catastrophe Since 2007” laid out a number of pivotal statements and events regarding not only the war on Syria but also the events which would be falsely-dubbed the “Arab Spring.” Points include:

  • General Wesley Clark’s revelation of US plans to destroy the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
  • Seymour Hersh’s 2007 “The Redirection” on NATO and allies’ arming and training of sectarian extremists to create sectarian divide in Lebanon, Syria and beyond.

The 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?”, on plans to weaken Syria and Lebanon, to later attack Iran.

Further, Stephen Gowans reported:

  • U.S. funding to the Syrian opposition began flowing under the Bush administration in 2005.
  • Since its founding in October 2011, the Syrian National Council has received $20.4 million from Libya, $15 million from Qatar, $5 million from the UAE.

Former French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Roland Dumas, in a June 2013 TV interview spoke of his meeting (two years prior) with British officials who confessed that:

Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned.

More recent evidence of the NATO-alliance plot against Syria includes a June 2012 NY Times article noting the CIA support for “rebels” in Syria, including providing and funneling “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons” from Turkey to Syria. The article said:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

In October 2014, Serena Shim, a US journalist working for Press TV, was killed in a highly suspicious car crash near Turkey’s border with Syria shortly after reporting she had been threatened by Turkish intelligence. Shim hadpreviously reported she had photos of “militants going in through the Turkish border…I’ve got images of them in World Food Organization trucks.”

Similar statements have been made. For example, testimony of a Turkish driver explaining “how vehicles would be accompanied by MİT agents during the trip, which would start from the Atme camp in Syria and end at the border town of Akçakale in Şanlıurfa Province, where the militants and cargo would reenter Syria.”

In July, 2015, Press TV reported that terrorists caught in Aleppo confessed to receiving training by US and Gulf personnel in Turkey.

As I wrote, “in a November 2014 report, the Secretary-General mentioned the presence of al-Nusra and other terrorists in the ceasefire area ‘unloading weapons from a truck,’ as well as a ‘vehicle with a mounted anti-aircraft gun’ and Israeli ‘interactions’ with ‘armed gangs.’”

Given all of this, and America’s plan to train up to 15,000 more “rebels” over the next three years, it is beyond ridiculous that the inappropriate term “civil war” continues to be propagated.

DA’ESH and Other Moderates

In June, 2015, Anthony Cartalucci wrote about a recently-released 2012 Department of Defense document which admitted that the US foresaw ISIS’ establishing a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want….”

He outlined the flow of weapons and terrorists from Libya to Syria, via Turkey, “coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades,” as well as weapons from Eastern Europe.

Earlier “moderates” include the Farouq Brigades‘ (of the so-called “FSA”)organ-eating terrorist “Abu Sakkar,” and those numerous “FSA” and al-Nusra militants who committed the massacres listed above, to name but a portion.

“Human Rights” Front Groups Promoting War Rhetoric

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Avaaz, Moveon, and lesser-known, newly-created groups like The Syria Campaign, The White Helmets, and Action Group for Palestinians in Syria, are complicit in war-propagandizing and even calling for a (Libya 2.0) no-fly-zone bombing campaign of Syria.

On HRW, geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser noted:

Human Rights Watch is undeniably an appendage of US foreign policy. It is in many ways part of the ‘soft power’ arm of US power projection, a means of delegitimizing, demonizing, and otherwise destabilizing countries that do not play ball with the US…

Vigilant Twitter users have called out HRW’s lying Ken Roth for tweeting a photo he claimed to be Aleppo’s destruction from “barrel bombs” but which was, in fact, Ayn al-Arab (Kobani) post-Da’esh attacks and US-coalition bombs. In another outrageous case, Roth tweeted a video of the flattened al-Shuja’iyya neighborhood of Gaza, devastated by Israeli bombing in 2014, purporting it to be Aleppo.

Again, he was called out, forcing a weak retraction. Post-retraction, he tweeted yet another image of destruction, again claiming it to be from “Assad’s barrel bombs” but which was according to the photo byline Hamidiyeh, Aleppo, where “local popular committee fighters, who support the Syrian government forces, try to defend the traditionally Christian district” against ISIS.

On Amnesty International, Anthony Cartalucci wrote:

Amnesty does take money from both governments and corporate-financier interests, one of the most notorious of which, Open Society, is headed by convicted financial criminal George Soros (whose Open Society also fundsHuman Rights Watch and a myriad of other “human rights” advocates). Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, for instance, was drawn directly from the US State Department…

Highlighting just one instance of AI’s slick maneuvering, Rick Sterling, in hisMay 2015 “Eight Problems with Amnesty’s Report on Aleppo Syria” outed Amnesty for not only normalizing sending weapons to terrorists in Syria but suggesting how to do so in an underhand means. He emphasized:

This is an amazing statement, effectively sanctioning the supplying of arms to insurgents who agree to follow ‘humanitarian’ rules of war.

Sterling further noted that Amnesty:

  • relied on groups “either based in, or receiving funds from, Turkey, USA or one of the other countries heavily involved in seeking overthrow of the Damascus government.
  • did not seek testimonies from the “two-thirds of the displaced persons in Syria INSIDE Syria…people who fled Aleppo and are now living in Homs, Latakia, Damascus or in Aleppo under government control.”

In “Humanitarians for War on Syria” Sterling elaborated on the intervention campaign:

The goal is to prepare the public for a “No Fly Zone” enforced by US and other military powers. This is how theinvasion of Iraq began. This is how the public was preparedfor the US/NATO air attack on Libya.

The results of western ‘regime change’ in Iraq and Libya have been disastrous. …Avaaz is ramping up its campaign trying to reach 1 million people signing a petition for a “Safe Zone” in Syria.

Sterling wrote on the  “White Helmets”, “created by the UK and USA in 2013. Civilians from rebel controlled territory were paid to go to Turkey to receive some training in rescue operations. The program was managed by James Le Mesurier, a former British soldier and private contractor…” He noted the ties between WH and anti-Syria actors, including Jabat al-Nusra. One example of their propaganda: “Video of the recent alleged chlorine gas attacks starts with the White Helmet logo and continues with the logo of Nusra. In reality, White Helmets is a small rescue team for Nusra/Al Queda (sic).”

Vanessa Beeley’s “‘White Helmets’: New Breed of Mercenaries and Propagandists, Disguised as ‘Humanitarians’ in Syria” further flushed out the propaganda elements of the WH operation and their parroting of the MSM/HR industry anti-Syrian rhetoric.

The list of “humanitarian” actors is long, and the list of their war-propagating lies even longer. [see: “Human Rights” front groups (“Humanitarian Interventionalists”) warring on Syria]

The Yarmouk Card

A district of Damascus formerly housing over one million residents, of whom 160,000 were Palestinian refugees, according to the UN, the rest Syrians, theplight of Yarmouk neighbourhood has been used by “humanitarian” campaigners to pull at heartstrings and to further confuse supporters of Palestine on the subject of Syria and the State’s treatment of Palestinians. In fact, Syria has been one of Palestine’s greatest advocates and friends, providing Palestinian refugees in Syria with a quality of life equal to that of Syrians, including free education, health care and other social services. The same cannot even remotely be said of any of Palestine’s neighbouring countries, where Palestinian refugees languish in abysmal refugee camps and are denied the right to professional employment, and affordable and quality health care and education, much less dignity.

The United Nations, the HR industry, and the media obfuscate on Yarmouk, ignoring or whitewashing both the presence of various terrorist groups and the role of some Palestinian factions in enabling these groups entry, as well as fighting alongside them against the Syrian government. Talking heads also pointedly ignore the Syrian government-facilitated evacuations of Yarmouk residents to government, community, and UN provided shelters. They likewise ignore the documented repeated and continuous terrorists attacks on government and other aid distribution within the neighbourhood, as well as on anti-terrorist demonstrations held by Yarmouk residents.

One such demonstration occurred in May 2013, with UK-media Sky News’ Tim Marshall present as demonstrators came under so-called “rebel” fire. Hereported:

…Some screamed at us: “Please tell the world the truth! We don’t want the fighters here, we want the army to kill them!”… About 1,000 people were in the demonstration. …The shooting began almost immediately. A man went down, followed by others. …As they passed us a man stopped and shouted that he was sure the fighters were not Syrians but men paid to come to Damascus and kill people…

In his April 2015 “Who Are the Starving and Besieged Residents of Yarmouk and Why Are They There?” Paul Larudee asked:

Who are the remaining civilians and why are they refusing to evacuate to outside shelter like so many others? Local humanitarian relief supervisors report (personal communication) that some of them are not from Yarmouk and some are not Palestinian. They include the families of Syrian and foreign fighters that are trying to overthrow the Syrian government by force of arms, and some of them came from districts adjacent to Yarmouk, such as the Daesh stronghold of Hajar al-Aswad.

Larudee’s article further addressed the issues of:

  • the Syrian government allowing food aid into the district: “…it has allowed the stockpiling of supplies on the edge of the camp and it has permitted civilians from inside to collect and distribute the aid….”
  • the Syrian military’s siege tactic (combined with evacuation of civilians): “The objective is to remove the civilians from the area as much as possible and then attack the enemy or provoke surrender…”

Analyst Sharmine Narwani observed:

The Syrian government has every right to blockade the border areas between Yarmouk and Damascus to prevent extremist gunmen from entering the capital. I have been in Yarmouk several times, including last year, and have talked to aid workers inside the camp, including UNRWA. The Syrian government, in their view, assists in getting aid and food to refugee populations inside the camp – contrary to western narratives and those activists like the EI activists…most of whom appear not to have set foot inside Yarmouk since the early days of the conflict.

Although the figure of 18,000 remaining Palestinians in Yarmouk may have been accurate in October 2013, today, after the evacuation of thousands, anti-Syria publications continue to cite 18,000. Journalist Lizzie Phelan, whovisited Yarmouk in September 2015, says the number remaining is around 4,000.

Most media and HR groups are not reporting that there are Palestinian fighters fighting alongside the SAA, in Yarmouk and other parts of Syria, against the NATO-alliance’s fighters. Al Masdar News reported in June 2015:

…ISIS originally launched a successful offensive at the Yarmouk Camp District in the month of March; however, after a joint counter-assault by the PFLP-GC, Fatah Al-Intifada, the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA), and members of Aknef Al-Maqdis; ISIS was forced to withdrawal to the southern sector of the district, leaving only the southern axis under their control.

Sharmine Narwani’s “Stealing Palestine: Who dragged Palestinians into Syria’s conflict?” is essential reading, to understand the current situation in Syria vis-a-vis its Palestinian refugees. As for Palestinians themselves, the Syria Solidarity Movement published a statement which emphasized that “more than 1101 Palestinian groups and individuals declare their solidarity with the Syrian people and the Syrian state.” Signatories include Jerusalem’s Archbishop Atallah Hanna, the Palestinian Popular Forum, Yarmouk, and other Palestinian Yarmouk residents.

Serial Chemical Offenders Remain at Large

Israel has on more than one occasion used prohibited chemical and other weapons on the locked-down nearly 2 million Palestinians of Gaza. During the 2008/2009 Israeli massacre of Gaza, the Israeli army rained white phosphorous on schools sheltering displaced Palestinian families, on homes, and on hospitals (of which I gathered video, photo and witness evidence at the time). Israel also used DIME on the Palestinians of Gaza. Yet, Israel remains unpunished, and receives ever increasing billions of dollars and new weaponry every year. Nor has the US ever been held accountable for its widespread criminal use of CW, such as on the people of Vietnam, of Iraq.

The US and HR actors have repeatedly—and without evidence—accused Syria of using Sarin gas, then Chlorine, accusations which have been amply refuted.Seymour Hersh’s probe on the sarin attacks was so damning US mainstream media wouldn’t print it.

In rebuttal to the May 2015 accusation of chlorine attacks — as always followed with human rights groups’ calls for a No-Fly Zone —Stephen Gowanswrote:

As a weapon, chlorine gas is exceedingly ineffective. It is lethal only in highly concentrated doses and where medical treatment is not immediately available. It is far less effective than conventional weapons. Why, then, would the Syrian army use a highly ineffective weapon, which is deplored by world public opinion, and whose use would provide the United States a pretext to directly intervene militarily in Syria, when it has far more effective conventional weapons, which are not deplored by world public opinion, and whose use does not deliver a pretext to Washington to intervene? (See also Gowans’ “New York Times Complicit in Spreading False Syria Allegations”)

Tim Anderson investigated the August 2013 Ghouta attacks, pointing out:

  • UN investigator Carla del Ponte had testimony from victims that ‘rebels’ had used sarin gas in a prior attack
  • Turkish security forces sarin in the homes of Jabhat al Nusra fighters.
  • Evidence of video manipulation in the Ghouta attacks.
  • “Parents identified children in photos as those kidnapped in Latakia, two weeks earlier.”
  • “CW had been supplied by Saudis to ‘rebel’ groups, some locals had died due to mishandling.”
  • “Three of five CW attacks were ‘against soldiers’ or ‘against soldiers and civilians’.”

The Interventionalists have tried repeatedly to accuse the Syrian government of CWs usage; yet the real criminals remain at large.

Against Incitement, For Peace

Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Dr. Bashar al-Ja’afari, in May, 2015, said that spreading incitement and lies on Syria is a blatant violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution No. 1624 for 2005 and of journalism ethics if any, SANA reported.

Syrian media, which attempts to report the reality of Syria under attack, has been repeatedly targeted, something the MSM refuses to acknowledge (See:Media Black-Out on Arab Journalists and Civilians Beheaded in Syria by Western-Backed Mercenaries).

As the NATO-alliance pushes for a “safe zone”…meaning a “no-fly zone” for the purpose of bombing Syria, anti-war activists and journalists must denounce the lies of anti-Syria governments and “human rights” groups, and must share the truth of Syria’s war against terrorism.

Since drafting this lengthy Syria-101 overview, there have been major shifts in Syria’s war against foreign-backed terrorism, namely Russia’s recent airstrikes against Da’esh and co. This increase in Russian support for Syria—with Russian planes destroying more Da’esh and other western-backed terrorists and their training camps in just a few days than the US coalition has over the past year—is a turning point in the war on Syria. Predictably, corporate media are pulling all the stops to demonize Russia‘s involvement, although Russia was invited by the Syrian government to do precisely what it is doing.

Those following Syria closely have echoed what Syrian leadership has said for years and continues to say: the way to stop ISIS and all its brethren terrorist factions, and to bring security to the region, is to cease arming, financing, training and funneling terrorists and weapons into Syria, silence the sectarian indoctrination coming from Gulf extremist sheikhs, and support the Syrian army and allies in their fight for security and stability in Syria.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian freelance journalist and activist who has lived in and written from the Gaza Strip, Syria, and Lebanon. Read other articles by Eva, or visit Eva’s website.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Moderate Terrorists”. Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria. “Leftists” Keep the Myth Alive

Note: This address was given at the Detroit Workers World public meeting held on Saturday October 10, 2015. 

This is yet another important public meeting on the fight for justice against the banks and corporations along with their surrogates in the state apparatus. In the areas of the auto industry, housing, education, environmental justice and the prison-industrial-complex related to the growth of militarization of the police, the crises in the current system is laid bare for all conscious people to witness.

United States capitalism and imperialism is the primary source of the wars of regime-change which are designed to perpetuate the dominate role of Washington and Wall Street globally. In order to maintain this position of hegemony internationally it is also necessary for the ruling class to wage a war against the working class, nationally oppressed and the poor on the domestic front as well.

However, before I discuss various aspects of the current crisis in Detroit and its broader significance and implications, I want to pay tribute to a leading fighter in the struggle for African Liberation and Socialism and that is Jorge Risquet of the Communist Party of Cuba who passed away just last week on September 28.

Risquet joined the revolutionary movement in Cuba in the early 1950s and traveled to Guatemala during the period of the siege engineered by the Eisenhower administration in 1954. He would serve in the youth wing of the nationalist and anti-imperialist movement aimed at overthrowing the neo-colonial regime of Batista who served as an agent of Washington.

The Communist Party of Cuba was formed through the merger of revolutionary nationalist and socialist forces in 1965. Risquet held leading positions in the Party where he participated as a volunteer in the Congo campaign of 1965 that was headed by Che Guevara. Although the Congo effort was not successful, a decade later Cuba’s role in Angola, beginning four decades ago, was critical in the total liberation of that oil-rich former Portuguese colony as well as the independence of the entire Southern Africa region.

Cuba sent over 300,000 of its own citizens to fight in Angola alongside the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and its military FAPLA in addition to the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) and its military arm of the People’s Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). Risquet served in Angola and would lead the negotiating team in coalition with the MPLA Government against the racist apartheid regime in South Africa which was supported by U.S. imperialism under the Reagan and Bush administrations.

These negotiations backed up by the armed and organized masses of Southern Africa won the right of national independence in Namibia and the release of political prisoners in both Namibia and South Africa. Namibia received its independence on March 21, 1990 just over a month after Nelson Mandela was released from prison in South Africa.

The African National Congress (ANC) embarked upon negotiations with the apartheid regime, a process that lasted for over three years. In 1994, the ANC took power in South Africa after winning a solid majority in the first non-racial elections in April of that year. Nelson Mandela, who served over 27 years in the dungeon of the racist regime in South Africa, became president of South Africa. All of these monumental developments occurred with the interventions of peoples throughout the world in conjunction with the role of revolutionary Cuba.

U.S. Continues to Be on the Wrong Side of History

U.S. imperialism was on the wrong side of the Angolan and Southern African liberation movements and the African Revolution overall. As it was true then, it is so as well today.

The situation in Syria is a stark illustration of imperialism’s role in the contemporary period. Russian air and cruise missile strikes can only be viewed as defensive deployments aimed at strengthening the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. The U.S. and its allies in NATO have been doing everything in their power to bring down the Assad administration.

This was the same policy as what transpired in the North African state of Libya where in 2015, after four years of neo-colonial war and destabilization, the once proud nation bears very little resemblance to its former self. Libya has gone from the most prosperous state in Africa to the one that is in complete chaos and a source of instability throughout the region.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are being trafficked through Libya across the Mediterranean into Southern and Eastern Europe in a manner which some European Union leaders have described as being analogous to the Atlantic Slave Trade. Under the unchecked militarized foreign policy of Washington, this is the fate that awaits much of Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific. Syria has four million displaced persons and refugees scattered from inside the embattled country into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and other states.

In Yemen, the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is engineering another war that is almost completely hidden from the American people. Thousands of Yemenis have been killed and tens of thousands are wounded and injured. Millions more are without adequate supplies of food, water, medical care and social services while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) coalition continues to bomb and conduct ground operations daily.

We must also mention recent developments in the West African state of Burkina Faso where a coup by military elites was defeated through the mass mobilization of the workers and youth along with pressure from the regional and international communities. Burkina Faso under Capt. Thomas Sankara, underwent a brief revolution during 1983-1987. Sankara was assassinated by Blaise Compaore with the assistance of other military figures that were leading figures in the presidential security regiment (RSP) that staged the recent coup.

The people of Burkina Faso are committed to holding their national elections and to disbanding the dreaded RSP.

Finally on the international scene, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) in South Africa went out on strike in the coal industry two weeks ago. A national strike in solidarity with NUM involved hundreds of thousands of workers from broader sectors of the working class.

Consequently, the class struggle continues in Africa and the Middle East and other parts of the world. These movements have a direct impact on the situation in Detroit and throughout the U.S.

Detroit: The Political Economy of Post-Bankruptcy

In Detroit we have been shinning the light on the massive tax foreclosures, auctions and eminent evictions facing tens of thousands more residents who will be forced out of the city. The magnitude of the crisis is unprecedented in the history of Wayne County and the banks are at the source of the problem.

Our campaign earlier this year was successful in not only placing the housing crisis within a political context but also winning an extension of over two-and-a-half months allowing thousands to make arrangements to pay their property taxes. Nonetheless, this is a crisis that is totally unnecessary since the federal government had sent $500 million to Michigan as part of a purported “bailout program” in the aftermath of the worse financial downturn since the Great Depression.

These funds have been grossly misallocated and underspent. There is still another $200 million sitting in Lansing that could wipe out the entire delinquent tax bills in the city of Detroit. Yet the capitalist politicians will not raise the issue because their banker bosses would not appreciate them making such a suggestion.

These funds are being used to tear down homes rather than rehabilitate structures keeping neighborhoods intact and rebuilding them. A rare corporate media report this week pointed out that there is blatant corruption taking place in the demolition process where the costs are constantly rising through a rigged bidding process while the Duggan administration, working on behalf of Dan Gilbert, who chairs the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force, serves as front men for the so-called “developers and investors.”

This set of circumstances is proving deadly for the people of Detroit and Wayne County. The County is facing emergency management and possible bankruptcy like Detroit. Consequently, there is no reason for anyone to be thrown out of their houses particularly with federal funds at the disposal of the Snyder administration.

Obviously there is an agenda of forced removals for Detroit and other majority African American cities. This program is decades-old and is implemented through job losses, predatory lending, utility and water shut-offs, the closing of schools and community centers, the escalation of police terrorism, the denial of quality healthcare, adequate public transportation, social and public services.

The city cannot be rebuilt without its people. The capitalist system remains fragile some eight years after the collapse of 2007-2008. Major corporations are still announcing massive lay-offs and scandals within the auto industry have shaken the confidence in the capacity of the manufacturing sector to provide the quality and safety that they spend billions to advertise on a daily basis.

Although the federal government has found various banks engaging in deliberate misrepresentation and fraud, very few of the bankers have gone to prison. Moreover, these entities are still given a license to do business and to set the terms for the availability of capital in the U.S. and globally.

Every year the banks are handed over hundreds of billions of dollars by the Federal Reserve Bank, which is our money. The bailout of the banks continue through the appropriation of public tax dollars and public assets as is being done in Detroit and other cities for “prestige projects” such as sports arenas, housing gentrification projects, where the raising of rents is championed by the corporate media and the forced removal of African Americans and the poor is characterized as “progress.”

The police and the courts serve the interests of the banks and corporations. A recent spike in police killings of residents is reflective of the escalating levels of state repression. Every week there are reports on television, radio and the print media which hails the arrests of “gang members” for drug trafficking and other activities. Nevertheless, the real criminals in the ruling class who systematically deny the people the fruits of their labor are not arrested and shut down by law-enforcement and the courts.

Such a scenario is not unique to Detroit. It is endemic within the U.S. capitalist system itself. However, Detroit and the state of Michigan is bearing the brunt of the economic crisis and re-structuring due to the legacy of labor and national struggles over the last century-and-a-half.

Detroit was a major base for the Underground Railroad during the period of slavery in the 19th century. The Great Migration brought hundreds of thousands of African Americans into the city and state during the early to middle decades of the 20th century. The recognition of the UAW and other trade unions between the 1930s and the 1960s forced concessions from the bosses to the workers. All of these gains are being taken away in the 21st century through attacks on the right to vote, the eight-hour day, equal pay for equal work, local control of government and housing rights.

I do not believe that we can vote our way out of this crisis. We defend the right of working people to exercise their democratic prerogatives. Nonetheless, history will show that labor recognition, African American and women’ rights, to the extent that they still exist, were not won at the ballot box but within the arena of mass and working class struggle in the streets, workplaces, schools and the communities where people live.

This is why we place great emphasis on the indispensable role of the workers and the oppressed organized and mobilized independently of the capitalist two-party system. This is what the ruling class fears and seeks to prevent.

This address was given at the Detroit Workers World public meeting held on Saturday October 10, 2015.

Other speakers at the event included Martha Grevatt, a UAW auto employee who analyzed the current situation involving the no vote on a contract proposal for Fiat Chrysler workers; David Sole of Moratorium NOW! Coalition gave an update on the transfer of Michigan political prisoner Rev. Edward Pinkney who is at present residing at the facility in Marquette; and Jeremy Royer, an indigenous activist reported on recent events in Michigan and nationally where Native American land rights are still being violated. The event was chaired by Debbie Johnson of the Detroit Branch of Workers World Party.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on State Repression and the US Economic Crisis: Claims of “Recovery” and “Prosperity” Ring Hollow …
Powered by Sweden plans to become one of the first nations in the world to thrive on 100% renewable energy.

There are quite a few things to love about Sweden. Not only is the eco-conscious nation considering implementing a ‘meat tax’ to reduce its carbon footprint, the country has literally run out of trash to incinerate for energy and, therefore, must import garbage from its neighbors.

And now, as The Ecologist reports, Sweden seeks to become one of the first nations in the world to thrive completely on renewable energy.

Sweden announced last month that the nation will be spending an extra $546 million (£360 million) on renewable energy and climate change action, beginning with their 2016 budget. The nation’s ultimate aim is to become one of the world’s first nations to end its dependence on fossil fuels. Solar energy, in particular, has seen a budget increase by 800%.

The admirable goal does not yet have its own timetable, but the Swedish government announced that its capital of Stockholm aims to be powered only bysustainable energy sources by 2050.

“Sweden will become one of the first fossil-free welfare states in the world,”Prime Minister Stefan Löfven told the press“When European regulations do not go far enough Sweden will lead the way.”

Science Alert notes that while the goal may seem incredibly ambitious, the Scandinavian country already obtains two-thirds of its electricity from non-fossil fuel energy sources – predominantly hydroelectric and nuclear. It will now be focusing on increasing its solar and wind energy potential, as well as making its transport industry more sustainable. The majority of the budget increase will be financed by heavier taxes on petrol and diesel fuel.

Sweden is also closing its nuclear power plants, although this is mainly due to their aging infrastructure. No replacements are presently planned, with the government intending to use only renewable energy sources. IFLScience points out that nuclear power plants are often lumped together with fossil fuel power plants as being just as harmful to the environment, but, surprisingly, actually have a negligible carbon footprint more in line with renewables. Nonetheless, Sweden’s government is preparing to phase them out.

The government also announced it will be spending more money on:

  • smart grids
  • renewable energy storage technology
  • an electric bus fleet
  • subsidies for green cars
  • climate adaptation strategies
  • renovating residential buildings to make them more energy efficient.

The announcement couldn’t come soon enough, with the 2015 United Nationals Climate Change Conference being held in Paris in November. Key adviser to the Prime Minister, Johan Rockström, said in a press briefing:

“2015 is our opportunity, a chance to, in dialogue with all the countries of the world, change course towards a new development path where we can succeed in generating welfare for all, not at the planet’s cost but in cooperation with it.” 

When the event takes place in November, Sweden and Denmark aim to influence the less keen attendees of the conference to begin to adapt their own countries’ energy grids.

Fortunately, Sweden is just one of many governments around the world opting to shift toward renewables. A few months ago, Hawaii announced its plans to become the first US state totally powered by renewable energy and Costa Rica was powered with 100 percent renewable energy for 75 days this year. Denmark, one spectacularly windy day in July, generated 140% of the nation’s electricity demand through wind power alone.

Indeed, the future looks green, and it’s activists like you who are making the difference by urging your governments to change.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sweden Aims To Become The World’s First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation

This is about increasing the ability of global corporations to source wherever they can at the lowest cost. Michael Wessel, The Guardian, Oct 9, 2015

Diplomats, trade officials and delegations of the twelve negotiating countries behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement were always doing one thing even as their respective masters were doing another. As the boardroom was carving out democracy and sovereignty, the executives were selling vassalage as well worth it. As President Barack Obama, mask off, was insisting on taking the globe, as far as it he could, further into an American trade orbit, free trade was being sold in all signatory countries as an automatic godsend.

Secret during the entire phase of negotiations, it has only been the workings of WikiLeaks that has enabled global citizens to get a glimpse about what exactly we are in for. The intellectual property chapter has now been released in three phases, the first in November 2013, and the final on October 9, 2015.[1]

The latter version, dated October 5, is the near, if not actual final product, one which will be sold to the twelve respective parliaments when respective ratification and domestic legislation will have to be enacted. In every sense of the term, it is a corporate seizure at the expense of a citizen’s worth, because obviously, having extended copyright terms, paying more for pharmaceuticals, extending the length of patents, and attacking the generic drugs industry is exactly what the general public need.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted, the IP chapter “confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes few hopes we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations.”[2]

Coming to the chapter with fresh eyes allows for an initially easy deception. The language in parts is bland and general, taking cognisance of the IP rules for the “mutual advantage of producers and users” to “facilitate the diffusion of information”. All this, it is suggested, is to aid access to the wonderful world of diversity that is the public domain.

The public domain, however, is evidently seen to be one heavily circumscribed by both the State and its corporate partners. The treaty entitles signatories to restrict information, for instance, through trial proceedings that would be “detrimental to a party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defence or national security”. Signatory states already have similar domestic restrictions designed to curb such information mechanisms as freedom of information.

Privacy is also shot through, be it in instances when authorities in signatory states can provide names and addresses of importers in violation to owners of that intellectual property. The entire chain of production and use is targeted, with information including “any person involved in any aspects of the infringement or alleged infringement”. Third persons said to be “involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution” are also netted.

As the text is chewed further, the restrictions, notably in terms of public use, start mounting. In fact, the public seem to be a defanged, inconsequential presence. Copyright, for instance, is said to be matter for the parties to balance within their domestic regulations, but the agreement does not bind parties to aim for that goal. There is no mandatory fair use model provision to speak of.

As for how long such copyright terms would run, a protection period of 70 years is offered after performance or publication, and if not published within 25 years after creation, for 70 years after that creation. Better, though not by much, than the absurdly lengthy 120 year period initially proposed by the US Trade Representative.

Reduced then, to its barest form, only a few provisions identified by the EFF can be deemed to be less inhibitive than what was found in initial drafts. Extending copyright protections to “buffer” copies in a computer system was eventually dropped by the USTR. The parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works will be permitted, complemented by an express authorisation of devices that bypass regions (EFF, Oct 9).

Leaving aside the evident influence of Hollywood in the entire affair, the heft of the pharmaceutical industries was also made apparent. Stifling innovation in its name, the chapter effectively entrenches the most anti-competitive practices of all by enforcing oligopolies with the grace, or gracelessness, of law. “The TPP,” argues Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program Director, “would cost lives.”

The implications are extensive, but a few points should be noted. Patent Term adjustments (Article QQ.E.14), extensions which delay the entry of generic medicines while also limiting access to cheaper medicines, looms large. Speed is of the essence, with parties undertaking to “make best efforts to process applications for market approval of pharmaceutical products in an efficient and timely manner, with a view to avoiding unreasonable and unnecessary delays.”

The state parties are given considerable leeway in terms of making “available a period of additional sui generis protection to compensate for unreasonable curtailment of the effective patent term as a result of the marketing approval process.”

Stifling measures regarding the release of generic drugs into the market is provided by QQ.E.15, which enables parties to “adopt or maintain a regulatory review exception for pharmaceutical products”. In theory, this replicates provision in states where generic drugs are permitted as exceptions which enable them to be made in small quantities before the patent expires. Well and good, but for the fact that any such review must be mindful that the legitimate interests of the patent owner shall not be unreasonably prejudiced.

Furthermore, market exclusivity is granted for pharmaceutical products for “at least five years” – a means of ensuring that generic drug registration will be delayed for a designated period of time.[3] Third parties are not permitted to market the same or similar product using the same or other data regarding the safety and efficacy of that product. Even if the parties accept applications for generic medicines within those five years, marketing approval can only take place after the five year period has expired.

The insidious linking between the market, marketing approval and the patent, gleams with nefarious consequence before the sickbed of humanity. It will also be distressing to some US Democrats who had hoped to build upon the May 10, 2007 deal made under the Bush administration. The “May 10 Agreement” had taken umbrage with patent term extensions and longer marketing exclusivities.[4]

At this point in time, as the clock ticks over respective domestic enactments by the 12 parliaments and congressional bodies, the political classes within the party states will have to consider whether a corporate dictated subservience, legally sanctioned, is better than such alternatives where the commonweal can prevail.

 

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

Notes

[1] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared

[3] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/pharmaceutical/Pharmaceutical%20Provisions%20in%20the%20TPP.pdf

[4] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/pcpressrelease/Public-Citizen-Statement-on-WikiLeaks-TPP-Publication.pdf

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Our Worst Fears are Confirmed. The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Intellectual Property

A number of Palestinian activists on social media have published anonymous messages with Arabic names, that are asking for “names of protesters,” especially in Jerusalem, saying that it’s only “to join them in the clashes.”

The messages started flowing on Friday, according to PNN, and there have been several warnings not to reply, accept friend requests, or give out any type of information.

Media sources said that Israeli intelligence have launched these accounts to monitor the protesters.

The accounts have Palestinian flags as their cover photos, with Arabic names, local numbers, and use the Arabic language.

Israel has long used social media, especially Facebook, to monitor activists and indeed arrested a number of people for their “anti-Israel” posts.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israeli Intelligence Using Fake Facebook Accounts to Spy on Protesters

Violence ripped through Israel and the occupied territories as protests rocked the West Bank and Gaza 

Violence spiralled in Israel and the occupied territories on Saturday, as protests rocked the West Bank and Gaza and several knife attacks were reported in Israel.

The casualty list of Palestinians rose rapidly on the day, with at least two teens shot dead in Gaza, two protestors killed in East Jerusalem and two men who reportedly attacked Israelis shot dead.

In total, the Palestinian health ministry has confirmed that seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces. On the Israeli side, three civilians and two policemen were stabbed.

The Red Crescent said that more than 400 Palestinians were injured on Saturday alone as protests hit parts of northern Israel and the West Bank.

Ibrahim Awad, 27,  from Bet Omar near Hebron, also died in hospital. He had been shot in the head on Thursday by Israeli soldiers.

The situation had been tense for days, but several sources on the ground told Middle East Eye that Saturday marked a tipping point.

“I have lived and worked in Jerusalem and know the city well. I can’t remember a similar atmosphere to this in almost 20 years,” a Palestinian citizen of Israel, who did not want to be named, told MEE.

We feel like we are in a war zone. Shops are closed. The military is in every corner ready to shoot. Everyone here feel targeted by Israel.

As night fell on Jerusalem’s Old City on Saturday, the streets were quiet and a heavy police presence was visible. Earlier in the day shoppers, residents, tourists and worshipers could be seen milling around.

Damascus Gate after the second stabbing today (MEE contributor)

 

Overnight, bloody clashes took place at the Shoufat refugee camp in East Jerusalem. Three youths were injured, and one later died of his injuries. Israeli security forces said the 22-year-old had opened fire at police, but anger in the often-volatile neighbourhood simmered and at his funeral later on Saturday fresh clashes broke out.

Later in the morning, Israeli authorities said that a 16-year-old Israeli had been moderately injured by an Israeli attacker who was later arrested closer to the Old City in Jerusalem.

A few hours later, the streets close to the Old City saw fresh violence as a 16-year-old Palestinian stabbed two ultra-Orthodox elderly Israelis, who were lightly to moderately injured. The Palestinian teen Ishaq Badran, was quickly shot and killed by Israeli security personnel, but varying accounts of the incident soon began to emerge.

A Palestinian witness at the scene told Middle East Eye on the condition of anonymity that he had heard Jewish Israelis shout racist slogans at Badran before he attacked them.

“This is a vandal. This is a terrorist, kill him, kill him!'” the man said, imitating the settlers he heard.

MEE contributor Faiz Abu Rmeleh, a photojournalist, was at the scene shortly after the attack. He said that police prevented Red Crescent ambulances from reaching the scene for nearly three hours, ensuring that Badran bled out on the ground.

Abu Rmeleh claims that even after the attack, settlers gathered at the scene and tried to encourage the police to arrest or shoot Palestinians passing by.

Abu Rmeleh was among several members of the press hurt in Saturday’s violence.

He was chased and pushed to the ground by Israeli security forces for trying to cover the stabbing, with a fellow journalist capturing the scene on film. Another Palestinian journalist was reportedly shot in Shoufat in East Jerusalem and a third, Essam al-Reemawi, was shot with a rubber bullet near Ramallah as he covered the protests.

“They are just trying to stop us from covering the events on the ground,” Rewani told MEE. “But they won’t scare us.”

As the afternoon wore on, a fresh knife attack rocked East Jerusalem, very close to Damascus Gate, one of the main entrances to the city. A Palestinian man seems to have charged at police officers. He then stabbed them before he was shot dead at the scene.

Eyewitness accounts said that six shots were fired. One civilian was seriously injured when a stray bullet hit him.

After this, the entrance to the old city was closed off, with panic spreading as residents feared a further police crackdown and wider restrictions on movement and travel. Residents claim that the police fired shots at anyone trying to approach.

The Israeli authorities have vowed a tough response to any further attacks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan approved the placement of hundreds of reserve army units in Jerusalem, Channel 2 reported.

Jerusalem District Police Chief Moshe Adri also told reporters that his officers were “doing the job in the best way”.

“As we expect from the police force, any one who stabs a Jew or an innocent person we want to kill [and] neutralise him,” he said.

Meanwhile, several Israeli political parties – from both left and right – have called for Netanyahu’s resignation.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the secular party Meretz called for his resignation during a protest in front of his official residence in Jerusalem.

Party chairwoman Zehava Gal-On urged the prime minister to negotiate with the Palestinians instead of “managing the conflict”.

“Whoever doesn’t recognize this threat and continues to play the victim, finding excuses for refusing [to negotiate] and blabbering about Iran, and bribing his friends with natural gas or a casino in Eilat, is a failed prime minister who is not worthy of being prime minister and has to go home,” she said at a Meretz demonstration near the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem.

“The whole country is on fire, and instead of voicing hope and calm, what we hear are messages of hatred, incitement and racism from rabbis, from organizations that already committed hate crimes in the past and from right-wing politicians,” she added.

Kinesset member (MK) Yoel Hasson of the conservative Zionist Union said that many leaders said that Netanyahu did not know how to fight “against terrorism”.

“For six years, Netanyahu has been prime minister and didn’t do anything to create a diplomatic horizon. For six years he abandoned the Palestinian arena and the result is dozens of terrorist attacks in recent days. Netanyahu is not using a strong enough hand against terrorism and isn’t presenting a diplomatic horizon. Today, the nation knows Netanyahu is not a leader,” Hasson stated.

In contrast, MK Eitan Broshi, also of the Zionist Union, said he backs the policies of the prime minister.

West Bank turmoil

Tensions in the Old City, where many analysts and commentators believe the latest bout of violence originated over a growing number of Israelis entering the al-Aqsa compound, have also continued to escalate.

Bethlehem, Ramallah and Hebron all saw clashes break out between mainly young Palestinian protestors and Israeli police. Hundreds were injured, mainly by tear gas, the Red Crescent said.

Large-scale protests have also gripped the northern Israeli town of Nazareth, where more than 1,500 people took to the streets in a largely peaceful protest to denounce what they say claim as a heavy-handed respose by the Israeli police. On Friday, a 30-year-old woman from Nazareth was shot dead by Israeli police in Afula. The authorities claim that she was trying to stab people but the woman appears to have been unarmed and had no previous political connections.

Protests that were due to happen on Thursday in the city never materialised after police blocked the streets and allegedly prevented buses from other Palestinian towns and villages from reaching the town.

Protests took place in several different Arab villages and cities inside Israel. Locals told MEE that the police stormed into several houses and arrested at least 27 youths, according to Arab 48.

Protests were also staged in Nazareth, Um Alfahem, and Tamra.

Kholud abu Ahmed, a student and activist from Nazareth told MEE that she never witnessed such a situation in her city before.

She added that hundreds of Israeli police in an east neighborhood of Nazareth had tried to stop the protests by shooting at the demonstrators.

Palestinian authorities have urged Palestinians to not participate in any violence.

Adnan Dmiri, spokesperson for Palestinian Authority security forces, told MEE that he was doing everything “to stop an armed Intifada”.

“We tried that before and we paid dearly for it,” he said. “At the same time we are with the people’s vision for what they are doing by protesting against Israel’s violations at the al-Aqsa Mosque”.

The youth, however, have on the whole taken a more confrontational tone.

One young protester said he had been attending the protests until Israel, which has controlled the West Bank since 1967 withdrew and stopped allowing Israelis to entre the highly contentious al-Aqsa compound, known as Temple Mound to Jews.

“The protests in Bethlehem and all over Palestine will keep happening everyday and I will keep coming out to protest tomorrow and the next day and the day after that – I don’t see things calming down at all,” a young protestor from Bethlehem, who did not want to give his name for security reasons, told MEE.

A Palestinian protestor in Bethlehem (MEE / Abed al-Qaisi)
A Palestinian protestor in Bethlehem (MEE / Abed al-Qaisi) 

Gaza, however, has seen some of the worst violence, with two teenagers shot and 10 people wounded by Israeli fire during clashes on Saturday at the Gaza border fence, emergency medical services in the coastal enclave said.

Marwan Barbakh, 13, and Khalil Othman, 15, were killed east of Khan Yunis camp in southern Gaza.

The Israeli army said they were killed during a “violent riot” in the southern Strip, “Palestinians entered the perimeter along the security fence, approached the fence, hauled rocks and rolled burning tyres at it”.

Soldiers fired warning shots in the air, but when that failed to stop the Palestinians, “they fired toward main instigators”, a spokesperson said.

The deaths come a day after similar clashes killed seven Palestinians and wounded 145. These clashes mark the bloodiest fighting in the territory since the summer 2014 War with Israel.

Additional reporting by Sheren Khalel and Jacob Powell

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tensions Escalate in Israel and Palestine. The Killing of 7 Palestinians, 400 Wounded.

Pundits and politicians are already looking for a convenient explanation for the twin Middle East disasters of the rise of Islamic State and the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. The genuine answer is politically unpalatable, because the primary cause of both calamities is U.S. war and covert operations in the Middle East, followed by the abdication of U.S. power and responsibility for Syria policy to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni allies.

The emergence of a new state always involves a complex of factors. But over the past three decades, U.S. covert operations and war have entered repeatedly and powerfully into the chain of causality leading to Islamic State’s present position.

The causal chain begins with the role of the U.S. in creating a mujahedeen force to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Osama bin Laden was a key facilitator in training that force in Afghanistan. Without that reckless U.S. policy, the blowback of the later creation of al-Qaida would very likely not have occurred. But it was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq that made al-Qaida a significant political-military force for the first time. The war drew Islamists to Iraq from all over the Middle East, and their war of terrorism against Iraqi Shiites was a precursor to the sectarian wars to follow.

The actual creation of Islamic State is also directly linked to the Iraq War. The former U.S. commander at Camp Bucca in Iraq has acknowledged that the detention of 24,000 prisoners, including hard-core al-Qaida cadres, Baathist officers and innocent civilians, created a “pressure cooker for extremism.” It was during their confinement in that camp during the U.S. troop surge in Iraq 2007 and 2008 that nine senior al-Qaida military cadres planned the details of how they would create Islamic State.

The Obama administration completed the causal chain by giving the green light to a major war in Syria waged by well-armed and well-trained foreign jihadists. Although the Assad regime undoubtedly responded to the firebombing of the Baath Party headquarters in Daraa in mid-March 2011 with excessive force, an armed struggle against the regime began almost immediately. In late March or early April, a well-planned ambush of Syrian troops killed at least two dozen soldiers near the same city. Other killings of troops took place in April in other cities, including Daraa, where 19 soldiers were gunned down.

During the second half of 2011 and through 2012, thousands of foreign jihadists streamed into Syria. As early as November 2011, al-Qaida was playing a central role in the war, carrying out spectacular suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo. Obama should have reacted to the first indications of that development and insisted that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar keep external arms and military personnel and funding out of Syria in order to allow a process of peaceful change to take place. Instead, however, the administration became an integral part of a proxy war for regime change.

Seymour Hersh reported last year that an unpublished addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi revealed a covert CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels, in cooperation with Sunni allies’ intelligence services. In early 2012, Hersh reported, following an agreement with Turkey, then-CIA Director David Petraeus approved an elaborate covert operation in which Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar would fund the shipment of weapons to Syrian rebels from stocks captured from the Gadhafi government. The scheme employed front companies set up in Libya to manage the shipments of arms in order to separate the U.S. government from the operation. An October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report released by the Department of Defense to Judicial Watchconfirmed the shipments of Libyan weapons from the port of Benghazi to two Syrian ports near Turkey beginning in October 2011 and continuing through August 2012.

A larger covert program involved a joint military operations center in Istanbul, where CIA officers worked with Turkish, Saudi and Qatari intelligence agencies that were also providing arms to their favorite Syrian rebels groups, according to sources who talked with The Washington Post’s David Ignatius.

By November 2012, al-Qaida’s Syrian franchise, al-Nusra Front, had 6,000 to 10,000 troops—mostly foreign fighters—under its command and was regarded as the most disciplined and effective fighting force in the field. The CIA’s Gulf allies armed brigades that had allied themselves with al-Nusra—or were ready to do so. A Qatari intelligence officer is said to have declared, “I will send weapons to al-Qaeda if it will help” topple Assad.

The CIA officials overseeing the covert operation knew very well what their Sunni allies were doing. After the U.S. shipments from Benghazi stopped in September 2012 because of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post there, a CIA analysis reminded President Obama that the covert operation in Afghanistan had ended up creating a Frankenstein monster. Even the now-famous account in Hillary Clinton’s 2014 memoirs about Obama rejecting a proposal in late 2012 from CIA Director Petraeus for arming and training Syrian rebels does not hide the fact that everyone was well aware of the danger that arms sent to “moderates” would end up in the hands of terrorists.

Despite this, after rejecting Petraeus’ plan in 2012, Obama approved the covert training of “moderate” Syrian rebels in April 2013. As the Pentagon has been forced to acknowledge in recent weeks, that program has been a complete fiasco, as the units either joined al-Nusra or were attacked by al-Nusra. Meanwhile, as Vice President Joe Biden pointed out in October 2014, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons” into Syria that were ending up in the hands of the jihadists.

Unfortunately, Biden’s complaint came two and a half years too late. By October 2014, more than 15,000 foreign fighters, including 2,000 Westerners, were estimated to have gone to Syria. Islamic State and al-Nusra Front emerged as the two major contenders for power in Syria once Assad is overthrown, and the Saudis and Qataris were now ready to place their bets on al-Nusra. In early 2015, after King Salman inherited the Saudi throne, the three Sunni states began focusing their support on al-Nusra and its military allies, encouraging them to form a new military command, the “Army of Conquest.” The al-Nusra-led front then captured Idlib province in March.

Obama, focusing on the Iran nuclear agreement, has given no indication that he is troubled by his allies’ approach. If the Bush administration destabilized Iraq in order to increase U.S. military presence and power in the Middle East, the Obama administration has countenanced a proxy war that has destabilized and Syria because of his primary concern with consolidating the U.S. alliances with the Saudis and the other Sunni regimes.

Although it has been almost a rigid rule that pundits must ascribe U.S. fealty to its Saudi alliance to oil interests, oil is far from the top of the list of U.S interests today. More important to our national security state is the interest of the Pentagon and the military services to protect the military bases they have in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE. Their need to preserve those alliance relationships is intensified by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) cornucopia of military contracts for U.S. arms manufacturers that assures enormous profits will continue to flow for the foreseeable future. One estimate of the total at stake for the Pentagon and its private allies in military relationships with the GCC is $100 billion to $150 billion over two decades.

Those are crucial bureaucratic and business stakes for the U.S. national security state, which is usually driven by the bottom lines associated with different courses of action. Especially given the administration’s lack of a coherent geopolitical perspective on the region, the security state’s interests offer a persuasive explanation for Obama’s effectively farming out the most important element of its Syria policy to regional allies, with disastrous results.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why the U.S. Owns the Rise of Islamic State and the Syria Disaster

Does Syria have the right to defend its sovereignty from imperialist conquest and its population from the total chaos of sectarian warfare and ruin? Does Syria have the right to seek assistance?

Washington and the European Union countries have spent more than four years in an orchestrated effort of “regime change” in Syria. Now they howl in protest because on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, Russia carried out its first airstrikes in Syria against forces trying to overthrow Syria’s government.

Since March 2011, the U.S. and the EU have made relentless demands that the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the Baath Party must step down, resign their positions and hand over power to a regime of Washington’s choice. According to U.S. officials, by authorizing outside invading armies of mercenaries, like those that have brought total destruction to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, to step into the vacuum, you bring democracy.

U.S. imperialism has been the primary power coordinating a program to fund and equip military units in Syria whose aim is solely destruction. This effort  began long before the supposed uprising or rebellion of the Arab Spring in 2011.

On U.S. ‘hit list’ since Sept. 11

Because of its independent economic and political policies and because of its decades of support for the Palestinian struggle, Syria was on the “hit list” slated for U.S. conquest since the George W. Bush administration. That’s what retired four-star General Wesley Clark told Democracy Now! listeners in a March 2, 2007, interview.

Gen. Clark said that soon after the Sept 11, 2001, events, a general called to tell him that the U.S. was going to invade Iraq and would “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

The Washington Post of April 16, 2011, described how at the beginning of the Syrian “uprising” that “Washington has funneled money to right-wing Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005.”

WikiLeaks posted 7,000 secret U.S. diplomatic reports that confirm from 2006 to 2010 the U.S. spent millions of dollars to support and instigate opposition to the Syrian government.

Julian Assange’s book, “The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to U.S. Empire,” describes how the released files confirm that Washington, while publicly opposing Islamic terrorists, saw their existence as an opportunity it could use to destroy Syria. The files confirm that it was U.S. policy to foster Shia-Sunni tension to destabilize Syria, as the U.S. did in Iraq.

For more than four years Syria has fiercely resisted this foreign aggression. But the destruction has left almost half the population homeless and more than 10 million Syrians internally displaced.

At the same time U.S., Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian and the EU were developing plans for an even more intense push to dismember Syria. Those plans have been pushed back by the developments of the past two weeks. Russia’s ministry of defense announced on Oct. 2 the deployment of its navy cruiser Moskva to Latakia. The Moskva is armed with a complement of 64 S-300 ship-to-air missiles, Russia’s most powerful anti-aircraft weapon.

The Oct. 5 Financial Times reports, “The Russian forces now in place make it very, very obvious that any kind of no-fly zone on the Libyan model imposed by the U.S. and allies is now impossible, unless the coalition is actually willing to shoot down Russian aircraft,” writes Justin Bronk, research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.

In a Sept. 27 interview with Charlie Rose on CBS News, Russian President Putin explained his view that there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and providing help in fighting terrorism.

Coordinated assistance

The Sept. 27 announcement that Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq were to cooperate on security issues against the Islamic State took the U.S. war planners totally by surprise. According to the Sept. 27 Wall Street Journal, the Iraq Defense Ministry’s announcement that the country had signed an intelligence and security cooperation pact with Russia, Iran and Syria was a challenge to U.S. influence in the Middle East.

There are also rumors, still unconfirmed by public statements from the various governments, that China will join forces with Syria and, in coordination with Russia and Iran, will participate in the effort to combat the Islamic State.

Washington’s plans are unraveling. But much will depend on how the Pentagon responds to the failure of its plans and to growing international assistance to Syria. An even more dangerous escalation may lie ahead.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Aim is Destruction. Russia, Iran Give International Assistance to Syria

Although the 2016 presidential election is a year away, the media is abuzz with the candidates – the Republican and Democratic candidates, that is. When CBS’s Stephen Colbert posed comedically with a collage of the 18 or so declared hopefuls, the Green Party’s candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, was noticeably absent from his photo. Only outlets like Democracy Now!, PBS and RT News feature the good doctor.

What choices do progressives have?

Hillary Clinton leaves a lot to be desired. She does favor a woman’s right to choose and has recently come out in support of marriage equality. Clinton supports comprehensive immigration reform but also backs stepped-up border enforcement. A former member of the board of Walmart, she is cozy with Wall Street and voted for the Patriot Act. Clinton has been called a “focus group Democrat,” often accused of believing what polls and focus groups tell her she should believe.

Dr. Jill Stein speaking at the Global Climate Convergence March in Madison, Wisconsin, in April, 2014.

Dr. Jill Stein speaking at the Global Climate Convergence March in Madison, Wisconsin, in April, 2014.
(Photo: Light Brigading / Flickr)

Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy strongly resembles that of the hawks in both major parties.

On foreign policy issues, Clinton is a first-class hawk. As Robert Scheer wrote on Truthdig: “Clinton, in rhetoric and action, will never allow a Republican opponent to appear more hawkish than herself. In the general election, she will burnish her record of support for every bit of military folly from George W. [Bush]’s invasion of Iraq to her own engineering of the campaign to overthrow all secular dictators in the Middle East who have proved to be an inconvenience to the Saudi theocracy.”

“During her tenure in the Obama administration,” Scheer added, “Clinton, by her own frequent boastful admission, was the hawk in the Cabinet pressuring the president to be even more aggressive in his drone assassinations and murderous air wars, which have destabilized the region and created what the pope recently termed the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.”

Joe Biden is contemplating whether to enter the race. He is more likable and more trusted than Clinton. But his positions on the issues are very similar to hers.

Meanwhile, Democratic Party candidate Bernie Sanders appears to be giving Clinton a run for her corporate money, so progressives may have a viable alternative to Clinton. But although Sanders’ positions on economic inequality, jobs, education, climate change, immigration, marriage equality, women’s right to choose, health care and surveillance (he voted against the Patriot Act) give us hope for serious change, Sanders’ foreign policy strongly resembles that of the hawks in both major parties.

Domestic and foreign policy are inextricably linked. George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost US taxpayers upward of $4 trillion, and the price of Barack Obama’s drone wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen continues to rise.

And Obama sends Israel $8 million a day, money it uses to fund its brutal occupation of Palestinian lands. Sanders favors continued aid to Israel. He supported Israel’s 2014 massacre in Gaza, during which the United Nations Human Rights Council documented the deaths of 2,251 Palestinians, including 1,462 civilians (299 women and 551 children), and the injuring of 11,231 Palestinians, including 3,540 women and 3,436 children. Ten percent of the children suffered a permanent disability as a result of violence inflicted during that massacre, and more than 1,500 Gazan children were orphaned.

Sanders voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but he voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan.

Quoting “official Israeli sources,” the UN Human Rights Council reported, “rockets and mortars hit civilian buildings and infrastructure, including schools and houses, causing direct damage to civilian property amounting to almost $25 million.” In addition, the UN Council found 18,000 housing units were totally or partially destroyed; much of the electrical, water and sanitation infrastructure was incapacitated; and 73 medical facilities and several ambulances were damaged. Twenty-eight percent of the Palestinian population was displaced.

Sanders voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but he voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan. And he has spoken out strongly in favor of providing military aid to Ukraine and mounting airstrikes against ISIS.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s domestic policies are nearly indistinguishable from Sanders’. But Stein, who is also Jewish, opposes military assistance to Israel that is used to “fund a government which is basically committing war crimes against the Palestinian people, violating human rights, violating international law with the occupations,” she told Tavis Smiley on PBS. In 2012, Stein noted on Democracy Now! that she “would not be funding the weapons used in the massacre of Gaza.” Stein said, “We need to start raising the bar for Israel and holding them to an equal standard for supporting human rights and international law and ending occupations and illegal settlements and apartheid.” Stein also opposes the provision of weapons to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Sanders, on the other hand, has taken a more consistently militarist position. “I believe the United States should have the strongest military in the world,” he declared on ABC News. “We should be working with other countries in coalition. And when people threaten the United States, or threaten our allies, or commit genocide, the United States with other countries should be prepared to act militarily.”

Sanders knows you have to talk tough to get elected. After all, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US government has kept Americans in a constant state of fear. The United States maintains a culture of war. Indeed, Sanders said, “I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us.” But none of the hijackers hailed from Afghanistan. Fifteen of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia, a close US ally.

Sanders supports the use of drones “selectively.” However, as Stein told Smiley, Obama says he is using them selectively. But by killing so many innocents, Obama is creating even more enemies for the United States.

Sanders supports the United States’ $3 trillion weapons program, including the controversial F-35 fighter jets, which brings jobs to his state of Vermont. And he supports US efforts to bomb ISIS in Syria, which have exacerbated the violence in that country.

Stein, meanwhile, criticized US attacks in Syria for perpetuating a “cycle of violence that has no end” during her appearance on RT’s “Watching the Hawks.” “Doing more of what caused ISIS is not going to be the solution of solving ISIS,” she said. “When you can trace this problem back to more bombing and violence … that just creates more violence.”

If Jill Stein’s voice is included in the national debates, the other candidates will be publicly challenged on critical foreign policy issues.

Stein advocates a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law and human rights. She wants to “end the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50 percent, and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire.” And she seeks to “stop U.S. support and arms sales to human rights abusers, and lead on global nuclear disarmament.”

Stein has no chance of winning the election. So why do her positions matter? She is the declared candidate of the Green Party. If Stein’s voice is included in the national debates, the other candidates will be publicly challenged and forced to respond on critical foreign policy issues.

When Stein ran for president in 2012, she was arrested at one of the debates “simply for showing up.” Stein told Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman that she was then “sent to a dark site, surrounded by 16 Secret Service and police, handcuffed tightly to metal chairs for about eight hours, until the crowds had gone home.” Why? “They were afraid that word would get out that people actually have a choice that reflects their deeply held beliefs and values.”

The League of Women Voters ran the presidential debates through the 1984 election. In 1987, the Republican and Democratic parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates to set rules to exclude third parties and independents from the debates. The Commission controls every aspect of the debate – the questions, the audience and the press. But although the League was invited to sponsor the 1988 debate, it pulled out due to complex rules and restrictions, stating the League had “no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public” and calling it a “fraud.”

The Commission on Presidential Debates is, Stein informed Smiley, “a front group for the Democratic and Republican parties,” noting, “50 percent of Americans don’t identify as Republican or Democratic.” But, she observed, half the delegates at the conventions are superdelegates not accountable to voters. Thus, she said, they won’t let Sanders be nominated. “The Democratic Party,” according to Stein, “continues to march to the right and become more of a corporatist party, more of an imperialist party, more of a militarist party.”

The Commission allows only those candidates who demonstrate at least 15 percent support in the polls. But Stein noted on RT you can’t get to 15 percent without corporate sponsorship. The Republican and Democratic parties, she added, “are sponsored by big banks, fossil fuels, and war profiteers.”

The Green Party has joined the Libertarian Party and Level the Playing Field, the successor group to Americans Elect, in lawsuits seeking to open the debates. They are suing the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Presidential Debates, alleging First Amendment and antitrust violations.

We would do well to heed the admonition of John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is “Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.” Seewww.marjoriecohn.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Do the Democrats Offer a Progressive Choice for US President? “Bernie Sanders’ Foreign Policy Resembles that of the Hawks”

The ‘US Way of War’ from Columbus to Kunduz

October 12th, 2015 by Kevin Zeese

The confluence of Columbus Day Weekend and the Kunduz hospital bombing has us thinking about the deep levels of cultural violence in the United States and what can be done to change it. How does the US move from a country dominated by war culture to one dominated by a humanitarian culture? And, how do we do it in time to avoid war with China and Russia, which both advanced closer this week.

What does Celebrating Columbus say About the Character of the United States?

Popular Resistance has reported on the the legacy of ColumbusHoward Zinn describes the true history of Columbus and the Indigenous people of North America. There is a great need for the Columbus myth to be revised with realities. When the truth is understood, it is evident the US is celebrating a brutal war criminal and that it is time to abolish Columbus Day.

After-all, Columbus lost at sea, “discovered” a continent, or an island near it, where up to a hundred million people already lived. He enslaved the indigenous peoples, treating them as workhorse animals and sex slaves; he fed live natives to his dogs and cut off the hands of those who did not work hard enough; he slaughtered tens of thousands, beginning a process of ethnic cleansing across the continent, and his son was one of the originators of the African slave trade.

Many Indigenous peoples of North America do not celebrate Columbus Day because the reality of his human rights violations make it a celebration of a brutal war criminal. Cities are renaming Columbus Day as Indigenous People’s Day, or after local Indigenous Peoples. The most recent are Albuquerque and multiple cities in Oklahoma. Others include SeattleBellinghamMinneapolis, St. Paul, Berkeley, Portland, Lawrence, and Santa Cruz. Alaska, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon, do not recognize Columbus Day, which did not become a US federal holiday until 1937.

This is an international movement. In 1977, the International Indian Treaty Council, the international arm of the American Indian Movement, called for the global end of the celebration of Columbus Day and declared instead the International Day of Solidarity and Mourning with Indigenous Peoples.  Throughout the years we have seen aggressive protests in Latin American countries over Columbus Day. In 2013 15,000 protesters, organized by Indigenous Peoples in Chile, called for an end to Columbus Day and the police turned water cannons on them. Thousands more marched in 2014 in Chile and the police attacked Columbus Day protesters with tear gas and water cannons. The Columbus protests are tied up with disputes between the largest Indigenous community over rights to the ancestral lands. This July, in Argentina after years of protest, a statute of Columbus was taken down and replaced by a female freedom fighter central to their fight for independence. Progress has come with conflict:

In 1982, Spain and the Vatican proposed a 500-year commemoration of Columbus’s voyage at the UN General Assembly. The entire African delegation, in solidarity with Indigenous peoples of the Americas, walked out of the meeting in protest of celebrating colonialism-the very system the UN was supposed to end. The commemoration was crushed, and the UN declared a celebration of the World’s Indigenous Peoples Day and the Decade for the World’s Indigenous Peoples, which began in 1994. The second Decade was declared in 2005, and the UN adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.”

The Vatican continues to show ongoing blindness on Indigenous issues. The Pope failed to denounce  “The Right Of Conquest” which provided legal justification for colonization and stealing of land and resources from Indigenous Peoples.  Pope Francis, in his visit to the United States, canonized a California missionary, Junipero Serra, some now call the Saint of Genocide. He refused to meet with 50 Indigenous Nations to discuss the issue.  People protested the canonization by replacing Serra’s name on street signs with the name Toypurina, an Indigenous woman who led a revolt against Serra for his treating Indigenous as slaves, destroying cultural rights and actions which led to the deaths of thousands.

It is not just about renaming the day, it is about ending discrimination against Indigenous peoples. Albuquerque’s Indigenous People’s Day proclamation declares the day “shall be used to reflect upon the ongoing struggles of Indigenous peoples on this land.”  The reality is that Indigenous men aged 20 to 24 are the group most likely to experience police violence. There is a massive, inadequately addressed reality of missing and murdered woman, especially in Canada. Indigenous people continue to fight for the survival of their culture and to stop the sale of sacred artifacts. And, they continue to fight to keep their land and rivers and against extraction of energy, minerals and resources from their land.  At the root of many problems with the ongoing ethnic cleansing is the failure to recognize treaty rights.

The US Way of War

The United States has conducted war in brutal ways since before the country was founded. In the “Indigenous People’s History of the United States,” Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, writes about the origins of the ‘US Way of War:’ “This way of war, forged in the first century of colonization – destroying Indigenous villages and fields, killing civilians, ranging and scalp hunting – became the basis for the wars against the Indigenous across the continent into the late nineteenth century.”

This week the US military received intensive worldwide criticism for bombing a Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF or Doctors Without Borders) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.  The DoD has changed its story multiple times, after MSF refuted each version, evolving from a mistake, to that the Afghans requested it, to that it was ordered in the US chain of command in violation of US rules of engagement. When Margaret Flowers, MD was sitting in the audience before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and General John Campbell walked in to testify, she wanted to make sure he heard the anger of people over the Kunduz bombing and she said “Bombing hospitals is a war crime. Stop the bombing now.” Sen. John McCain ordered her arrested for making this statement.

The DoD will be investigating itself, so we know how that will turn out before it even begins. An independent investigation is needed. The DoD’s latest is to deny a congressional request for the audio and video cockpit tapes of the bombing. A request for the tapes was made in closed door congressional hearings this week. DoD acknowledged they had reviewed the tapes which provided important evidence but refused access to Congress because of the ongoing investigation. Edward Snowden first suggested these tapes would provide valuable evidence and Wikileaks has offered a $50,000 reward to find out. DoD should release the audio and video tapes of the bombing run. Sign our petition to President Obama demanding release of the tapes so the truth about the bombing can be known to all.

The Kunduz bombing and recent US wars are all consistent with the “US Way of War” which includes terrorizing communities, killing civilians of all ages, denying them healthcare and even food. We see the latter two in tactics like economic sanctions that increase poverty or make prescription drugs unavailable. These tactics go back to the founders.

George Washington ordered the Six Nations of the Indigenous Peoples in New York attacked with orders to kill or capture civilians of all ages:

The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more. I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed. But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected.

In Vietnam does anyone think that the widespread use of napalm did not result in mass killings of civilians? From 1965 to 1973, eight million tons of napalm bombs were dropped over Vietnam. And, Agent Orange, the chemical poison that not only kills people, causing serious health problems for generations, but poisons the land was also used.  Between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange over Vietnam. By 1971, 12 percent of the total area of South Vietnam had been sprayed with defoliating chemicals, at an average concentration of 13 times the recommended level of use. Five million acres, 20 percent of forests and 24 million acres of agricultural land were destroyed.

And, Tom Hayden asks in Democracy Journal whether people remember “the US bombing of Hanoi’s Bach Mai hospital on December 22, 1972, when 28 doctors and nurses lay dead among the civilian casualties? That sparked American and global outrage, caused the Pentagon to go into a defensive crouch, and spurred the mass movement for medical aid to Indochina [MAI].”

During the Iraq War, when the US attacked Fallujah, days after George Bush won re-election, health services were the initial targets of attack.

By Saturday, November 6, the assault on Falluja began. U.S. rockets took out their first target: the Hai Nazal Hospital, a new facility that was just about ready to open its doors. A spokesman for the First Marines Expeditionary Force said, ‘A hospital was not on the target list.’ But there it is, reduced to a pile of rubble. Then on Sunday night the Special Forces stormed the Falluja General Hospital. They rounded up all the doctors, pushed them face down on the floor and handcuffed them with plastic straps behind their backs. With the hospital occupied, those wounded by the U.S. aerial bombings headed to the Falluja Central Health Clinic. And so at 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 9, U.S. warplanes bombed that clinic as well, killing 35 patients, 15 medics, 4 nurses, 5 support staff and 4 doctors, according to a doctor who survived (The Nation, 13 December). U.S. fire also targeted an ambulance, killing five patients and the driver.

Jon Schwarz of the Intercept provides a series of examples of the bombing of civilian facilities since 1991 including: Infant Formula Production Plant, Abu Ghraib, Iraq (January 21, 1991), Air Raid Shelter, Amiriyah, Iraq (February 13, 1991), Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory, Khartoum, Sudan (August 20, 1998), Train bombing, Grdelica, Serbia (April 12, 1999), Radio Television Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia (April 23, 1999), Chinese Embassy, Belgrade, Serbia (May 7, 1999), Red Cross complex, Kabul, Afghanistan (October 16 and October 26, 2001), Al Jazeera office, Kabul, Afghanistan (November 13, 2001), Al Jazeera office, Baghdad, Iraq (April 8, 2003), and the Palestine Hotel, Baghdad, Iraq (April 8, 2003).

Throughout the Obama presidency and during the end of the Bush presidency, the US has been using drones to bomb multiple countries. There have consistent reports of drones killing civilians including Obama killing at least 8 Americans. This week the Obama administration took these killings a step further, trying to deny legal access to the victims’ families by seeking dismissal of their case. The US is seeing protests even in allied Germany against their use of drones. Efforts to bring transparency to the use of drones have resulted in blacked-out responses to FOIA requests.

This week the US moved toward direct confrontation with Russia and China. In Syria, the US is engaged in an unauthorized war supposedly against the Islamic State in Syria, but also to achieve its long term goal of putting in place a US friendly government in Syria. There is a lot of misinformation and confusion about this war, which has now been joined by Russian aerial attacks. Unlike the US, Russia was asked by the Syrian government to help prevent terrorist attacks in Syria. The US has been covertly using the CIA for ground operations with supposed moderate Syrian terrorists while also conducting an aerial campaign. There are widespread deaths of civilians and a massive exodus of refugees. Rhetoric is escalating, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is calling for retaliation against Russia while Senator John McCain says the US is in a proxy war with Russia. Talks in Geneva, without any preconditions as to the status of President Assad, are urgently needed.

Regarding China, last week the US announced that within the next two weeks it was going to send US war ships inside the 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as territory around islands it has built in the Spratly Chain. The next day China responded that it would not tolerate violations of its territorial waters and told the US not to take any provocative actions. This sets up a potential conflict that the US has been stoking in the region, using allies like the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Vietnam as proxies for conflicts with China over the Islands.

War Is Not the Answer, Time to End US War Culture

Ralph Nader points to the recent war losses in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and says there are lessons for the United States. The US has been unrestrained by international law and used “military power anywhere and everywhere, regardless of national boundaries and the resulting immense civilian casualties.” The US has created “wonton destruction and violent chaos” and destroyed functioning governments.

Nader describes the blowback caused by “reckless slaughter of civilians – wedding parties, schools, clinics, peasant boys collecting fire-wood on a hillside – from supposedly pinpoint, accurate airplanes, helicopter gunships, drones, or missiles. Hatred of the Americans spreads as people lose their loved ones.” As a result, the US is perceived as “invaders on a rampage” resulting in countries producing an endless supply of “motivated fighters” and “suicide bombers.” US wars’ “’blowback’ policies are fueling the expansion of al-Qaeda offshoots and new violent groups in over 20 countries.”

Nader points out that “all this could have been avoided” as there were scores of retired military officials who warned all-out war was a mistaken course. Further, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their off shoots are not winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people with their brutal policies but their promise of law and order is better than the chaos of US militarism.

These war policies seeking to achieve full spectrum dominance have also had negative effects at home. Nader points to “the harm to and drain on our soldiers, our domestic economy, the costly, boomeranging, endless wars overseas and what empire building has done to spread anxieties and lower the expectation level of the American people for their public budgets and public services.”

How do we get out of these depraved quagmires of our own self-creation? Nader gives an answer – a change in approach to the world, an end to war culture and a move toward a humanitarian culture. As Nader says it:

Not repeatedly doing what has failed is the first step toward correction. How much better and cheaper it would be if years ago we became a humanitarian power – well received by the deprived billions in these anguished lands.

Let’s stop repeating the mistakes that have been with us since Columbus.Let’s end the American culture of war.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance. This article first appeared as the weekly newsletter of the organization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The ‘US Way of War’ from Columbus to Kunduz
A significant number of Europe’s 1.4m Jews are now alarmed at the continued occupation and illegal settlement of Palestinian land by the right­wing, extremist government of Binyamin Netanyahu ­ one that holds the UN, the EU and the US in contempt.
This growing Jewish minority of ordinary Europeans disassociate themselves from the Likud policy agenda for a ‘Greater Israel’ that is now responsible for the near daily killing of Palestinian children in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and for the criminal blockade of 1.8m civilians in Gaza from obtaining essential supplies of medicines, foodstuffs and building materials.
This significant Jewish cohort wants a peaceful settlement to the dispute between armed Israelis (with full stomachs, expensive cars and domestic swimming pools) ­ and the dispossessed residents of the Occupied Territories who are subject not only to vicious restrictions on housing, essential supplies and free movement but also to the horror of Israeli ‘pricetag’ terrorists who burn their crops and demolish their homes whilst the IDF sits and watches.
Netanyahu’s Zionist doctrines now have echoes of the persecution of minorities in Germany’s 1930’s Berlin. Meanwhile, the silence from Britain, the EU and the US, is deafening.
 
Note
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Alarmed European Jews Want Netanyahu Replaced with a Leader for Peace

Putin and the Press: “The Demonology School of Journalism”

October 12th, 2015 by Prof. James Petras

The major influential western print media are engaged in a prolonged, large-scale effort to demonize Russian President Putin, his politics and persona. There is an article (or several articles) every day in which he is personally stigmatized as a dictator, authoritarian, czar, ‘former KGB operative’ and Soviet-style ruler; anything but the repeatedly elected President of Russia.

He is accused of hijacking Russia from the ‘road to democracy’,as pursued by his grotesquely corrupt predecessor Boris Yeltsin; of directing the bloody repression of the ‘freedom loving Chechens’; of jailing innocent, independent and critical oligarchs and robber barons; of fomenting an uprising in the ‘democratic, newly pro-Western’Ukraine and seizing control of Crimea; of backing a ‘bloody tyrant’ in Syria (elected President Bashar Assad) in a civil war against ISIS terrorists; of running the Russian economy into the ground; and of militarily threatening the Baltic and Eastern European NATO member countries.

In a word, the media have propagated an image of an ‘out-of-control autocrat’, who makes a mockery of ‘democratic’ norms and ‘Western values’, and who seeks to revive the ‘Soviet (aka Evil) Empire’.

The corollary is that ‘Western powers’, despite their peace-loving propensities and fraternal attempts to bring Russia into the democratic ‘fold’, have been ‘forced’ to now surround Russia with NATO military bases and missiles; to finance a violent coup in the Ukraine (on Russia’s frontier) and arm the Ukrainian putsch government and neo-fascist militias to ‘restore democracy’ and violently suppress ethnic Russian ‘separatists’ in Eastern Ukraine. We are told that US and EU sanctions against Russia were carefully crafted ‘diplomatic’ measures designed to punish the Moscow ‘aggressor’.

In reality, the Western media has relentlessly demonized Vladimir Putin in a campaign to further NATO military expansion and undermine the Russian economy and its national security. The goal is ultimately to force a ‘regime change’, restoring the neo-liberal elites who had pillaged Russia’s economy during the 1990’s and whose brutal economic policies led to the premature death of over 6 million Russians due to deprivation and the collapse of the healthcare system.

Putin: Demon or Realist, Autocrat or Democrat, Vassal or Independent Leader?

The Western media has backed every oligarch, gangster and fraudster who has gone on trial and been convicted during Putin’s term in office. The propagandists tell us the reason for this affinity between the Western media and the gangster-oligarchs is that these convicted felons, who claim to be ‘political dissidents’ and critics of Putin’s rule, have been dispossessed, and jailed for upholding ‘Western values’.

The Western media conveniently ignore the well-documented studies on the source of the gangster-oligarchs’ wealth: The violent and illegal seizure of multi-billion dollars-worth of natural resources (aluminum, oil and gas), banks, factories, pension funds and real estate. During the Yeltsin period the oligarchs controlled thousands of armed gangsters and engaged in internal warfare during which thousands were killed, including top government regulators, police officials and journalists who dared to oppose or expose their pillage and property grabs.

Putin’s prosecution of a mere fraction of the most notorious oligarch-gangsters has won the support of the vast majority of Russian citizens because it represents a return to law and order and the return of stolen public wealth.

Only the Western media has dared to refer to these convicted felons as ‘political victims and reformers’. They did so because theoligarchs had become the most loyal and submissive assets in the US and EU governments’ efforts to convert Russia into an irreversibly weak vassal state.

The Western media constantly refer to President Putin as the‘authoritarian ruler’, despite the fact that he has been repeatedly elected by large majorities in competitive elections against Western backed and funded candidates. His popularity is attested to by opinion polls conducted by Western agencies.

In 2015, President Putin’s support soared to over 85%.  The pro-Western Russian neo-liberal politicians scored in the low single digits according to the same independent polls.

Clearly the Russian public does not want to return to the poverty and chaos of the Western-backed gangster politics of the 1990’s.

Whatever reservations working and middle class Russians have over President Putin’s style of decision-making, they clearly value his crackdown on gangster-controlled elections, Chechen terrorism, and his restoration of Russian military defense of its frontiers, including the annexation of Crimea, following the US-engineered coup in Ukraine.

Every day, the Western media recycle reports of the ‘decline and demise’ of the Russian economy, blaming ‘statist’ mismanagement of the economy by Putin. They claim ‘declining living standards’, the ‘negative growth’ of the economy and the ‘growing isolation’ of an ‘expansionist’ Russia in the face of Western sanctions.

These media claims are laughable. Readily available data demonstrate that living standards of the vast majority of Russian citizens have significantly increased under President Putin’s administration, especially after the utter collapse under the free marketers of the1990’s. Russian workers receive their pay, pensioners their pensions, enterprises their loans – on time. During the ‘free market’ days of Boris Yeltsin, workers went up to a year without pay, pensioners were selling their heirlooms in the street to survive and enterprises paid extortionate interest rates to oligarch-gangster controlled banks! Comparative data, easily obtained, are deliberately ignored by the mass media because it doesn’t fit the demonological narrative.

The mass media present the neo-liberal ‘opposition’ and ‘liberal critics’ as Russian democrats defending ‘Western values’. They forget to mention that these ‘liberal critics’ have been directly funded by Western foundations (National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Foundation, etc.) and Russian non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) with longstanding ties to US and EU governments, intelligence agencies and exiled Russian billionaires. The so-called ‘Russian’ democratic opposition revealed their abject servility to Western interests when they openly supported the Ukrainian coup and Kiev’s bloody assault on ethnic Russian-Ukrainians in the eastern ‘Donbas’ regions of Donetsk, Luhansk and Odessa. Whatever shreds of respectability and credibility the ‘democratic opposition’ retained with the Russian public, up to that point, was lost. They were seen for what they are: propaganda arms of Western imperialism and mouth-pieces for neo-fascists.

The Western mass media charge Putin’s government with the same crimes that their own governments commit. After the US State Department’s Victoria Nuland admitted to channeling $5 billion to fund the 2014 coup in Ukraine and after the Polish regime boasted of training far right street fighters, whose mob violence served as a pretext for the coup, and after neo-fascist coalition partners in Odessa of burned alive four dozen ethnic Russian-Ukrainian citizens opposed to the coup, the Western mass media accused Putin of ‘intervening’ in Ukraine. This was because Russia had convoked a referendum in Crimea, in which over 80% of the electorate voted to secede from the illegitimate Ukrainian coup regime and rejoin Russia.

In truth, the Putin government is a victim of the Western power grab in the Ukraine, with Russia having to absorbed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russian refugees driven out of the Donbas, yet the Western media portray Putin as the executioner. Meanwhile the Western coup-makers and their far-right allies are depicted as victims… forced to bomb and decimate the Donbas region.

The charade continued. The Western media portray the subsequent punitive, economic sanctions imposed by the expansionist US and EU on Russia as a result of Putin’s ‘aggression’, referring to Russia’s defense of Crimea’s self-determination and the rights of the millions of bilingual ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine.

The absurdity and convoluted nature of Western demonological propaganda has reached new even more bizarre heights with their hysteria against Russia’s military support of the secular Syrian government against ISIS and other jihadi terrorists.

The Western mass media have launched a global campaign charging that the Russian air force bombs ‘non-ISIS military bases’, presumably the bases of Western-backed ‘friendly’ jihadi terrorists. This ridiculous ‘reportage’ and its accompanying ‘photos’ were published before the Russian air strikes even took place!!

Apparently timing doesn’t matter in Washington’s ‘alternative universe of lies’!

NATO passed its political line to the media that Russian support for the legitimate regime of President Assad must be discredited; that the Russian presence is ‘provocative’ and responsible for ‘creating tensions’ in the region – after years of Western-sponsored jihadi terrorism against Syria!

Obedient to its masters, the Western media breathlessly ‘reported’ that the Russians were ‘really’ engaged in Syria in order destroy the pro-Western ‘fighters’ leaving ISIS alone.

No credible evidence for this propaganda was ever presented. They trotted out aerial photos of wreckage, which had likely been lifted from previous US bombings.

The media’s clumsy execution of the Pentagon’s line managed to embarrass even the US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who backed off of such claims and called for an explanation from Russia. Even Secretary Kerry, who now seeks to secure Putin’s military support for the US against ISIS while withdrawing Russia’s political backing of President Assad, has cautioned the media to modify its line, now that the US favors ‘greater coordination’ with Russia – but under US leadership. The media has recently conformed to this line, although it has not managed to explain how Washington could now work with the demonic President Putin.

Conclusion

Western media is engaged in an intense long-term propaganda campaign to demonize President Putin. Its role is to convince world public opinion and world leaders to blindly follow the US and EU, as well as their ‘allies’ and vassal states, in a campaign to degrade and undermine Russia, and consolidate a unipolar empire under US tutelage.

The Western mass media is important; but it must be remembered that the media is an instrument of imperial state power. Its lies and fabrications, its demonization of leaders, like President Putin, are one part of a global military offensive to establish dominance and to destroy adversaries.

The more intense the imperial campaign, the riskier the power grab, the greater the need to demonize the victims.

This explains how the escalation of the rabid anti-Putin propaganda campaign coincides with the single biggest Western power grab – the Ukraine coup (‘regime change’) – since West Germany annexed East Germany, and NATO and the EU incorporated the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and the Balkans into the West’s strategic alliance. The West’s bloody break-up of the Yugoslav federation was part of this strategic program.

The problem with the Western demonization of adversaries, whether it is Russia, Iran andChina today, or earlier Cuba, Libya and Yemen in the past, is that Washington and the EU face severe economiccrises at home and military defeats abroad by armed Islamic and nationalist resistance movements.

The US had invested hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up a shaky puppet regime in US-occupied Iraq, yet the US-trained and supplied Iraqi Army fled as the Baathist-Islamist ‘ISIS’ quickly over-ran half the country.

US troops have occupied Afghanistan for fourteen years, losing tens of thousands of lives and limbs and yet the nationalist-Islamist Taliban can easily take over Afghanistan’s third largest city, Kunduz (population 300,000), and occupies three quarters of the rest of the countryside.

Libya and Somalia are a disaster. And still Washington allocates a half billion dollars to train pro-Western mercenaries to overthrow Syria’s President Assad – mercenaries who give up their arms or join ISIS the moment they cross the border from Jordan or Turkey. The US trained mercenaries have handed over untold millions of dollars worth of heavy and light weapons and armored carriers to ISIS and Al Qaeda. The EU and the US face the dismal reality that Libya, Somalia and Syria are over-run by anti-Western Islamic fighters.

In Asia, China is demonized in the Western media, portrayed as being on the verge of collapse, facing a hard landing, even as China grows at 7%. The Western media wring their collective hands over the crisis in China while Beijing finances two new international development banks for $100 billion, raises its contribution to the IMF and brings 50 countries, including most of the EU but minus the US and Japan, into a new infrastructure lending institution.

Two big questions face the US and EU:

Why do the Western media launch a campaign of demonizationthat doesn’t correspond to reality? What is the goal of such demonization, which objectively undermines the possibility of forming tactical alliances to end the US’ military losses, political defeats and diplomatic isolation? The US needs Russia to defeat ISIS.

For Moscow, the fight against ISIS is crucial to Russian national security: Thousands of Chechen terrorists (some trained by the US) are fighting with ISIS and threaten to return to the Caucuses and terrorize Russia. Unlike the US public’s opposition to Washington’s role in forcing ‘regime change’ in Syria, the Russian public supports Moscow’s military support for the Syrian government because the Chechens’ campaign of terror within Russia, especially the 2004 massacre of hundreds of school children, teachers and parents in Beslan, is seared into their memory – a fact conveniently ignored by Western media when it ‘sympathizes’ with Chechen ‘freedom fighters’.

In reality, Washington should have a common interest to ally with Russia in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. However Obama is committed to ousting Assad (Russia’s ally) to expand US dominance in the Middle East in partnership with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Clearly there are insurmountable contradictions between short-term military objectives (fighting ISIS) and strategic imperial political imperatives (consolidating US-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East and Iran).

Washington has moved to end its isolation in Latin America by re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, Washington retains the economic blockade of Cuba and its huge US military base in Guantanamo. Cuba is seen as a tactical political ally in ‘moderating’ the leftist government of Venezuela and pressuring the Colombian FARC to disarm, even as Washington deepens its military presence in the continent.

Obama signed off on a nuclear agreement with Iran (but the crippling sanctions and blockade remain in place) in order to secure Tehran’s support for the war against ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Temporarily, the Western mass media has ‘toned-down’ its demonological reporting on Iran and Cuba, for tactical purposes.

The Obama regime has adopted a ‘good cop/bad cop’ (or schizophrenic) posture with Russia on Syria – Secretary of State John Kerry speaks of joint co-operation with Moscow while Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter proposes to militarily confront ‘Russian aggression’. The media hasn’t made the switch because they don’t know which orders to obey or which line to ‘parrot’.

In the meantime, the domestic economic crisis deepens, ISIS advances, the Taliban approaches Kabul, the Russians are arming and defending President Assad and millions of refugees, fleeing the war zones, have over- run Europe. European border wars are raging. And Obama wrings his hands in impotence. Demonology offers no allies, no solutions and no positive path to peace and co-existence.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin and the Press: “The Demonology School of Journalism”

India-EU FTA: Time for a Fundamental Rethink?

October 12th, 2015 by Kavaljit Singh

India and EU would soon resume negotiations on the stalled India-EU free trade agreement. In a joint statement issued by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in New Delhi on Monday, both leaders expressed their “strong commitment to the EU-India Broad Based Trade and Investment Agreement and committed to bring about a resumption of the negotiations as soon as possible.” With political leadership now backing the proposed agreement, the trade negotiators will sit down at the table again to thrash out the remaining issues.

The joint statement was released just hours before the US, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations reached final agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest regional trade pact in history as these economies together account for 40 percent of global GDP and one third of world trade.

Like the TPP, India-EU FTA has undergone more than dozen rounds of negotiations between 2007 and 2013. Thereafter, a change of government in Delhi as well as EU’s negotiations with the US on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement delayed the negotiating process. The negotiations were expected to resume this year but got stalled in August 2015 when the EU imposed a ban on the sale of 700 drugs clinically tested by GVK Biosciences, an Indian drug company.

A Highly Ambitious Agreement

In the case of India, the proposed FTA with EU is the most ambitious bilateral pact as it covers higher levels of commitments in trade in industrial goods and agricultural products, services and investment liberalisation, intellectual property rights and government procurement. In comparison, India’s existing FTAs are far narrower in scope.

The India-EU FTA would cover 1.7 billion people, almost 20 percent of the world population, and therefore the potential impacts (both positive and negative) would be far reaching than other agreements signed by India. That’s why, it has evoked much public scrutiny. In India, civil society groups as well as business associations (such as Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures – representing car and vehicle industry) have expressed concerns over this agreement being negotiated in deep secret and lack of public consultations.

The EU’s Broad-based Agenda

The proposed agreement has been facing hurdles on several contentious issues. To begin with, India is resisting demands from the EU to drastically cut tariffs on automobiles, wines and spirits, and dairy products. The EU is seeking greater market access in the services sector such as banking, retail trade, telecommunications, legal and accounting services. In the banking sector, for instance, EU is seeking removal of barriers to market access (commercial presence, cross-border supply and consumption) and grant of national treatment commitments.

The European firms and service providers are interested in the opening up of government procurement markets but India has only committed transparency in the conduct of government procurement processes.

A stringent intellectual property rights regime is another contentious issue as New Delhi has apparently not accepted TRIPS-plus provisions sought by Brussels. Besides, India is reluctant to include labour and environment standards under the proposed agreement.

Narrow Economic Gains for India

Under this FTA, India is largely expecting gains in the services, especially IT and ITeS. India is seeking a significant relaxation for the movement of its skilled professionals (for short-term assignments) within the 28-nation bloc. This would enable Indian IT and ITeS industry to move professionals freely from one country to another within the EU. Currently the EU does not offer a work permit with validity for the entire EU. India is also seeking 50000 extra working visas a year for its citizens but the EU is unlikely to accept this demand due to higher youth unemployment rate, which reached 23 percent in 2013.

In addition, New Delhi wants the EU to recognize India as a “data secure” nation which would immensely help the country’s IT industry to gain greater access to the European markets. But the EU is unlikely to accept this demand.

The Investment Conundrum

Apart from these long-pending issues, some new ones have cropped up recently which would further delay the negotiating process. Take the case of investment protection measures which represent almost the other half of this agreement. India has substantially revised its Model investment protection treaty text early this year after several foreign investors served arbitration notices to India for the alleged breach of its bilateral investment treaties. Now onwards, India would negotiate its future bilateral investment treaties and FTAs based on this new Model text.

The draft new Model text adopts a narrower definition of investments (limiting it to only FDI), removes MFN clause, and restricts the scope of national treatment and fair and equitable treatment clauses. It only allows investors to initiate international arbitration once they have pursued domestic legal remedies to resolve the investment dispute. In all likelihood, the EU would be reluctant to re-negotiate the entire investment chapter of the FTA as per India’s new Model text.

A Win-Win Deal?

Domestically, the Indian government will find it difficult to sell this agreement as a win-win deal and in the best interest of farmers, workers and producers. One cannot deny the fact that the larger gains from lowering tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods will be made by Europe due to higher import duties imposed by India. While Indian products are unlikely to gain much by further reduction of import duties by EU. In the case of cars, for instance, India’s import duty range from 60 to 100 percent while the EU charges a flat rate of 10 percent on imported cars.

In addition, this FTA would have profound implications on local employment and manufacturing in India. The cheaper import of agricultural and manufactured goods due to lowering of import tariffs will negatively affect several labour intensive sectors. Unlike Europe, 93 percent of India’s workforce is employed by unorganised sector with abysmally low wages and no social security.

The cheaper import of finished goods will also undermine local value addition which drives employment growth and promotes enterprise development. Needless to say, India badly needs both. In many important ways, the proposed FTA would run counter to ‘Make in India’ initiative launched with much fanfare by the present government. Hence, the Indian authorities need to undertake a holistic overview of the potential gains and losses from the proposed FTA with the EU and initiate consultations with all stakeholders.

Whither Geo-political Gains?

Is India pursuing FTAs with the EU and other nations purely for trade and investment? Are there other policy objectives? Since 2004, the successive Indian governments have maintained that their FTA strategy helps in the pursuit of geo-political objectives, without elaborating any further. During the past years, no efforts have been made by the authorities to explain how India stands to gain geo-politically by engaging in bilateral trade and investment pacts.

Some commentators argue that there is nothing per se wrong in pursuing geo-political objectives through bilateral trade and investment agreements but where is the evidence to substantiate that India’s enhanced geo-political rise in the world over the past decade has been made possible largely due to such agreements?

Kavaljit Singh is Director of Madhyam, a policy research institute based in New Delhi.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India-EU FTA: Time for a Fundamental Rethink?

Over the years various researchers and investigations have suggested, even asserted at times, that as Vice President [H. W.] George Bush, along with some of his national security advisers, maintained close ties with a secret air-re-supply operation in El Salvador during the Reagan years. In October 1986, a week after the Nicaraguan government shot down a plane carrying supplies for the Contras, front page press reports actually announced that the operation led to both the CIA and Bush.

When it was revealed that Contra resupply project Chief Felix Rodriguez met several times with Bush and a key aide, the VP claimed they didn’t discuss Nicaragua. That actually worked! But here’s where it gets really interesting: the trail also led to the vice president’s son, Jeb. According to the Manchester Guardian, Jeb Bush “long acted as a liaison man with the fiercely pro-Contra, anti-Cuban and Nicaraguan settlers in Miami.”

Yes, this is the Republican “establishment choice” for 2016.

When the Iran-contra scandal began to break in October 1986, mainstream sources like CBS Evening News and the Miami Herald quoted unnamed officials as saying that Jeb Bush had served as his father’s chief point of contact with the contra rebels. Jeb’s denials were narrow. He didn’t deny being his father’s liaison to the contras, only the idea that he had participated “directly” in the illegal contra resupply effort directed from the White House.

And yet, like Keyser Soze, such stories just vanished. George Bush, by then heir apparent to Reagan, was insulated from probing questions as he campaigned for president for the next two years. The one person who connected the CIA, NSA and the mercenary forces on the ground. Instead of being investigated he became president.

Robert Parry, an Associated Press reporter who investigated the Reagan-Bush administration’s secret support for the Contras, confirms Jeb Bush’s association with Contra supporters operating out of Miami. More recently, he recalled that one Nicaraguan businessman with close ties to both Jeb and the Contras told Parry that Jeb Bush was involved with a pro-Contra mercenary named Tom Posey, who was organizing groups of military advisers and weapons shipments. In 1988, Posey was indicted along with several other individuals on charges of violating the Neutrality Act and firearms laws. The charges were dismissed in 1989 when a federal judge ruled that the US was not “at peace” with Nicaragua.

Jeb was also integral in securing a number of “pardons” of Cubans involved in terrorist acts. A prominent example was his intervention to help release Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch from prison and grant him US residency. A notorious figure, Bosch was convicted of firing a rocket at a Polish ship en route to Cuba and was implicated in many other acts of terrorism, including the 1976 mid-air bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane, which killed 73 civilians.

The Cubana Airlines bombing and several other major acts of terrorism by Cuban right-wingers occurred while George H.W. Bush was CIA director and was working closely with anti-communist Cuban exiles employed by the CIA, including Rodriguez, a close associate of Bosch’s alleged co-conspirator in the Cubana bombing Luis Posada Carriles.

Bosch’s release, often called a pardon by media, was the result of pressure by hardline Cubans in Miami — with Jeb Bush as their point man. In July 2002, while he was Florida’s governor, Bush nominated Raoul Cantero, grandson of Cuba’s deposed dictator Batista, as a Florida supreme court judge despite his lack of experience. Cantero had previously represented Bosch and acted as his spokesman, once describing Bosch on Miami radio as a “great Cuban patriot.”

Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana recounts that in 1984 Jeb “began a close association with Camilo Padreda, a former intelligence agent under the Batista dictatorship, overthrown by Fidel Castro. Jeb was then the chairman of the Dade county Republican party and Padreda its finance chairman.” Later, Padreda was convicted of defrauding the housing and urban development department of millions of dollars.

With baggage like this, it’s hard to imagine Bush making it through the race — or just the primaries — without opening up his shady past. And as for improving relations with Cuba, at least Trump would just want his name on a casino.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Bush Family, Batista and the Contras Dark Alliances. The Role of Jeb Bush

The U.S. criticized Russia for killing civilians in Syria.

But just last week, the U.S. intentionally bombed one of the only hospitals in Northeastern Afghanistan (run by Nobel prize-winner Doctors Without Borders), killing hundreds.  This occurred 3 months after U.S.-backed Afghani special forces raided and threatened the hospital, and after the hospital had repeatedly given its gps coordinates to the U.S. military … and repeatedly called saying they were under attack.

And the Washington Post notes that incendiary bombs may have been used:

The AC-130U plane, circling above in the dark, raked the medical compound with bursts of cannon fire, potentially even using high explosive incendiary munitions, for more than an hour. The assault left at least 22 people dead, some of them burned to death.

It’s a war crime to bomb a hospital without giving adequate warning so patients can leave:

 

This is not the first time the U.S. has bombed civilian targets:

    • On February 13, 1991, the U.S. purposefully targeted an air raid shelter near the Baghdad airport with two 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs, which punched through 10 feet of concrete and killed at least 408 Iraqi civilians.
    • On April 23, 1999, NATO intentionally bombed a Serbian television station, killing 16.   President Clinton said of the bombing: “Our military leaders at NATO believe … that the Serb television is an essential instrument of Mr. Milosevic’s command and control. … It is not, in a conventional sense, therefore, a media outlet. That was a decision they made, and I did not reverse it.” U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke said right after the attack that it was “an enormously important and, I think, positive development.” Amnesty International noted it was “a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime.”
    • On October 16, 2001, the U.S. attacked the complex housing the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul, Afghanistan. After detailed discussions between the U.S. and the Red Cross about the location of all of its installations in the country, the U.S. bombed the same complex again two weeks later. The second attack destroyed warehouses clearly marked with the Red Cross emblem containing tons of food and supplies for hungry refugees
    • On April 8, 2003, the U.S. bombed the Al Jazeera bureau in Baghdad, killing a reporter. The British home secretary at the time subsequently revealed that – a few weeks before the attack – he had urged Prime Minister Tony Blair to bomb Al Jazeera’s transmitter in Baghdad.
    • Also on April 8, 2003, a U.S. tank fired a shell at the 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel, where most foreign journalists were then staying. Two reporters were killed.  The Committee to Protect Journalists found that the attack “was avoidable”

The U.S. has also carried out numerous war crimes by killing civilians with drone strikes. This includes “double tap” strikes which target rescuers attempting to save those injured by drone strikes, and “signature strikes” that kill people whose identities aren’t even known, based on metadata on their phones or their proximity to war zones. And the U.S. has committed a slew of other war crimes, including:

    • The use of depleted uranium, which can cause cancer and birth defects for decades (see thisthis,thisthisthis and this)

None of this is intended to excuse any civilian casualties inflicted by Russia.   But America should not throw stones in glass houses …

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America Has REPEATEDLY Committed War Crimes by Bombing Civilians

Public services in the EU are under threat from transatlantic trade agreements that could endanger citizens’ rights to basic services like water, health, and energy for the sake of corporate profits, according to a new report released today by an international group of NGOs and trade unions.

The study shows how the EU’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) deal with Canada, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) under negotiation with the US, could lock public utilities into irreversible commercialisation and remove governments’ ability to regulate services.

Exposing systemic collusion between big business and European Commission officials in drawing up CETA and TTIP, the report shows how negotiators are doing the work of the EU’s most powerful corporate lobby groups in pushing an aggressive corporate agenda of far-reaching market opening in the public sector.

Pia Eberhardt, researcher and campaigner with lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory:

“Corporate lobby groups have their fingerprints all over CETA and a similarly dangerous agenda is being pursued in the ongoing TTIP talks. The consequences include proposals for excessive investor rights which mean corporations could sue governments for regulations that affect their profits, potentially leading to multi-billion Euro payouts in compensation. Citizens must come together to stop this!”

Jan Willem Goudriaan, general Secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU):

“The corporate sector is pushing an agenda that threatens citizens and workers as a vast array of public services are set to be subject to liberalisation under the provisions of these agreements. What is at stake is our right to vital services, and the ability of public services to function in the public interest.”

The report states that what is at stake is our right to vital services and more; it is about our ability to steer services of all kinds to the benefit of society at large. If left to their own course, trade negotiations will eventually make it impossible to implement decisions for the common good. As long as TTIP and CETA do not protect the ability to regulate in the public interest, they must therefore be rejected.

The report highlights the aggressive agenda of corporations with regards to TTIP and CETA. And it shows how those in charge of EU trade negotiations are rolling out the red carpet for the services industry, with both the consolidated CETA agreement published in September 2014, as well as drafts of TTIP chapters and internal negotiation documents that reflect the wishlists of corporate lobbyists.

The key findings:

1. TTIP and CETA are being influenced by the EU’s most powerful corporate lobby group BusinessEurope and the European Services Forum, a lobby outfit bringing together business associations as well as major companies such as British Telecommunications and Deutsche Bank.

2. The European Commission actively stimulates business lobbying around its trade negotiations. In other words, there is systemic collusion between the Commission and business circles.

3. CETA is set to become the first EU agreement with the ‘negative list’ approach for services commitments: all services are subject to liberalisation unless an explicit exception is made. The same could happen in TTIP.

4. Big business has successfully lobbied against the exemption of public services from CETA and TTIP as both agreements apply to virtually all services. This effectively limits the governmental authority exemption to a few core sovereign functions such as law enforcement, the judiciary, or the services of a central bank.

5. Under investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), thousands of US and Canadian corporations (as well as EU-headquartered multinationals structuring their investments through subsidiaries on the other side of the Atlantic) could sue the EU and its member states over regulatory changes in the services sector diminishing corporate profits, potentially leading to multi-billion euro taxpayer payouts in compensation.

6. The different reservations and exemptions in CETA and TTIP are inadequate to effectively protect the public sector and decision making over how to organise it.

7. The European Commission follows industry demands to lock in present and future liberalisations and privatisations of public services. This could threaten the growing trend of remunicipalisation of water services, energy grids and transport services. A roll-back of some of the failed privatisations of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) to strengthen non-profit healthcare providers might be seen as violations of CETA/TTIP – as might nationalisations and re-regulations in the financial sector such as those seen during the economic crisis.

8. Giving in to corporate demands for unfettered access to government procurement could restrict governments’ ability to support local and not-for-profit providers and foster the outsourcing of public sector jobs to private firms, where staff are often forced to do the same work with worse pay and working conditions.

9. Both CETA and TTIP threaten to liberalise health and social care, making it difficult to adopt new regulations in the sector. The UK’s TTIP services offer explicitly includes hospital services. In the CETA text and recent TTIP drafts no less than 11 EU member States liberalise long-term care such as residential care for the elderly (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK).

10. The EU’s most recent draft TTIP services text severely restricts the use of universal service obligations (USOs) and curbs competition by public postal operators, mirroring the wishes of big courier companies such as UPS or FedEx. USOs such as daily delivery of mail to remote areas without extra charges aim at guaranteeing universal access to basic services at affordable prices.

11. TTIP and CETA threaten to limit the freedom of public utilities to produce and distribute energy according to public interest goals, for example, by supporting renewables to combat climate change. Very few EU member states have explicitly reserved their right to adopt certain measures with regard to the production of electricity and local energy distribution networks in the trade deals.

12. The US is eyeing the opening up of the education market via TTIP – from management training, and language courses, to high school admission tests. US education firms on the European market such as Laureate Education, the Apollo Group, and the Kaplan Group could benefit as much as German media conglomerate Bertelsmann, which has recently bought a stake in US-based online education provider Udacity.

13. The US film industry wants TTIP to remove European content quotas and other support schemes for the local film industry (for example, in Poland, France, Spain, and Italy). Lobby groups like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPPA) and the US government have therefore opposed the exclusion of audiovisual services from the EU’s TTIP mandate, fought for by the French Government. They are now trying to limit the exception as much as possible, for example, by excluding broadcasting from the concept of audiovisual services – seemingly with the support of EU industry groups like BusinessEurope and the European Commission.

14. Financial investors such as BlackRock engaged in European public services could use TTIP and CETA provisions on financial services and investment protection to defend their interests against ‘burdensome’ regulations, for example, to improve working conditions in the long term care sector. Lobby groups like TheCityUK, representing the financial services industry based in the UK, are pushing heavily for a “comprehensive” TTIP, which “should cover all aspects of the transatlantic economy”.

15. US services companies are also lobbying for TTIP to tackle ‘trade barriers’ such as labour regulations. For example US company Home Instead, a leading provider of home care services for seniors operating franchises in several EU member states, wants TTIP to address “inflexible labour laws” which oblige the firm to offer its part-time employees “extensive benefits including paid vacations” which it claims “unnecessarily inflate the costs of home care”.

The full report can be accessed here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Report on Secretive EU Trade Deals Reveals A Corrupt and Fraudulent Programme of Privatization