Global Research

Washington supports ongoing Israeli violence against defenseless Palestinians. It wouldn’t be happening otherwise.

One phone call from Obama to Netanyahu demanding an immediate halt to Israeli lawlessness, making it clear Washington won’t tolerate it, would change everything now ongoing.

It continues because of full US support. Don’t let duplicitous comments from John Kerry’s State Department spokesman, Admiral John Kirby, fool you – claiming Kerry “remain(s) deeply concerned by the continued escalated violence.”

At the same time, revealing Washington’s official policy by “condemning the (Palestinian) terrorists attacks against Israelis.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest echoed the same sentiment – blaming Palestinians for Israeli high crimes, saying:

“(T)he United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attacks – the recent terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, which resulted in the murder of three Israelis and left numerous others wounded.”

No condemnation of vicious, premeditated Israeli state terror – murdering 33 Palestinians through Wednesday, injuring well over 1,600 others, another 4,000 harmed by indiscriminate use of toxic tear gas.

Neurotoxins in tear gas are potentially lethal. They can cause severe side effects, including extreme pain, intense tightening in the chest, a burning and stinging sensation in the nose, eyes and throat.

Tear gas canister impacts can cause severe bleeding, fractures, at times requiring amputations. Israel uses extremely toxic agents in canisters marked “Made in USA.”

Tear gas is a terror weapon. Doctors treating its victims have no antidote for the toxins used. All they can do is get them to a safe place, wash the gas from their eyes and other affected areas, using sterile saline.

Children, the elderly, pregnant women, as well as anyone with respiratory or heart problems are especially vulnerable to potentially serious harm from tear gas exposure. Longterm effects are unknown.

Its use is banned in warfare under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. Palestine is a war theater, its residents guaranteed Fourth Geneva protections.

Israel spurns all international laws, especially humanitarian ones. Palestinian victimization is longstanding, no end to their suffering in sight, no outside help afforded them, their own Ramallah government against them, acting solely as Israel’s enforcer.

On October 10, BDS activists called for “(s)olidarity with the Palestinian popular resistance! Boycott Israel now!”

Saying “a new generation of Palestinians is marching (in) the footsteps of previous (ones), rising up en masse against Israel’s brutal, decades-old regime of occupation, settler colonialism and apartheid.”

“World governments” shamelessly ignore Israel’s full responsibility for ongoing violence.

Calling on both sides to show restraint insults millions of suffering Palestinians, the tens of thousands murdered by Israel over nearly 7 decades, the brutality of endless daily persecution, a vicious Arab-hating state run by fascist extremists no different from Nazis – a racist, tyrannical criminal regime by any standard.

“The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the Palestinian leadership of the global BDS movement, calls on people of conscience around the world to support Palestinians in their quest for freedom at this crucial moment by stepping up BDS activities against Israel’s regime of oppression.”

“It is high time to isolate Israel’s regime of militarization, securitization and racism as a danger not just to Palestinians and the Arab region, but to humanity at large.”

 We’re all Palestinians now! Support the struggle of courageous people for the fundamental rights they’ve been long denied!

Join in solidarity with their resistance against a ruthless oppressor! Speak out in their behalf! Help them in their time of need!

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.

“When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy” – U.S. President Barack H. Obama

The secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an agreement that serves numerous purposes; one of them is to contain China’s rising economic power in the Asia-Pacific region. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who normally advises Washington’s insiders on foreign policy matters produced a report titled ‘Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China’ written by Robert D. Blackwill and Ashley J. Tellis which clearly states that

“China represents and will remain the most significant competitor to the United States for decades to come” and that “the likelihood of a long-term strategic rivalry between Beijing and Washington is high.”

Blackwill and Tellis recommend that the U.S. Congress “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia.”

It is a clear message to China. The main-stream media is also on board with the TPP agreement, for example The Washington Post published an article titled ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade deal worth celebrating’, and why is the TPP worth celebrating?

“By knitting the U.S. and Japanese economies together in their first free-trade deal — and binding both of them closer to rising Asian nations — the TPP would create a counterweight to China in East Asia”.

Time magazine also had a headline that said it all ‘Pacific Trade Deal Is Good for the U.S. and Obama’s Legacy’ which makes its case that a “U.S. presence” will protect its partners from any perceived threats from China:

But Asia is an exception, because deeper involvement there can create economic opportunities (like TPP), and because China’s neighbors are eager for a lasting U.S. presence to protect them from over-dependence for growth and security on China

China was left out of the deal intentionally (not to say that China would benefit from the deal in any way), the reason is that the U.S. wants an alliance of nations than can counter China’s rise to an economic powerhouse.  The TPP is meant to isolate China while the U.S. expands its presence in the Pacific (Part of the Pentagon’s ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’) turning its partners in the TPP trade deal into cheap labor colonies without rights that will serve U.S. interests.

Can China counter the TPP?

RT news reported that China can unite to counter the TPP with Europe which accounts for “€1 billion in trade daily, while bilateral trade in goods reached €428.1 billion in 2013.” According to the RT news report:

This raises questions, whether China and other countries are ready to unite to counter-balance the Pacific Rim pact. “China and Europe may finally look at each other and find some commonalities that they were unaware of before,” said Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia-Pacific economist at Natixis, in a report quoted by CNBC. “China expressed interest to the EU commencing negotiations on a bilateral FTA [free trade agreement] when President Xi Jinping visited the EU in March 2014. At the time, the EU recognized this to be a desirable long-term objective rather than something that would be negotiated in the near future,” CNBC quotes Rajiv Biswas, Asia-Pacific chief economist at HIS as saying

RT news also reported that “another way for China to oppose TPP is boosting its BRICS participation. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa comprise about 30 percent of world’s GDP at the moment in PPP terms and are projected to increase to as much as 45 percent by 2030.” Which rightly so, allows China to bypass the TPP trade zone.

Malaysia’s Internal Opposition to the TPP

There are already disagreements within countries such as Malaysia where former Prime Minister; Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had recently said that the TPP is a “very bad” agreement. According to The Malaysian Insider (www.themalaysianinsider.com) “Anti-TPP lobbyists said the agreement has removed the country’s control over policymaking and put the government at risk of being sued if it favoured public interests over foreign investors.” This means that if an environmental accident occurred and people were injured or killed, the Malaysian government cannot sue the corporations or governments involved. Dr. Mohamad explains “Let’s say a few countries are into mining and it pollutes the environment and we stop it, they (the companies) can sue governments for loss of future profits” the report said.

The TPP is a corporate takeover that will ease rules that normally protects working-class people and labor unions. The TPP will offshore jobs from the U.S. and Canada to low-wage nations like Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam.

The agreement also eliminates health, safety and environmental regulations and favors corporations such as Monsanto over food safety issues. The TPP will empower pharmaceutical corporations that will expand its monopolistic control over its manufacturing practices which will eventually increase the price of medicine. The TPP also threatens internet privacy and the list goes on. However, as bad as the TPP is, China is the big enchilada. It is important to remember that the U.S. holds the largest debt in world history while China is the creditor nation that buys U.S. debt (although it has been dumping U.S. dollars at unprecedented levels) regardless, Washington still pushes this ludicrous deal that only makes matters worse in terms of diplomacy. The TPP serves multiple purposes; one of them is to expand an economic war that will repel China’s influence in the region. All countries that signed on to the TPP should keep in mind what Russian President Vladimir Putin once said “Washington doesn’t want partners. Washington wants vassals.”

More information on the TPP will surface in the months to come, but so far the available information we do have has one specific goal, and that is to contain China at the expense of less developed nations. The TPP is about the U.S. dominating the Asia-Pacific through trade agreements accompanied by its political and military presence to ensure that the multi-national corporations continue to make profits while pushing the Chinese dragon into the corner. My opinion is that the TPP will fail. The Malaysian people are one of the first to oppose this agreement. My prediction is that all of the governments that signed on to the agreement will face mass protests within their own borders, and that will be a positive step towards defeating the TPP once and for all.

US and Russian military officials held a third round of video conferences Wednesday in a bid to hammer out an agreement on procedures aimed at preventing accidental confrontations between their respective warplanes operating over Syria.

The meeting was held in the wake of a reported incident last Saturday in which US and Russian jets came within miles of each other in Syrian airspace, according to the Pentagon.

“Visual contact took place,” said Col. Steve Warren, a spokesman for the US military in Baghdad. “All pilots conducted themselves appropriately and everyone went about their business. But this is dangerous, right?…There’s always going to be some risk if there are uncoordinated actors in the battle space.”

A statement from the Russian defense ministry said that “positions became closer on key provisions” of a joint agreement on operations, but indicated that a deal has yet to be reached.

The videoconferences on “deconflicting” the Syrian airspace are being held in lieu of more expansive and higher-level talks proposed by Moscow, but rejected by Washington.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that he had proposed sending a delegation led by Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev and including high-ranking Russian military and civilian officials to Washington to discuss a closer coordination of US and Russian operations in Syria, but that US officials rejected any such talks.

“It seems to me that some of our partners have mush for brains,” commented Putin. He added that in the wake of US claims that Russia was bombing “moderate” Syrian militias instead of the supposed common enemy, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Moscow had requested that the Pentagon provide coordinates of areas that “we shouldn’t target,” but had received no response.

A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, recounted Washington’s warnings against Russian airstrikes hitting positions of the “Free Syrian Army,” a supposedly “moderate” opposition force. The refusal of the US to provide any information as to the location of these forces, she said, led to the inescapable conclusion that it is “a fake organization which is much talked about without being seen.”

The source of these tensions lies in the diametrically opposed aims being pursued by US imperialism and the Russian regime under the common pretext of battling ISIS and “terrorism.” Washington’s fundamental objective remains the same as when it first joined Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey in instigating the Syrian civil war: regime change. It wants to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad and impose a puppet government as part of its drive to impose US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East.

Russia, on the other hand, has intervened with its two-week-old bombing campaign in a bid to prop up Assad and prevent the loss of its sole ally in the Middle East and its one military base outside the former Soviet Union, the naval station at the Syrian Mediterranean port of Tartus.

Underlying the dispute over Russia’s targeting and the refusal of the Pentagon to indicate what targets it does not want hit is the dirty secret that Washington is relying on the al-Nusra Front, Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate, and similar sectarian militias armed and funded by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as the main proxy forces in the war for regime change.

Russia has repeatedly bombed these forces, providing air support for a broad counter-offensive by Syrian government troops aimed at driving back the Islamist militias from the northern city of Hama, as well as the Damascus countryside and in areas of the provinces of Idlib and Latakia.

Concerns that the antagonistic aims of Moscow and Washington and the close proximity between US and Russian military operations could trigger an armed clash between the world’s two largest nuclear powers found fresh expression Wednesday in a warning made by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in advance of a four-day trip that is to take him to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Steinmeier said he wanted to “urgently caution the US and Russia not to militarily engage in a way that in the end could lead to a conflict.” He added that the aim of his trip was to “build bridges between Iran and Saudi Arabia so that it becomes conceivable that in the end we can get all the regional partners we need at one table.” Saudi Arabia has been a principal backer of the war for regime change in Syria, while Iran is Syria’s closest ally.

The German foreign minister’s comments reflected the growing divisions between Berlin and Washington over the Syrian war. The US has repeatedly sought to exclude Iran from any talks on Syria. The crisis gripping US policy in the region has opened up increasing rifts within the members of the NATO alliance.

Most dramatic have been those involving Turkey, which ostensibly joined the war on ISIS, offering the US use of Turkish airbases for strikes on Syria, while sending its own warplanes to bomb primarily Kurdish targets in both Iraq and Syria. Washington initially signaled its support for these actions, claiming that Turkey was responding to “terrorist” attacks by the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party).

At the same time, however, the US has sought to utilize the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria as ground forces to attack ISIS, including in a planned offensive to overrun Raqqa, the northern Syrian city that serves as the de facto capital of the Islamist militia.

The 50 tons of arms and ammunition that the Pentagon airdropped into Syria earlier this week were reportedly intended for the YPG and smaller Arab forces with which it is aligned.

The YPG and its political arm, the Democratic Unity Party (PYD), are aligned with the PKK in Turkey. They have also declared their support for the Russian bombing campaign.

Further complicating the already volatile situation in Syria, the Turkish government Wednesday called in both the US and Russian ambassadors to warn them against providing any support to the Syrian Kurdish forces against ISIS.

“We have a clear position. That position has been conveyed to the United States and the Russian Federation,” Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a televised statement. “Turkey cannot accept any cooperation with terrorist organizations which have waged war against it.”

“Just as the United States and other friendly allies fight against al-Qaeda linked groups, Turkey is determined to fight against the PKK and its affiliates,” Davutoglu added.

Turkey, which has been a principal backer of the Islamist militias in Syria, has repeatedly pressed for the imposition of a “no-fly zone” over a swath of Syrian territory along the Turkish border with the aim of using it as a cover for attacking the Kurdish forces and driving them away from the frontier.

The clash over this issue places Ankara and Washington on a potential collision course, with the prospect of Turkish jets being sent to bomb Kurdish forces in Syria even as American warplanes are providing them with air support.

While things tend to get murky, sometimes by design, regarding the police presence outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, the announcement that the city’s Metropolitan Police would be lifting their twenty-four hour surveillance did surprise some.

This was hardly to suggest that the police forces had lost interest in capturing Julian Assange.  What mattered here was that the costs in guarding Assange from a literal flight of fancy had simply become disproportionate, requiring a change of tact.  Over £12m in costs had been incurred since he skipped bail to avoid his Swedish sojourn, and irrespective of which side of the Assange side one was on, anger was mounting at a very conspicuously bloated project.

The statement from the Metropolitan Police was cool in its language.  “Like all public services, MPS resources are finite.  With so many different criminal, and other, threats to the city it protects, the current deployment of officers is no longer believed proportionate” (The Guardian, Oct 12).

The siege, according to WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson, had not been lifted so much as reconstituted.  “My interpretation is that it has not been lifted. They are calling off the uniformed presence but escalating the covert operation and will arrest him if he steps outside off the embassy.”  Costs, in other words, were going to be moved off the books to un-uniformed personnel.

Indeed, the MPS was even good enough to concede that it had used a range of measures against Assange during its extensive vigil, and would continue to do so.  “The MPS will not discuss what form its continuing operation will take or the resourcing implications surrounding it.  Whilst no tactics guarantee success in the event of Julian Assange leaving the embassy, the MPS will deploy a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him.”

Having been granted political asylum for fears that he might be carted off to the US via Sweden to face the findings of an empanelled grand jury, he remains confined to the cramped quarters of the embassy.  Nor can he rely on new laws in the form of the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that make an “accusation” – in this case, claims of sexual assault on two Swedish nationals in Sweden – insufficient to require extradition.  As the laws were passed after the fact, precisely motivated by the Assange imbroglio, the foreign and commonwealth office has deemed it inapplicable retrospectively.  Assange, as ever, continues to be the legal exception, a singular target of juridical manipulation.

In the meantime, the UN working group on arbitrary detention (WGAD) has been considering Assange’s case, and it likely to find in his favour given its previous rulings of a deprivation of liberty when a person is forced to choose between confinement or the forfeiture of a fundamental right such as asylum.[1]

It is also a principle that holds for the European Court of Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  The latter defines detention as confinement “within a narrowly bounded or restricted location, including prisons, closed camps, detention facilities or airport transit zones, where freedom of movement is substantially curtailed, and where the only opportunity to leave this limited area is to leave the territory.”

Assange’s written submission to the WGAD outlined the various grievances he has had with his period of confinement.  “For the last 816 days, he has been confined to the Embassy of Ecuador in London, in an area of 30m2, he has no access to fresh air or sunlight, his communications are restricted and often interfered with, he does not have access to adequate medical facilities, he is subjected to continuous and pervasive form of round the clock surveillance, and he resides in a constant state of legal and procedural insecurity.”[2]

Such insecurity was again compounded by the FCO response to a request made by Assange on September 30 to be allowed safe passage from the embassy to a nearby hospital to examine his shoulder.  Ecuador’s foreign ministry also got on the case.  Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño had told state TV that Britain should allow Assange to “benefit from the right of asylum that we have granted him, as should be done in a respectful international relationship” (Andes, Oct 14).

The response hedged more than clarified: by all means Assange was free to leave the premises, but no guarantees about safe passage would be offered.  “There is no question that the British authorities would in any way seek to impede Mr Assange receiving medical advice or care.  We have this clear to the govt of Ecuador.”  What the police did, however, was another matter.

Little wonder, then, that embassy officials have considered various ways of breaking the impasse, considering everything from concealing him in fancy dress, enabling him to move across Kensington rooftops to a helipad, or getting lost in the shopping crowds of Harrods.[3]  These, at the very least, provide some mirth in the otherwise serious efforts to nab this bushranger of the information age.

Universal jurisdiction is one of those legal beasts that frightens as much as it excites.  The debate about such jurisdiction, which enables prosecutors from one state to effectively prosecute war crimes or crimes against humanity committed in another state is a highly contentious one.

The International Criminal Court is meant to provide a platform that has looked, largely because of circumstance and procedure, all too much like a body with an African bias.  Regarding the Syrian conflict, there have been calls to bring its operations within the purview of ICC jurisdiction, one made difficult by Syria being a non-signatory to the Rome Statute.  On May 19, 2014, 58 countries issued a statement and letter calling on the UN Security Council to adopt a French sponsored resolution doing just that.

The move was welcomed by Human Rights Watch, including its international justice counsel Balkees Jarrah.  “The movement for justice for victims in Syria is gaining unprecedented momentum. By officially co-sponsoring the resolution for an ICC referral, countries will be taking a critically important stand for accountability for serious crimes by all sides.”[1]  Wheels, however, tend to turn slowly in the UN.

Retaining the colouring of an equally balanced prosecution, with an effort to evenly account for crimes created by all sides, is where such efforts tend to break down.  But the ICC, in that sense, still retains some link to an internationalised procedure that can account for atrocities.  Critics of the various sides in the conflict will, however, be impatient, and France, having taken the lead to bring the ICC into play, is charging out with its own suggestions.

Needless to say, these efforts haven proven to be more selective. To that end, it is hard to envisage a situation of objectively contrived justice for Assad’s “victims” and his prosecution without also placing French objectives for the region into perspective.  The Hollande government wishes Assad out; its prosecutors wish to see him in the dock.  Syria’s victims provide the handy, if cynically manipulated alibis, to justify the action.

On September 30, the prosecutor’s office in Paris announced that it will be opening an investigation into torture carried out by the Assad regime. It does not even purport to target other sides in the conflict, including Islamic State.  In a conflict of competing cruelties, even this action seems calculating.

French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, made it clear who he had in his legal sights.  “Faced with these crimes that offend the human conscience, this bureaucracy of horror, faced with this denial of values of humanity, it is our responsibility to act against the impunity of the killers.”  The move was billed as “the world’s first criminal inquiry into torture under President Bashar al-Assad of Syria”.[2]

This enterprise is already filled with a range of calculations, much of them based upon the assumption that this legal case will rile Assad and form the basis of negotiations for a future “settlement” of the conflict. For one, it involves the French foreign ministry, ever that intrusive figure of imperial valour in the Middle East, pushing upon prosecutors a dossier stacked with pictures of torture victims.

The pictures first made their appearance on CNN in January last year, suggesting that eleven thousand individuals had been systematically murdered in the Syrian prison system, mostly through a gruesome regime of torture.  The graphic imagery had been the work of a photographer for the military police code-named Caesar, one tasked with taking pictures of bodies brought from prison detention.[3] In escaping Syria, his stash of images numbered some 55 thousand.  Denials about their authenticity followed.

Even legal outlets keeping an eye on the proceedings conceded that the moves had a stark political flavour.  Russia’s efforts to “rehabilitate” Assad had to be countered by such measures, even if they needed Paris to identify a French victim or arrest a Syrian official.[4]

Such zealous efforts are not necessarily going to ring sweetly in the corridors of power in the US and Israel. Both sides have made their opposition to universal jurisdiction, or at least instances of its use, before.  Political expedience is cited as a prevailing poison in such affairs.

One of its strongest critics remains a figure who himself would look fitting in a criminal court – former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.  “The danger lies [in submitting international politics to judicial procedures] in pushing the effort to extremes that risk substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments; historically the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and even witch-hunts” (Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2011).

One country that has shown a particular interest in universal jurisdiction is Spain.  On October 31, 2010, Spanish Judge Ferdinand Andreu refused to grant former Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter immunity from prosecution for a trip to Spain where he was intent on participating in a peace summit.[5]

Dichter was facing charges for war crimes and crimes against humanity for his involvement in the assassination of former senior Hamas member Salah Shedade.  The operation, supervised by Dichter, saw the deployment of a one-ton bomb in Al-Daraj, a residential neighbourhood in Gaza that killed fourteen civilians, including eight children, and injured 150 others.

While it is tempting to see international law as a manifestation of higher workings, wise judges and legal briefings without political manipulation, the view is but an illusion. The French effort here to forge a prosecution through domestic mechanisms looks more political than substantial, even if there has been, over the last 25 years, an understanding that “enemies of the human race” – hostes humani generis – need to face some judicial procedure.  But international law, for all its contentions, remains a product of the law of nations and national interest.  Human rights protocols remain weapons used by governments against others.

While there is much to merit investigations and prosecutions of a range of horrendous crimes committed against civilians in Syria by a complex range of sides and powers, the specificity of these claims against Assad for torture, tend to dispel notions of a virtuous tyranny in action.

This is a warring environment that permits barrel bombs, chemical weapons, beheadings and torture.  It is a hothouse of cruelties, and pulling the rabbit out of the hat specifically for Assad’s criminality, in the absence of considering those he is battling against, will be a tall order.  The only truly appropriate forum, should it ever come, will have to be a Syrian court, but do not expect that to be particularly balanced, either by local or international design, either.

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

(Please read Part I, Part IIA and Part IIB before this article)

Barely anything is certain in life, but if there’s one thing that geopolitical observers can most surely expect, it’s that the US will fiendishly find a way to pay Russia back for the sudden reversal that Moscow’s inflicted upon its strategic fortunes in the Mideast. Although by no means a conclusive listing, the following scenarios are by far the most realistic. In no particular order, they are:

Kurdish Turncoats

The Kurds have courageously sided with the Coalition of the Righteous (COR) and vastly increased the organization’s viability, but the speed with which they did so makes one wonder whether they could just as quickly be ‘convinced’ (read: bought off) to return to their unipolar allegiance. So far there’s nothing tangible that points in this direction and all reasoning is conjectural (although rooted in experience), but the situation might predictably arise where the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad return to loggerheads over Kirkuk and the KRG-central government oil-revenue sharing deal in the aftermath of the anti-ISIL war. In such an event, the KRG could once more resort toindependence rhetoric as a method of extracting political gains from Baghdad, but this time (with American and Israeli backing) it might take conclusive steps to achieve this, such as a snap referendum that’s immediately recognized by Washington and Tel Aviv, et al., no matter how negatively this affects each of their bilateral relationships with Turkey (which they might be eager to provoke if a pro-Eurasian military coup there does in fact occur).

The consequences of this scenario would be extremely destabilizing for the COR, as it would result in the creation of a ‘geopolitical Israel’ that could exert influence on the Syrian and Iranian regions where its ethnic kin reside. Moreover, it could also lead to the trilateral fragmentation of Iraq proper, as it’s unlikely that the rump Sunni-Shia portion could remain intact with its heated domestic differences, especially if a Kurdish-Iraq War suddenly broke out soon afterwards (maybe over Kirkuk). Per that possibility, it’s not foreseeable that the rump country would be able to muster enough unity to fight back against the ‘Mideast Prussia’, and the resultant strain could easily divide the remaining population to the point where further separation is seen as not only inevitable, but actually something welcomed by both sides. Considering this, it becomes very important that Russia and Iran influence the Iraqi central government to accommodate a fair share of the KRG’s reasonable post-war demands, and importantly, that the Kurdish leaders feel confident enough in the trust they’ve given their Moscow- and Tehran-based counterparts so as not to enter into any backstabbing side deals with the US at the same time.

Refugee Games

The stabilization of Syria will unavoidably result in the EU trying to deport most of the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers back to the country sooner or later. Every Syrian citizen has the legal right to return to their homeland, but the situation in practice is a bit more complex than that. Just as outgoing refugees were used as a weapon against Syria, so too could returning ones be as well. For example, many of the Syrians that fled their country for Turkey or the EU don’t support their democratically elected and legitimate government (which isn’t necessarily the same for those went to Lebanon), and forcing them to return there against their will could create tension with the patriotic Syrians who remained. Not only that, but simply in terms of the numbers involved (over 4 millionabroad at last count), it could be overwhelming for the authorities of any country if so many people (were forcibly) returned in a short period of time. Therefore, Syria needs to be alert to the possible weaponization of returning refugees, and should thus prepare an organized system for handling them so as to avoid any destabilization that could occur.

It should once more be emphasized that any large-scale refugee return happening within a short period of time wouldn’t be voluntarily occurring, but unnaturally forced by the EU, many members of which have grown tired of hosting the refugees and simply want them gone. Interestingly enough, prior to the Russian anti-terrorist intervention, UK Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of launching a military campaign against Syria in order to create a situation supposedly amenable to the refugees’ return (in the Western understanding, after regime change). So, with this in mind, now that Russia’s military campaign against ISIL is literally making the country more livable by eliminating the murderous terrorists that plague it, it’s possible that the UK, and for that matter, perhaps even most of the EU, could resort back to the rhetoric of sending refugees back if they acknowledge that the domestic conditions provide ‘plausibly justifiable’ enough reasons that. This might entail the refugee-returning countries de-facto recognizing Syria’s legitimate government, but even if they do, it would only be a temporary tactic to allow them the chance to flood the country with some of its hundreds of thousands of citizens that have already made it to Europe by that time.

Divide And Conquer: Iran vs Russia

While physically powerless to do anything to stop the Russian-Iranian strategic convergence against ISIL, the US and its information organs (both those explicitly recognized and such and more covertly acting sympathetic outlets) can play up false stories of a competition between the two in Syria and/or Iraq with the ultimate hopes of maximizing any suspicions one may have of the other, to the point of creating a ‘security dilemma’ that engenders an actual fallout. It doesn’t seem at all probable that this would happen anytime soon, but if ISIL turns out to be harder to dislodge than previously thought, and the COR campaign stretches on longer than expected, then the contextual backdrop could be created where such vicious rumors might find some adherents in Moscow and Tehran.

Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant built in Iran with the Russian technical assistance.

Russia and Iran are closer than they’ve ever been at the moment as a result of their military collaboration against ISIL, but there’s still the possibility that the differences between them (which the author comprehensively listed out in afour-part series on the issue) could once more return to the surface with time. This becomes even more foreseeable if the US and its German, French, and UK allies find some way in which to falsely accuse Iran of violating the nuclear accord as a twisted form of geo-economic vengeance for militarily siding with Russia in the New Cold War. When one recalls how these leading EU economies abandoned the money they were already making in Russia out of loyalty to the US’ political considerations, it’s not hard to think that they’d do the same for profits they have yet to even receive in Iran. The mere threat of doing so and possibly returning to the sanctions regime (and the Color Revolution tripwire this could activate) might be enough to coax the pro-Western “moderates” into a major behind-the-scenes power play to wrest control of the Islamic Republic from the geopolitical pragmatics (the Western so-called “hard-liners”), or in a less dramatic fashion, ‘nudge’ Iran away from its military closeness with Russia and into a more passive COR role.

The West’s goal has and always will be to enact some form of hard (Color Revolution) or soft (“moderate”) regime change in Tehran that disarms the country’s military-strategic establishment and opens the door for the return of pre-1979 foreign exploitation. Now that Iran has conclusively sided with the Russian-led anti-ISIL coalition, it’s exposed itself once more as an urgent target for Western intelligence agencies, who will stop at nothing to get the country to reverse or lessen its commitment and enter into odds with Russia. This is definitely easier said than done, especially now that Moscow and Tehran have demonstrated such trust between one another through their work in the COR’sBaghdad information center, but this sly tactic of dividing Iran from Russia can’t ever be discounted or taken off of the table of tricks that the US and its allies will employ. As it’s dictated by one of the primary geopolitical imperatives of Western policy towards Eurasia, it can be taken to be a perpetual threat, even if it (hopefully) mitigates in intensity with time.

Balkan Blowout

Russia’s increased military presence in Syria makes it not only a Mideast power, but also an Eastern Mediterranean one as well (with A2/AD capabilities). Expanding on the latter, this ups the country’s presence near the southern shores of the Balkan region, which correlates with Moscow’s intentions to perform a Balkan Pivot and increase its influence in this Western-neglected area of Europe. Thus far, ‘Round Three’ of the New Cold War saw Macedonian patriots defeating the Color Revolution andAlbanian-affiliated Hybrid War attempts that were externally designed to sabotage the country’s stability and prevent it from ever being used as a multipolar-oriented transit state for Russian energy and Chinese high-speed rail. The first battle for the Balkans was won, but the war is far from being over, since there are three principle unresolved destabilizations that can blow up at any time: (1) asecond Color Revolution/Hybrid War venture in Macedonia before or right after the early elections in spring; (2) the geopolitical problems of ‘Greater Albania’ and Dayton-revisionist Bosnia; and (3) theregion-breaking refugee crisis. Victoria Nuland also has her own pet projects for how to throw the Balkans into bedlam, but they can all reasonably fail with good measure.

What should be understood by the reader after this citation-heavy above paragraph is that Russia has concrete geopolitical considerations behind its urge to civilizationally relink itself with the Balkans, while the US is exerting just as much effort to prevent this from happening and frantically finding ways to institutionally (such as Montenegrin and maybe even Macedonian NATO membership) and physically (Hybrid War in Macedonia or a ‘refugee revolt’ in Serbia) split the region off from Russia. Make no mistake – Washington has already planted multiple ‘ticking time bombs’ in the Balkans that it’s planning to remotely set off in the near future, the question is just whether or not the region can withstand such destabilizing blows and how (if in any way) Russia can assist it throughout the oncoming geopolitical ordeal.

With the Balkans being the ‘soft underbelly’ of the EU, which itself is the US’ largest Eurasian colony, Washington will fight back as viciously as it can to prevent Russia from establishing a strategic foothold so close to its ‘prized harlot’. It was already ‘overdefensive’ of its ‘catch’ even before, going as far as to engineer EuroMaidan to keep the two away from one another (moved forward because of the 2013 New Cold War loss the US received in Syria), but faced with an embarrassing, unprecedented, and surprising strategic withdrawal from the Mideast, it’ll probably spare no strategic or physical expense in making sure that Russian influence doesn’t move an inch closer to the Balkans during these tense geopolitical times. It doesn’t mean that this will stop Russia from endeavoring to do so, or that Moscow won’t ultimately succeed, but that it’s very probable that the New Cold War battlefield will once more cycle back to the Balkans after the Mideast (Syria) and Eastern Europe (Ukraine).

Central Asian Chaos

The last forecasted way in which the US could significantly take revenge on Russia for its grand Mideast power reversal is to indirectly strike at its interests in Central Asia, specifically along the Afghan border. It has just been revealed by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu that last month’s ultra-large-scale Center-2015 strategic exercise was aimed at both combating ISIL in the Mideast and the Taliban in Central Asia. As written about in Part I, if Russia continues to make proper use of coalition tactics in fighting against regional threats, it can wisely avoid the pitfalls of the Reverse Brzezinski stratagem, but it remains to be seen if Moscow could simultaneously handle two or more separate campaigns in two different regions (the Mideast and Central Asia).

If, for example, the Taliban, ISIL, and/or a hybrid combination of Islamic terrorists succeeds in capturing territory along most of the former Soviet-Afghan border and recruiting many Central Asians to join its ranks, how exactly would Russia respond? Looking at this scenario, it could quickly become a logistical-diplomatic nightmare, precisely because of the three separate military commands that could potentially (and maybe even concurrently) be involved. Tajikistan is part of the CSTO, which of course would be under Russian leadership, but Uzbekistan removed itself from the bloc in 2012precisely so it could be less tied to Moscow. Turkmenistan, which has seen the Taliban steadily gathering ever more frequently along its newly fortified border, isn’t in any military bloc and officially pursues a policy of neutrality. If there was a coordinated jihadist offensive northwards from Afghanistan against all three countries (which at least doesn’t seem likely from the Taliban right now unless ISIL gains influence over it), then Russia could foreseeably encounter difficulty in multi-managing three possible air interventions a la the Syrian template, with the possibility of a limited ground component being deployed in Tajikistan.

Furthermore, all three of Russia’s potential state brothers-in-arms are susceptible to certain vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a jihadist offensive against them. Tajikistan just had to hunt down and kill a rogue Deputy Defense Minister who suddenly assembled a terrorist gang that tried to overthrow the government, indicating the possible presence of more high-level anti-government figures; Uzbekistan is a bubbling pot of destabilization that might boil over in a hot successionist crisis after the passing of Islam Karimov and enter into all-out Somali/Libyan-style tribal warfare; and isolated and militarily inexperienced Turkmenistan is geographically positioned in such a manner as to make it a very easy target for any rapid ISIL-like offensive across its accommodating landscape, and one which would automatically destabilize Russian, Iranian, and Chinese strategic interests. Complicating matters even further, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have been in a heated rivalry ever since independence, and it’s questionable to what degree they’d be willing to trust one another to the point of militarily cooperating under the same command, meaning that Russia would most likely have to have at least two separate ones for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan.

Taking stock of the previous and looking at the worst-case scenario of a coordinated jihadist offensive against each of the three Afghan-bordering Central Asian states, specifically during the time of Russia’s active anti-terrorist involvement in Syria, then it would present a major predicament for Moscow’s military-strategic planners. They would of course have to respond to the deteriorating developments in the region, but as explained above, it could be exceptionally difficult from a logistical-diplomatic perspective to do so, despite having more than sufficient military capability in carrying out the task. This isn’t necessarily a Reverse Brzezinski (which would be an entangling on-the-ground commitment by Russia) so much as it is a systems overload and possible organizational breakdown. This extreme tri-scenario manifestation remains the least likely of the examined anti-Russian revenge responses that the US will take (although it might deploy one of them separately, perhaps as a ‘test’), but given the magnitude of damage that it can cause to Russia’s grand strategic interests, it certainly deserves to be at least considered by all.

Concluding Thoughts

The COR that Russia has created in the Mideast has the strong potential to revolutionarily transform global politics by dealing a hard blow in the gut of unipolarity’s formerly privileged ‘sphere of interest’. The defeat of ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq would represent a major victory for multipolarity, since it would exterminate the US’ strongest asymmetrical army and lessen the likelihood that it could ever be successfully used in destabilizing the Resistant & Defiant states of Russia, China, and Iran. It can be said that Russia surprisingly ‘changed the rules of the game’ by intervening in Syria at Damascus’ request, since it seems that this totally caught the US and its regional allies off guard. Now that this action has created established facts on the ground, it’s clear to see just how weak the US’ position really is in the Mideast, especially since its two previous pillars of regional power, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are in real danger of internally crumbling before the eyes of the world. The extraordinarily short time that Russia was able to reverse the status of power in the Mideast through a relatively small bombing campaign testifies to the paper tiger-like nature of unipolar control in the Mideast.

If the COR’s momentum keeps up and the terrorists are all soundly defeated, then it’s very likely that the crossroads of Afro-Eurasia will become the most crucial strategic bridgehead in pushing back against unipolar world. But, be that as it may, the US most certainly will not take such an astounding loss lightly, and it’s absolutely guaranteed to push back in seemingly unexpected ways. Whether through Kurdish Turncoats, Refugee Games, or Divide and Conquer between Iran and Russia, the US will not let its grip on the region go peacefully, and it may even resort to indirectly attacking Russian strategic interests in the Balkan and/or Central Asian theaters to distract Moscow from the Mideast and create a exploitable opening in which to stage a counter-offensive. If, however, Russia and its Coalition of the Righteous are successful in securing the Mideast and stymieing the forecasted American destruction of the Balkans and Central Asia, then a new multipolar world order can incontrovertibly replace the unipolar one of old.

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

An acclaimed philosopher and journalist who has recently visited Iran tells Fars News Agency that the reality of Iran is absolutely different from the way it’s being illustrated in the mainstream media.

Andre Vltchek says “Iran that you see when visiting the country has nothing in common with that imaginary, terrible and cruel Iran that the West’s mass media has created.”

Commenting on Iran’s nuclear program and the international responses to it, Andre Vltchek says the majority of the Middle East nations and the global public don’t have any objections to Iran developing nuclear technology, considering Iran’s peaceful nature and its long history of non-violence.

“I am actually horrified that such countries, such colonial powers like the United States, France and the UK have their nuclear arsenal and that the world is tolerating it. These countries are responsible for loss of hundreds of millions of human lives, all over the world. But Iran! Why should anyone fear Iran? Yes, Iran is transparent and accountable over its nuclear program,” he asserted.

Vltchek who has traveled to tens of countries in five continents talks of his experience in Iran with delight, noting that without visiting Iran, “one’s knowledge of the world could never be complete.”

Andre Vltchek was a keynote speaker at the International Congress on 17,000 Iranian Terror Victims held in Tehran last month.

FNA spoke to Mr. Vltchek about Iran’s relations with the West, the portrayal of Iran in the Western media and the international perceptions of the country’s nuclear program.

Q: You recently attended the International Congress on 17,000 Iranian Terror Victims, which commemorated the Iranian citizens and officials murdered by the terrorist groups following the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Isn’t it ironic that while Iran says it’s been a victim of global terrorism itself, it’s being accused by some of the major powers and their allies of sponsoring terrorism?

A: Yes it is ironic, but the entire arrangement of the world is more than ironic; it is grotesque. We have a group of several, mainly Western countries, ruling the world, brutalizing all continents, reigning over entire planet using dictatorial and often criminal means, but these countries are accusing others, mainly their victims, of being undemocratic [and] even of sponsoring terrorism.

Their propaganda is extremely advanced. It was being perfected throughout the centuries. I suggest one thing: keep telling the truth and continue presenting facts. But the countries like Iran should not engage in direct debate with the West over these issues. It is because the West and its propaganda are too advanced in their ways and in the methods to manipulate public opinion through distorting the facts. Their outright lies are now more convincing than the truth.

Q: The Iranian officials and ordinary citizens have complained in the recent years that the international community didn’t adopt a firm stance in protest against the assassination of the nation’s nuclear scientists between 2010 and 2012. In March 2014, a CBS national correspondent Dan Raviv suggested that Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad was behind the killing of five Iranian civilian scientists, and that the Obama administration had asked Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the assassination campaign. Why wasn’t there any official, public condemnation by the world leaders and international organizations on those killings?

A: First of all, because in the West, the majority of people has absolutely no idea that Iran’s nuclear scientists were actually assassinated. Only a very small percentage of the citizens of Europe and North America are well informed and capable of thinking independently. I estimate that between 1 to 2 percent of their population has any idea about the reality. And these people are not holding the power.

As you are well aware, Iran had been defined – by the West – as a pariah state. It had been accused of so many horrible things. These accusations are stereotypical. Actually, each country that does not kneel in front of the West’s colonialist ambitions is accused of these same “crimes”. This way, the West’s public is systematically de-sensitized. After smearing a country like Iran, people in the West think, well, whatever is done to change their “regime” is actually quite legitimate. If it is done through the killing, fine; if using embargos, ok; overthrowing the government – why not? It is extremely brutal game, and there is no compassion there, no feelings; as there is no justice.

Q: The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), is an armed group responsible for the killing of hundreds of Iranian government officials and ordinary citizens in the years following the 1979 revolution. The group was on the US Department of State’s list of foreign terrorist organizations for 15 years, and also considered a terrorist group by the Council of the European Union and the Canadian government. However, the designation was surprisingly lifted in 2012, and the sect is now simply considered a political opposition party. What’s the main reason behind the decision to de-list MKO? Won’t their decision give the MKO greater leeway to carry out terrorist operations inside Iran more conveniently and destabilize the country?

A: Exactly. But that is really their goal, to use MKO as destabilizing factor against Iran, as ISIL is used to destroy Syria and Iraq, [and] as some of the most ruthless and brutal right-wing groups are used to destroy Latin American revolutions. The West is using exactly the same methods against China and Russia and against so many other independent-minded countries. Please do not search for logic behind these acts committed by the West. Their goals are strictly destructive.

Q: One of the questions you raised during your keynote speech during the opening session of the International Congress on 17,000 Iranian Terror Victims in Tehran was that, “why is Iran a target of terrorists supported by the West?” What’s your response to your own question? As you mentioned, Iran has been a harmless country that never attacked any of its neighbors, nor did it overthrow any government. So, why should it be on the receiving end of so much aggression?

A: As I mentioned during my speech in Tehran: it is because “Iran is doing many things right”. It is because Iran’s government wants to improve the standard of living of its people, instead of feeding foreign corporations, and instead of taking orders from the foreign regimes. It is because of Iran’s great friendship with other independent-minded countries and movements in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, as well as China and Russia – two powers that are now standing firmly against the Western imperialism. Presidents Ahmadinejad and Chavez of Venezuela were very close friends. Iran is seen with sympathy by tens of millions of people in this region. And as I was told by great North American thinker, Noam Chomsky, while we were making a film and writing a book entitled “On Western Terrorism – From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare”, most of the countries of the Middle East are seeing real danger in the US and in Israel, while only a tiny fraction sees Iran as a menace. All that I just mentioned above makes the Western empire absolutely furious.

The only way to make a “peace” with the West would be to kneel down and to sacrifice Iranian people to the foreign interests. There is no compromise, no other way; the West always demands nothing less than everything. And Iran’s government would never commit such treason; it would not betray or sacrifice its people.

Q: In one of your reports from Iran, you noted that there are powers which continually demand Iranians to show transparency and build confidence, while staying in “murkiness” themselves. You said they challenge, scrutinize, corner, bully and humiliate the people of Iran systemically. I suppose you were referring to Iran’s nuclear program, for which it has been under pressure for over a decade. What do you think are the reasons for these pressures? Hasn’t Iran been adequately transparent and accountable over its nuclear program?

A: Yes it has been. But again, it is not what Iran actually does. It is what the Western propaganda wants Iran to be perceived as, by the rest of the world. Iran that you see when visiting the country has nothing in common with that imaginary, terrible and cruel Iran that the West’s mass media has created.

Again, referring to the public opinion in the Middle East, most of people there would absolutely not mind if Iran would have its own military nuclear program. I would definitely not mind! Why should anyone mind, given extremely peaceful history of Iran? I am actually horrified that such countries, such colonial powers like the United States, France and the UK have their nuclear arsenal and that the world is tolerating it. These countries are responsible for loss of hundreds of millions of human lives, all over the world. But Iran! Why should anyone fear Iran? Yes, Iran is transparent and accountable over its nuclear program.

But the way the West had been operating on the global stage is like this; a gang of bandits which just robbed a village corners some poor victim, then points fingers at him and shouts: “Thief!” and they run after him, beat him up.

I described this, in detail, in my 840-page book “Exposing Lies of The Empire”. There, I am offering dozens of concrete examples, from all over the world, how the Empire is demonizing and destroying its “enemies”.

This is how it is; this is arrangement of the world in which we are living and that is why this global dictatorship of the West has to end, as soon as possible.

Q: In the reports you filed from Iran, you described the country’s public sphere as peaceful, tranquil and its people as cordial and hospitable. While many US and European citizens are afraid of traveling to Iran as visitors and tourists since they say it’s an unsafe and dangerous place, what would you tell them about your experience? Why is there so much misconception about Iran and its people in the minds of the Western public? Is it necessary that they change the way they look at and think about Iran

A: We are talking about one of the oldest and one of the deepest cultures on earth! Without visiting Iran, one’s knowledge of the world could never be complete. From ancient-days science, architecture and poetry, to modern cinema – arguably the greatest on earth, Iran managed to influence the world, greatly and positively.

To visit Iran, to mingle with its people – that is absolutely the minimum that any thinking human being could and should do.

Why is there so much misconception? It is very simple question to answer: Western propaganda knows that the easiest way to gain support at home and abroad for its hostile, or call it terrorist, actions against those proud and independent nations that are opposing the Empire, is to smear them, demonize them. Hollywood and mainstream media play submissive, servile role, spreading false information and perceptions. And Hollywood as well as the Western mainstream media, have been pushed down the throat of the people all over the world. They are part of that grand disinformation and brainwashing apparatus. Once the country is defamed, it is much simpler to justify sanctions, even direct or indirect invasion.

I therefore encourage people from all corners of the world to visit Iran and to see the reality with their own eyes. I tell them: stop trusting Western propaganda, and stop acting like sheep! Go and see, and judge by yourself!

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 Terrorism. Point 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.

Kourosh Ziabari is an award-winning Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He has won three awards in Iran’s National Press Festival and is the recipient of the National Medal of Superior Iranian Youth in a festival that recognized the elite Iranian youth in sciences, arts, sports, entrepreneurship, environmental activism, literature and media. Kourosh has been a member of the student assembly at the International Student Energy Summit 2009 in Calgary, Canada. His articles and interviews with prominent world leaders, politicians, diplomats and academicians have appeared on many leading sites. A collection of his articles and interviews can be found on his website at: www.KouroshZiabari.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Kourosh.Ziabari
Twitter: www.twitter.com/KZiabari

Why has Barack Obama airdropped 50 tons of ammunition into areas that “moderate rebels” in Syria supposedly control?  This is essentially the equivalent of poking the Russians directly in the eyes.  Much of this ammunition will end up in the hands of those that the Russians are attempting to bomb into oblivion, and so to Russia it appears that we are attempting to make their job much harder. 

And of course the truth is that there aren’t really any “moderate rebels” in Syria at all.  Nearly all of the groups that are fighting are made up primarily of radical jihadists and/or hired mercenaries.  Personally, I don’t see anyone over there that you could call “the good guys”.  At the end of the day, the U.S. supports just about anyone that wants to get rid of the Assad regime, and the Russians are working very hard to keep Assad in power.  Just like the civil war in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria is in great danger of being transformed into a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and many fear that these conflicts could eventually be setting the stage for World War III.

The ferocity of Russian airstrikes in Syria has surprised observers all over the planet, and over the past couple of days these airstrikes have been extended to include some new areas…

Russian Air Forces have extended the range of their airstrikes on Islamic State positions in Syria to four provinces, focusing primarily on demolishing fortified installations and eliminating supply bases and the terrorists’ infrastructure.

Over the last 24 hours Russian aircraft have attacked terrorist positions in the Hama, Idlib, Latakia and Raqqa provinces of Syria. In total, 64 sorties targeted 63 Islamic State installations, among them 53 fortified zones, 7 arms depots, 4 training camps and a command post.

When I read reports like this, I am deeply troubled.  The Obama administration claims that it has been bombing ISIS positions in Syria for over a year.  So why in the world do these targets still exist?

Was the U.S. military incapable of finding these installations?

That doesn’t seem likely.

So why weren’t they destroyed long ago?

Did the Obama administration not want them destroyed for some reason?

What seems abundantly clear is that the Russians are doing what the Obama administration was either unwilling or unable to do.  There is now mass panic among ISIS fighters, and thousands of them are fleeing the country…

An estimated 3,000 Islamic State fighters as well as militants from other extremist groups have fled Syria for Jordan fearing a renewed offensive by the Syrian army in addition to Russian airstrikes, a military official has told RIA news agency.

“At least 3,000 militants from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), al-Nusra and Jaish al-Yarmouk have fled to Jordan. They are afraid of the Syrian army having stepped up activities on all fronts and of Russian airstrikes,” the RIA source said.

The mainstream media in the United States is not talking much about this, are they?

But the U.S. media is reporting on this latest airdrop of ammunition to rebel groups in Syria.  For example, the following comes from CNN…

U.S. military cargo planes gave 50 tons of ammunition to rebel groups overnight in northern Syria, using an air drop of 112 pallets as the first step in the Obama Administration’s urgent effort to find new ways to support those groups.

Details of the air mission over Syria were confirmed by a U.S. official not authorized to speak publicly because the details have not yet been formally announced.

C-17s, accompanied by fighter escort aircraft, dropped small arms ammunition and other items like hand grenades in Hasakah province in northern Syria to a coalition of rebels groups vetted by the US, known as the Syrian Arab Coalition.

If you were the Russians, how would you feel about this?

I know how I would feel.

And just as Joe Biden has previously admitted, the “moderate middle” in Syria simply does not exist.  The following is an extended excerpt from a piece that was originally written by investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed…

The first Russian airstrikes hit the rebel-held town of Talbisah north of Homs City, home to al-Qaeda’s official Syrian arm, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the pro-al-Qaeda Ahrar al-Sham, among other local rebel groups. Both al-Nusra and the Islamic State have claimed responsibility for vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs) in Homs City, which is 12 kilometers south of Talbisah.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reports that as part of “US and Turkish efforts to establish an ISIS ‘free zone’ in the northern Aleppo countryside,” al-Nusra “withdrew from the border and reportedly reinforced positions in this rebel-held pocket north of Homs city”.

In other words, the US and Turkey are actively sponsoring “moderate” Syrian rebels in the form of al-Qaeda, which Washington DC-based risk analysis firm Valen Globals forecasts will be “a bigger threat to global security” than IS in coming years.

Last October, Vice President Joe Biden conceded that there is “no moderate middle” among the Syrian opposition. Turkey and the Gulf powers armed and funded “anyone who would fight against Assad,” including “al-Nusra,” “al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),” and the “extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world”.

In other words, the CIA-backed rebels targeted by Russia are not moderates. They represent the same melting pot of al-Qaeda affiliated networks that spawned the Islamic State in the first place.

It has been well documented that many of these so-called “moderate rebel groups” in Syria have fought alongside ISIS and have sold weapons to them.  So this false dichotomy that Barack Obama keeps trying to sell us on is just a giant fraud.  The following comes from a recent Infowars report…

In September, 2014 a commander with the FSA admitted cooperating with ISIS and the al-Nusra Front.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in … Qalamoun,” Bassel Idriss said. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”

In July of 2014 a report in Stars and Stripes documented how the 1,000 strong Dawud Brigade, which had previously fought alongside the FSA against al-Assad, had defected in its entirety to join ISIS.

The same month factions within the FSA — including Ahl Al Athar and Ibin al-Qa’im — pledged services to the Islamic State.

Members of the Islamic State claim to cooperate with the FSA and buy weapons provided by the U.S.

“We are buying weapons from the FSA. We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons,” ISIS member Abu Atheer told al-Jazeera. “We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.”

U.S. anti-tank weapons are playing a critical role in the Syrian conflict.  As reported by the Washington Post, U.S.-made anti-tank missiles are being used by the rebels to destroy lots of Russian-made tanks that are being used by the Syrian army…

So successful have they been in driving rebel gains in northwestern Syria that rebels call the missile the “Assad Tamer,” a play on the word Assad, which means lion. And in recent days they have been used with great success to slow the Russian-backed offensive aimed at recapturing ground from the rebels.

Since Wednesday, when Syrian troops launched their first offensive backed by the might of Russia’s military, dozens of videos have been posted on YouTube showing rebels firing the U.S.-made missiles at Russian-made tanks and armored vehicles belonging to the Syrian army. Appearing as twirling balls of light, they zigzag across the Syrian countryside until they find and blast their target in a ball of flame.

Like I said earlier, this is looking more and more like a proxy war between the United States and Russia.

Could that be what Obama actually wants?

Obama is poking China in the eyes lately too.  CNN is reporting that U.S. warships may soon be sailing into territorial waters around the Spratly Islands.  These are islands that the Chinese government claims ownership over, but the U.S. government disputes that claim, and Obama seems determined to flex his muscles in the area…

The United States (US) may soon deploy war ships near China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea.

It wants to send a message that it does not recognize China’s territorial claims over the area.

This is according to a Financial Times report quoting a senior U.S. official who said its ships will sail within 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as its territory around the Spratly Islands within the next two weeks.

If Obama sends warships into that area, there is a very real chance that they could get shot at.  According to  Newsweek, the Chinese are saying that they will not permit U.S. ships to violate those territorial waters under any circumstances…

“We will never allow any country to violate China’s territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands, in the name of protecting freedom of navigation and overflight,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said in response to a question about possible U.S. patrols. “We urge the related parties not to take any provocative actions, and genuinely take a responsible stance on regional peace and stability.”

Such exchanges appear to be moving China and the U.S. toward a much feared, yet long expected, military confrontation. Just as unsettling, both sides seem confident they can prevail.

Over the past couple of years our relations with China have really gone downhill very rapidly, and if the trading relationship between the two largest economies on the planet breaks down, that would have massive implications for the entire global economy.

In addition to everything above, the civil war in Ukraine continues to rage on.  The United States funded, equipped, trained and organized the forces that violently overthrew the democratically-elected government in Ukraine, and then once those thugs (which actually included some neo-Nazis) took power, the Obama administration immediately recognized them as the legitimate government of Ukraine.

The Russians were absolutely infuriated by this, and they have been providing soldiers, equipment and supplies to the rebel groups that are fighting back against this new government.  Of course the Russians deny that they are doing this, but it is exceedingly obvious that they are.

The rebel groups that the Russians have been backing have been doing very well and have been steadily taking ground, and this is not how the power brokers in D.C. envisioned things playing out in Ukraine.  So in a desperate attempt to shift the momentum of the conflict, a bill is going through Congress that would provide “lethal military aid” to the government in Kiev.  Initially the bill would have provided 200 million dollars in lethal aid, but now it has been upped to 300 million dollars.  There are some that believe that the final figure will be significantly higher.

Once this bill gets passed, it will be an extremely important event.  For the Russians, it will mean crossing a red line that never should have been crossed.  You see, the truth is that Ukraine is Russia’s most important neighbor.  Just imagine how we would feel if the Russians helped overthrow Canada’s government and then start feeding weapons to the new pro-Russian government that they helped install.  That is exactly how the Russians view our meddling in Ukraine.

Earlier this year, I wrote an article in which I discussed an opinion poll that showed that 81 percent of all Russians now view the United States negatively, and only 13 percent of Russians have a positive view of this nation.  Not even during the height of the Cold War were the numbers that bad.

The stage is being set for World War III, but most Americans are completely and totally oblivious to all of this because they are so wrapped up in their own little worlds.

Most Americans still seem to assume that the Russians and the Chinese are our “friends” and that any type of conflict between major global powers is impossible.

Well, the truth is that conflict has already begun in Ukraine and Syria, and tensions are rising with each passing day.

It won’t happen next week or next month, but we are on the road to World War III.

So what will the end result be?  Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…

Who exactly is going to get their hands on those 50 tons of munitions?

Watch a video of this report here:

The Russian Defence Ministry has reported that “Russian airstrikes resulted in the elimination of the majority of ISIS ammunition, heavy vehicles and equipment.“

This joins numerous other positive reports on the Russian intervention, where we hear 40% of the terrorists’ infrastructure has been eliminated and the launch of cruise missiles caused an exodus among the ranks of ISIS.

Despite cancelling their ‘rebel’ training program, the US has now airdropped 50 tons of ammunition for smalls arms, along with grenades, into the ISIS hotbed of Northern Syria.

Note: This article was originally published on our website in September 2003, shortly after the Canal Hotel bombing in Iraq. It deals with US empire building in the Middle East via UN-sponsored operations and addresses the colonial mindset/gross double standards of some UN officials charged with carrying out this aim. The article remains relevant today, for it accurately points to the UN as a “bogus body of vassal agencies run by hand picked functionaries” that has “lost its independence and utility as a force for peace”. Indeed, not much has changed over the past twelve years; like Iraq 10 years ago, the UN’s recent destruction of Libya and Syria are testimony to the fact that this international organization carries on betraying the very principles it is intended to embody .

*

The bombing of the United Nations compound in Iraq has provoked anger, sorrow, bombastic bluster from the Bush Administration and unreflective promises to “carry on the humanitarian mission” from the Secretary General Kofi Annan. Debate and discussion, to the degree that it has appeared in the mass media focuses on who was responsible for the “security lapses”, the UN and its supporters pointing to the incompetence of the US occupation army, the US officials blaming the UN officials for negligence. These discussions are secondary, technical matters and fail to deal with the deeper political reasons behind the attack of the UN.

The pro-Israeli neo-conservatives in Washington predictably attribute the UN bombing to Arab-Islamic-terrorism and lump together the bombing of an Israeli bus and the UN as justification for greater US and Israeli violence. The center-left praise the diplomatic and humanistic virtues of the UN’s special representative in Iraq, Sergio Viera de Mello and with unblinking incomprehension claim that the bombing harmed the cause of the Iraqi people and set back the process of national reconstruction.

Both UN and US officials, neo-conservatives and center-left intellectuals fail to analyze the actual political role of the United Nations in Iraq and particularly the partisan political role of Sergio Viera de Mello which might have provoked the attack.

The United Nations led by Kofi Annan has not played an impartial role in the US- Iraq conflict. For over a decade the UN supported economic sanctions against Iraq, causing over 1 million Iraqi deaths, mostly children and the resignation of two top UN officials in protest. UN inspectors oversaw the disarming of Iraqi defenses and ignored or approved the US-British bombing of Iraq for over 12 years. Up to the final hour of the US invasion of Iraq, the entire attention of the UN was directed toward pressuring the Iraqi government to accept US demands, not condemning US war preparations, even as the Security Council did ultimately refuse to give approval to the unilateral US invasion. The historical record of the decade preceding the invasion clearly puts the UN on the side of the US, to the point that several of the UN inspectors were identified as working with the CIA and conducting searches and providing strategic information to US military intelligence.

To this some writer may object and argue that UN-US collaboration was a thing of the past, after the US military conquest the UN has not supported the colonial occupation and promoted a transition to democratic self-rule. Published documents, official interviews and UN resolutions present a far different picture. One in which the UN accepted and worked with US colonial ruler, Paul Bremer in an attempt to consolidate US control of the occupied country.

After the disastrous month in office of the first US colonial governor Garner, and his replacement by Paul Bremer, it became clear even to the most tenacious and bloody militarist in the Pentagon that imperial rulership was resulting in a powerful resistance movement of all sectors of Iraqi society and the total isolation of the US colonial regime from every Arab, Muslim or European regime (except England and of course Israel). The Bush Administration was adamant in its demand for total power in Iraq, but was willing to allow the UN to operate under US rule. Annam dispatched Viera de Mello to work with the US colonial governor Bremer and he was a brilliant political success in terms that were advantageous to US colonial power. Viera de Mello’s UN mission was to collaborate with Bremer and directed toward creating an advisory junta (Interim Iraqi National Council) that would provide a figleaf for US colonial control. Operating under Resolution 1483 passed by the Security Council on May 22, 2003, de Mello was assigned eight areas of activity, all of which had to do with the “reconstruction” of the country especially in the political sphere. De Mello was active in enticing tribal leaders, conservative clerics as well as exile prodigies of the Pentagon to form the junta, with the proviso that the US colonial governor approved all of its members, and that all approved the US invasion and occupation. In effect de Mello organized a powerless collection of self-appointed elites who had no credibility in Iraq or legitimacy among the Iraqi populace, to serve as window dressing for US colonial rule. Once the US approved junta was in place, de Mello traveled throughout the Middle East trying to convince neighboring countries that the US “creation”, opposed by the majority of Iraqis was a legitimate and representative “transitional regime”. De Mello’s main argument was that the US appointed junta was a “governing” and not merely “advisory” body, an argument that convinced nobody, least of all the US officials handing out contracts to Halliburton Corporation and organizing the privatization of Iraqi oil and certainly not the US military terrorizing and shooting innocent Iraqi civilians.

Both UN resolution 1483 in pursuit of “reconstruction” under US colonial rule and de Mello’s active role in promoting and defending the US puppet interim regime were not disinterested humanitarian activities. These were political positions – commitments that involved acceptance of US colonial rule, and a clear and deliberate decision to use the United Nations as a vehicle for legitimating imperial rulership via an impotent and corrupt junta rejected by the Iraqi people. De Mello was certainly aware of the concentration of power in the hands of Bremer, he was certainly aware that the Iraqi people – who were never given a voice or vote in its selection, rejected the junta; he actively participated in excluding any anti-colonial critics from the council. His close working relationship with Paul Bermer, the US ruler of Iraq certainly undermined any pretense that the United Nations was an independent force in Iraq. In the eyes of the Iraqis and two former top UN officials (Boutros Gali and Denis Halliday) the UN and in particular Kofi Annan and de Mello were appendages of US colonial power.

Denis Halliday, the former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN H umanitarian Coordinator in Iraq recently stated that the bombing of the UN in Iraq was payback for collusion with the US. On August 24, 2003 in an interview with The Sunday Herald (Scotland) he noted that “further collaboration” between the UN and the US and Britain “would be a disaster for the United Nations as it would be sucked into supporting the illegal occupation of Iraq. The UN has been drawn into being an arm of the US – a division of the State Department. Kofi Annan was appointed and supported by the US and that has corrupted the independence of the UN”.

In an interview with the BBC, Boutros Boutros Ghali, former Secretary General of the UN, speaking in the aftermath of the bombing, stated “the perception in a great part of the Third World is that the United Nations, because of the American (sic) influenceŠ is a system which discriminated (against) many countries of the Third World.” George Monbiot of the British newspaper The Guardian (August 25, 2003) observes: “The US government has made it perfectly clear that the UN may operate in Iraq only as a subcontractor. Foreign troops will take their orders from Washington.” None of these remarks appeared in any form in any of the US mass media.

The UN has moved very far from its original founding principles. As one time the UN stood for peace, social justice and self-determination and opposed colonial wars, pillage of national wealth and colonial rule. Given the active partisan role of the UN in Iraq, in creating a political framework compatible with prolonged US colonial rulership, it is not at all a mystery why the Iraqi resistance targeted the UN building just as it targets the imperial army and the oil pipelines up for sale to US and European multinational corporations. Having taken sides with the US, it is the height of hypocrisy for top UN officials to claim to be innocent victims. Just as it is deceptive for US and UN officials to claim that the anti-colonial resistance is made up of “foreigners”, Saddam Hussein “remnants”, Al Queda terrorists, Sunni extremists or Iranian Shiites. The resistance is not confined to areas where Saddam Hussein was popular, nor is it limited to areas of Sunni believers; it is in the north and south, east and west, covering all ethnic and religious regions and enclaves. The resistance is national, indigenous and based on opposition to US colonial occupation, destruction of infrastructure and the physical and psychological degradation of 23 million Iraqis. While the Iraqis suffer from 80% unemployment and go without clean water, food and electricity, high UN officials draw salaries between $80,000 to $150,000 a year, are chauffeured in luxury cars and SUV’s, work in air conditioned offices and dine on fresh imported food in comfortable apartments or villas – enjoying the best of colonial life. One does not need to introduce the Al Queda hypothesis to understand how political and personal resentment against these self- important imperial collaborators could boil over into a violent attack.

It is clear to many in the Middle East that the UN has become a bogus body of vassal agencies run by hand picked functionaries like de Mello, whose charm and cleverness does not compensate for their collaboration in US empire building. For a growing number of professionals, journalists and particularly ordinary people it is becoming clear that the United Nations has lost its independence and utility as a force for peace. Increasingly social movements and Third World nations are looking to new international organizations and forums to pursue the principles, which the UN has betrayed. The new body will have to renounce the elitist character of the current UN with its two tiered system of voting and power; it will have to reject membership to countries which embrace “preventive” wars of conquest and colonial rule and pillage of national resources. In a word the new international organization and its secretary-general must not be an appendage of Washington – if it wishes to avoid the tragedy of the UN – a body which started with great ideals and ended as a cynical manipulator of ideals in the services of imperial power.

«Nella East Cera­sia (Cera­sia dell’Est), un paese ha invaso un paese vicino più pic­colo e minac­cia di inva­derne un altro. Le impli­ca­zioni della crisi sono glo­bali. La Nato lan­cia una mis­sione inter­na­zio­nale di assi­stenza e appog­gio per pro­teg­gere gli Stati minac­ciati»: que­sto è lo sce­na­rio che viene «simu­lato» dall’esercitazione Tri­dent Junc­ture 2015 (TJ15). I nomi, spiega la Nato, sono «fittizi».

Non ci vuole però molta imma­gi­na­zione per capire che la «Cera­sia dell’Est» è l’Europa dell’Est e «il paese inva­sore» è la Rus­sia, accu­sata dalla Nato di aver invaso l’Ucraina e di minac­ciare altri Stati dell’Est. Quella in corso in Ita­lia, Spa­gna e Por­to­gallo è dun­que una prova reale di guerra sul fronte orientale.

Nella fase ini­ziale (3–16 otto­bre), nel cen­tro di Pog­gio Rena­tico (Fer­rara), il primo ope­ra­tivo del nuovo Sistema di comando e con­trollo aereo Nato, 400 mili­tari di 15 paesi «simu­lano gli eventi da affron­tare». Quindi, dal 21 otto­bre al 6 novem­bre, si svolge la Livex, l’esercitazione «dal vivo» con oltre 230 unità ter­re­stri, aeree e navali e forze spe­ciali di 28 paesi alleati e 7 part­ner (tra cui l’Ucraina), com­pren­denti 36 mila uomini, oltre 60 navi e 200 aerei da guerra. Nella TJ15, le ope­ra­zioni ter­re­stri sono con­trol­late dal Lan­d­com, il Comando delle forze ter­re­stri Nato con quar­tier gene­rale a Izmir (Tur­chia), agli ordini del gene­rale Usa Nichol­son, che ha inviato sul campo oltre 250 mem­bri del suo staff. Quelle marit­time, dal Mar­com, il Comando delle forze navali Nato con quar­tier gene­rale a Nor­th­wood (Gran Bre­ta­gna), agli ordini dell’ammiraglio bri­tan­nico Hud­son. Quelle aeree, dallo Air­com, il Comando delle forze aeree Nato con quar­tier gene­rale a Ram­stein (Ger­ma­nia), agli ordini del gene­rale Usa Gorenc che è anche coman­dante delle forze aeree Usa in Europa e di quelle per l’Africa.

La TJ15 serve a testare la capa­cità della «Forza di rispo­sta» (40mila uomini), in par­ti­co­lare della sua «Forza di punta ad altis­sima pron­tezza ope­ra­tiva» pro­iet­ta­bile in 48 ore fuori dall’area Nato sia verso Est che verso Sud, il cui comando ope­ra­tivo viene eser­ci­tato nel 2015 dal Joint Force Com­mand di Lago Patria (Napoli), agli ordini dell’ammiraglio Usa Fer­gu­son che è anche coman­dante delle Forze navali Usa in Europa e di quelle per l’Africa.

L’Italia, comu­nica il governo, ha for­nito per l’esercitazione «assetti, basi e poli­goni». Par­ti­co­lar­mente impor­tanti le basi e i poli­goni per le forze aeree, che la Nato così elenca: Pisa e Gros­seto in Toscana, Pra­tica di Mare nel Lazio, Amen­dola in Puglia, Deci­mo­mannu e Teu­lada in Sar­de­gna, Sigo­nella e Tra­pani in Sici­lia, cui si aggiunge la por­tae­rei Cavour come base galleggiante.

Alla vigi­lia della Livex, il 19 otto­bre, si svol­gerà all’aeroporto di Tra­pani Birgi la ceri­mo­nia di aper­tura, con la par­te­ci­pa­zione di alcuni dei mas­simi rap­pre­sen­tanti mili­tari ita­liani e Nato, seguita da una con­fe­renza stampa e dal sor­volo degli aerei da guerra (Euro­fighter 2000, F-16, Amx e altri), ita­liani, polac­chi, greci e cana­desi, più un aereo radar Awacs rischie­rato a Tra­pani dalla base Nato di Gei­len­kir­chen (Germania).

Niente ceri­mo­nie, invece, alla base di Deci­mo­mannu, usata anche da aerei slo­veni, e al poli­gono di Teu­lada dove si eser­ci­te­ranno anche forze ter­re­stri. L’esercitazione Livex «dal vivo», con bombe e mis­sili che esplo­dendo spar­ge­ranno nell’ambiente ura­nio impo­ve­rito, altri metalli pesanti e sostanze chi­mi­che tos­si­che, semi­nerà altra morte pro­vo­cando tumori e mal­for­ma­zioni gene­ti­che. Pagando con denaro pub­blico, rica­vato dai tagli alle spese sociali, le spese vive della Livex.

Manlio Dinucci

74-year-old Palestinian woman Ghalya Abu-Rida being given water by Israeli troops, minutes before she was executed.

First published on January 21, 2015

During the Israeli bombardment and shelling of the Gaza Strip last summer, an Israeli soldier approached a 74-year-old Palestinian woman Ghalya Abu-Rida to give her a sip of water. He gave her the water, took a photo with her and then he shot her in the head from a distance of one metre. He then watched as she bled to death, the Palestine Information Centre reported.

This is how Ahmad Qdeh, a journalist in Al-Aqsa TV, described the scene that he witnessed during the latest Israeli aggression. The spokesman of the Israeli army, Avichay Adraee, shared the photo of an Israeli soldier holding the water bottle and helping the old woman drink as an example of the “humanity” of the Israeli army towards the civilians in the Gaza Strip.

The field executions were among the stories Qdeh reported during the Israeli aggression on Gaza Strip. He said: “Ghalya Ahmad Abu-Rida lived in the Khuza’a area in the east of Khan Younis city. I live in that area too and I made a television report on her story after the Israeli soldiers executed her during the aggression.”

“During the aggression, an Israeli soldier approached the old woman and took a photo for another soldier while giving her water. They then executed her by shooting her in the head from a distance of one metre and let her bleed until she died,” he added.

Ghalya was born in 1941. She lived by herself in a room near her brothers’ house in the Abu-Rida neighbourhood of Khuza’a. She had no children. Her neighbourhood was one of the first places invaded by the Israeli army during the aggression.

Field Execution

Majed Abu-Rida, Ghalya’s nephew, confirmed to the media that his aunt was visually impaired and could hardly see. He said that the Israeli army had falsely claimed humanity while executing his aunt in cold blood.

Ghalya, with her weak body and white hair, refused to leave her house after the Israeli army ordered the residents of Khuza’a to evacuate. She thought her old age would protect her from being a target so she stayed in her home and refused to join the majority of the residents who left the area as the invasion began.

On 3 August, the Israeli forces announced a truce and allowed medical staff to reach the Khuza’a area. Ghalya was found dead after she bled to death as she was shot in the head near her house, Al-Aqsa TV confirmed to MEMO. Her brother confirmed that the photo shared by the Israeli army supported the family’s belief that Ghalya was in the hands of the Israeli army. The family also believed that the area in which Ghalya appeared in the photo and in which she was found asserted that the Israeli forces killed her after taking the photo for the media.

Misinformation

Professor of media at the universities of Gaza, Ahmad Al-Farra, said: “The photo the Israeli army spokesman shared is misleading propaganda by the Israeli army to present a humane portrait of its soldiers. It can enhance the opportunity to pursue the Israeli army’s soldiers as war criminals before the International Criminal Court.”

“This photo proves the confusion of the Israeli army spokesman in defending his army. It proves that they killed civilians,” he added.

He continued: “The Israeli occupation lies and misinforms in an attempt to affect international public opinion. It exploits the Arab media and Palestinian diplomacy in exposing the Israeli occupation’s crimes.” He demanded launching a large campaign to expose the Israeli lies and falsifications.

Al-Farra stressed the need for a media enlightenment campaign to go side by side with the field battles to correct the false image that Israel presents about its army and the resistance.

Israel carried out a 51-day war that claimed the lives of around 2,200 Palestinians and wounded around 11,000 others.

El pasado 8 de octubre del 2015 en forma unánime fue dictaminado el Acuerdo Marco de Cooperación entre la República de Costa Rica y Palestina (ver  nota  de prensa del Semanario Universidad del 8/10/2015): se trata del primer paso, dado en el seno de la Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales de la Asamblea Legislativa de Costa Rica, de cara a la aprobación por parte del Congreso en pleno de este acuerdo marco suscrito el 23 de septiembre del 2013 en Nueva York por los cancilleres de ambos Estados (ver  nota  de CRHoy del 23/09/2015).

El acuerdo (ver  texto completo ) prevé diversas formas de cooperación y la implementación de programas  conjuntos en materia de pasantías, de investigación y de desarrollo de interés mutuo para ambos Estados. En su artículo I, se lee que: “EI objetivo fundamental del presente Acuerdo, en adelante referido como “el Acuerdo”, es la promoción de la cooperación técnica, económica, científica y cultural entre las Partes, a través del desarrollo y ejecución de programas y proyectos específicos en áreas de interés común. Las Partes prestarán facilidades a entidades del sector público y privado, cuando se requiera, para el desarrollo y la ejecución correcta de programas y proyectos de cooperación. Asimismo otorgarán importancia a la ejecución de proyectos conjuntos de desarrollo tecnológico que vinculen centros de investigación de ambos países. Con base en el presente Acuerdo las Partes podrán celebrar acuerdos complementarios de cooperación, en áreas específicas de interés común“. Este acuerdo entre Costa Rica y Palestina deberá ahora ser sometido a la consideración del pleno del Poder Legislativo para su definitiva aprobación, según la normativa vigente en Costa Rica.

Pese a tratarse de un primer paso en el trámite de aprobación de este texto, constituye un nuevo acercamiento hacia Palestina por parte de Costa Rica que merece ser saludado, tratándose de un Estado que, hace menos de 10 años, mantenía una línea bastante peculiar con relación al conflicto palestino-israelí (Nota 1): recordemos que Costa Rica fue el penúltimo Estado en trasladar a su Embajada de Jerusalén Oriental a Tel Aviv, en agosto del 2006, seguido semanas después por El Salvador (ver nota de prensa de La Nación del 26/08/2006 en la que el canciller de la época, Bruno Stagno, explica el significado de este traslado).

El pasado 30 de septiembre, mientras se izaba por vez primera en la historia la bandera de Palestina en la sede de las Naciones Unidas en Nueva York, se anunció también, dentro del mismo Poder Legislativo de Costa Rica, la creación de un Grupo de Amistad con Palestina (ver nota publicada en estas mismas páginas de CRHoy del 1/10/2015). Un Grupo de Amistad parlamentario similar existe en la mayoría de los Estados de América Latina: por ejemplo, fue creado el 11/08/2014 en el Congreso de Argentina (ver  nota), el 11/12/2012 en el Congreso de Venezuela (ver  nota), así como en el Congreso de Perú (ver  nota), el 27/12/2011. Un interés similar se ha dejado entrever en El Salvador en septiembre del 2015 (ver  nota) por esta útil herramienta de la denominada “diplomacia parlamentaria”, cuya variedad de actividades e iniciativas se puede apreciar revisando, por ejemplo, un reciente informe de labores de los Grupos Parlamentarios de Amistad de la Asamblea Nacional de Nicaragua (ver informe).

En el caso de América Latina, cabe recordar que el planteamiento hecho por Costa Rica al decidir establecer relaciones oficiales de Estado a Estado con Palestina en febrero del 2008 fue tal que, pese a las ya habituales gesticulaciones de Israel (Nota 2), procedieron a similar gesto hacia Palestina los siguientes Estados: Venezuela (abril del 2009), República Dominicana (julio del 2009), Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador y Paraguay (diciembre del 2010), Perú y Chile (enero del 2011), Argentina (febrero del 2011), Uruguay (marzo del 2011), El Salvador y Honduras (agosto del 2011), Guatemala (abril del 2013) y Haití (septiembre del 2013).  Lejos de tratarse de un acto meramente simbólico – tal y como externado por los analistas de la Embajada de Estados Unidos en San José indicando a sus superiores que “The move thus remains mostly symbolic”  (ver cable confidencial del 19/02/2008 dado a conocer por Wikileaks) – América Latina y Estados de otras regiones del mundo respondieron al llamado de Costa Rica a la comunidad internacional que podemos leer en el comunicado de prensa de febrero del 2008: “Costa Rica reconoció al Estado de Palestina el 5 de febrero del 2008, honrando una deuda histórica, especialmente por haber sido uno de los 33 países que votaron a favor de la resolución que aprobó el Plan de Partición. En este sentido, Costa Rica es del criterio de que la Comunidad Internacional debe contribuir activamente a la solución del conflicto palestino- israelí, generalizando ese reconocimiento”.

En agosto del 2014, en plena ofensiva militar israelí en Gaza, Ecuador anunció la apertura de una embajada en Palestina (ver  nota de prensa de El Universo, del 4/08/2015). De la misma forma, en forma simultánea, Uruguay anunció también la apertura de una sede diplomática en tierra palestina (ver nota de prensa del 4/08/2014). El nuevo embajador de Ecuador presentó sus credenciales ante las autoridades palestinas en marzo del 2015 (ver nota de prensa Andes.info del 19/03/2015).  Por su parte, el pasado 30 de septiembre, Palestina inauguró su embajada en Montevideo (ver nota de prensa de El Observador del 30/09/2015), sumando una nueva representación diplomática a las que ya  posee en Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, México, Perú, Nicaragua y Venezuela.

A la fecha únicamente Colombia, México y Panamá se mantienen en la región latinoamericana sin reconocer formalmente al Estado de Palestina. Desde 1996, Colombia alberga una Misión “Especial” de la Autoridad Palestina en Bogotá, y México desde 1988, sin que se haya dado reconocimiento formal del Estado palestino por parte de ambos Estados. En diciembre del 2014, Colombia procedió a cambiar el estatuto de “Misión Especial” por el de “Misión Diplomática” de la Autoridad Palestina en Bogotá (ver  nota  de prensa de El Tiempo del 4/12/2014). La ausencia de dicho reconocimiento formal no ha impedido que desde muchos años funcione dentro del Congreso Mexicano un Grupo de Amistad con Palestina, y que, recientemente, la ciudad de Bogotá decidiera concluir un acuerdo de hermandad con la capital administrativa de Palestina, Ramallah (ver  nota de prensa  de Minuto 30 del 1/10/205). En el caso de Colombia, una misiva dirigida al Presidente de Colombia fue enviada por los Presidentes de ambas cámaras del Poder Legislativo en diciembre del 2014, posiblemente inspirados en la intensa labor desplegada por círculos parlamentarios en Europa a finales del 2014, y en llamados hechos desde la misma sociedad civil israelí (Nota 3): la carta enviada por las máximas autoridades del Poder Legislativo colombiano indicaba (ver texto completo al final de esta nota) que “A nivel global, cerca de 130 naciones ya han reconocido a Palestina como un Estado independiente y soberano. América Latina y el Caribe muestran una ruta enfática a la aceptación y reconocimiento del Estado palestino /…/. Por lo tanto, encarecida y respetuosamente pedimos al excelentísimo señor Presidente de la República, doctor Juan Manuel Santos, cuyo gobierno ha desarrollado una política internacional en muchos aspectos, valerosa y progresista, que en un acto de justicia, soberanía y autonomía reconozca al Estado palestino como soberano e independiente”. Pese a la amplia difusión de esta excitativa suscrita por los Presidentes de ambas cámaras (ver por ejemplo nota de Nuevo Siglo), esta no pareciera haber dado lugar a manifestación alguna por parte del Ejecutivo colombiano. En el caso de Panamá, en agosto del 2014, se leyó que sus autoridades estaban considerando esta posibilidad (ver  nota  de La Estrella): en julio del 2015, las autoridades de Panamá externaron que el proceso se mantenía en consulta internas (ver  nota  de La Prensa).

Con relación a las sedes diplomáticas de América Latina en Palestina, en mayo del 2015, Venezuela procedió a elevar el estatuto de su Misión en Ramallah al de embajada (ver  nota  de TelesurTV del 21/05/2015). En días recientes, Argentina también decidió elevar a rango de embajada su representación en Ramallah, provocando las habituales reacciones del aparato estatal israelí (ver  nota  de prensa de El Clarín del 9/10/2015): se trata del mismo tipo de argumentos oídos en San José el 5 de febrero del 2008 y en el Vaticano el 13 de mayo del 2015 (Nota 4), así como en un sinnúmero de capitales latinoamericanas entre esas fechas (Nota 5).

Nicolas Boeglin

Notas:

Nota 1: En un libro editado en el 2013, Bruno Stagno, canciller de Costa Rica en el período 2006-2010,  escribe: “Recordé dos casos que de una u otra manera reflejaban el intricado, pero aún velado conjunto de intereses que entraban en juego al tratarse el tema de Israel. Como Embajador, Representante Permanente ante las Naciones Unidas, lo había vivido y sufrido. Recordaba como para marcarme en las votaciones sobre la situación en Medio Oriente, el entonces embajador de Costa Rica en Washington DC, Jaime Daremblum, alienaba a algunos miembros del Congreso de Estados Unidos, para que me enviaran cartas instándome o instruyéndome a votar a favor de Israel. El congresista Tom Lantos sería el más insistente, dirigiéndose incluso directamente al Presidente Pacheco de la Espriella.  También, recordé la indignación con que la Embajadora Emérita, Emilia Castro de Barish, comentaba cómo en el pasado se había aceptado que un funcionario de la Misión Permanente de Israel  se sentara en la segunda fila de asientos, reservados para Costa Rica, con el fin de  velar por el voto “correcto” de Costa Rica “. Véase STAGNO UGARTE B., Los caminos menos transitados. La administración Arias Sánchez y la redefinición de la política exterior de Costa Rica, 2006-2010, Heredia, Editorial UNA (EUNA), 2013, pp.70-71.

Nota 2: La reacción israelí al reconocimiento del Estado palestino por parte de Costa Rica de febrero del 2008 se lee así: “Establecer relaciones con Estado que no existe compromete el desarrollo de los acuerdos definidos entre israelitas y palestinos, va en contra de la Hoja de Ruta, actividades del Cuarteto y otros esfuerzos para la paz. Estos acontecimientos van en contra de los acuerdos, incluso, de la comunidad internacional y, podrían dañar los esfuerzos para alcanzar la paz entre ambas partes” » (La Prensa Libre -Costa Rica- del 28/02/2008, entrevista a Ehud Eitam, embajador de Israel en Costa Rica).

Nota 3: En Israel, más de 800 firmas de renombrados intelectuales israelíes, incluyendo a científicos, ex embajadores y militares, artistas y a varios premios Nobel, solicitaron dicho reconocimiento a la Unión Europea en diciembre del 2014 (ver   nota   de Haaretz): su misiva indicaba, entre otros (extracto de esta  nota  de 972Mag) que: “We the undersigned, Citizens of Israel who wish it to be a safe and thriving country, are worried by the continued political stalemate and by the occupation and settlements activities which lead to further confrontations with the Palestinians and torpedo the chances for a compromise. It is clear that the prospects for Israel’s security and existence depend on the existence of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. Israel should recognize the state of Palestine and Palestine should recognize the state of Israel, based on the June 4 1967 borders. Your initiative for recognizing the state of Palestine will advance the prospects of peace and will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to bring an end to their conflict”.

Nota 4: a raíz de la suscripción de un acuerdo en el que El Vaticano reconoce a Palestina como Estado en mayo del 2015, se leyó de parte de un portavoz de Israel que. “This move does not advance the peace process and further distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations. Israel will examine the agreement and weigh its actions accordingly” (ver  nota  de Haaretz del 13/05/2015).

Nota 5: La reacción de Israel al reconocimiento de Palestina por parte de Guatemala en abril del 2013 se lee como sigue (ver nota de La Estrella del 10/04/2013): “Esta declaración fue sorpresiva y decepcionante porque no es compatible con el nivel de relaciones que han existido entre Israel y Guatemala y no contribuye al proceso de diálogo que se está realizando para llegar a un acuerdo de paz entre Israel y los palestinos”.

Nicolas Boeglin, Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR)

Image: Suleiman Abdullah Salim, who survived the CIA’s brutal torture regime, was released after five years of being held without charge. (Photo via ACLU)

The two psychologists credited with creating the brutal, post-9/11 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture regime are being sued by three victims of their program on charges that include “human experimentation” and “war crimes.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Tuesday filed the suit against CIA contractors James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, on behalf of torture survivors Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, as well as the family of Gul Rahman, who died of hypothermia in his cell as result of the torture he endured.

The suit, which is the first to rely on the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, charges Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute for “their commission of torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; non-consensual human experimentation; and war crimes,” all of which violate international law.

The pair, both former U.S. military psychologists, earned more than $80 million for “designing, implementing, and personally administering” the program, which employed “a pseudo-scientific theory of countering resistance that justified the use of torture,” that was based on studies in which researchers “taught dogs ‘helplessness’ by subjecting them to uncontrollable pain,” according to the suit.

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

In a lengthy report, the ACLU describes each plaintiff’s journey.

After being abducted by CIA and Kenyan agents in Somalia, Suleiman Abdullah, a newly wed fisherman from Tanzania, was subjected to “an incessant barrage of torture techniques,” including being forced to listen to pounding music, doused with ice-cold water, beaten, hung from a metal rod, chained into stress positions “for days at a time,” starved, and sleep deprived. This went on for over a month, and was continually interspersed with “terrifying interrogation sessions in which he was grilled about what he was doing in Somalia and the names of people, all but one of whom he’d never heard of.”

Held for over five years without charge and moved numerous times, Abdullah was eventually sent home to Zanzibar “‘with a document confirming he posed no threat to the United States.” He continues to suffer from flashbacks, physical pain, and has “become a shell of himself.”

Mohamed Ben Soud was captured in April 2003 during a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid on his home in Pakistan, where he and his wife moved after fleeing the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Ben Soud said that Mitchell even “supervised the proceedings” at one of his water torture sessions.

Describing Ben Soud’s ordeal, the ACLU writes:

The course of Mohamed’s torture adhered closely to the “procedures” the CIA laid out in a 2004 memo to the Justice Department. Even before arriving at COBALT, [a CIA prison in Afghanistan] Mohamed was subjected to “conditioning” procedures designed to cause terror and vulnerability. He was rendered to COBALT hooded, handcuffed, and shackled. When he arrived, an American woman told him he was a prisoner of the CIA, that human rights ended on September 11, and that no laws applied in the prison.

Quickly, his torture escalated. For much of the next year, CIA personnel kept Mohamed naked and chained to the wall in one of three painful stress positions designed to keep him awake. He was held in complete isolation in a dungeon-like cell, starved, with no bed, blanket, or light. A bucket served as his toilet. Ear-splitting music pounded constantly. The stench was unbearable. He was kept naked for weeks. He wasn’t permitted to wash for five months.

According to the report, the torture regime designed and implemented by Mitchell and Jessen “ensnared at least 119 men, and killed at least one—a man named Gul Rahman who died in November 2002 of hypothermia after being tortured and left half naked, chained to the wall of a freezing-cold cell.”

Gul’s family has never been formally notified of his death, nor has his body been returned to them for a dignified burial, the ACLU states. Further, no one has been held accountable for his murder. But the report notes, “An unnamed CIA officer who was trained by Jessen and who tortured Rahman up until the day before he was found dead, however, later received a $2,500 bonus for ‘consistently superior work.'”

The ACLU charges that the theories devised by Mitchell and Jessen and employed by the CIA, “had never been scientifically tested because such trials would violate human experimentation bans established after Nazi experiments and atrocities during World War II.” Yet, they were the basis of “some of the worst systematic brutality ever inflicted on detainees in modern American history.”

Despite last year’s release of the Senate Torture Report, the government has prosecuted only a handful of low-level soldiers and one CIA contractor for prisoner abuse. Meanwhile, the architects of the CIA’s torture program, which include Mitchell and Jessen, have escaped any form of accountability.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) issued a statement saying they welcomed the federal lawsuit as “a landmark step toward accountability,” and urged the U.S. Department to follow suit and criminally “investigate and prosecute all those responsible for torture, including health professionals.”

In the wake of the Senate report, the group strongly criticized Mitchell and Jessen for betraying “the most fundamental duty of the healing professions.”

In Tuesday’s statement, Donna McKay, PHR’s executive director, said: “Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to ‘do no harm,’ but Mitchell and Jessen’s actions rank among the worst medical crimes in U.S. history.”

A new report issued by the Swiss bank Credit Suisse finds that global wealth inequality continues to worsen and has reached a new milestone, with the top 1 percent owning more of the world’s assets than the bottom 99 percent combined.

Of the estimated $250 trillion in global assets, the top 1 percent owned almost exactly 50 percent, while the bottom 50 percent of humanity owned collectively less than 1 percent. The richest 10 percent owned 87.7 percent of the world’s wealth, leaving 12.3 percent for the bottom 90 percent of the population.

The Credit Suisse report focused not on the top 1 percent, but on a slightly smaller group, the 0.7 percent of adults with assets of more than 1 million US dollars. This figure includes both financial assets and real assets, such as homes, small businesses and other physical property.

The report’s eye-catching “Global Wealth Pyramid” divides the human race into four categories by wealth: 3.4 billion adults with net assets of less than $10,000; 1 billion with net assets from $10,000 to $100,000; 349 million with net assets from $100,000 to $1 million; and 34 million with net assets over $1 million.

Image: The global wealth pyramid

The lowest category comprises 71 percent of all adults and owns only 3 percent of total wealth; the next-poorest group comprises 21 percent of adults and owns 12.5 percent of the wealth; above this is a group comprising 7.4 percent of adults and owning 39.4 of the wealth; and finally the top layer, 0.7 percent of adults owning 45.2 percent of the wealth.

This top layer, defined by the report as “high-net-worth individuals,” is itself divided very unequally, as shown in a second pyramid: 29.8 million with assets of $1 million to $5 million; 2.5 million with assets of $5 million to $10 million; 1.34 million with assets of $10 million to $50 million; and finally, 123,800 with assets over $50 million.

These 123,800 “ultra-high-net-worth individuals,” as the report calls them, are the true global financial aristocracy, exercising decisive sway not only over banks and corporations, but over governments and international institutions as well. Of these, nearly 59,000, almost half the total, live in the United States. Another quarter live in Europe (mainly Britain, Germany, Switzerland, France and Italy), followed by China and then Japan.

The Credit Suisse report notes the particularly rapid rise in inequality since the Wall Street crash of 2008 and relates it directly to the stock market boom that followed the bailout of the banks, initiated by the Bush administration and greatly expanded by the Obama administration. A key passage reads:

“There are strong reasons to think that the rise in wealth inequality since 2008 is mostly related to the rise in equity prices and to the size of financial assets in the United States and some other high-wealth countries, which together have pushed up the wealth of some of the richest countries and of many of the richest people around the world. The jump in the share of the top percentile to 50 percent this year exceeds the increase expected on the basis of any underlying upward trend. It is consistent, however, with the fact that financial assets continue to increase in relative importance and that the rise in the USD (US dollar) over the past year has given wealth inequality in the United States—which is very high by international standards—more weight in the overall global picture.”

In other words, deepening global economic inequality is being driven above all by American capitalism, with the United States being both the wealthiest and by far the most unequal country in the world. The US has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but a staggering 46 percent of the world’s millionaires.

Image: Number of dollar millionaires by country

Far from demonstrating the health of the US economy, this disproportionate growth of the super-rich resembles the spread of a cancer that is rapidly metastasizing, with fatal consequences for the entire social organism.

Never have the rich increased their wealth so quickly as in America since the financial crash of 2008. But side by side with the amassing of previously unthinkable private fortunes, the infrastructure of America is crumbling, education, health care and other social services are starved of funding, and the living standards of the vast majority of the population, the working people who produce the wealth, are declining.

The Credit Suisse report also calls attention to significant regional differences within the structure of global capitalism, focusing on the diverging fortunes of three main regions: North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific.

Total global wealth declined slightly in 2015, according to the report, but only because the bank’s calculations were in US dollars, and thus were affected by the depreciation of the euro, the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble, the Canadian dollar and many other currencies against the US dollar.

US wealth rose $4.6 trillion, despite a global decline of $12.7 trillion, with Japan, Russia and the European Union countries showing the biggest drops, largely because of currency depreciation. Australia and Canada lost $1.5 trillion in wealth between them, a substantial drop for the two mid-sized economies, which are heavily dependent on resource extraction.

China, whose currency is loosely pegged to the dollar, saw a $1.5 trillion gain. But this has likely already evaporated, since the report is based on figures ending June 30, 2015 and the Chinese financial markets have plunged 25 percent since then, as the report’s foreword notes.

These disparities between countries, like the growing social disparities within countries, have immense significance for world politics. They are a major factor in the increasingly explosive character of international relations, particularly the conflicts between the major imperialist powers—the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain—and countries like Russia, China and Iran that are being targeted for their huge natural and human resources.

US imperialism uses both its preeminent military position and the role of the dollar, still the world’s main reserve currency, as weapons in seeking to offset its economic decline relative to its major rivals. America is both a social powder keg, with class tensions at home approaching the breaking point, and the most destabilizing force in world politics, seeking to maintain its position of global dominance by increasingly reckless and militaristic methods.

Israel bears full responsibility for premeditated violence and brutality, unleashed without mercy against defenseless Palestinians – reminiscent of how Nazis persecuted Jews.

Decades of vicious Israeli persecution explains the root cause of ongoing turmoil. People take so much before reacting in self-defense.

The trigger for things exploding now is multifold, a combination of:

• days of Israeli soldiers and police rampaging through the sacred Al Aqsa Mosque, brutalizing worshipers, forcibly removing them so extremist settlers could enter the compound where they don’t belong;

• longstanding repressive security force viciousness; and

• vigilante settler thuggishness, near daily violence and vandalism against Palestinians ignored or supporting by Israeli soldiers and police: the most horrendous example was immolating three Dawabsha family members, Israel knowing the perpetrators, yet refusing to arrest them, while at the same time kidnapping Palestinians and charging them with offenses they didn’t commit or are too minor to matter.

Western, mainly US, and Israeli media suppress what demands headlines, instead play perhaps the oldest of dirty games – blaming victims, holding them responsible for premeditated, cold-blooded Israeli crimes, committed unaccountably.

An October 13, B’Tselem expressed “deep shock at contempt for human life,” decades of ruthless occupation entirely responsible.

Palestinian Scholars Association chairman Marwan Abu Ras called Palestinian anger a justifiable reaction to Israeli state terror. Netanyahu and complicit thugs are “cowards,” he said.

“(T)hey are neither legally, nor religiously, not ethically, nor morally entitled to grab hold of our land.”

Physician, political analyst, human rights champion Mustafa Barghouti believes a third intifada already began.

Since October 1, daily clashes left 30 Palestinians dead, mostly youths, women and children, nearly 1,600 injured, around 4,000 harmed by toxic tear gas, hundreds arrested, and an entire population under attack – reflecting longstanding Israeli collective punishment in flagrant violation of international law.

Instead of holding Israel accountable for ongoing violence and brutality, complicit media blame ruthlessly persecuted Palestinians, effectively endorsing Netanyahu-ordered state terror.

On Tuesday, The New York Times headlined “Attacks by Palestinians Kill 3 Israelis and Wound More than 20,” – quoting Netanyahu saying “(w)e are in a struggle, a struggle for all of us, and we will face it together.”

The Times highlighted a handful of Palestinian attacks against Jews. Not a single word about decades of state sponsored terrorism against a defenseless population, ruthless persecution demanding accountability, and Israel’s full responsibility for ongoing violence and the horrific toll so far explained above.

The Washington Post headlined “Palestinians kill 3 Israelis as violence mounts in ‘day of rage.’ “

Saying Israelis are “deeply shaken and fearful…” Quoting Netanyahu saying “Israel will settle the score with the murderers and those who help them. We will cut the hands of whoever tries to hurt us.”

His full responsibility for daily violence and atrocities is ignored. He’s shockingly treated like a human rights defender, instead of a brutal executioner.

Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page director Bret Stephens headlined “Palestine: The Psychotic Stage, The Truth about why Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust.”

No responsible editor or publisher would touch this type rubbish – a vicious, racist mischaracterization of reality. Palestinians alone are responsible for ongoing violence, according to Stephens and likeminded propagandists.

Israeli media are just as unconscionably one-sided, downplaying or ignoring Israeli violence, blaming Palestinian victims unjustifiably.

Headlining Palestinian terror attacks, killing Jews. It’s all their fault, urging tougher crackdowns, ignoring nightmarish conditions they face.

Heavily armed Israeli soldiers and militarized police are using live fire against unarmed Palestinian men, women and children. World community indifference to their suffering lets Israel rampage, brutalize and kill unaccountably.

The only viable solution is ending decades of brutal occupation. Peace and stability are impossible otherwise.

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.

Note: This article originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated from German by Boris Jaruselski

Huge reversal: the EU seeks a normal relationship with Russia. It seems that the EU is being greatly affected by the actions of Vladimir Putin in Syria: suddenly the EU President Jean-Claude Junker is saying that the EU must not let the US dictate their relationship with Russia. He has demanded a normalization of relations – and indirectly, the end of sancitons. 

The EU Commission President advocated a relaxation in the conflict with Russia. “We have to achieve a sustainable relationship with Russia. It’s not sexy, but has to be done. We can’t go on like this anymore”, he said on Thursday in Passau. It isn’t necessary to achieve overall understanding, but a sensible conversational basis. “The Russians are a proud people”, the country has “a role to play”, said Junker: “One must not remove them from the bigger picture, otherwise they’ll call again, very quickly, as we seen already.” He critisized US Presidnet Barack Obama, for having downgraded Russia as “regional power”. “Russia needs to be treated correctly”, the Luxemburgian explained. “We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.”

This statement is particularly noteworthy. Until now, the EU always placed emphasis on having complete accord with the Americans, with the placement of the Russian sanctions. Some time ago, the US Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the US had urged the EU to impose the sacntions. Junkers’ big back flip is confirming the statement made by Biden. It’s hard to discern what’s really going on Junker’s mind: as late as March, Junker was demanding the establishment of a EU army, which was expressly directed against Russia: such a European army would “give Russia the impression, that we are seriously intending to defend European Union’s values”, Junker said word for word, back then.

Indisputably, the 80 – year old President Mahmoud Abbas has established himself internally and worldwide as the icon of Palestinian non – violence. His Israeli peace partners leave none in doubt that they are determined to smash this icon, which would leave them only with opposite alternatives the best of which is a massive peaceful intifada (uprising) against the Israeli occupation.

It is true that Abbas cannot yet be called the Ghandi of Palestine. He has yet to follow in the footsteps of the founder of modern India and deliver similar national results by leading a massive popular revolution for liberation and independence, but his strictly adhered to non – violence platform continues to be the prerequisite for any peaceful settlement of the Arab – Israeli conflict in and over Palestine.

For decades, before and after the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories was completed in 1967, Abbas has stuck to his belief in negotiations as the only way to settle the more than a century old conflict. Building on Abbas’ legacy, his chief negotiator, Saeb Erakat, wrote his book, “Life Is Negotiations.”

Abbas has all along rejected “armed struggle” and all forms of violence. He even did his best to avoid popular uprisings lest they glide into violence. Instead he has unequivocally opted to act as a man of state committed to international law and United Nations legitimacy.

Ever since he was elected as president he conducted Palestinian politics accordingly to make his people an integral part of the international community. His respect to the signed accords with Israel raised backlash among his own people when he described, for example, the security coordination agreement with the Hebrew state as “sacred.”

Demonising Abbas

Nonetheless, the Israelis are still persisting on an unabated campaign to demonise Abbas, tarnish his image, undermine his peace credentials and deprive him of any gains for his people.

A Haaretz editorial on Oct. 4 said that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “fanning the flames of incitement against” Abbas. On Oct. 10, The Times of Israel quoted the Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon as saying that “We have come a long way to convince Israeli society that he’s (i.e. Abbas) no partner.”

Evidently, this is the only way for the Israelis to absolve themselves from their signed peace commitments. Ya’alon’s deputy, Eli Ben – Dahan, was quoted on the same day as saying that “Palestinians have to understand they won’t have a state and Israel will rule over them.”

The Israeli minister of education Naftali Bennett, speaking to the army radio on Oct. 11, raised the anti – Abbas ante to an adventurous and irresponsible end game when he said that Abbas’ “absence is better.”

Bennett left it to the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, to explain the raison d’être for his call for the “absence” of Abbas. In a Ynetnews article on Oct. 3, Oren concluded absurdly that “Abbas poses a danger which may be revealed as strategically more serious than the tactical dangers posed by (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Hamas.”

Former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was more forthright when he called on Oct. 12 for Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank to be “overthrown.”

According to William Booth, writing in The Washington Post on Oct. 10, “Israeli (Cabinet) ministers have branded Abbas ‘a terrorist in a suit’ and ‘inciter in chief’. They mock him as weak,” ignoring that their smearing campaign accompanied by their government’s determination to undermine his peace – making efforts is making him weaker internally and render the “two – state solution” a non – starter among his people.

A poll released by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research on Oct. 6 found that 65% of the public want Abbas to resign and if new presidential elections were held the deputy chief of the Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas,” Ismail Haniyeh, would win 49 percent of the votes against 44 percent for Abbas. The “main findings” indicated a “decline in the level of support for the two – state solution” as 51 percent “opposed” this solution. What is more important in this context was that “57% support a return to an armed intifada.”

International Community Indifference

The Israeli anti – Abbas campaign could only be interpreted as a premeditated endeavour to evade a mounting international pressure for saving the so – called “two – state solution.”

The cancelation of a visit scheduled for last week by senior envoys of the international Middle East Quartet upon Netanyahu’s request was the latest example of the world community’s helplessness and indifference vis – a – vis Israel’s sense of impunity against accountability, which empowers the Israeli occupying power to escalate its crackdown on Palestinians under its military occupation since 1967.

In particular, U.S. President Barak Obama Administration’s “reversals” and “empty promises,” in the words of Peter Berkowitz on Oct. 13, to Abbas as well as the inaction of the European Union and the other two Russian and UN members of the Quartet are encouraging Israel in its anti – Abbas campaign, thus discrediting the Palestinian icon of non – violence further in the eyes of his own people as incapable of delivery to walk away from his non – violent path.

On Oct. 12 the AFP reported that the “frustrated’ Palestinians “have defied” both Abbas and the “Israeli security crackdown” to launch what many observers are calling the beginnings of a “third intifada.”

To his credit, Abbas proved true to his non – violence commitment. Israeli daily Haaretz on Oct. 11 quoted a senior official of the Israeli Shabak intelligence agency as telling a cabinet meeting on the same day “that not only does Abbas not support ‘terrorist attacks’ but also tells PA security services to ‘undermine’ anti-Israel protests as much as possible.”

Abbas was on record recently to tell “our Israeli neighbours that we do not want a security or military escalation. My message to our people, security agencies and leaders is that the situation must calm down.” He warned against “an intifada which we don’t want.” On Oct. 6, he publicly told a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that “we want to reach a political solution by peaceful means and not at all by any other means.”

The practical translation of his on record “principles” was self evident on the ground during the past two weeks of Palestinian rebellion against the escalating violence of the illegal Israeli settlers of the occupied Palestinian territories and the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), especially in eastern Jerusalem, which so far claimed the lives of more than 25 Palestinians and at least four Israelis in October 2015.

Within the PA security mandate, violence was practiced by the IOF only and only Palestinians were killed. Mutual violence was confined to Jerusalem, the area designated “C” by the Oslo accords in the West Bank and Israel proper, where security is an exclusive Israeli responsibility. There Abbas has no mandate. Most victims of both sides fell there and there only Israel should be held responsible and accountable.

One could not but wonder whether eastern Jerusalem and area “C” of the West Bank would have seen no violence had Abbas’ security mandate been extended to include both areas. U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who announced on Tuesday plans to visit “soon” to calm down the violence, should consider this seriously.

Ending the Israeli occupation is the only way to move the situation “away from this precipice,” lest, in Kerry’s words, the two-state solution, “could conceivably be stolen from everybody” if violence were to spiral out of control.

In 1974 late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat appealed to the UN General Assembly to “not let the olive branch fall from my hand,” saying that he was holding a “freedom fighter’s gun” in his other hand. Abbas embraced the “olive branch” with both hands and dropped the “gun” forever.

In May this year, Pope Francis told Abbas during a visit to the Vatican: “I thought about you: May you be an angel of peace.” The Jewish Virtual Library’s biography of the Palestinian President vindicates the Pope’s vision. It hailed him as “considered one of the leading Palestinian figures devoted to the search for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian – Israeli conflict… It was Abbas who signed the 1993 peace accord with Israel.

End of Era

Writing in Al – Ahram Weekly on Oct. 12, the President of Arab American Institute, James Zogby, was one only of several observers who announced recently the “burial” of the Oslo accords. In “fact” Oslo “was on life support” and “has been dying for years” Zogby said, concluding: “What happened this week was the final burial rite.”

The Oslo accords were the crown of Abbas’ life – long endeavour. The “burial” of Oslo would inevitably be the end Abbas’ era.

Smashing the Abbas icon of Palestinian non – violence would herald an end to his era, dooming for a long time to come any prospect for a negotiated peaceful solution. His “absence,” according to Gershon Baskin, the Co-Chairman of Israel/Palestine Center for research and Information (IPCRI), will be “definitely the end of an era” and “will be a great loss for Israel and for those who seek true peace.”

Israelis by their ongoing campaign of defamation of Abbas would be missing an irreversible historic opportunity for making peace.

However, Abbas will go down in Palestinian chronicles as a national symbol of non – violence, who raced against time to make what has so far proved to be an elusive peace. Despite his failure, thanks to Israeli unrealistic dreams of “Greater Israel,” he will be the pride of his people in future in spite of the current widespread national opposition to his life – long commitment.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories ([email protected]).

At best, the United States, its NATO allies and the regime they have collectively created in Kiev, Ukraine, will be able to claim Russia, or militants defending eastern Ukraine from Kiev’s armed incursions, accidentally shot down Malaysia Airlines flight 17 (MH17) after air controllers in Kiev recklessly sent it on a course over a battlefield other airliners had made a point to circumvent.

At worst, the US and its junior partners across Europe and the remnants of the British Commonwealth, will be implicated either in shooting it down accidentally themselves, or worse still, shooting it down on purpose in order to frame Russia and anti-regime militants in eastern Ukraine.

Russia certainly had nothing to gain by shooting down a civilian aircraft over a battlefield anti-regime militants have been aptly able to hold and defend. But what of NATO and its Ukrainian allies? In a war they are losing, could they have benefited from creating a pretext for NATO to intervene more directly?

The gain they have already wrought in terms of propaganda against Russia has been impressive. From the moment the airliner was shot down, the US, NATO and Ukraine have used the incident to indict Russia and more specifically, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in the court of public opinion. It has used legal maneuvering and its well-oiled press to turn the investigation of the disaster into a witchhunt with an inevitable outcome already eagerly determined to implicate Russia.

The Western media has intentionally twisted the words of investigators to misrepresent evidence and preliminary and very cautious statements to portray them as definitive conclusions to establish Russia’s guilt.

The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) looking into the disaster provided the following cautious statement in August 2015 regarding anti-air Buk missile parts found near the wreckage of MH17:

The parts are of particular interest to the criminal investigation as they can possibly provide more information about who was involved in the crash of MH17. For that reason the JIT further investigates the origin of these parts. The JIT will internationally enlist the help of experts, among others forensic specialists and weapon-experts.

At present the conclusion cannot be drawn that there is a causal connection between the discovered parts and the crash of flight MH17.

The JIT conducts the criminal investigation and the DSB the investigation into the cause of the crash. Both investigations are conducted separately but JIT and DSB occasionally share material. In its final report the DSB will report on the discovered parts.

The CIA has rebranded its “army of moderates” (sometimes called the “Free Syrian Army” or “terrorists”). The new freedom-spreading group will be called the Syrian Democratic Forces:

“The Syrian Democratic Forces calls itself a unified national military, aimed at establishing a new democratic Syria. Members include Kurds, Arabs and Assyrian Christians. But those familiar with the group say it’s led by the Kurdish YPG, the only partner the U.S. trusts.

“Washington last week announced the overhaul of a rebel training program, which was halted after trainees handed equipment over to al-Qaida. The new Syrian Democratic Forces will absorb some of those trainees. One of them, reached by NPR, says he’s been tasked with calling in airstrikes against ISIS and recruiting moderate rebels.”

The U.S. says it will provide its Democratic Forces with air support — even though it’s a clear violation of international law to conduct air strikes in a country that doesn’t want you there.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have already made it clear that they will continue flooding Syria with weapons.

Meet the new moderates, same as the old moderates.

Gone are the days when you could search Google and pull up neutral, relevant content appropriate to your search query. The search engine giant is reportedly pioneering a new search algorithm that will tailor search results not based on popularity or accuracy, but rather on what Google itself deems to be truthful or untruthful.

The world’s new “Ministry of Truth”, Google believes that screening and censoring information requested by its users will help avoid “websites full of misinformation” from showing up at the top of the search list. Known as the “Knowledge Vault,” the novel algorithm is described by The New American as “an automated and super-charged version of Google’s manually compiled fact database called Knowledge Graph.”

Google’s Knowledge Graph, in case you didn’t know, was the search engine’s first attempt at becoming a purveyor of knowledge rather than just information — a “smart” search tool, if you will, designed to enhance the relevancy of search results by analyzing various facts, figures, and other data appropriate to a user’s intended query.

The Knowledge Vault builds upon this concept, but takes it another step further. By sorting through the actual content of websites to determine whether or not they fit the official narrative for the particular idea or concept presented, the Knowledge Vault will act as a type of knowledge gatekeeper in censoring out information and content deemed to be “false.”

“[The Knowledge Vault] promises to let Google answer questions like an oracle rather than a search engine, and even to turn a new lens on human history,” wrote Hal Hodson for NewScientist about the project.

What you’re actually searching for is irrelevant: Google will tell you what it wants you to know

It is this latter statement that’s deeply concerning, as Google now has the power to literally rewrite history by snubbing search content of which the powers that be disapprove, while approving only propaganda and other misinformation dubbed “accurate.” This evolution from information provider to knowledge developer changes the entire nature of Google’s purpose as a company.

Concerning natural health and alternative medicine, Google has already written code into its search algorithm that censors out “anti-vaccine” websites, for instance, as well as other resources categorized as purveying “misinformation. Using the new Knowledge Vault protocol, Google is likely to begin censoring other topics as well.”

“That eerily disconcerting statement becomes ominous when you consider that Google has already implemented its new truth algorithm for medical searches, with disturbing consequences,” writes Rebecca Terrell for The New American.

“Truth-according-to-Google means that anti-vaccination websites no longer make the cut, despite the fact that recently released federal statistics reveal the risk to children’s health posed by vaccines is overwhelmingly greater than that posed by the diseases these medications are formulated to combat.”

Censorship brings scientific progress to a grinding halt

What this all means for sites like NaturalNews, InfoWars, and the many other independent news outlets that regularly challenge the status quo is that our content may soon be declared “inaccurate” by Google and forced down to a lower ranking as a result. Even though our collective readership is exploding because people are tired of the lies from the mainstream media, Google’s new algorithm threatens to stifle this growth by hiding the truth from search results.

“It could make it more difficult for bright young people to bring about the next revolution in science,” says University of Maryland professor Jim Purtillo about the plan. “After all, most of today’s established science came about because someone challenged the herd mentality of yesterday.”

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.

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.

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)

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.html, http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193379_en.html

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


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

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.

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. | 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.

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)

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:

As 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.

Perhaps 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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 20^th 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 Terrorism. Point 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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.

So 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”.

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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 :

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

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/

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

Oversold 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.

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!