Global Research

Human Rights Watch (HRW) . . . a name that evokes thoughts of an organization that claims to defend and protect the rights of people around the globe.

If that’s the case, how would one explain why HRW’s actions and policies appear to be a reflection and support of U.S. policies, rather than an organization that offers an independent critique of U.S. actions? There is no other country that has violated international laws and human rights more than the U.S. And still, HRW remains silent.

There seems to be a contradiction between HRW’s stated mission and their actual functioning.

An example: In 2009, President Obama announced that the U.S. will continue its “rendition” program, a program in which “terrorist” suspects were kidnapped and sent to allied countries to be interrogated and tortured. Tom Malinowski, one of HRW’s executives stated, “Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place for renditions, and encouraged patience: They want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.” Is he joking . . . HRW justifying rendition and torture?

In 2013, HRW focused its attention on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, stating that his country was unfit to serve on the UN’s Human Rights Council because it did not meet the acceptable standards of human rights protection.

The U.S. served on the same council, yet HRW accepted that the U.S.’s human rights record was acceptable. After all, all “we” did was invade Iraq and Afghanistan without cause, send drones into Pakistan to fire missiles at suspected terrorists killing hundreds of innocent people, establish weekly meetings of Obama and his military advisors to determine who to kill that week, using drones in any country they chose (“kill list”).

Tom Malinowski who was once the Washington Director of HRW is an interesting person and one whose selection to lead HRW was surprising. He was a speechwriter for Secretary of State Madeline Albright, renowned for her famous response to a question asked by a reporter regarding the deaths of approximately 500,000 Iraqi children during the U.S. blockade of Iraq. The questioner asked, “Was it worth it?” And, Madeline responded, without any hesitation, “Yes, it was.” So much for human rights. Mr. Malinowski also served, from 1994 to 1998, as a speechwriter for Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

During his Senate confirmation hearing for assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor on September 24, 2014, Malinowski promised to “deepen the bipartisan consensus for America’s defense of liberty around the world,” and assured the Foreign Relations Committee that no matter where the U.S. debate on Syria led, “the mere fact that we are having it marks our nation as exceptional.” He also served as senior director on the National Security Council Does anyone continue to see HRW as an independent organization protecting the rights and the dignity of peoples around the world?

Mr. Malinowski is far from being independent of U.S. influence. Instead, he is deeply involved in and part of the U.S. establishment.

The current executive director of HRW is Kenneth Roth.

Under Roth’s leadership, Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived biases and misconstructions.

Over the years, he has been criticized by many progressives for his handling of critical events in Rwanda and in Venezuela.

Further, let us look at who serves on the HRW administration and Board of Directors.

The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America.”

Michael Shifter, who also currently serves on HRW’s Americas advisory committee, oversees $4 million a year in programming, financed in part through donations from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the embassies of Canada, Germany, Guatemala, Mexico and Spain, and corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, JPMorgan, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Boeing, and Western Union.

Many HRW board members are simply investment bankers, like board co-chairs Joel Motley of Public Capital Advisors, LLC, and Hassan Elmasry, of Independent Franchise Partners, LLP. HRW Vice Chairman John Studzinski is a senior managing director at the Blackstone Group, a private equity firm founded by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire who has passionately sought to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare.

Let us not forget George Soros, multi-billionaire, who is a major financial contributor to HRW. Mr Soros’ reputation as a liberal is a good example of what an oxymoron stands for. George Soros is one of the richest men in the world and he didn’t achieve that by worrying about you and me.

Soros recently criticized George W. Bush saying in an article in the Financial Times of London that his administration’s Iraq policies were “fundamentally wrong” and that they are premised on the “false ideology that U.S. might gave it the right to impose its will on the world.” Many of us in the peace movement would say, “He got that right!” We might be inclined to praise him and to believe that this confirms that he really is a man whose motives are honorable—an image, by the way, that he carefully cultivates, especially through various NGOs. In fact numerous non-profit organizations have received funds from his foundation because they have bought into that perception.

Why then did Soros take issue with George W.? Soros is angry not at Bush’s aims—of expanding Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself—but with the crass and blundering way Bush went about it. Soros stated, “By making U.S. ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away.” The “game” is the domination of countries and their resources throughout the globe.

But let us not continue to be fooled. Soros has established close working relationships with former National Security Director Zbigniew Brzezinski, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, former Israel lobby chief Stephen Solarz, as well as the renowned Bush team players Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

With this roster of people who make up the policy and decision-making folks in the organization (HRW), many of whom have participated in the exploitation and abuse of the human rights of people throughout the world, can we expect that their focus and mission will be to protect the rights of these same people?

Let us not be misled by the title this organization has assumed for itself, its true mission is to help implement U.S. policies through the backdoor and support U.S. interests. It is no different than right-wing, neo-fascist organizations that include words like “freedom” or “democracy” in their titles to give the impression that they are fighting for freedom and democracy.

HRW has attacked Venezuela, Cuba, and Ecuador, all countries that have moved towards a more socialist ideology, for not meeting the standards of human rights in their countries without ever mentioning the U.S.

When the U.S. supported attempted coups in Venezuela, Honduras, Haiti, and Guatemala, HRW remained silent. While African-Americans are being gunned down on a daily basis, HRW has remained silent. While people demonstrating peacefully in the U.S. have been pepper sprayed, HRW has remained silent. While many thousands of people, “illegals,” have been held in detention camps for years, HRW has remained silent. While Americans have been imprisoned for decades for non-violent crimes, HRW has remained silent.

Need I say more?

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.

An escalating ground war is taking place for the control of Yemen, the most underdeveloped state in the Middle East. Reports have abounded for weeks claiming that UAE Special Forces were on the ground inside the country fighting against the Shiite-led Ansurallah Movement (Houthis).

Some 45 UAE troops were killed on Sept. 4 in battles with the Ansurallah. Meanwhile bombing is continuing by the US-backed coalition led by the Saudi monarch and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Attacks on Saudi troops have reportedly resulted in additional deaths. The Ansurallah forces have staged several attacks inside Saudi territory in response to the ongoing provocations against the resistance forces.

A concerted effort by the Saudi Arabian and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) led alliance encompassing numerous states throughout the Middle East and North Africa has fought fiercely to drive out the Ansurallah from the southern regions of Yemen. Reports indicate that as many as 4,500 people have been killed in the fighting which intensified on March 26 with a Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supported bombing campaign in various regions inside the country.

For several weeks the Saudi-GCC coalition has also built an alliance of political forces in the South of the country which waged an offensive against Ansurallah positions in Aden, the strategic port city which has been bombed extensively in an effort to create a haven for U.S.-backed elements to carry out its aims of dominating the Persian Gulf and the entire regions of the Arabian Peninsula, the Horn of Africa and the Maghreb.

Resistance to Imperialist War Continues

Despite the consistent bombing of Yemen for nearly six months, the people are still fighting against imperialist domination. The failure of the air campaign to dislodge the Ansurallah forces has prompted an escalation of the ground war.

Nonetheless, the forces led by the Ansurallah in alliance with the military and political forces remaining loyal to the previous President Abduallah Ali Saleh, are inflicting casualties on the U.S.-backed forces. The increase in the deaths of military personnel from the UAE and Saudi Arabia demonstrates the degree of opposition to the Pentagon-NATO supported coalition.

In a recent interview over Press TV, Middle East expert Jalal Fairooz based in London, said of the character of the aggressive forces bombing and launching ground offensives in southern and central Yemen, “They are supplied by the United States. They are being backed by the United States. The United States agreed on this aggression in the United Nations. Actually they have tried with the Russians and the Chinese not to have a veto against this aggression when there was a resolution in the United Nations. The Americans have actually agreed with the Saudis. The Saudis have told the Americans five months and so ago that they are going to start this war against the Yemeni people and that was the case, the Americans have agreed.” (Sept. 7)

This same analyst goes on to emphasize that “it is not a surprise that the American president should send condolences to Riyadh because they are part of it. More of that, some of the airplanes which are bombing Yemen are being captained, they are being run by the Americans themselves. These ships of the United States in the Arabian Sea are guiding the airplanes where to bomb in Yemen.”

The situation is becoming critical for the imperialist-coordinated military units. Other states which are allied with the Pentagon and the CIA are now being deployed.

On Sept. 7 the Qatari government announced that it was sending troops into Yemen to shore-up the forces of the Saudi-GCC alliance. Whether this development will turn the tide of the war will remain to be seen.

Reuters press agency reported of the ongoing deployments that “Qatar has sent 1,000 ground troops to Yemen, Doha-based Al Jazeera television said, escalating Gulf Arab intervention in Yemen’s war ahead of a planned offensive against Iranian-backed Houthis holding the capital Sanaa. Qatari pilots had already joined months of Saudi-led air strikes on the Houthi militia, which seized Sanaa a year ago and then advanced across much of the country, forcing President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi into exile in March.” (Sept. 7)

This same article said that imperialist-allied forces had “‘crossed the al-Wadia border post’ between Saudi Arabia and Yemen and was heading to Marib – where Hadi loyalists have been preparing for the thrust toward Sanaa. Saudi-owned al Arabiya satellite network also said Qatari and Saudi reinforcements had crossed the frontier.”

Reuters also says “The first reported involvement of Qatari ground forces in Yemen coincided with an intensification of the conflict a few days after a rocket strike in Marib that killed dozens of soldiers including Saudis and Emiratis. Saudi coalition forces on Sunday(Sept. 6) carried out repeated air raids on Houthi targets and allied troops loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh in apparent retaliation.”

War with Iran Resumes Even Though Nuclear Agreement Has Been Signed

The nuclear agreement with Iran is expected to become official with the recent vote in the Senate. However, the war against Iran and its allies within the region continues in Yemen, Syria Iraq and Lebanon.

Since March 26 and the new phase of the U.S. war against Yemen, the administration of President Barack Obama has provided diplomatic cover for the efforts to cripple and destroy the resistance forces that are allied with Tehran. The Obama government continues to bomb neighboring Syria under the guise of fighting the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) after creating the conditions for the weakening of President Bashar al-Assad.

At the same time, Iraq which was invaded in both 1991 and 2003 and occupied for eight years is also being bombed under the same pretext. The burgeoning migrant crisis impacting tens of millions is a direct result of the war policies of successive U.S. administrations.

The anti-war movement in the U.S. and Western Europe must take up the challenge of opposing imperialist intervention by explaining that it is their own governments which must accept responsibility for the worse humanitarian refugee crisis since the conclusion of World War II. These wars of regime-change must end in order to bring peace to the world and create the conditions for genuine reconstruction of the economies of the West as well as those in the oppressed nations.

Inside the U.S. and Western Europe unemployment, poverty and racial tensions are escalating. The militarization of the police from Ferguson and Baltimore to Detroit and New York City is the domestic reflection of a policy of total domination of the world.

These factors provide the basis for the linking of internal struggles for jobs, guaranteed incomes, and for the end to police terrorism, with the movements against war and imperialism. The working class and the oppressed within the imperialist states cannot be fully liberated until the repression, oppression and exploitation of the peoples of the world is halted.

On September 9, he’ll arrive in London to meet with Britain’s David Cameron. As of Saturday, September 5, over 100,000 Brits signed a petition to arrest him – likely many more by September 9.

Netanyahu was responsible for genocidal war crimes and mass destruction against Gaza last summer, noncombatant civilians suffering most, willfully targeted by Israel’s killing machine, on his direct orders, an unindicted mass-murderer.

Once past the 100,000 threshold, the petition will be considered for debate in Parliament. The Palestinian Forum and Palestine Solidarity Campaign urged supporters to participate in a mass public protest during Cameron/Netanyahu discussions next week.

A PSC statement says “Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for war crimes identified by the UN Human Rights Council following Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza last summer.”

“And yet the British Prime Minister will shake Netanyahu’s hand next Wednesday and doubtless discuss, among other things, more arms deals between the UK and Israel.”

Organizers will display Palestinian flags. Banners will denounce Netanyahu as a war criminal, demanding his arrest.

A massive security operation is planned, initiated ahead of his visit. Petition organizer Damian Moran said he “never really understood the Palestine conflict until about 10 years ago when I did some actual research on it and was horrified by what (he) found.”

He “empathize(s) greatly with Palestinians with all the horrors they faced.”

Cameron claims “under UK and international law, certain holders of high-ranking office in a state, including heads of state, heads of government and ministers for foreign affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction.”

In October 1998, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London. Britain used a Spanish court provisional warrant to apprehend him.

He was held him under house arrest for 18 months. It set a precedent. It let other heads of state and top officials know they’re vulnerable. Pinochet’s bogus ill health claim sent him home. He arrived irreparably damaged and disgraced.

The principle of universal jurisdiction (UJ) holds that certain crimes are too grave to ignore – including genocide, crimes of war and against humanity.

Under UJ, nations may investigate and prosecute foreign nationals when their country of residence or origin won’t, can’t or hasn’t for any reason.

Israel used it to prosecute, convict and execute Adolph Eichmann. A US court sentenced Charles Taylor’s son, Chuckie, to 97 years in prison.

Under Article 7 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:

The official position of defendants, whether as Head of State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Individuals considered most culpable are called hostis humani generis – enemies of mankind. War crimes are against the jus gentium – the law of nations. International law was established to address them and hold culpable individuals accountable.

The Nuremberg Charter, Tribunal and Principles determined that crimes of war and against humanity are “international crimes” to grave to ignore.

Tribunal Principles hold that “(a)ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment….”

(C)rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit (them) can the provisions of international law be enforced.

The Rome Statute’s Article 25 of the International Criminal Court codified the principle – affirming persons culpable of crimes of war and against humanity be prosecuted.

Nuremberg rendered immunity in these cases null and void. No one is above the law for any reason – including heads of state.

Britain’s support for Israeli high crimes assures Netanyahu’s freedom from criminal prosecution.

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. 

Talk to workers in any sector, in any workplace and sooner or later they’ll get to their frustrations with their ever-increasing workloads: ‘I’m struggling’, they’ll lament to fellow workers or anyone ready to listen, ‘to just do the job, never mind do it well’. And yet even though few work-related issues seem to generate more passion, the relentless intensification of every-day work life rarely surfaces as a union priority. Why?

To be clear, it’s not that the pressures of work never surface at conventions or during bargaining. Rather, it’s that they are never given any primacy. Delegates speeches on this from the floor, animated as they are, seldom go beyond exasperated workers letting off steam. The resolutions introduced from the platform and duly passed are not connected to actually doing something effective about the problem (a cynic might say they are actually intended to be only symbolic). And even when the issue of workloads reaches the bargaining table, accompanying mobilizations and public campaigns are at best lukewarm. Usually the demands are quickly and quietly dropped; when they are addressed, it is in a collective bargaining language which leads directly to bureaucratizing workload complaints without solving the underlying problem.

If unions can’t affect something as basic as the daily oppression of overwork and its link to injuries and constant physical and mental exhaustion, it’s all the less likely that they can develop member confidence in broader collective action. In fact, giving the workload issue the priority it deserves and dealing with it effectively presents great strategic opportunities for renewing the labour movement as a whole, including by linking up with precarious and unemployed workers, and mobilizing working-class communities more broadly around the fundamental questions that increased workloads raises for our whole society.

Image: [Mike Constable]

Overwork for Some, No Work for Others

At a time when each union is so absorbed in their own specific issues, workloads introduces a concern that touches all workers, holding out the prospect of some badly needed cross-union solidarity. Precarious workers are especially vulnerable to workload pressures: if unions can show that something can in fact be done about workloads, it opens further organizing potentials. And as shown by the recent New York Times exposé of the high-pressure working conditions at Amazon, this is also an issue of great concern even for the relatively high-paid, high-skilled information technology workers as well as for the low-paid and precarious blue-collar warehouse workers. [Also see: “Why the New York Times’s Amazon story is so controversial, explained,” and “Longer Hours, More Stress, No Extra Pay.”] Unions taking on workloads can also lead to securing support from the unemployed. If unions can explain that when management forces five workers to do the work of six, this means overwork for some and no work for others, this can counter the way the desperation for work is often manipulated against the employed.

At the same time, the heavily increased workloads in the provision of healthcare, education, and social welfare translate directly into the declining quality of services to the public. What better terrain for bringing together working-class frustrations on the job and in the labour market with working-class frustrations with the erosion of essential services in their communities? What greater opportunity to break down the false and damaging division inside the working-class between work life and social life?

Why then are union leaders not leading on this issue? Why are they not seeing its potential for addressing membership demoralization, renewing labour institutions, building broader alliances, and contributing to an overall rejuvenation of the labour movement? And why are more members not pushing them harder to do so? The problem in fact goes beyond the myopia of union leaders and the answer will not be found in just blaming them for the maddening refusal of unions to act strategically. We need to dig deeper.

To get a clearer handle on the problem, we want to first set out some historical background that helps understand what has made it so hard to address workload issues in our time, before turning to address why workers themselves have not revolted against their rapidly worsening workplace conditions. Then, after zeroing in on what ‘lean production’ really means today in terms of workload, we will analyze the contradictions and divisions that emerge in unions even when they do address workload issues, before finally considering how union activists might get workloads seriously on the agenda again.

Some Historical Perspective

Capitalism has a clear underlying logic: to create the most favourable conditions for the growth of profits and the expansion of capital (hence the name: ‘capitalism’). For capitalists, labour power is a commodity like any other: an input to buy as cheaply as possible and then use with as few strings as possible. Unions emerged to mediate the price of labour power and to regulate its use via negotiating work pace, rest periods, health and safety, rules on transfers, etc. Unions consequently became a democratic counterweight – historically the most important such counterweight – to the narrow values of capitalism.

In the labour struggles that followed the end of WWII, unions made impressive material gains and to some extent pushed for a more substantive economic democracy that included not only broadening and deepening the welfare state but also extending workers rights to control workplace conditions as well as extending public controls over capital. But a particular trade-off evolved that saw unions accept an emphasis on the price of labour power (wages and benefits) trumping workplace rights and also attempts to limit capitalist power over investment.

This was accomplished by way of both the stick and the carrot as deployed by corporations and states. The small but effective militant communist minority that agitated for more radical directions was harassed and many were drummed not only out of their jobs but also their unions. Legislation banned or restricted the right to withhold labour during the life of the collective agreement – labour actions that were generally about resisting increased workloads and degraded working conditions. At the same time, the more moderate working-class mainstream was integrated through state-sponsored programs that allowed for the spread of home ownership (lower interest rates and secured mortgages) and national insurance and welfare systems that provided protection against the worst vagaries of the market. Leave it to business to manage the argument went, and we’ll compensate workers with consumer goods.

In this way, post-war worker militancy was consequently channelled into the safer territory of individualized consumption. Union leaders so readily accepting the concentration on wages and benefits had two roots. Economically, it was simply the easier road to travel since corporations were ready to offer higher wages and benefits if their management rights weren’t seriously tampered with. Bureaucratically, the emphasis on worker compensation helped consolidate the status and power of the union leadership.

While wages and benefits were bargained centrally by the nationally elected leaders and their staff, influencing working conditions largely rested on the role of local activists and leaders. Even if better workplace language was nationally negotiated, by its very nature this could only be monitored and enforced by local militancy. So by biasing bargaining toward wages and benefits and narrowing the scope for resistance to workplace conditions (and often trading-off workplace concerns for higher wages and benefits) union leaders firmed up their own importance and undermined alternative local bases of power and leadership.

What About the Rank-and-File?

But why did workers tolerate the relative inattention to workplace conditions? In fact, the so-called ‘deal’ referenced above was never complete. Workers continued to struggle against conditions imposed by management and this included occasional rebellions against their own central leadership. But absent a concerted response from their own organizations and a broader mobilization against the realities of corporate power, this resistance was gradually sapped.

Central to workers’ post-war relegation of working conditions to secondary status – however reluctantly this happened in many cases – was the recent history of the deep and extended Great Depression followed by the deprivations of a war economy. These brought a natural desire for catching up to what had, in terms of consumer goods, been lost or postponed. This combined with a fatalism that set in over the possibility of doing anything significant about working conditions. That fatalism was based on the options workers faced which were structured in clear ways. They could challenge management rights, but corporations had made it clear that to do so would involve long, hard, and perhaps unwinnable battles. Furthermore, given the form post-war collective bargaining legislation had taken, the state, including the judiciary, would be on the side of the employer, making success even more uncertain. And perhaps most debilitating was the ambivalence (or worse) of unions themselves about their commitment to such struggles.

It was one thing to emphasize the value of workplace rights; it was another, when faced with the above ‘realities’, to retain confidence in taking on the daunting risks involved. And so there was a drift toward an accommodation that marginalized the workplace as a site of struggle. Quantitative demands overtook qualitative demands. Getting something more rather than something different became the watchword. A culture of consumerism came to dominate, characterized not so much by the understandable urge to meet daily needs and enjoy life, but to do so in competitive and individualistic ways that side-lined popular possibilities for collectively shaping the world and sharing equitably in humanity’s achievements.

As the circumstances that gave rise to the post-war boom faded and expectations of steady progress could no longer be taken for granted, workers and unions found that their earlier capacities to improve wages and benefits were no longer adequate to the new circumstances. Corporations and states demanded, in the name of competitiveness and restoring the profits that are the lifeblood of a capitalist economy, a lowering of both material expectationsand intensified workloads. Though much of the labour reporting on this period revolved around monetary concessions, the corporations’ most important historical gains lay in their greater control over the restructuring of work, the combining of jobs, and old-fashioned speed-up.

The assault on workers largely succeeded. Insecurity became permanent, wages stagnated, working conditions deteriorated and democracy was reduced to the question of whether any recommended changes were consistent with competitiveness. It might have been expected that with the system no longer ‘delivering the goods’, the legitimacy of corporate power, if not of capitalism itself, would be undermined. Yet rather than this leading to any kind of rebellion, most working families and unions again adapted to the new realities.

This time, they offset their stagnant wages in ways consistent with, and even reinforcing, the prevailing ethos of individual survival. Families worked more hours (overtime for some, entering the workforce or moving from part-time to full-time or multiple jobs for others); debts were taken on and homes became assets to borrow on; stock markets were cheered on so as to protect pensions; young couples moved in with parents to build some savings. And, in the hope of hanging on to past life-styles, workers tolerated even worse workloads.

Working Lean

The radical shift in the balance of social power in favour of corporations and against the working-class (what has been dubbed ‘neoliberalism’) was expressed inside the workplace as ‘lean production’. Lean raised the inherent capitalist drive to reduce workers to commodities that were only valuable to the extent they created ‘value-added’ for corporations to a new oppressive level. Its disciplinary arm was ‘management-by-stress’, which helped identify where labour-power was not used to its absolute maximum, and labour was kept in line by the extension of a general sense of the precariousness of all worker’s jobs.

Lean production wasn’t limited to the private sector. It spread as well to the public sector, impelled by fiscal pressures and the push to privatization. Governments began by restructuring services – ‘streamlining’ the work and increasing workloads – so as to both reduce the number of public employees and to make the operations more attractive to prospective private-sector buyers.

It is easy to see why even though corporations and the state demanded wage concessions, they were especially attracted to lean production’s increased workloads. With workers desperate to hang on to their family’s livelihood, the insistence on large wage cuts for all might lead to the kind of collective resistance that dividing workers might escape. But if the workforce is, for example, cut by 10 per cent and the remaining workers pick up the slack, those who leave are consequently no longer a factor, and those remaining may, in spite of the increased workloads, be relieved to hold on to their jobs.

A consequence of trying to organize workplaces on a super-lean basis with ‘no fat’ was that it left corporations vulnerable to unexpected disruptions. So minimizing worker-led resistance to capitalist restructuring was especially important, and this required winning unions and through them workers over to a philosophy of ‘jointness’ in managing these changes.

Whether unions accepted this as a matter of having no choice or did it with illusions of winning certain favours (such as smaller wage cuts) this compromised the role of unions. Coupled with the demoralization that workers suffered in face of the restructuring without any serious fight back, this led to what might have been only temporary setbacks turning into longer-term substantive defeats.

Are Jobs Personal Property?

In workplaces with evolved collective agreements, job security protections make layoffs complicated and time consuming for the employer and so serve to frustrate and discourage layoffs. In this sense these are the strongest workload protections in most contracts. But an increasingly common feature of many job security mechanisms is the exit package, which gives workers who might otherwise be laid off the option of a cash payment of a year’s salary or more in return for resigning. It has become typical that in unionized workplaces, workers come to assert – and are encouraged to assert – a form of personal property rights or ownership over their jobs, at least to the extent that they have the right to sell ‘their’ job for negotiated exit packages.

In the private sector, this has meant giving up on mobilizing to keep work in the community, if not for existing employees than for future workers. As the public sector followed the private sector into lean production, the outcome was even more destructive. What public sector workers were selling in accepting job loss was not only community jobs but the level and quality of community services. In doing this, the public sector unions break faith with the public – their key potential ally if they are to ultimately defend themselves. However much these unions might try to position themselves as the leaders in defending social services, accommodating to the reduction in services in exchange for packages for their members undermines that crucial strategy.

Restructuring and reducing the workforce is therefore not only a matter of the collective loss of work and security or the loss of mobility into once-favoured jobs, but the redistribution of the work onto a diminishing pool of workers. This volume of work causes high rates of injury and stress. Despair at this breaks down solidarity on the shop floor and pits workers against each other.

Furthermore, many employers have come to use lean production processes to co-opt workers in the process of identifying ‘redundant jobs’ which are then eliminated and the work then redistributed to a smaller workforce. The savings are large, especially when the employer and the state also work together to deny workers injured on the job their proper compensation for the human costs of the impossible work norms imposed by the restructured work process.

In workplaces that have been facing years of ongoing downsizing (a common reality today) the administration of layoff protections has often become routinized, reinforcing trends to relations between employers and unions becoming relatively collegial in spite of the attacks on workers. The process of restructuring is effectively reduced to the technical question of dealing with ‘redundant’ workers as quickly and efficiently as possible by placing them into other jobs or buying them out. When this happens the union has effectively moved from being an antagonist to the employer drive to restructure the workplace to becoming an ally. And where an individual otherwise faced with layoff receives a large cash payment for giving up her job and leaves, everyone seems happy. The employer has restructured and the union has, given the circumstances, effected with minimum effort a reasonably positive outcome for the individual worker involved.

With such deals being worked out, local union leaders see little reason to make workloads into a real priority in collective bargaining. These deals reinforce the notion that individual workers own their jobs and can dispose of them as though they were their private property. What this involves is a transaction that is in fact selling in perpetuity both the job security and the future job prospects of fellow workers, even for other bargaining unit members. As well as the permanent shift of the work in the lost positions onto the remaining workers. Moreover, the person with the cash package has no responsibility to the workers who are injured as a result of workload increases or are permanently disabled and ruined financially.

The broader public also feels the harsh impact of this narrow transaction. In the hospital sector, for example, the privatization and sale of individual parts of the work process – reduction of nursing or cleaning staff, for example – also diminish patient care. The patient is not part of the transaction but is nevertheless directly and adversely affected. The viability of the service and the collective worker concern to keep the positions depend on the support of the public, but that support is undermined by the individual sale of jobs that support patient care. The subversive notion of job ownership by workers undermines class solidarity and an understanding of their work as having a collective impact and being a collective responsibility inevitably also linked to the collective responsibility for workloads.

As neoliberalism, lean production and the collegial relationship between union officers and employers in dealing with downsizing sap class-consciousness and solidarity, the political parties that labour embraces have quite generally moved away even from traditionally moderate social democracy. Union activists are left on their own, without meaningful political direction, in a world where capitalism is highly organized and aggressively on the offensive.

The Way Forward

What then might be done to place workloads seriously on the union agenda as part and parcel of bringing the labour movement to life again?

Bargaining

The obvious starting point is collective bargaining and the need to make work pace standards and enforcement mechanisms a top bargaining priority. Although this seems unlikely as a general union response, two or three of the more farsighted unions might take this up. If those two or three unions grasped the potentials of the workload issue and placed it at the center of their bargaining focus – as have those in the education sector by linking class size and staff workloads to the quality of classroom teaching and school life – it might inspire workers and activists to push for the same within their own unions.

If such a struggle around workload does emerge, it can’t be separated from the rest of bargaining but would have to be positioned as an integrated and leading part of the overall bargaining program. For example, if the union fights to limit part-time workers but is unable to lift corporate caps on hiring full-time workers, workloads will increase. If more time-off is negotiated but the issue of replacement workers is ignored, the remaining workers will just end up working even harder. If seductive buyout packages are still used as the easy out to deal with cutbacks in the workforce, this would only further diminish the paid work and available services that the community needs.

Moreover, local unions will need to become much more central if workloads are to become a key priority for the labour movement. In contrast to wages and pensions, the actual enforcement of job rules and standards secured in collective agreements is much more dependent on what happens locally. It is tempting for local leaders to give up job rules and standards not just for the promise of jobs but for other special favours management could dole out that might, among other things, affect the electability of current leaders (e.g. flexibility in leave time, favouritism in hiring family members). This can undermine other sections of the union and it reinforces a culture antithetical to union principles and the worker solidarity that is the working class’s most important weapon. This makes getting and keeping the locals on side absolutely critical in unions struggles around workload.

Beyond Bargaining

Though the struggle over workloads has to be started in workplaces and partial gains can be made at that level, winning this battle requires changes beyond bargaining. For example, as Ontario’s population grows and ages and public demand for services consequently increases, the healthcare sector has experienced a decline in the workforce and the number of hospital beds. The province now has the fewest beds and staff relative to patients among the developed and larger developing countries and this has led to a fall – driven not by need but by rationing – in the length of hospital stays. Ontario hospitals now need increases of some 5.8 per cent annually to meet costs but the five-year funding freeze means they’ll face cuts in real terms of more than 20 per cent over that period.

Unless this is changed, the alternatives are either massive worker concessions or a combination of massive layoffs, cuts in services and increased workloads. The unions involved cannot ignore this constraint; focusing only on their own needs will inevitably isolate and ultimately defeat them. The only solution – here as well as in the rest of the public sector – is to mobilize for the larger struggle to not only maintain but improve and expand services, with decent wages and working conditions being part of the quality of the services. If workers are to expand the options they face rather than see these options steadily narrowed, it means taking not just a sectional perspective (impact on union members) but a class perspective on what must be done (emphasizing the impact on all working people).

The increased pressures on all working-class families creates, as we’ve emphasized here, a myriad of opportunities to join with other working-class families on this issue. Care and workloads in the hospital sector in Ontario cannot improve unless additional resources are leveraged for this service. This creates a nexus between the interests of the public and the workforce, and suggests that collective bargaining with quality patient care and workloads at its center could create the opportunity for a grand alliance between the public and hospital workers.

We must however be clear that this fight won’t be won by unions simply asserting that they are ‘on the public’s side’; those who unions are trying to reach will question whether the unions are just being self-serving. Unions need to prove that commitment through their priorities and actions in bargaining, in the tactics they use during strikes, and on a daily basis. Unions must do no less than convincingly demonstrate that they are the leaders in the fight for social services.

One useful step toward building such community links might be to form local outreach committees. But this itself implies finding new forms of organizing in the community. Unions might help fund and work with community members to form ‘Community Councils’ that explicitly address the improvement and expansion of services. The links between major Ontario healthcare unions to the Ontario Health Coalition, including its community coalitions, is one form of such work that has proved vitally important. The community meetings of the Elementary Teachers of Toronto and CUPE 4400 are another first step in this direction. And if CUPW’s ‘Caravan Tour’ to publicize opposition to the end of home delivery leaves behind such worker-community councils that would be a major advance.

Mobilization and Organizing

All the talk of ‘alliances’ will however not be meaningful if unions aren’t able to mobilize their own members. Education around austerity, its impact, its nature as a class struggle, and examples from struggles elsewhere is of course critical. A spur to this might be to undertake Worker Inquiries on workloads. Local executives and stewards would distribute questionnaires to their members asking how workloads have changed over time; which jobs have been most affected (and might therefore be specifically targeted for improving); the impact on health and safety, stress and exhaustion; how workloads have affected relations among workers and life outside of work; the effect on the number of jobs; the implications for the quality of the product or services provided; and so on. The point would be to get workers talking about workloads, documenting the issue for public dissemination, strategizing over how to generate momentum around the issue, and pushing their leaders to act more aggressively.

Locals might establish or designate Workload Committees to facilitate the work of the Worker Inquiries. But since in most locals, activists are already overstretched, unless unions can engage in actions that generate bringing new activists into their circles, there just aren’t the bodies around to accomplish much of what might be done. Workload Committees might be a catalyst for generating such new activism and potential new leaders as a first crucial step toward reviving the local as a fighting organization. Such initiatives from below have erupted in other moments of crisis in the labour movement. They can happen again.

As important as it is to emphasize contract language, we need to also recall the historical role of direct workplace disruptions in defending workers’ work-lives. Much of that spirit and the skills and tactics developed in those workplace disruptions have disappeared over the years of labour defeat; without their revival it is unlikely that the issue of workloads will, to the extent necessary, get on the agenda again.

Such a revival might mean direct workplace action as part of a political campaign to ramp up corporate and state’s payments to workers injured on the job as a way to force some financial sensitivity in their decisions on the costs borne by workers. Or it might mean refusing certain workloads because they are in fact hazards to workers’ health. Engaging in work-to-rule to reverse harmful management decisions – so that workers only do what they are contractually required to do, and not do all those things they voluntarily do as a matter of common sense – has historically been an especially creative response to workload issues. And unions might also try to carry-out a strategy of work-ins, where workers from various shifts would all join together to demonstrate how services could be improved if there really were enough workers to provide the service properly.

Conclusion

The malaise in the labour movement makes it difficult to imagine a labour movement on the rise again whether in the workplace or politically. Unions are floundering, electoral politics seems to matter so little. Yet working people really have no option but to take on the struggle. The basic lesson of their long history, reinforced by the experience of the last three decades, is that fighting back always matters. Do nothing and things are guaranteed to get worse. Wait for a magic moment and you’ll wait forever. Only when workers engage in battle can victories come, even if small, and only through such struggles are the capacities and solidarity built to eventually enlarge these achievements.

Putting the focus on workloads is, of course, only one of many ways to address the labour movement’s malaise. Certainly an important indirect outcome of a serious focus on workloads might be that of bringing previously unreachable precarious young workers into unions. But again, this is not a matter of abstract promises about unions fixing their workload problems; it would only touch a nerve if these workers saw unions taking on these battles and achieving some successes.

And this points the way to a broader conclusion. If workers don’t respond as a class to the class attacks upon them; if they don’t use the tools they have as producers of society’s goods, services (and profits); if they don’t build the class as a confident and creative social force with a vision that goes beyond ‘competitiveness’; if they don’t change their unions accordingly and if they don’t develop new organizations and begin developing socialist parties oriented to supporting workers ideologically and coordinating a militant response to the challenges workers face and to the end of not just modifying buttransforming capitalism, then one conclusion follows. The working-class will be condemned to watch passively as everything around them gets uglier and uglier: the gross inequality, the wretched state of democracy, the perversion of human values, the environment – everything. There is, to invert Thatcher’s infamous slogan, no alternative but to organize and struggle. •

Michael Hurley is President of the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions, a division of CUPE.

Sam Gindin was Research Director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974-2000 and is now an adjunct professor at York University in Toronto. Gindin is the co-author, along with Leo Panitch, of The Making of Global Capitalism.

On July 31, racist Israeli settlers set the Dawabsha family home ablaze, burning 18-month-old old Ali Saad Dawabsha to death, inflicting third-degree burns (the most severe kind) on three other family members – his mother, father and brother Ahmed aged four.

The incident reflects a culture of virtual impunity. Extremist settlers rampage unaccountably against Palestinians, committing near-daily acts of violence and vandalism.

The Dawabsha family lost their home. Baby Ali was burned alive in the blaze, his charred body incinerated beyond recognition.

His father Saad perished days later. He couldn’t recover from third-degree burns covering 80% of his body.

On September 5, Maan News reported his wife, Riham, deteriorated seriously, “leaving her in critical condition, her family said…”

Muhammad Dawabsha, a relative and physician, said her blood pressure was extremely low. She wasn’t responding to treatment. The Jerusalem Post said “her life was in immediate danger, and that the coming 24 hours were vital to her.”

She suffered third-degree burns over 90% of her body. It was too much to bear. Intensive care on life support for five weeks couldn’t save her.

September 5 was her 28th birthday. On Sunday she died – victimized by Israeli racist hate. Soroka Medical Center doctors pronounced her clinically dead.

Four-year-old Ahmed so far survives. Whether he’s able to recover remains to be seen. At best, it will take many excruciating months – a struggle his small body may not be able to endure.

Virtually nothing beyond lip service has been done to apprehend the murderers. Suspects briefly detained earlier were released.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says settlers commit acts of violence and vandalism against Palestinians almost daily.

The Israeli human rights group Yesh Din says convictions follow less then 2% of settler crimes. It explains official Israeli “standing idly by” policy.

Saying it “refers to incidents when soldiers witness violence by Israeli citizens against Palestinians and their property and do nothing to prevent the harm while the action is ongoing; refrain from detaining or arresting the perpetrators after the event; fail to secure the scene to allow the collection of evidence; or fail to testify about the event to the police.”

The vast majority of settler crimes against Palestinians go unpunished. Investigations when conducted are whitewashed. Arab-hating settlers are free to do what they please – even commit murder with impunity.

Dawabsha family cousin Manor Dawabsha said “(i)f Arabs (acted like settlers), there is not a chance that the police would act” the same way. “No one has updated us on anything and (responsible settlers are) walking free.”

The world community does nothing to stop or deter Israeli viciousness against defenseless Palestinians. Slow-motion genocide remains official state policy – supported by US-led Western complicity.

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.

This happened some 63 years ago, but as the U.S. government has never stopped lying about it, and it’s generally known only outside the United States, I’m going to treat it as news.

Here in our little U.S. bubble we’ve heard of a couple versions of a film called The Manchurian Candidate. We’ve heard of the general concept of “brainwashing” and may even associate it with something evil that the Chinese supposedly did to U.S. prisoners during the Korean War. And I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people who’ve heard of these things have at least a vague sense that they’re bullshit.

If you didn’t know, I’ll break it to you right now: people cannot actually be programed like the Manchurian candidate, which was a work of fiction. There was never the slightest evidence that China or North Korea had done any such thing. And the CIA spent decades trying to do such a thing, and finally gave up.

I’d also be willing to bet that very few people know what it was that the U.S. government promoted the myth of “brainwashing” to cover up. During the Korean War, the United States bombed virtually all of North Korea and a good bit of the South, killing millions of people. It dropped massive quantities of Napalm. It bombed dams, bridges, villages, houses. This was all-out mass-slaughter. But there was something the U.S. government didn’t want known, something deemed unethical in this genocidal madness.

It is well documented that the United States dropped on China and North Korea insects and feathers carrying anthrax, cholera, encephalitis, and bubonic plague. This was supposed to be a secret at the time, and the Chinese response of mass vaccinations and insect eradication probably contributed to the project’s general failure (hundreds were killed, but not millions). But members of the U.S. military taken prisoner by the Chinese confessed to what they had been a part of, and confessed publicly when they got back to the United States.

Some of them had felt guilty to begin with. Some had been shocked at China’s decent treatment of prisoners after U.S. depictions of the Chinese as savages. For whatever reasons, they confessed, and their confessions were highly credible, were borne out by independent scientific reviews, and have stood the test of time.

How to counter reports of the confessions? The answer for the CIA and the U.S. military and their allies in the corporate media was “brainwashing,” which conveniently explained away whatever former prisoners said as false narratives implanted in their brains by brainwashers.

And 300 million of so Americans more or less sort of believe that craziest-ever dog-ate-my-homework concoction to this day!

The propaganda struggle was intense. The support of the Guatemalan government for the reports of U.S. germ warfare in China were part of the U.S. motivation for overthrowing the Guatemalan government; and the same cover-up was likely part of the motivation for the CIA’s murder of Frank Olson.

There isn’t any debate that the United States had been working on bio-weapons for years, at Fort Detrick — then Camp Detrick — and numerous other locations. Nor is there any question that the United States employed the top bio-weapons killers from among both the Japanese and the Nazis from the end of World War II onward. Nor is there any question that the U.S. tested such weapons on the city of San Francisco and numerous other locations around the United States, and on U.S. soldiers. There’s a museum in Havana featuring evidence of years of U.S. bio-warfare against Cuba. We know that Plum Island, off the tip of Long Island, was used to test the weaponization of insects, including the ticks that created the ongoing outbreak of Lyme Disease.

Dave Chaddock’s book This Must Be the Place, which I found via Jeff Kaye’s review, collects the evidence that the United States indeed tried to wipe out millions of Chinese and North Koreans with deadly diseases.

“What does it matter now?” I can imagine people from only one corner of the earth asking.

I reply that it matters that we know the evils of war and try to stop the new ones. U.S. cluster bombs in Yemen, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, U.S. guns in Syria, U.S. white phosphorus and Napalm and depleted uranium used in recent years, U.S. torture in prison camps, U.S. nuclear arsenals being expanded, U.S. coups empowering monsters in Ukraine and Honduras, U.S. lies about Iranian nukes, and indeed U.S. antagonization of North Korea as part of that never-yet-ended war — all of these things can be best confronted by people aware of a centuries-long pattern of lying.

And I reply, also, that it is not yet too late to apologize.

Persistent poverty and racial unrest expose reality behind the government numbers

Despite the unemployment figures released on Sept. 4, indicating that the rate of joblessness has gone done to 5.1 percent, the figures among African Americans remains twice as that of whites.

Historically since the advent of the tabulation of jobless statistics, African Americans have maintained consistently disproportionate higher figures for those who are looking for work and cannot find employment. This is related to the character of national oppression which overlaps with class exploitation.

Over the course of the last four or more decades, the African American unemployment rate being double that of whites, illustrates that institutional racism is still alive and well within the economic structures of the United States. The massive closings of industrial facilities in the last four decades as well as the outlawing of affirmative action in many states, has served to restrict employment opportunities and fuel the substantially higher levels of poverty among the oppressed.

In an article published by the Atlanta Black Star written by Nekala Alexander, it says “that [the] percentage masks the unemployment disparities between white Americans and minorities across individual states. Right now the national unemployment rate for white Americans is about 4.6 percent, for Hispanics, it is 6.5, and for Blacks, 9.1.” (Aug. 8)

This same article then continues citing figures on this phenomenon, noting “On the record, Washington, D.C., hit the peak of Black unemployment with a 14.2 percent rate. New Jersey followed with 13 percent, South Carolina was at 12.8 percent, and Illinois at 11.5 percent. Tennessee holds the lowest state of Black unemployment, which is equivalent to the highest rate of white unemployment in West Virginia.”

Compounding this problem is the failure of the federal government, the U.S. Congress and the corporate community to even address this glaring crisis. Instead law-enforcement agencies across the country have intensified the repressive apparatus of the state, killing African Americans in astronomical numbers and placing many more in the clutches of the prosecutorial offices, the courts and the prisons.

Examining Jobless Rates within a Political Context

Latino unemployment continues to be disproportionately high as well, but African Americans have the highest rate within the country. A study published last month by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reveals some very interesting statistics with very limited movement towards closing the gap between the races.

The report reveals that pre-recession and “post-recession” jobless rates for African Americans are basically the same.

Algernon Austin wrote for the EPI during the summer that “The figures show the average of the annual unemployment rates for whites and blacks from 1963 to 2012. It also shows the average of the national unemployment rate during recession years in this period. The average unemployment rate for the recession years is 6.7 percent. Over this period, whites have an average unemployment rate of 5.1 percent, significantly below the recession average.” (June 19)

This observation continues stressing that “In fact, for most of the 50 years, the white unemployment rate was below 5.1 percent, at times falling to as low as 3.1 percent. By contrast, the average unemployment rate for blacks over the past 50 years, at 11.6 percent, is considerably higher than the average rate during recessions of 6.7 percent. In only one year (1969), did the black unemployment rate dip slightly below the recession average to 6.4 percent. Thus, over the last 50 years, the black unemployment rate has been at a level typical for a recession or higher.”

This lower rate in 1969 coincided with the advent of urban rebellions and revolutionary mass organizing within the industrial, civic and educational arenas. The repressive apparatus of the U.S. during this period saw the wholesale attack on a wide range of organizations from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Black Panther Party and other community and youth formations leading to political assassinations, forced exile and domestic imprisonment.

Oftentimes economists link unemployment in the African American community with the lack of funding for schools in urban areas. Others include educational achievement with previous career experience.

Nonetheless, the upcoming generations of students are finishing colleges and universities at increased rates yet a degree is still not enough to guarantee African Americans against the systemic institutional racism still permeating the workforce. With no governmental or judicial pressure to establish guidelines and quotas in hiring practices, it is almost impossible to prove intent to discriminate in the courts.

The Center for Economic Policy Research undertook an evaluation of hiring practices in 2014 which revealed that 12.4 percent of African American college graduates ranging in age from 22 to 27 were without jobs in comparison to 5.6 percent of college graduates overall in the same age category.

EPI Director of the Program on Race, Ethnicity and Economy, Valerie Wilson, was quoted in Black Enterprise magazine saying “Even when you compare blacks and whites with the same backgrounds, blacks get less employment opportunities. When we say racial discrimination, we often have overt practices in our minds. But it’s taken on different forms. It’s not as blatant as it once was, but it still plays out in decisions and perceptions about blacks,” she emphasized. (Sept. 7)

Labor Participation Rate Worst in Decades

These recent jobless figures emanating from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources fail to properly account for the decreasing labor participation rate which is the lowest in four decades. Tens of millions of people have dropped out of the official labor market in large part because of the lack of jobs and the stagnation in wages.

On the website of zerohedge.com it says “the main reason why the unemployment rate tumbled to the lowest since April 2008 is because another 261,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force, as a result pushing the total number of U.S. potential workers who are not in the labor force, to a record 94 million, an increase of 1.8 million in the past year, and a whopping 14.9 million since the start of the second great depression in December 2007 while only 4 million new jobs have been created.” (Sept. 4)

Even according to the BLS, the labor participation rate is hovering around 62 percent, meaning that nearly 40 percent of the workforce are either not seeking traditional jobs or are employed in the informal sectors of the economy. In many African American urban communities, such as Detroit, centers of employment are located miles outside of their neighborhoods.

The lack of public transportation and non-ownership and access to vehicles hampers the ability to reach areas where hiring is taking place even for low-wage employment. This absence of transportation resources coupled with institutional discrimination creates conditions that are potentially volatile socially.

In areas where rebellions and mass demonstrations have erupted over the last 13 months, with specific reference to St. Louis County, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, both have high rates of unemployment and poverty. Also the repressive nature of the municipal police and courts place further obstacles to obtaining employment due to the rates of traffic stops, citations and incarceration.

Until these issues are addressed on a national level, the situations prevailing in African American communities across the country will remain tense. Anti-racist movements, including Black Lives Matter, must continue their efforts to halt the arbitrary harassment, physical abuse and killing of African Americans, but at the same time the growing sensitivity to state-sanctioned violence must expand to include an economic program demanding jobs, quality education, public services and a guaranteed income.

Acting with head and heart. This is the message from British Prime Minister David Cameron. Britain, he claimed last week, has a “moral responsibility” to help the Syrian refugees. If that was the case, it was certainly a newly found one. Till recently, the good will to aid other European states beset by the human train was rather short. Germany alone received 11,000 asylum seekers on Saturday with roughly the same number arriving on Sunday.

Of course, Cameron is arguing that Britain did far more for Syrian refugees than other powers closer to the ground of conflict. Efforts are being made closer to the source. Funding has been provided for refugee camps along Syria’s border at points in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. According to the BBC, this has also involved funding for running water, food, medicine and shelter.[1]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is tight lipped about actual numbers. Would there, for instance, be an expansion of the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation (VPR) scheme? (To date, numbers arriving in the UK have tended to be paltry relative to other states – since March 2014, a mere 216 Syrians have arrived on the scheme.) On the Andrew Marr show, he proved cagey.

Osborne did, however, admit that the money would be coming from the foreign aid budget, which could “provide the support in the first year for these refugees, [and] can help local councils with things like housing costs.” This touted “rethink” may encounter resistance from the Treasury clerks concerned that the money should be kept for its foreign projects. Redirecting some of the funds to local, domestic projects will certainly surprise some.

Hearts are gradually thawing. Charities have cited growing interest in Britain’s response to the crisis. British citizens and residents are also getting busy in the activist stakes, with a petition calling on Britain to increase its refugee intake receiving some 420,000 signatures. Even the Scottish government has come on board, pledging 1m pounds.

Cameron’s approach to the refugee crisis has proven schizophrenic. He refuses to accept a compulsory quota scheme, something he regards as an undue imposition on British sovereignty. Lurking in the background of such a stance is the absurd notion that to do so would act as an encouragement of people smuggling and encourage ever dangerous crossings of the Mediterranean. He continues to insist on that fashionable fiction of breaking “the link between people getting into the boats and getting resettlement in Europe.”

While condemning the people smugglers and expressing concerns about increased numbers of asylum seekers, he has been entertaining, at stages, open military action against Syria. Along with Chancellor Osborne, this constitutes targeting the problem at the “source” – which is mild code for eliminating the Assad regime and Islamic State. Resettlement tends to be subordinate to this end.

In Osborne’s words, “You need a comprehensive plan for a more stable, peaceful Syria – a huge challenge of course, but we can’t just let that crisis fester. We have got to get engaged in that.”[2] There has never been anything of the sort.

When the issues of targeting Assad regime went to a Commons vote in August 2013, the motion for such action failed to pass by 285-272. When a similar motion was put to the test in September 2014 regarding the targeting of Islamic State targets in Iraq, it did pass.

Former president of the European commission, Romano Prodi, has been deeply unimpressed by Cameron’s general stance on accepting refugees. He puts it starkly: Britain has not been pulling its weight, certainly not if you consider the call by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to do so on the basis of population, GDP and jobless rates.[3]

In the Observer, Prodi would explain that, by all accounts, the number should be some 18,000 people. To not take such matters seriously would genuinely jeopardise the British efforts to renegotiate its EU arrangements. “This is a general problem, the contradiction of the British negotiation. I think it will be easier for Cameron to have a positive deal in order to come back to London and say ‘Look, I got a lot from Brussels.’”

Cameron’s recent budging on the issue, if only to the point of conceding that “thousands” should be accepted, suggests a good deal of politicking rather than a genuine admission of responsibility. He seemed to be channelling Prodi – but only to a point.

There is another point that has tipped the issue in favour of the refugee cause. The issue is starting to become very bad publicity, and the public relations crews are on to it. Fittingly, Cameron was, in his earlier life, a public relations conjurer.

The death of Aylan Kurdi received wall-to-wall coverage, even in the more reactionary press. The general sense is that Cameron has to be seen to be doing something, however vaguely. Drowning, it seems, leads to profound gestures of sympathy and horror. But it doesn’t necessarily change policy.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34167271

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/05/cameron-moral-failure-refugees-europe

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/05/cameron-moral-failure-refugees-europe

When news of Haiti died down in the mainstream media two months after the earthquake, things had not cooled down: quite the contrary, they had just started to simmer. A highly controversial State of Emergency Law had already been drafted and presented to Haiti’s Lower House for a vote.

This was a law to allow an Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), led by former US President William J. Clinton, to run the country for an 18-month State of Emergency. Haiti’s Lower House, a large majority of which belonged to President René Préval’s party, INITE, met for a vote on March 8, 2010. That meeting of the Members of Parliament (MP) was extremely contentious. Outside, a small group of protestors urged the legislators to vote no. At least 20 legislators walked out, hoping to break the quorum, and they declared the law to be unconstitutional. Others stayed and voted against the law at the start of the meeting, hoping to stall the proceedings. One legislator proposed an amendment that would have allowed a senatorial commission to oversee the IHRC. All their efforts failed. The deal had been made from the start. Forty-three MPs voted yes, 6 voted no, and 8 abstained.

Image: US Embassy Canada

How did all this come to pass? First, the Préval-led government had come from elections that had excluded Fanmi Lavalas and 14 other political parties. So this government was highly unrepresentative. Second, the most vocal opposition to the IHRC and the State of Emergency Law had come from those who had supported previous dictatorships. The great majority of the population categorically rejected this group, which demanded that the Haitian Armed Forces (Forces Armées d’Haiti, FAd’H) be re-established, MINUSTAH departs, and the Haitian Constitution and UN Charter be respected.

Their calls of protest fell on the deaf ears of a population well acquainted with their brutality. Finally, Préval’s government was considered to be a great embarrassment. Among other things, it had failed to account for its expenses during the first three months of 2010. Préval himself had campaigned for the State of Emergency Law, although the stated reason for this law was a need to circumvent the State’s corruption. In typical style, he had insisted that everyone dirties their hands along with him and the law be voted on by the entire Parliament. When criticized about dragging the country into the depths of dependency and handicapping the next administration, he shrugged and lapsed into absurdities like Haiti is “a weak state” but still “possesses its sovereignty.”

Image: United Nations Photo

With the Lower House in the bag, the next obstacle was the Senate. During an April 8, 2010 meeting, the senators voted no to the State of Emergency Law and the IHRC. In advance of another vote on April 13, Préval held a press conference at which he pleaded with the senators not to “miss this chance.” Several demanded to know why he needed the Parliament to ratify a commission with a majority of foreigners.

They pointed out that he could take full responsibility for his miserable commission and establish it by presidential decree. Others, like Acluche Louis Jeune declared: “the president wants to dissolve the Parliament to give the occupier a free hand.” The April 13 vote was successfully blocked by the lack of a quorum. The Haitian Senate then numbered 25 because of two earthquake deaths. It needed a quorum of 16, but only 15 senators participated; two of those senators had showed up merely to snub the meeting.

Image: United Nations Photo

Enter Michelle Obama on April 14, 2010. What did she do during her surprise visit to Haiti, besides draw fishes and compare them to the more advanced art of the Haitian elementary-school children? What inducements or threats did she bring to the Senate on behalf of the US? Might her statement of the innocent-sounding proverb “Little by little, the bird makes its nest” have been a sign that a deal was made for the occupation?

A late-night parliamentary session the next day did the trick. With barely a quorum of 16 senators, 13 voted for the State of Emergency Law, with all but one of the yes votes coming from INITE. One senator voted against the law, 2 abstained, and 9 stayed away from the meeting altogether. It was extraordinary that even this highly unrepresentative government had put up such a fight for sovereignty. Haiti would not be an easy conquest.

In the IHRC, which was Bill Clinton’s wet dream of a government and was to be led by him, a majority of foreigners had hoped to administer Haiti.

FOURTEEN INDIVIDUALS WOULD REPRESENT FOREIGN INTERESTS

Nine representatives who are major donors. They would be chosen by an IHRC administrative council. This was a strictly pay-to-play affair. To get a seat, a country or institution had to donate at least $100 million over a two-year period or erase debts worth at least $200 million. The original list of these donors included the US, European Union, France, Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), United Nations, and World Bank.

One representative of Caricom.
One representative of the Organization of American States (OAS).
One representative for all the other donors without a seat.
One representative of the non-governmental organizations (NGO) in Haiti.
One representative of the Haitian diaspora.

SEVEN UNELECTED INDIVIDUALS WOULD REPRESENT HAITI

Three representatives of the Haitian government, nominated respectively by the executive, judiciary, and local authorities. Jean-Max Bellerive, who was chosen by Clinton for this group, got a laughable equal billing with him. In October 2009, Bellerive had been foisted by the US on Préval as Prime Minister. President Préval himself would not actually be a member but would have symbolic veto rights.

One MP, to be chosen from a list submitted by the political parties in the Lower House.

One senator, to be chosen from a list submitted by the political parties in the Senate.

One union representative, designated by the union syndicates.

One business representative, nominated by the business community.

There is much to be learned from this affair about the leaders of supposed democratic countries. This is how they would run everything if they could. Consider the World Trade Organization (WTO). Watch closely and pray against natural disasters. The next pay-for-play commission might well be for your state or country.

Though the IHRC boasted of its plans to restore urban centers and build homes throughout Haiti, its real mission, also stated quite explicitly, was to proceed with privatizations, in particular the privatization of the sea and air ports of Port-au-Prince. The plans for sweatshops were there too, though not as explicit. Indeed, even as homeless Haitians were being bused one hour away to a desert to live, presumably because there was no room for them in the city, ground was being broken in town for new factories. The IHRC would additionally grant opportunities to foreign companies to invest in agriculture and tourism, which were euphemisms for land grab.

After much controversy in April 2010 about the 11 articles under which Bill Clinton’s IHRC would operate in the country, three new articles were appended to the organization’s charter without oversight. In Article 12, the IHRC gave itself the “full power to deliver proprietary titles and licenses for the construction of hospitals, power companies, ports, and other projects of economic development.” In a clear sign of power reversal, the Article called on Haiti’s ministries to work with the IHRC to accelerate its high-priority projects.

Image: United Nations Photo

At the conclusion of its 18-month term, the IHRC would become an “Agency for the Development of Haiti,” with an indefinite mandate. So any democratically elected government in the future would find itself at the helm of an island nation, but without control of its ports, and therefore without the means to tax its imports and exports. Much of the country’s lands would be in foreign hands. The only way to raise revenue would be to go begging for aid funds. This had gone on for some time, but it would become institutionalized.

Human rights violations committed by ISIS are condemned the world over – rightly so – whereas those committed by the US-led coalition fighting ISIS are under-reported, particularly in the West.

What follows is a selection of the latter – a selection that strongly suggests the coalition’s military strategy is compounding the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

.

13 September 2010 – Amnesty International releases a report on “unlawful detention, enforced disappearance and torture or other ill-treatment of thousands of people since 2003 by the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq and the Iraqi authorities.” The report states “US and Iraqi forces have…committed grave human rights violations”: of having “tortured or otherwise ill-treated many prisoners, some of whom have died as a result”; “killed civilians in raids on houses, at checkpoints and during armed clashes”; and “destroyed the houses and other property of Iraqis.”

21 January 2011 – Human Rights Watch releases a report stating “[a]fter 2003, militias, insurgents, Iraqi security forces [ISF], multinational forces, and foreign private military contractors raped and killed women” in Iraq. Following “the US-led invasion of 2003, the deterioration of the security situation in Iraq has promoted a rise in tribal customs and religiously-inflected political extremism, which have had a deleterious effect on women’s rights”.

 
Click for big version

The report notes “trafficking in women and girls in and out of the country for sexual exploitation is widespread”, and “[m]ilitias promoting misogynist ideologies have targeted women and girls for assassination, and intimidated them to stay out of public life.” Particularly vulnerable for abuse are the “many women who have fled sectarian or other violence, who have been widowed, or who for other reasons are…dependent on state aid”. In cases of unlawful killing, “[b]efore the women were killed, they were tortured and sometimes had their teeth or eyes extracted. The corpses had bruises all over their bodies. Some had their breasts cut off or arms amputated and their hair was shaven off. Most of the victims had terrified looks frozen on their faces.”

7 February 2012 – Evidence comes to light suggesting a British special forces unit and an Australian SAS squadron were “an ‘integral’ element of the potentially illegal detention of prisoners of war at a secret Iraqi desert prison [called H1] in 2003” and “may have been complicit in war crimes by handing detainees over to the so-called ‘black site’.” [Beginning in 2014, Britain and Australia would intervene in Iraq again by conducting airstrikes and training Iraqi forces as part of the US-led coalition fighting ISIS.]

12 September 2012 – A BBC investigation reveals law enforcement agencies in Iraq are directly involved in the systematic persecution of the gay community. In addition to the “reports of militiamen in Iraq targeting homosexuals [sic], testimonial evidence gathered by BBC World Service shows that the Iraqi police are involved in the ongoing deadly persecution of gays, which the [Iraqi] government is ignoring.” According to activists, up to “a 1000 gay men and women…have been murdered since 2004, most of them in recent years.”

11 March 2013 – Amnesty International releases a report stating that the Coalition forces, throughout their presence in Iraq until 2011, “subjected detainees to torture and other ill-treatment and were also complicit in serious violations of human rights committed by Iraqi security forces.” The report notes “[m]any detainees were transferred by Coalition forces from their custody to that of the Iraqi authorities in the knowledge that this would place such detainees at grave risk of torture or other abuses.” Amnesty International expresses concern that the mistreatment of prisoners by the Government of Iraq is likely to “continue to prevail and may even worsen”.

26 April 2013 – The International Crisis Group reports that on 23 April 2013, Iraqi security forces use force to end a demonstration in the town of Hawija in Kirkuk governorate, resulting in “over 50…killed and 110 wounded”. The incident is just one of many comprising the 2012–13 Iraqi protests, which are driven by the marginalisation of the Sunni Arab population in post-Saddam Iraq. The Government’s harsh suppression of these protests has exacerbated the sense of exclusion among a sizeable proportion of the Sunni population.

4 January 2014 – Human Rights Watch calls on Iraqi authorities to “immediately order a transparent and impartial investigation into violence between security forces and antigovernment protesters in the western city of Ramadi” that on 30 December 2013 “left 17 people dead”, and into “the apparently related killings of the brother and five bodyguards of a member of parliament, Ahmed al-Alwany, during his arrest” on 28 December 2013.

12 January 2014 – The International Criminal Court is presented with a “devastating 250-page dossier, detailing allegations of beatings, electrocution, mock executions and sexual assault [that] could result in some of Britain’s leading defence figures facing prosecution for ‘systematic’ war crimes.” The court acknowledges there is little doubt that British forces committed war crimes between 2003 and 2008.

21 January 2014 – Human Rights Watch releases its World Report 2014. In a press releasesummarising the Iraq chapter of the report, Human Rights Watch states the Iraqi “government failed to protect its citizens” in 2013, using “arrests, criminal charges, and violence to intimidate protesters and journalists who expressed opposition to the government”. Iraqi “security forces…carried out brutal counterterrorism measures” and “[m]ilitias carried out assassinations that led to the displacement of thousands of families, with no one brought to justice for their crimes.”

6 February 2014 – Human Rights Watch releases a report on the systemic abuse of women in Iraq’s criminal justice system in the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq. The report accuses Iraqi security forces of conducting “random and mass arrests of women that amount to collective punishment of women for alleged terrorist activities by male family members, often their husbands.” Despite being approximately 20 per cent of the total female population of Iraq, an overwhelming majority of women held in Iraqi prisons are Sunni Arab. Reported cases of abuse include “threats of, or actual, sexual assault (sometimes in front of husbands, brothers, and children)”, burning with cigarettes, “sexual torture” which sometimes “resulted in pregnancy” or physical disability, and “beatings, electric shocks with an instrument known as ‘the donkey,’ and falaqa (when the victim is hung upside down and beaten on their feet)”.

The report points out “Iraqi law allows for children under the age of four to remain in prisons with their mothers, but women reported that there have been instances of children remaining in prisons until they are 7-years old.” A prison employee told Human Rights Watch that in one instance “a child who was incarcerated with his mother on death row remained in the prison for several weeks after she was executed.”

The report traces the origins of these practices to the “legacy of abuse inherited from Saddam Hussein’s rule”, but also notes that “[a]fter 2003, US-led Coalition Forces transferred thousands of Iraqi detainees to Iraqi custody despite knowing that they faced a clear risk of torture”, and “[i]n some cases, Coalition Forces themselves committed abuses against prisoners, including female prisoners.”

3 March 2014 – US journalist Dahr Jamail reports, “[d]octors, residents and NGO workers in Fallujah are accusing the Iraqi government of ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ that have occurred as a result of its ongoing attack on the city.” According to “Dr. Ahmed Shami, the chief of resident doctors at Fallujah General Hospital, …since Iraqi government forces began shelling Fallujah in early January 2014, at least 109 civilians have been killed and 632 wounded”, including women and children.

13 May 2014 – The International Criminal Court announces it is to conduct “a preliminary examination of what have been estimated to be 60 alleged cases of unlawful killing and claims that more than 170 Iraqis were mistreated while in British military custody during the conflict” between 2003 and 2008.

27 May 2014 – Human Rights Watch reports that the “recurring strikes on the main hospital [in Fallujah], including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.” Human Rights Watch has ascertained that “[s]ince early May [2014], government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including [ISIS]. These indiscriminate attacks have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to flee.”

11 June 2014 – Amnesty International reports Iraqi “Government forces have used indiscriminate shelling in Fallujah in the past six months, including on hospitals and in residential areas.”

27 June 2014 – Reuters reports that “in western Anbar province Iraqi troops had begun replying in kind [to ISIS’s atrocities], carrying out extra-judicial executions, torture and humiliations of their enemy and posting images of the results online” and “prisoners were being preemptively killed in Iraq to prevent militant groups from freeing them to rejoin the rebellion.”

11 July 2014 – Human Rights Watch uncovers “mass extrajudicial killings [that] may be evidence of war crimes or crimes against humanity”. Human Rights Watch claims “Iraqi security forces and militias affiliated with the government appear to have unlawfully executed at least 255 prisoners in six Iraqi cities and villages since June 9, 2014”, of whom “[a]t least eight…were boys under age 18.” The vast majority of the perpetrators are Shi’a security forces and militias, while the murdered prisoners were Sunni.

18 July 2014 – UNAMI (United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq) releases a report that details violations against civilians committed by the Iraqi security forces and affiliated militias, including “extrajudicial killings, and at times [carrying] out military operations without due respect for the principles of proportionality, distinction and the obligation to take all necessary precautions to protect civilians from the effects of violence, which may also amount to war crimes.” According to the report, UNAMI has received credible reports of “children [aged 13 to 18] increasingly being recruited by militias from all sides, including those supported by the [Iraqi] Government.” Enlisting children under the age of 15 is a war crime.

23 July 2014 – Human Rights Watch documents “17 Iraqi airstrikes that killed at least 75 civilians and wounded hundreds of others, including six attacks with barrel bombs…in Fallujah, Beiji, Mosul, Tikrit, and al-Sherqat.” Victims include women and children.

31 July 2014 – Human Rights Watch reports that “Government-backed militias have been kidnapping and killing Sunni civilians throughout Iraq’s Baghdad, Diyala, and Hilla provinces over the past five months”, marking “a serious escalation in sectarian violence at a time when the armed conflict between government forces and Sunni insurgents is intensifying.” Human Rights Watch records “the killings of 61 Sunni men between June 1 and July 9, 2014, and the killing of at least 48 Sunni men in March and April in villages and towns around Baghdad, an area known as the ‘Baghdad Belt’.”

13 September 2014 – The newly appointed Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi, says he has ordered a stop to airstrikes on civilian populations to comply with conditions set by moderate Sunni Muslim tribal leaders supporting the Iraqi Government’s military campaign. Prime Minister al-Abadiclaims the order had come into effect on 11 September 2014, but “on that day alone, 14 barrel bombs were dropped on Fallujah city, killing 22 civilians according to a worker at the local hospital.”

13 September 2014 – Human Rights Watch documents an Iraqi Government airstrike “that hit a school housing displaced people near Tikrit on September 1, 2014”, killing “at least 31 civilians, including 24 children, and wounded 41 others.” According to survivors, there were no fighters from ISIS or other military objects in or around the school at the time.

26 September 2014 – The International Committee of the Red Cross states that US-led “air strikes in Iraq and Syria have compounded the humanitarian consequences of the conflicts in both countries.” As a result of the fighting, “[h]undreds of thousands have died, millions are homeless, livelihoods have been wrecked and the humanitarian situation continues to worsen”, while “it is getting increasingly dangerous for humanitarian organizations and workers to help those who are suffering.”

13 October 2014 – Amnesty International documents cases of “torture and deaths in custody of Iraqi Government forces” and abuses against civilians such as “abductions and unlawful killings…all over the country” by “militias, often armed and backed by the government of Iraq, [that] operate with varying degrees of cooperation from government forces – ranging from tacit consent to coordinated, or even joint, operations” – as well as “in cooperation with or at least with the tacit consent of Kurdish Peshmerga forces”.

14 October 2014 – In a press release, Amnesty International states the Iraqi Government under Prime Minister al-Abadi is continuing to rely on the militias, as it did under his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki: “By granting its blessing to militias who routinely commit such abhorrent abuses, the [al-Abadi] government is sanctioning war crimes and fueling a dangerous cycle of sectarian violence that is tearing the country apart.”

2 November 2014 – Human Rights Watch reports Iraqi security forces and pro-government militias massacre 34 civilians in a mosque in Diyala governorate.

10 November 2014 – Amnesty International issues a public statement referring to “documented cases of extortion and abductions and killings of Sunni civilian men by state-backed Shi’a militias across Iraq”, who “have increasingly been used in the fight against the IS.” Amnesty International accords responsibility to the Iraqi Government “for crimes committed by the Shi’a militias, since it has armed them or allowed them to be armed and to perpetrate abuses with impunity.” In the same statement, Amnesty International also refers to documented violations by the Iraqi security forces and Peshmerga forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and expresses concern about the muted “response of the Iraqi government to long-standing human rights abuses, such as the systematic use of torture and other ill-treatment in prisons and detention centres.”

14 December 2014 – The International Criminal Court is to consider “[h]undreds of new cases accusing British soldiers of abusing – in many cases torturing – Iraqi men, women and children, aged from 13 to 101”, covering the period 2003 to 2008. A New Zealand Defence Force contingent worked alongside British forces from September 2003 to September 2004.

17 December 2014 – Reuters reports Iraqi forces have established “death zones” around Baghdad.

1 January 2015 – Iraq Body Count concludes “[t]he rise of [ISIS] as a major force in the conflict, as well as the military responses by the Iraqi Government and the re-entry of US and Coalition air forces into the conflict, have all contributed to the elevated death tolls” in 2014.

10 January 2015 – Australian media confirms Australian Special Forces are providing “training and assistance” to the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS), a CIA-supported “elite Iraqi security force accused of killing prisoners and other human rights violations,” including “torturing detainees with impunity” at a secret detention facility in Baghdad, and allegedly being “responsible for major war crimes and unnecessary civilian casualties”.

15 February 2015 – Human Rights Watch reports that “[a]buses by militias allied with Iraqi security forces in Sunni areas have escalated in recent months” after battles against ISIS. The abuses include “[r]esidents [being] forced from their homes, kidnapped, and in some cases summarily executed.” As a result, “at least 3,000 people have fled their homes in the Muqdadiyya area of Diyala province since June 2014 and, since October, been prevented from returning.”

25 February 2015 – Amnesty International releases its annual report on the state of human rights, noting “[Iraqi] Government forces carried out indiscriminate bombing and shelling in IS-controlled areas, and government-backed Shi’a militias abducted and executed scores of Sunni men in areas under government control.” According to the report, government “torture and other ill-treatment in detention remained rife, and many trials were unfair”, and the “government continued to hold thousands of detainees without charge or trial, many of them in secret detention with no access to the outside world.”

26 February 2015 – Human Rights Watch implicates Kurdish forces in “apparently unlawful conduct”, of having “confined thousands of Arabs in ‘security zones’ in areas of northern Iraq that they have captured since August 2014” and barred them from returning home, and also of having “destroyed dozens of Arab homes”.

1 March 2015 – Aid agencies warn coalition plans to retake ISIS-held population centres could greatly worsen the humanitarian crisis. The UN World Food Programme estimates “numbers fleeing an impending battle for Mosul in the course of the next few months could total a million” if the Iraqi army, backed by US airstrikes, seeks to recapture the city later this year. The International Committee of the Red Cross, too, has “issued a statement warning of a mass flight from Mosul”, and the World Health Organisation believes “an attempt to recapture Mosul could lead to hundreds of thousands seeking refuge in [Iraqi] Kurdistan.” Complicating matters, ISIS is increasingly becoming entrenched in civil society in areas under its control.

3 March 2015 – During the conquest of Tikrit, Prime Minister al-Abadi says in a speech to the Iraqi parliament: “There is no neutrality in the battle against ISIS. If someone is being neutral with ISIS, then he is one of them.” Human Rights Watch reports that Iraqi security forces and militias are effectively engaging in repeated abuses against civilians and ethnic cleansing in areas reclaimed from ISIS. According to media reports, “[m]uch of Tikrit’s pre-war population of roughly 260,000 has fled, but an unknown number of civilians – particularly those too poor or too elderly to flee – remain in the city and its outskirts.”

11 March 2015 – An ABC News investigation into Iraqi units known as the ‘dirty brigades’ uncoversphotographic evidence of “Iraq’s most elite units and militia members massacring civilians, torturing and executing prisoners, and displaying severed heads”. For example, a “photo posted in September [2014] showed the severed head of [an] alleged ISIS fighter lashed to the grill of a U.S.-donated Humvee bearing an Iraqi Army license plate” and a “second related photo surfaced of what appeared to be an Iraqi Army soldier holding up the same severed head next to the gun truck.” In a video circulating in January 2015, “[f]ighters who appear to be a mix of militia and army…take pictures of a captured teenaged boy who appears terrified” and “shoot him to death”. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch review the “graphic evidence of Iraqi government forces committing torture, summarily executing civilians – including children – and even beheading captives.”

13 March 2015 – A UN report concludes that, throughout the summer of 2014, pro-government militias and the popular mobilisation forces (PMF) “seem[ed] to operate with total impunity, leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake.”

18 March 2015 – Human Rights Watch releases a report and media statement with evidence of “[m]ilitias, volunteer fighters, and Iraqi security forces engaged in deliberate destruction of civilian property after these forces, following US and Iraqi air strikes, forced the retreat of [ISIS] from the town of Amerli and surrounding areas in early September 2014” and displaced thousands.

19 March 2015 – Physicians for Social Responsibility releases a report attributing the deaths of up to one million Iraqis to the Iraq War (between 2003 and 2012).

28 March 2015 – An article in Foreign Policy argues the US-led coalition is effectively providing air cover for ethnic cleansing for government-backed militias.

3 April 2015 – Amnesty International begins investigating reports of “widespread human rights abuses” by government-backed militias during and after the re-capture of the Tikrit area, including “reports that scores of residents have been seized early last month and not heard of since, and that residents’ homes and businesses have been blown up or burned down after having been looted by militias”, and “summary executions of men who may or may not have been involved in combat but who were killed after having been captured”.

4 April 2015 – Reuters correspondents witness “a convoy of Shi’ite paramilitary fighters – the government’s partners in liberating the city – drag a corpse through the streets behind their car.” They also witness “two federal policemen…[u]rged on by a furious mob, [who] took out knives and repeatedly stabbed the man in the neck and slit his throat” in an apparent attempt to behead him, and then “fastened [a cable] to the dead man’s feet and dangled him from the pole.” Official sources told Reuters that “dozens of homes had been torched in the city” and “they had witnessed the looting of stores by Shi’ite militiamen.”

11 April 2015 – The Baghdad bureau chief for Reuters, Ned Parker, leaves Iraq after he was threatened on Facebook and denounced by a Shi’ite paramilitary group’s satellite news channel in reaction to a Reuters report that detailed lynching and looting in Tikrit. Parker is a 12-year veteran of Iraq war coverage. A media advocacy group, Committee to Protect Journalists, says that at least 15 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of 2013.

12 April 2015 – The Wall Street Journal interviews several Iraqi soldiers being trained at Taji Military Complex, who openly say “they actively served on their days off with Shiite militia – some of them…still listed by the U.S. as terrorist groups.”

4 May 2015 – Amnesty International calls upon the New Zealand Government to “ensure that any engagement plan in Iraq has the protection of civilians at its cornerstone”. Amnesty International says it “has continually raised concerns about the ongoing crisis in Iraq, highlighting in its research atrocities committed not only by [ISIS] but also by Iraqi government forces”, including “revenge attacks on civilians by militias, and indiscriminate shelling of residential communities by the Iraqi military.”

21 May 2015 – After months of denials, the Pentagon for the first time admits US-organised coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria are resulting in civilian deaths.

While there is a legal consensus on the lawfulness of coalition operations in Iraq so long as they remain within the consent of the Iraqi Government, some coalition partners are reluctant to intervene openly in Syria because of concerns over the legality of such military action. The case for coalition operations in Syria, such as the US and Canada’s airstrikes, is controversial in that they may be inherently unlawful.

30 May 2015 – Human Rights Watch issues a new release, stating “Iraqi authorities are preventing thousands of families fleeing the fighting in Ramadi from reaching safer parts of the country.” As a result, some are said to have died.

2 June 2015 – A Human Rights Watch investigation reveals that “when Iraqi forces ousted ISIS fighters from Salah al-Din province in March and April they went on a rampage, burning down or blowing up hundreds of residents’ homes and shops”. As a result, “tens of thousands of Iraqis…remain displaced, often too scared to return to their homes that remain under the control of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).” The PMF is an Iraqi state-sponsored umbrella organisation, mainly composed of Shi’a militias and volunteer fighters. The organisation was formed in June 2014 for deployment against ISIS, following the fall of Mosul.

Though the Iraqi cabinet voted to bring the PMF formally under Prime Minister al-Abadi’s control on 7 April 2015, PMF abuses continue unabated. For example, a “graphic video posted [in May 2015] appears to show a person wearing PMF insignia in northern Salah al-Din executing with a rifle a kneeling and blindfolded man he claims is an ISIS member” and “in another gruesome video…, people wearing…PMF insignia laugh as the body of a man [whom] they say is ISIS is suspended over a fire.”

4 June 2015 – The UN warns “Iraq [is] on the brink of humanitarian disaster due to surging conflict and massive funding shortfall.”

5 June 2015 – UNICEF releases a report calling upon the Iraqi Government to take “urgent measures” to protect children, particularly in relation to “the detention of children under terrorism charges” and “the association of children with the Popular Mobilization Forces”. According to the report, “[a]n unknown number of children [have been] recruited by the pro-Government Popular Mobilization Forces in all conflict areas, as well as in Baghdad and Basra.” The UN itself “witnessed children in the Hurriya area of Baghdad patrolling with militia convoys in July [2014].” The UN is also aware of credible reports of “[b]oys as young as 10 years old [being] recruited and used by self-defence groups supporting Iraqi security forces [ISF] in the town of Amerli, Salah al-Din”, and “[c]hildren, including girls,…associated with Yezidi self-defence groups fighting alongside Kurdish Peshmerga and Turkmen-based self-defence groups in Ninewa and Kirkuk, and with Sunni tribal-based militias supporting ISF in Ramadi.”

7 June 2015 – The Defence Minister of New Zealand reiterates his government’s position that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi “is doing his best to try and bring together two very disparate groups of people in the name of a modern, free Iraq” – despite evidence to the contrary.

10 June 2015 – Amnesty International releases two reports detailing revenge attacks against civilians. One report describes “the massacre of at least 56 – possibly more than 70 – Sunni Arab men in Barwana, a village in Diyala province, by Shi’a militiamen and government forces”. The other reportdescribes a massacre committed by “a Yezidi militia [who] attacked two Arab villages, Jiri and Sibaya, in the Sinjar region of north-western Iraq on 25 January 2015.” The gunmen “killed 21 civilians, half of them elderly men and women and children, in what appear to have been execution-style killings, and injured several others, including three children”, and “also abducted some 40 residents, 17 of whom are still missing and feared dead.”

26 June 2015 – Reuters reports “dozens – [perhaps] hundreds – of mainly Arab Sunnis…have been banished from areas under Kurdish control in recent months as suspected Islamic State sympathisers, a measure some Arabs say is creating dangerous ethnic polarisation in areas recaptured from the insurgents.”

30 June 2015 – The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimates “at least 4 million Iraqis [are] internally displaced as of 15 June 2015”, one quarter of whom were displaced between 2006 and 2008 during the Iraq War.

5 July 2015 – Al Jazeera reports “[a]t least 73 people have been killed in the western Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, as the Iraqi government stepped up air strikes and artillery fire against [ISIS]”.

13 July 2015 – The UN releases a report on protection of civilians in the Non-International Armed Conflict in Iraq, noting that “[c]ivilians continue to be the primary victims of the ongoing armed conflict in Iraq”. The UN has recorded a total of approximately 45,000 non-combatant casualties (15,000 killed and 30,000 wounded) from 1 January 2014 to 30 April 2015. As the UN acknowledges, the casualty figures are conservative and under-report the actual number of civilians killed and injured.

The report refers to allegations of “violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations or abuses committed by ISF and affiliated armed groups that occurred during the reporting period.” These include “air strikes, shelling and conduct of particular military operations or attacks that may have violated the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law”, as well as “targeted killings, including of captured fighters…, abductions of civilians, and destruction of property.” The UN also urges the Government of Iraq to consider becoming a party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and recommends it “stabilise areas recently liberated from [ISIS] by ensuring…the safety, security and well-being of residents of those areas and…that any displaced persons [can] return to their homes in safety and dignity.”

Click for big version

28 July 2015 – CBS News reports that the popular mobilisation forces (PMF) have set up training camps for “students as young as middle-school age to use their summer vacations to prepare to fight [ISIS].” According to the news report, there are “dozens of such camps around the country, [and] hundreds of students have gone through the training”, however “it is impossible to say how many went on to fight [ISIS] since those who do so go independently.” In recent months, the Associated Press has witnessed “over a dozen armed boys on the front line in western Anbar province, including some as young as 10.”

1 August 2015 – The president of Iraq’s Kurdistan region condemns Turkish airstrikes that killed civilians in the village of Zarkel in northern Iraq.

On Friday morning, a Russian Marine contingent of about 40 soldiers arrived at their naval repair facility in Tartous City in order to train the civilian-led “National Defense Forces” (NDF) inside a number of provinces, including the Homs, Latakia, and Tartous Governorates of western Syria.

Despite the propaganda surfacing from their arrival in Tartous, the Russian Marines have no direct involvement in the ground warfare; however, they are assisting the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) with both intel and satellite imagery, while the Syrian Opposition media reports the direct use of these Russian soldiers at checkpoints in rural Latakia and Homs.

According to a military source inside the Latakia Governorate, the Russian Marines have not manned any checkpoints nor engaged the Syrian Opposition forces in direct combat; this was reportedly fabricated by social media activists from the Syrian Opposition.

The source confirmed that the Russian Marines have all arrived in Tartous; they are currently stationed inside the strategic cities of Slunfeh (Jabal Al-Akrad), Jableh (coastal city in Latakia) and Homs.

As of Saturday night, the Syrian Armed Forces are in full control of their own checkpoints inside the aforementioned areas and they have not conceded control to any of the Russian soldiers that have arrived in Syria.

What the articles below show is that no scientist has an excuse, as the information has been there from the beginning of this catastrophe.

It’s incredulous that they wouldn’t have found these articles just doing their own research into the mass deaths of whales, dolphins, seals, starfish, birds…. That they didn’t shows they knew the truth all along. No competent scientist could have missed this one. 

Scientists are “baffled”, “befuddled”, concerned”, and “curious” about the die-off of the Pacific Ocean.

Almost no one mentions the F word, Fukushima.

I put together a list of links from Enenews.com that show a direct correlation between the Fukushima and the die-off, even if scientists refuse to admit it.

Every story comes from a major publication. These stories have been out since the beginning of the meltdowns.

There is not one scientist studying this who does not have access to this information. Either they chose to look the other way or they are incompetent researchers who don’t really want to know the truth.

There are a thousand links here, all in chronological order. If you are pressed for time, skip to the back and read backwards to see how bad it really is. I put this file together so that when someone says prove it, at least there are 50 plus pages [actually 61 pages] of links that prove that Fukushima is killing the North Pacific Ocean.

Humans are next?

Facing Palestinian majority, Israeli officials seek way to loosen legal definition of ‘Jew’ so millions more can qualify for immigration

Israel is examining ways to expand the scope of the Law of Return, a foundational piece of legislation defining who is a Jew, to entitle millions more people to immigrate.

A government committee established last month will determine whether immigration rights should be extended to “groups with ties to the Jewish people”. That would include so-called “lost tribes”, remote communities in India, Latin American and elsewhere that claim their ancestors were once Jewish.

The move follows a recent statement from Silvan Shalom, the interior minister and a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that he intended to take “the most liberal policy on immigration there is to bring people from everywhere around the world”.

According to experts, a change to the law could mean that more than three million additional people would qualify to come to Israel and receive instant citizenship.

The committee’s creation appears to reflect mounting concern among officials that Israel is losing the “numbers battle” against the Palestinians. The issue has become more pressing because Netanyahu is refusing to engage in talks to end the occupation and create a Palestinian state.

A leading demographer, Sergio DellaPergola from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, warned recently that Palestinians were now a majority in the area under Israeli rule, comprising Israel and the occupied territories. Israel includes a large minority of 1.5 million Palestinian citizens.

Rates of Jewish immigration have stalled for more than a decade, while Palestinians in general continue to have a higher birth rate than Israeli Jews.

‘Racist, undemocratic’ law

The Law of Return, passed in 1950, restricts immigration to Israel to those the law defines as Jewish. Currently that is anyone with a Jewish grandparent. They can bring with them a spouse and any offspring, with the family qualifying for a wide range of financial benefits.

Historians have noted that the Law of Return and a separate Citizenship Law for non-Jews were crafted to ensure a strong Jewish majority was maintained after the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in the 1948 war that established Israel.

Jamal Zahalka, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament, accused the government of seeking to further exploit a “racist, undemocratic law”.

“The Law of Return was created specifically to allow millions of Jews who have no connection to this land to immigrate and to prevent millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants from returning to their homes,” he told Middle East Eye.

This law is immoral and gives immigrants more rights than the indigenous people. It needs to be cancelled, not changed so that Israel can bring more people here.

According to official figures, some three million Jews have immigrated so far to Israel under the Law of Return.

Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian and commentator, told MEE Israel hoped that “with proper indoctrination and incentives, non-Jews who are not Arab can be tempted to immigrate and add to the [demographic] balance sheet”.

Widening the definition of who counted as a Jew was “yet another means of de-Arabising Palestine – the other side of the ethnic cleansing and dispossession” that occurred in 1948.

Fear of apartheid comparison

Senior officials have expressed fears that comparisons with apartheid will increasingly be made if a Jewish minority is seen ruling over a Palestinian majority. The then prime minister Ehud Olmert issued such a warning in 2007.

These concerns have been underscored by the fact that several members of Netanyahu’s rightwing coalition are known to favour annexing the West Bank, consolidating Israel’s control over the Palestinians there.

Mohammed Zeidan, director of the Human Rights Association in Nazareth, said the government’s rethink on the Law of Return reflected its mounting panic about demography.

“It is becoming ever clearer that in the area under Israel’s control an apartheid system operates, one that creates different rights for Jews and Palestinians,” he told MEE.

There is an obvious problem with any state claiming to be a democracy when it has to use demography as a tool to justify keeping one community in control of another.

In the past Israeli politicians have been wary of changing the law, whose provisions already generate great tension with the country’s Orthodox rabbinical authorities.

Orthodox rabbis believe that only those with a Jewish mother should be classified as a Jew – a much narrower definition based on religious tradition.

The indications are, however, that the Israeli diaspora ministry, in charge of relations with Jewish communities overseas, is likely to ignore and recommend enlarging the pool of potential immigrants.

Disadvantaged communities

Zeidan noted that most traditional Jewish communities outside Israel – in the United States, France, Germany and the UK – were thriving and had shown little interest in moving to Israel.

Earlier this year, following violent attacks on Jewish communities in Paris and Copenhagen, Netanyahu urged Jews in Europe to move to Israel, claiming it was the only safe place for them. However, indications so far this year are that immigration rates have failed to rise.

A new category of “emerging” Jewish communities would give rights to poor and vulnerable communities in developing parts of the world that are more likely to be open to moving to Israel.

Rightwing organisations have been lobbying for many years for recognition of “lost tribes,” as well as what are termed “beit anusim,” people whose ancestors were forced to convert to Christianity during the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions.

“There is no demand for well-off Jews to immigrate, so Israel needs to find other, more disadvantaged communities in the hope they can be pressured to come in their place,” said Zeidan.

A notable success has been achieved with the Bnei Menashe, a community living in a remote part of north-east India. Although they have no rights under the Law of Return, Netanyahu’s government agreed in 2012 to let them immigrate in large numbers.

The Haaretz daily characterised the decision to publicly fund a non-Jewish community’s immigration as “unprecedented”.

Shavei Israel, an organisation founded in 2004 that has been lobbying on the Bnei Menashe’s behalf, celebrated the arrival of the 3,000th immigrant from the community in June. There are another 7,000 still in India.

Settler influence

Underlining the rightwing agenda of groups like Shavei Israel, many of the new immigrants have been housed in illegal settlements in the West Bank. The latest group of nearly 80 Bnei Menashe were sent to communities in the Golan, Syrian territory Israel has illegally annexed since 1967.

Zahalka pointed out that Israel’s immigration minister, Zeev Elkin, who was photographed welcoming the new arrivals, is a settler and has publicly supported annexing all of the West Bank.

“The right wants to widen the definition of who is a Jew so that it can move many of these new immigrants into the settlements,” he said.

Its goal is a Zionist, one-state solution that forces Palestinians into enclaves, confiscates their land and then passes it on to Jews. To achieve their goal they need to bring more people here to justify stealing yet more land from the Palestinians.

According to the Israeli media, there are signs the government may be skewing the committee’s makeup to ensure its decision favours reforming the Law of Return.

Dvir Kahana, the diaspora ministry’s director-general, who set up the committee, is a prominent settler. He formerly held a senior post in Elad, a far-right organisation that works to settle Jews in the heart of the large Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem.

Kahana has appointed to the panel officials who are likely to support increased immigration as a way to bolster the settlements.

Ties to Netanyahu

The diaspora ministry has declined to respond to inquiries from journalists. But in a statement, Kahana said there was “increasing awareness of large groups of people who are not Jewish by any definition but who have some type of connection to the Jewish people”. He added that this “raises the question of what ties the government should have with them”.

Leading the campaign for immigration rights to be extended to “lost tribes” is Shavei Israel’s founder, Michael Freund. He was a senior aide to Netanyahu in the late 1990s. Freund has written that Israel must “think more creatively about how to address the ongoing erosion in the country’s Jewish demographic profile”.

Shavei Israel was unavailable for comment. However, its website states: “The Jewish people are currently facing a demographic and spiritual crisis of unprecedented proportions.” It adds that “our numbers are shrinking” and says Israel’s task is “extending a courteous hand to all those who wish to return”.

In addition to the Bnei Menashe, Shavei Israel lists other significant communities it hopes to attract to Israel, including ones in Brazil, southern Russia, Poland, China, Peru, Turkey and Africa.

Asked by Haaretz whether Freund was advising the committee, the diaspora ministry refused to comment.

The ministry’s official invitation to experts to appear before the committee has highlighted the political advantages of recruiting “emerging” Jewish communities. It says such communities could be recruited to help in government hasbara campaigns, or efforts to improve Israel’s image in the world.

The committee is expected to announce its findings in six months.

Search for ‘Jewish gene’

The concept of “lost tribes” has proved controversial in Israel. Tests on the Bnei Menashe and other groups supported by Shavei Israel have not found genetic markers indicating Jewish ancestry.

Other critics have argued that the search for a so-called “Jewish gene” is in any case misguided and politically driven.

Shlomo Sand, a historian at Tel Aviv University, documents in his 2009 book The Invention of the Jewish People two decades of contradictory findings in genetic research. He concludes: “After all the costly ‘scientific’ endeavours, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever.”

That view was supported in 2013 by Eran Elhaik, an Israeli geneticist at John Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, after he examined much of the recent research looking for a Jewish gene.

In an interview with the Haaretz newspaper, he argued that the researchers’ “results were written before they began the research. First they shot their arrow – and then they painted the bull’s-eye around it.”

Loosening the definition of who counts as a Jew could be expected to exacerbate existing tensions in Israeli Jewish society.

Rabbinical authorities in Israel have refused to recognise as Jews some 350,000 of the one million immigrants who came to Israel in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That has left these immigrants in social limbo because the rabbis exclusively control personal status matters for the Jewish population, including marriage, divorce and burial. Many have been forced to marry abroad to get round the restrictions.

The Delphi Initiative of Greece issued yesterday the following statement under the title Tsipras – Kammenos Surrender Greece:

The Greek Left is a political force, the supporters of which gave heroic struggles in the past to defend democracy and national independence of Greece, thousands and thousands of them dying, sent into prison and exile or tortured.

It is the first time in Greek history that a political force and a politician, who refer in the Left and especially in the ‘radical’ Left, cosign the surrender of people sovereignty and national independence of Greece.

According to the revelations in today’s Greek newspaper ‘Agora’ (5.09.2015), “the new government of Greece will be under the strict supervision of Brussels” and the Dutch Commissar Maarten Verwey as leading the new Task Force “will actually write all the proposed legislation for all the sectors plans, from the income tax and the job market to the healthcare policy and the system of social care”. Verwey’s team will cooperate closely with Troika, will be able to assign reports to the IMF and will talk straight with the Prime Minister, as Juncker wants. The agreement that Tsipras and Kammenos signed and the parody of the national delegation validated, forces the “Greek Government” to claim the assistance of the work group until the end of September.

At almost the same time, on 2 September 2015, Ms. Zoi Konstantopoulou, the President of the recently dissolved Greek Parliament, addressed the Fourth World Conference of Speakers of Parliament at the UN General Assembly Hall in New York. Ms. Zoi markedly referred this occasion also to the 70^th Anniversary of the UN and the 70^th Anniversary of the end of WWII.

Her extraordinary speech is self-explanatory https://youtu.be/oiTvwZKyuoY.

This clearly indicates that the Greek Government, the Greek parties are fully aware of their rights, of the absolute and total illegality – even criminality of what is going on – and has been going on for the last 5 years.

So, why is Greece continuing on this path?

In the face of what is known in the Greek Parliament, in the Greek Government – the abject illegality of the Greek debt through coercion and blackmail, the unconstitutionality of the Greek Parliament to vote against the 62% will of the people – the overwhelming NO to austerity on 5 July 2015 – in the face of this, the Tsipras – Kammenos Surrender begs the question: Why does Greece accept this dehumanizing and humiliating Brussels – troika dictate? – There must be a reason behind it.

Is it fear?

On 24 August 2015, I wrote about “Breaking the Fear Factor” http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-the-fear-factor-opposing-war-financial-fraud-and-state-terrorism-dismantling-propaganda/5471172 , where I mentioned the case of Greece. In interviews across the country, it became overwhelmingly clear that the Greek have so far not acted up against the Tsipras treason, going against their NO-vote, because they are afraid of what may happen if the government disobeys the tyrannical orders of Brussels cum troika cum Washington. Greece hosts arguably Europe’s most strategically important NATO base. A socialist government is not tolerated by the neoliberal and war-thirsty NATO forces. Therefore ‘regime change’ is the name of the game – which could come in different forms.

The most obvious one is looking north to Ukraine, where false flagging and false propaganda has allowed Washington and their European vassals to stage a coup in February 2014, chasing the democratically elected President, Victor Yanukovych, into exile, replacing his government with a right wing Nazi government – and helping inciting a civil war, where the Kiev Nazi thugs are committing heinous atrocities in the eastern Ukraine Donbass region. Ever since then Russia, more specifically President Putin, is accused and blamed for the conflict and the bloodshed by the western lie-propaganda media. The people of Greece are aware of this. They are afraid, it might happen to them.

Another reason for their fear is an internal Washington instigated military coup, à la 21 April 1967 which led to a Greek military junta of 1967–74, commonly known as the Regime of the Colonels, very adeptly portrayed by Costa-Cavras 1969 movie “Z”. The seven year right-wing military dictatorship, continuously supported by the US to forestall Soviet influence in this strategically situated country – a vital NATO base since 1952 – inflicted enormous suffering and misery on the Greek people, with dead squads and people disappearing, akin to the Argentina Videla Government that came to power by another military coup instigated by Washington in March 1976 and lasted also 7 years, until December 1983.

Greece is afraid of internal civil unrest. The Greek civil war from 1946 to 1949 was the result of a struggle between the left who defeated the German-Italian occupation during WWII and the right which was supported by the UK and the US – as Greece was to become one of the first conflicts of the Cold War and a test case for Anglo-Saxon involvement in a foreign country. The civil war killed about 160,000 people and unsettled a million people, as temporary and permanent refugees. Death squads were of the order.

Seen in this context of past foreign incited atrocities, the Greek fear may be understandable; understandable even that Tsipras may be re-elected on 20 September – which would be an absolute disaster. – Understandable – but NOT justified, as fear can never be justified. Fear is the enemy Number ONE. It’s not the Brussels, Germany or the troika, it is fear – fear to resist. This fear leading to the scenario described under the Tsipras – Kammenos Surrender might lead to yet another Greek civil war – which is exactly what Washington / NATO may have in mind. Create chaos. Divide to conquer – and control – Greece another country on the way to Washington’s Full Spectrum Dominance. The same old game – and people fall ever again into the same trap.

Greek Unite! – Form one fearless front against Brussels, Washington and the troika – all those that want to break again Greece’s backbone, want to keep humiliate Greece for their own short – and long term goals. Greece has a sovereign right to decide its own destiny, a destiny of political sovereignty and financial autonomy. Greece’s debt is illegal and can be legally abrogated, cancelled. Exiting NATO is a sovereign right. France’s President de Gaulle decided in 1966 to withdraw French troops from NATO. He also warned his European partners and allies to do likewise as the Anglo-Saxon powers could not be trusted. They did not follow his advice. Today, many may realize that he was right. – After all – Greece is full of courageous people. Just follow Ms. Zoi Konstantopoulou’s lead. There are two weeks to organize and form solid solidarity alliances – and to vote with one solid voice for a Prime Minister who will truly represent the interests of the people.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance

Introduction

Rightwing politics now dominate the globe. Broadly speaking, the Right can be divided into a US-centered rightwing bloc and a variety of anti-US rightwing regimes and social forces.

James Petras

Israel is a special case of a rightwing regime, allied with the US, which acts more independently to pursue its own colonial priorities and hegemonic ambitions.

The anti-US rightwing includes capitalist China and Russia; the nationalist, Islamist and secular republics of Iran, Syria and Lebanon; and the armed and civilian Islamist mass movements of the Middle East, East and West Africa and South and Southeast Asia.

Leftwing governments and movements, faced with the competing and conflicting rightwing power centers, find themselves having to operate precariously in the interstices of global politics, attempting to play-off one or the other. These include the center-left regimes and movements in Latin America; anti-capitalist opposition parties and trade unions in the EU; nationalist-democratic movements and trade unions in North and South Africa; nationalist and populist movements in South Asia; and a broad array of academic leftists and intellectuals throughout the globe who have little or no direct impact on the direction of world politics. A number of supposedly ‘Left’ regimes have capitulated to the US-EU bloc, namely Syriza in Greece and the Workers Party of Brazil.

In sum, the major conflicts in the world are found between competing capitalist centers; between rising (China and Russia) and established capitalist blocs (US and EU); between financial centers (US-England) and primary export states (Africa, Asia and Latin America); between dominant Judaic/Christian and emerging Islamist states; and between imperialist states and occupied colonized nations. We will explore the nature of each form of right-wing conflict.

The Nature of the Conflicts between the Rightwing Regimes

Despite their common capitalist basis, the conflicts between Rightwing regimes are intense, violent and enduring.

The US-centered Right has annexed former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and the Baltic and Balkan states. They have encircled Russia with their military bases, seized control of Ukraine through a violent putsch (color-coded revolution) and invaded Russian allies in the Middle East (Iraq and Syria).

The US has mobilized its EU followers to impose crippling economic sanctions on the Russian state and private enterprises in order to weaken its oligarchical ruling class under President Vladimir Putin, force ‘regime change’ and return Russia to the status of the pillaged vassal state under Boris Yeltsin (1990-2000).

Russia’s capitalist state, dependent on the oil and gas industries and western investments and markets, has responded by building up its military defenses. Faced with a US-imposed economic blockade and the growing militarization of US clients on Russia’s periphery, Moscow is finally developing local industries to substitute for EU and US imports and establishing alternative trading partnerships with capitalist China, India, Islamist Iran and the center-left regimes in Latin America.

The US-centered Right has sought to weaken China by encircling it through expanded military base agreements with Japan, Australia and the Philippines; and by promoting Asian-Pacific trade agreements excluding China. Washington relies on its historic military ties to counter its loss of Asian markets to rising Chinese economic exporters.

China, as the emerging Asian world power, has countered by deepening its trade, investment and financial ties with regional economies. Beijing is cultivating and formalizing trade and investment relations with the EU and Latin American economies. China has increased its defense spending and is constructing a series of offshore military installations to counter US military superiority in the Asia Pacific region.

In both the European and Asian regions of conflict, the struggle is between rival capitalist countries: On one side, there is the declining US-EU-Japanese regimes relying on ever more overt military expansion; while, on the other, China and Russia have turned to trade and economic expansion while fortifying their military defenses.

Both compete to influence the ‘Left’, and the independent Islamist countries by intervening wherever possible in internal conflicts.

The Tactics of the Competing Rightwing Blocs

The US-centered bloc relies on various forms of political-military intervention in the politics of their Chinese, Russian, leftist and Islamic adversaries.

These interventions include:

(1) Fomenting ethnic conflicts, e.g.Uighurs and Tibetans in China; Islamists and Chechen terrorists in Russia; Western-oriented liberals in the Islamist countries; and neo-liberals in Latin American countries under leftist regimes.

(2) Outright military invasions in the Middle East and South Asia against Islamic and nationalist regimes, including the recent invasions and attacks against Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

(3) Financing and organizing ‘regime change’ via coups and street mobs in Leftist, nationalist and Islamist countries have increased in recent years. US-backed coups have taken place in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras and Ukraine; street uprisings have been financed and orchestrated by the US and its allies in Iran, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, Brazil, Ecuador and numerous other countries.

(4) Economic sanctions and exclusive trade pacts are directed against Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Gaza, Syria and elsewhere.

The intent of US-centered bloc interventions is to weaken capitalist competitors, undermine Leftist and Islamist economies andconvert them into political and economic vassal states.

The anti-US capitalist bloc, headed by Russia and especially China, has relied predominantly on economic aid, trade and investmentto counter Western capitalist political intervention. They have arranged large-scale infrastructure loans and financed major trade agreements with less developed countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and signed oil and gas agreements with the independent Islamic Republic of Iran and with energy producers in Latin America, especially Venezuela.

On the other hand, they have pushed military sales and loans for their weapon systems with Pakistan (South Asia), Egypt (North Africa), and Iran and Syria (Middle East).

The so-called, BRICS and China have organized new financial institutions as a response to the US – dominated IMF and WB.

Capitalist competition may provide some economic options to independent leftist governments, but it does not advance the class struggle. The reason is obvious: Each bloc pursues the capitalist strategy of enhancing market shares, increasing profits and exploiting labor and primary products.

The Dilemmas of the Left in a World of Capital Competition

The Left is not a major player in the current configuration of world power. It has a presence in governments and especially amongmass-based opposition movements. The current rivalry among capitalist blocs presents opposition movements with options not possible in a unipolar world dominated by US imperialism.

If the Left chose to ally with a ‘lesser evil’ – Russian or Chinese capitalism would be the likely choice. While Leftists, who sign pacts with capitalists, may end up losing their own identities, when faced with a hostile US-centered bloc the survival of a Leftist regime dictates the need to take risks by establishing such ties.

The best option is to avoid any political alliance while seeking favorable trade and investment agreements to diversify the economy, trade and investment sources and provide ‘negotiating’ leverage .

Leftists under military threat cannot think of self-sufficiency but must concentrate on independence and options.

In today’s almost exclusively capitalist world, the Left has to decide whether it makes sense to speak of progressive or regressivecapitalist states or enterprises. They have to decide which is the leastregressive or repressive and dangerous economic bloc to deal with. They need to reduce the negative and extract the positive aspects from their negotiations among the competing capitalist blocs.

Criteria for Left Politics

In general terms, the left should choose to work with less militarist and more trade-oriented capitalist states because these are less prone to intervene violently on behalf of their multi-national corporations or embark on ‘regime change’ campaigns against leftist governments, which have been elected to nationalize strategic assets and property.

For this reason Chinese-Russian capitalists are less malignant than those within the US-EU bloc.

Capitalists, willing to invest in minority shares of joint public-private enterprises, are better than those who demand majority shares and managerial control over strategic national assets.

Capitalists, willing to finance local research and development and transfer technology, are preferable to those who monopolize their technology in their ‘imperial headquarters’.

Capitalists, willing to add value and invest in the local ‘chain of production’ make better partners than to those who simply invest in raw material extraction, exporting ‘raw materials’ and importing finished goods. China has been notorious in pursuing this model of naked ‘colonial extraction’, which does not advance the economies of the resource-rich countries. However recently, Latin American, African and Asian governments have started to demand that China invest more heavily in local manufacturing and processing sectors.

Capitalists who invest in infrastructure linking domesticproducers to each other through a ‘grid pattern’ bring more long-term economic benefit than those who operate through a ‘spoke infrastructure’, where transport networks are built exclusively to foreign-owned operations in order to bring raw materials directly to export ports.

It is better to work with capitalists who invest in ‘integrated manufacturing complexes’ with high percentage of local suppliers than speculators and capitalists who set up low skill assembly plants using imported parts.

All capitalists seek to maximize market shares and profits by securing tax breaks, finding sources of cheap, docile labor with minimal environmental and workplace protection and easy remittances of profits. The question for the Left is which capitalists are flexible and open to making concessions on these local issues?

Over the past decade, the US capitalist bloc has increased domestic inequalities, cut social expenditures and undermined labor unions and workplace protections.

For their part, over the past two decades, China and Russia have gone through a period of intense concentration of wealth, spiraling inequality, wholesale dismantling of social welfare programs and privatization of resources, banks and factories – all in the course of their headlong transition to capitalism. However, during the last 10 years, Russian workers have benefited from a substantial economic recovery and Chinese workers have secured double-digit wage increases – in contrast to workers in the West with shrinking incomes.

The Left shouldn’t expect to find any expression of labor solidarity from either capitalist bloc but is more likely to negotiate concessions from the East, without the threat of military intervention or ‘regime change’ it confronts from the West.

Clearly there are dangers in dealing with capitalists of any complexion or bloc: US-centered capitalists threaten financial destabilization; Russian oligarchs engaged in pillage and gangster-capitalism in their ascent to state power. Neither should be allowed easy entry and quick exit in any economic relations.

Conclusion

For Left governments, operating in a capitalist world, there are no permanent allies; there are only permanent interests. The distinctions should be very clear.

Foreign market-oriented capitalism, which increases theproductive forces, creating value and raising the proportion of wage workers, can help provide the material basis for the state to socialize the economy – if it operates under strict control.

In contrast, militarized capitalism, like that of the US, poses a constant security threat and is a drain on the resources of any leftist government.

In an insecure world, and under the conditions of an unfavorable balance of power, it is best to tactically ally oneself with emergingcapitalists, who may have their own reasons for opposing established imperialism. However, the Left must never give up control of their strategic economic sectors.

The Chinese-Russian bloc has its own set of oligarchs and billionaires, exploiters and speculators, but these are not accompanied by imperial state-directed street mobs and saboteurs, militarists and Special Forces.

Left governments should not idealize their relations with tactical allies. Russia and China have betrayed agreements with Left governments when they capitulated under threats and enticements from the US-EU bloc.

‘Agreements’, whether with tactical allies or strategic adversaries, should serve to expand and strengthen the social presence, power and influence of the working class in the economy and state. That should be the strategic priority for Left governments as they navigate in these treacherous waters.

The world has suddenly realised that there is a “refugee crisis”. There are more refugees now than at any time since World War II. The number has grown three-fold since the end of 2001. The problem is treated as if it arose just recently, but it has been a long time coming. The pressure has been building and building until it has burst the dams of wilful ignorance.

Death and despair has migrated to the doorsteps of Europe. But people do not simply abandon home and native land for an insecure dangerous future of desperate struggle. The forces that have created this crisis are massive and historic in scale. People are now confronted with a tiny fraction of the horrors that have been visited upon millions and millions in the last 14 years. The refugee crisis is merely a symptom of the far greater and far more brutal reality. This is not just a “current crisis” to last a dozen news cycles, and it will not be resolved by humanitarian support.

The current crisis is similar in magnitude to that of World War II because the events causing it are nearly as epochal and momentous as a World War. Those who leave their homelands now face much greater peril of death than asylum seekers faced 20 years ago, yet despite this their numbers have swollen to the tens of millions.

The crisis has been caused by a new Holocaust, but it is one we refuse to acknowledge. The facts of the mass violence and mass destruction are not hidden. We can see the destruction and death that follows Western intervention, but we have been living in wilful ignorance and denial, just as the Germans denied the obvious fact and nature of German genocide. We don’t want to understand. However, like the Germans under Nazism, our self-serving ignorance is nurtured and magnified by a propaganda discourse that is in our news and entertainment media, and also in our halls of education and the halls of power.

We do not understand the genocidal nature of US-led Western interventions because we do not understand the nature of genocide. We have allowed Zionist and US imperialist elites to dictate that genocide be understood through a lens of Holocaust exceptionalism. But genocide was never meant to be specifically Nazi nor anti-Semitic in nature. The word “genocide” was coined by a Jew, Raphael Lemkin, but was never intended to apply specifically to Jews. It was meant to describe a strategy of deliberately visiting violence and destruction on “nations and peoples” as opposed to visiting it on armies. Lemkin wrote a great deal about genocide against the native people’s of the Americas, but that work went unpublished.

The truth is that there is widespread genocide in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. A new Holocaust is upon us and the refugee numbers are the just tip of a genocidal iceberg. By bombing, invading, destabilising, subverting, Balkanising, sanctioning, corrupting, indebting, debasing, destroying, assassinating, immiserating and even enraging, the US has led “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups….” That is where tens of millions of refugees have come from, but we refuse to see the fact of coordination. We blind ourselves to clear indications of Western agency and intentionality. We twist ourselves in knots to avoid seeing coherence or any pattern in US foreign policy. We are blinded by nonsense from pundits about party-political rhetoric and power struggles in DC, and we ignore the monolithic elephant of coherent imperial strategy that is threatening to crash through the floor and destroy the room altogether.

Westerners don’t want to face the truth of what their governments are doing – particularly NATO governments, and the US government most of all. The millions who died in Iraq were victims of a genocide that was intended to kill Iraqis in such numbers. The victims were not incidental to some other project. The same was true in Viet Nam, but it is also true in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, in Somalia, in the DR Congo, and in many other places. The destruction, the death, the misery and the chaos are not “failures” of “ill-advised” policy. This is not even some sort of “Plan-B” where the US creates failed states when it cannot install the regime it wants. This is Plan-A and it is becoming harder and harder to deny the fact.

Wars no longer end. We cannot simply pretend that there is no reason for that. Wars no longer end because instability and conflict are the deliberate means of attacking the people – the means of destroying their nations as such. That is what “genocide” means, and that is why we avoid the knowledge. This knowledge will destroy comforting delusions and reveal the cowardly false critiques of those who think that the US government is “misguided” in its attempts to bring stability. The US doesn’t bring stability, it doesn’t seek to bring stability. It destabilises one country after another. It infects entire regions with a disease of acute or chronic destruction, dysfunction and death.

This is a Neo-Holocaust. It slowly builds and grinds. It is the gradual, frog-boiling way to commit genocide. And, like the dullard masses of a dystopian satire, we keep adjusting every time it presents us with a new “normal”. It is a postmodern, neocolonial Holocaust of mass death and mass deprivation. It rises and falls in intensity, but will not end until the entire world awakes and ends it in revulsion.

“Crisis”

There are now more refugees than at any time since World War II. It bears repeating. The numbers have tripled since 9/11 and the launch of what has been labelled the “Global War on Terror” and the “Long War”. The situation has become akin to that in World War II, but we seem to be quite comfortable treating it as if it wasn’t a response to a single phenomenon. In WWII it was self-evident that people were fleeing war and genocide, but we apparently accept the tripling of refugee numbers now as resulting from all sorts of different causes. The only factor we are supposed to perceive as linking these crises appears to be Islamist terrorism, even though in the most prominent cases the terrorism arrives after the Western intervention and conflict.

We can no longer excuse the habit of treating each victim of US/NATO intervention as having separate endogenous sources of conflict. Yes, there are ethnic and religious fissures in countries, and yes there are economic and environmental crises which create instability. But, when the opportunity arises weapons flood into these hotspots. There is always an influx of arms. It is the great constant. But many other thing might also happen, particularly economic destabilisation and “democracy promotion”. There is no single playbook from which the US and its partners are making all their moves. There are major direct interventions, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, and the creation of South Sudan. There are proxy interventions such as the bombing of Yemen, incursions into DR Congo, and fomenting civil war in Syria. Add into this the continuous covert interventions, economic interventions, destabilisations, sanctions, coups, debt crises then you can see a differentiated complex of systematic genocide that very closely resembles the differentiated complex of systematic genocide initially described by Raphael Lemkin in 1944.

The tempo of violence that exists now does not even match that of the bombing during the Korean War, let alone the enormous scale of violence of World War II. However, the difference is that this violence never ends. It seems destined to continue for eternity and the scale of death continues to creep upwards. I cannot shake the feeling that if Germany had not been at war, Nazi genocide policies would have been enacted at the same slowly accumulating pace. The destruction and the violence are often meted out by enemies of the United States, but I think people are beginning to grasp that to some extent the US is often the creator and sponsor of these enemies. Moreover these enemies are often materially dependent on the US either directly or through allied regimes.

Cumulatively, this has still become an historic era of mass death that in some respects resembles the “hyperexploitation” and socio-economic destruction of “Scramble for Africa” and in other respects resembles German genocide policies in occupied Europe. In future, when people come to add up the human cost of this new Holocaust they won’t be trying to prove their credibility by being conservative. Conservatism in such matters is nothing but purposeful inaccuracy and bias. When they calculate all of the excess mortality that has resulted from military, proxy, covert and economic intervention by the West in the post-9/11 era it will be in the tens of millions. It is already of the same order of magnitude as the Nazi Holocaust, and it is far from over.

We see a drowned boy in on a beach and the suffering strikes home. That is a tragedy, but the obscenity is not in the death of a small child. The obscenity is in the fact that it was an act of murder by Western states. Now try to picture what that obscenity looks like multiplied, and multiplied, and multiplied until the boy, Aylan Kurdi, is just a grain of sand on that beach. It seems almost serene, but that is an illusion. We are socialised to lack what is called “statistical empathy” and that lack makes us irrational. Whenever we face the statistics of human pain and loss we must learn to counter this unnatural detachment by making ourselves face the full individual humanity of victims. The key to understanding the Holocaust is not to obsess about the evil Nazi race hatred and cruel machinery of death, it is to picture a child dying in agony in the dark of a crowded gas chamber and to juxtapose that with the callous indifference of Germans, of French, of English and of many others to the fate of that child at the time.

Without compassion, we are intellectually as well as morally stunted. Understanding the ongoing holocaust means you must picture a burned child dying slowly, crying for help that will never come, in the dark rubble of a shelled home next to the corpses of her mother and father. Now juxtapose that with the callous indifference we are induced to feel until we are told that it is officially a crime committed by villains rather than regrettable collateral damage stemming from benignly intended Western acts. After the fact we care, but at that time of the Judeocide almost every country sent Jewish refugees back to certain death. People reacted with callousness and also vile contempt to Jewish refugees, almost exactly like the British tourists who have recently wished mass death on the “tides of filth” that are ruining their playground on the Greek isle of Kos.

To avoid the truth, we select only certain victims as being worthy and fully human. When it becomes officially correct to feel compassion, we create cartoon villains to blame who, by their very conception, are aberrations and departures from a systemic norm. It might be the Zionist lobby, or Netanyahu or Trump or the Kochs or the military-industrial complex, but it must be something other than business as usual. This thinking is cowardice. It is stupidity. It is self-serving. It is morally and intellectually bankrupt. There is a new Holocaust happening now and it is the logical outcome of US imperialism.

In the final analysis, the refugees are the result of years of conflict, destruction and suffering. The scariest thing is that we are incapable of stopping the progress of this plague because we will not face up to the principles behind it. It has become a one-way street. Areas that are lost to civil strife can never find peace. Cities reduced to rubble can never be rebuilt. Communities that are torn apart can never again knit together. Worse will come and it will not end until the US empire is destroyed. Please let us find a way to do that without another World War.

Kieran Kelly blogs at On Genocide.

At the beginning of August the Sao Paulo Forum, the multi variegated assembly of the Latin American left, met in Mexico City. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1990, when this significant forum was founded by a small group of parties and movements. At that time, there was only one left party in government and power, across the entire continent, the Communist Party of Cuba. Today, 25 years later, parties belonging to the forum form part of the governments in more than 10 countries.

Moreover, the regular meetings held by the continental left to discuss and develop common strategies have led to significant progress in the direction of major social and political transformations. The situation is not, however, a bed of roses. The counter-offensive of the continental right and the United States is ever present and increasingly insidious. Thus, without detracting in any way from the many positive achievements obtained so far that have significantly changed the material conditions of life of millions of people, it seems useful here to seek to identify some problematic areas for the immediate future.

Low intensity Coup

The counter-offensive assumes different forms, voices and players according to the differing conditions and cultural features of the different countries, but there is a common thread running through the whole continent. In Greece the former finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has said that the banks have replaced the tanks. Something similar is at work here where the present strategy appears far more sophisticated and refined in relation to the more overtly brutal methods of the past .

The repressive days of civic-military dictatorships imposed by bloody coups and maintained by terror, now seem distant. The new brain child of the Washington “think tanks” is the strategy of “Golpes Blandos”, the ” low intensity coup “, which has been evident in recent years in both Honduras and Paraguay (where the institutional coups succeeded), as well as in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador (where they failed). Although no doubt provisional and subject to recursive modification “in progress”, this policy is still operative, as we have seen in recent months.

Today, to paraphrase an expression dear to the left in the old times, the right-wing has adopted an incremental utilization of a “combination of forms of struggle”. Contemporary fire power is made up of an assemblage of financial capital (vulture funds against Argentina, speculation and manipulation on the currency in Venezuela, etc.), diplomatic pressure, strengthening of the military presence under the pretext of the “war on drugs” and “narco-terrorism” ( Mexico and Colombia), operations of “psychological warfare”, articulated with selective assassinations of political and social leaders (Venezuela, El Salvador), with the use of common crime (El Salvador) and paramilitary groups (Honduras, Venezuela) to strike terror, street mobilization (Brazil, Ecuador), economic sabotage and hoarding of essential goods to provoke discontent in the population (Venezuela), claims for autonomy (Bolivia), and attempts of institutional fractures.

Tribunals versus government

The “low intensity coup” also has a legal office, with almost the entire judiciary still dominated by the usual “big powers” actively onside, overtly or covertly according to the specific scenarios (El Salvador, Brazil). In El Salvador, for example, the erstwhile judges of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice are trying to strangle the government financially, by declaring unconstitutional the issuance of Treasury bills to cover social policies. At the same time they have solemnly defended the “freedom of expression” of a dozen soldiers arrested because they wanted to march heavily armed on parliament to demand a salary increase.

The so called “fight against corruption” has also been transformed into another instance of the courts working at the service of the political and economic right, with the added irony of Washington dispensing lessons of “transparency and morality”. The case of Brazil is the most obvious, but not the only one. Progressive governments are accused of corruption, often without a shred of evidence, thanks to the operations of spectacular mediatic trials, conducted in parallel to the real courts, which celebrate premature convictions and thus prepare the terrain for the attacks of the judiciary. This is not to deny cases of corruption in the left (which must be prosecuted and condemned in the strongest terms), but to warn against naivety about the instrumental use that is made of such a sensitive issue.

Memory is short, and so corruption becomes a problem of today, and not as it is a physiological issue, a structural feature of the capitalist scene. Past corruption vanishes, as do the perverse intrigues and complex ties linking economic, political and judicial power that characterized, among others, the years of the neo-liberal orgy and of the assault on diligence, with the privatization of public enterprises. Pinochet’s Chile is only the most brazen case, where a dozen oligarchic families further enriched in the shadows of the dictatorship, are still unpunished thanks to the “pact of transition” to democracy.

Colombia: a never-ending conflict

The Latin American left is deeply concerned about the conflict in Colombia, which has been going on for over half a century. Despite hopes of the ongoing dialogue between the government and the FARC-Ep guerrillas (and its possible extension to the other guerrilla group ELN), the picture emerging from this social and armed conflict is dramatic. Colombia has about six and a half million internally displaced people due to land theft, carried out by murders, threats and pressures of different kinds. The data of the Fiscalía (State Prosecutor), a state institution, show at least fifty thousand detainees desaparecidos, almost the double of those that we know to be victims of the Argentine dictatorship.

There are almost half a million exiles and more than 9,000 t political prisoners. There have been more than 5,500 extra-judicial executions carried out by the Armed Forces from 2002 to today (over only 10 years). They concern innocent civilians killed and then passed off as guerrillas to demonstrate the effectiveness of the military action. We know them as falsos positivos, and is one of the types of forced disappearance.

The media war

The overriding element in this ongoing war is the unscrupulous and shameless use of media artillery, highly effective and noted for taking no prisoners.
Much has been written about the role of the “party of the media” as important opposition force to “progressive” governments in the region. The discursive construction of “common sense” according to the requirements of the hour, the extreme concentration of news power, the “media’s landlords”, the role of the corporations and their spin doctors in the strategy of supranational destabilization, the modern use of “social networks” are all structural elements of power and its continental counter-offensive. Malcolm X’s 1960’s warning comes to mind. “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing”.

Media power has also been responsible for significant political gains for the right against Venezuela government (and not only), able to form alliances with some sectors of the former global Social-democracy (including the Brazilian Fernando Enrique Cardoso, the Chilean Ricardo Lagos, the Argentine Hermes Binner, the Spanish Felipe Gonzales). Even Isabel Allende, (President Salvador Allende’s daughter and actually president of the Chilean PS) sensationally defined the Venezuelan process a “military dictatorship” and demanded the release of coup plotters as “political prisoners”.

Errors, developmentalism and technocracy

Though, it’s not all their merit…..
To this multifaceted offensive, we have to sum the errors made, and some “criticalities” of several progressive governments, which, by the way, suffer a reduction of economic resources at their disposal due to the global economic crisis.

The first critical element is a kind of inertia, fatal to the process of change, and affecting different spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life. At times it appears almost as a form of resting on the laurels of the many and undeniable social achievements.

However this inertia demobilizes and weakens political participation. Although it’s true that since the beginning of the cycle of electoral victories, the Left has never lost in any of the countries, today the conditions are very different from the past and the future electoral challenges are anything but downhill.
Another extremely important challenge lies in elaborating an adequate response to the impact of the global crisis and the contraction in Chinese (and European) demand, in a region where the presence of the Asian giant has been significantly entrenched for some time.

The collapse in the prices of “commodities” (starting from oil, whose market value has fallen almost by half in the last twelve months) has also dramatically reduced the resources available for social policies.

Another element is the continental integration process, which is still far too slow. Just think about the “Bank of the South”, launched back in 2008, when both Hugo Chavez and Nestor Kirchner were still alive, and still clearly having difficulty getting off the ground. There is awareness, in the debate, of the vital necessity of integration as a shield, as a form of self-defence in the face of the international crisis. However, at the same time, there is a lack of a program of integration and the necessary complementary action from below, which is not only economic, but also social, cultural and within the trade unions. Although this debate is beginning within the inter governmental arena, it is still too hesitant in the organizations of the left and within the social movements.

Some governments also manifest a rather technocratic top-down vision, which does not help dialogue with sectors that, as a result, are more likely to end up in the arms of the opposition. It gives the right-wing greater possibility to co-opt some social movements without adequate responses from governments. Apart from the old-fashion fascist organizations, this modern right-wing is determined and ruthless, and is adept in adopting instrumental and chameleonic positions. It takes on the language of the moderate left and, if necessary, even forms alliances with sectors of the “ultra-left” which often tries to radicalize. Cynically espouses environmentalism and the cause of “indigenous people”, and fills its mouth with human rights and freedom of expression.

In Mexico City there was evident concern for the crisis in the European Union, for its impact on the European populations and on the economies of Latin America and the Caribbean. There was as well a renewed interest in the fortunes of the left in the old continent, with a focus on the Greek situation and the upcoming elections in Spain, Portugal and Ireland.

However, back in Latin America, the main focus remains on the “development model”, still based on the extractivism of natural resources, (resulting in “re-primaryization” of the economy, without significant capacity of added value) and on some kind of “developmentism”. Certainly the impact of the crisis on the budgets of progressive governments makes the need to “fulfil national budget” more urgent, and thus finding resources to develop public policies to meet the enormous social needs is often in conflict with other social and environmental concerns.

It is very easy to criticize right-wing and moderate governments for their uncontrolled environmental depredations. It is more difficult to express the “right to criticize” the post-neoliberal, “progressive” or “friendly” governments. Conversely, it is easier to be in opposition than in government (in many cases not in power) having to act effectively in adverse conditions, organizing grassroots participation.

But environmental sustainability and a harmonious relationship between human presence and nature has nothing to do with forms of borrowed “ecological fundamentalism”. It ‘s too easy to dismiss the demands of social movements and the left who maintain their autonomy, as being instrumental or in the pay of the reactionary right. And despite the years, the social base of the processes of change does not always count on a stable, solid, and mass organization.
The current debates (and especially the concrete practices) are still insufficient, particularly regarding the contradiction capital-nature, or the “sustainable” use of the underground resources (and others), or productive diversification. In other words regarding the content of the “socialism of the 21st century” as an alternative to this development model.

An urgent debate is necessary, without possible shortcuts.

The Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) says the country is leaning towards direct ruble-yen currency swaps, as Western sanctions are making it difficult to conduct business using US dollar transactions.

“We’re now studying that [the effects of ruble devaluation]. We need some of the swap arrangements with the local banks. We are elaborating opportunities with Russian banks such as Gazprombank, VTB, VEB… Because of the US sanctions, we cannot use the US dollar anymore, we have to switch to other currencies,” JBIC’s senior managing director Tadashi Maeda told Sputnik news agency on Thursday on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok.

The interest rate is very high and could “hinder” swaps, Maeda added, talking about the use of the Russian ruble.

People cross a busy junction outside the nightlife district in Shinjuku in Tokyo. © Thomas Peter / Reuters

In December, the central banks of China and Russia effectively switched to domestic currencies in trading using swaps and forwards as a way of reducing the influence of the US dollar and foreign exchange risks. The three-year 150 billion yuan swap arrangement has boosted trade turnover between the two countries, which has already reaching $88.4 billion. Moscow and Beijing expect trade turnover to reach $100 billion in 2015.

Starting in 2011 in Libya, the United States dropped bombs on Libya in order to replace Muammar Gaddafi. The EU is now tearing itself apart with guilt-feelings at European nations’ responses to the refugee-crisis that was caused by this American bombing-campaign in Libya, and then by the one in Syria.

Europe has also received refugees from the American-sponsored bombing-campaign in eastern Ukraine (the bombing-campaign that the 2014 American-installed anti-Russian Ukrainian government calls an ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation,’ or ‘ATO,’ which labels the residents in that pro-Russian area — where the residents reject the February 2014 U.S. coup — as ‘Terrorists’ and thus as being suitable to be bombed, and even firebombed).

And yet, despite these millions of U.S.-caused refugees into Europe, European nations still permit U.S. troops to remain stationed on European soil decades after the entire reason for NATO’s very existence (which was protection of Europe against a communist invasion from the east) ended. (The Soviet Union’s equivalent Warsaw Pact had dissolved and ended in 1991, when the Soviet Union itself did — yet NATO continued on, and constantly touts ‘the Russian threat,’ just as it did the Soviet threat, as if there were no change when communism collapsed, as if the ideological reason for the Cold War had been fake all along. There is no justification whatsoever for «the New Cold War».) Russia is now responding to this new American-created hostility of Europeans against Russia, by its matching this newly transformed now anti-Russian NATO’s war-games against Russia, with similar Russian defensive maneuvers to prepare for an increasingly possible NATO invasion into Russia.

So: the current refugee-crisis was, in fact, caused by America’s continuing obsession to destroy Russia — an obsession that the EU goes along with, and now suffers greatly from, not only because of loss of their Russian trading-partner, but because of the influx into Europe of millions of refugees that were caused by this New Cold War. This crisis was not caused by Russia’s defensive measures against an increasingly aggressive NATO. It was caused by U.S. aggressions, which the EU continues to endorse.

Let’s go back to the very beginning of the current crisis:

The great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann headlined on 7 October 2013 at his nsnbc news site, «Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria», and he opened:

«Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry». (The U.S. has been allied with the Saudi royal family since 1945.)

Lehmann discussed the chemical-weapons attack «in the Eastern Ghouta Suburb of Damascus on 21 August 2013,» which attack U.S. President Barack Obama was citing as his reason for planning to bomb to bring down Syria’s pro-Russian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, whom Obama was blaming for the chemical attack. However, much like another great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh subsequently reported (using different sources) in the London Review of Books on 17 April 2014, Lehmann’s even-earlier investigation found that the U.S. had set up the chemical attack, and that it was actually carried out by Islamic jihadists that the U.S. itself was supplying in Syria, through Turkey. Lehmann reported:

After the defeat of the predominantly Qatar-backed Muslim Brotherhood and Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces, which were reinforced by Libyans in June and July 2012, the U.S.-Saudi Axis was strengthened. Uncooperative Qatari-led brigades which rejected the new command structure had to be removed. The influx of Salafi-Wahhabbi fighters to Syria was documented by the International Crisis Group in their report titled «Tentative Jihad». 

Hersh’s report added to Lehmann’s, a powerful confirmation by British intelligence, which found that the source of the chemical-weapons attack couldn’t possibly have been Assad’s forces. However, the Brits, of course, didn’t publicly expose Obama’s lie; after all, just as Tony Blair had been George W. Bush’s «lap dog» in Iraq and Afghanistan, David Cameron is Obama’s lap dog in Syria and Libya.

The Libyan campaign turned Libya into a failed state, just as the Syrian campaign is doing (and as the Ukrainian campaign is also trending), and Europe is now getting the resulting refugees.

The great investigative journalist John Pilger provided the best summary description of the horrific and intentional catastrophe that Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton perpetrated upon the Libyan people. For example: «In 2011, NATO launched 9,700 ‘strike sorties’ against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that ‘most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten’». These were international war-crimes, which will never be prosecuted. Hillary Clinton expressed merry pride («We came, we saw, he died! (Laughs)») regarding what she and Obama did in killing Gaddafi, no matter how many people’s lives were destroyed in the process. Europe is reaping America’s whirlwind.

I have elsewhere explained how all three of these bombing-campaigns are part of an attempt by the Obama Administration and the Saudi royal family, to transfer away from Russia, and toward the Saudi and other Arabic royal families, Europe’s main supply-source for oil and gas.

Perhaps some EU leader will be able to explain why all EU nations don’t just kick out NATO and ally with Russia, so as to put a stop to Islamic jihad, which is funded by the royal families of the Arabic oil states, and also so as to put an end to the sources of these flows of refugees, and also to put a start to, and become a part of, the emerging Eur-Asian economic giant which will finally eclipse the corrupt declining American empire, and perhaps bring it to an end — bring to an end the world’s biggest single threat to peace, and the world’s biggest single sponsor of endless wars.

Or are EU’s leaders instead in America’s pay? Why else, for example, would Angela Merkel’s Germany in 2012 have been providing spying-assistance to the jihadist rebels in Syria? (Merkel’s spies were at the same time spying against Sahra Wagenecht and other members of the Bundestag who opposed Merkel’s anti-Russian policies). That just makes Germany’s own leader, Merkel, complicit in helping to cause the surge of Syrians who are trying to find safe haven in Germany and other European countries. (And, this way, EU leaders can then blame the rise of the far-right opposition to that influx, as if they themselves had opposed, instead of helped to cause — as they had — this influx.) The sheer corruption behind this could be incalculable. But, surely, the hypocrisy behind it is intolerable.

Why, then, do European voters accept it? (For example, why isn’t someone like Wagenecht leading Germany?) Why are U.S. lap-dogs, such as Merkel, in power? Why aren’t they repudiated? The public suffer much from them. Europe is being destroyed by them — by U.S. agents.

Do Europeans not know what is happening and why? Attaining freedom from the U.S. yoke is not nationalism; it is not right-wing: it is patriotism; it is progress, not regress. It is looking forward, not backward. It is serving the people whom one claims to represent. It is real democracy. America is no longer the nation of the Marshall Plan. That nation, sadly, has been replaced: a new group took it over, and their obsession is empire. Or, as President Obama himself has arrogantly said: «The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation». He promised to keep it that way: «That has been true for the century passed [he misspelt ‘past’ [[somebody at the White House didn’t even know the difference between ‘past’ and ‘passed’]] and it will be true for the century to come». (At least he wasn’t predicting a Thousand-Year Reich. He’s not yet quite that bad.)

He was saying that the U.S. empire must continue for at least another century. Do the people of Europe really find that acceptable, especially now that they can see where it is heading them? Real compassion for those refugees would demand getting the U.S. out of the EU. And ending NATO. Why are there not enormous public displays in the EU against America, instead of against the refugees, etc.? Do Europeans really think that the nation of the Marshall Plan still exists? If so, they are wrong. Very wrong.

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

This article was one of the first articles published by Global Research in September 2001

It’s official [2001]. The US Department of Agriculture announced that it has concluded negotiations to license the notorious Terminator technology to its seed industry partner, Delta & Pine Land (D&PL). As a result of joint research, the USDA and D&PL are co-owners of three patents on the controversial technology that genetically modifies plants to produce sterile seeds, preventing farmers from re-using harvested seed. A licensing agreement establishes the terms and conditions under which a party can use a patented technology. Although many of the Gene Giants hold patents on Terminator technology, D&PL is the only company that has publicly declared its intention to commercialize Terminator seeds. (for details, see “2001: A Seed Odyssey” RAFI Communique, January/February 2001, www.rafi.org)

USDA’s decision to license Terminator flies in the face of international public opinion and betrays the public trust,” said Hope Shand, Research Director of RAFI. “Terminator technology has been universally condemned by civil society; banned by international agricultural research institutes, censured by United Nations bodies, even shunned by Monsanto, and yet the US government has officially sanctioned commercialization of the technology by licensing it to one of the world’s largest seed companies, explains Shand.

USDA’s role in developing Terminator seeds is a disgraceful example of corporate welfare involving a technology that is bad for farmers, dangerous for the environment and disastrous for world food security,” adds Silvia Ribeiro of RAFI. Terminator has been universally opposed as an immoral technology because over 1.4 billion people, primarily poor farmers, depend on farm-saved seeds as their primary seed source.

Michael Schechtman, Executive Secretary to USDA’s Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, made the official announcement regarding the licensing of Terminator at the Committee’s August 1 meeting. The 38-member Advisory Committee, established during the Clinton administration, was created to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on issues related to growing public controversy over GM technology. Because of overwhelming public opposition to USDA’s involvement with Terminator, the issue became a top priority for the Advisory Committee. USDA officials admitted last year that the Agency had the option of abandoning patents on Terminator, but chose not to do so. Although many members of the Biotech Advisory Committee urged the USDA to abandon its patents and forsake all further research on genetic seed sterilization, the USDA steadfastly declined. The official statement released by USDA this week states that the Agency “had a legal obligation” to license the technology to D&PL.

In a lackluster attempt to quell its critics, the USDA pledged to negotiate licensing restrictions on how the Terminator technology could be deployed by Delta & Pine Land. “In the end, the restrictions negotiated by USDA are meaningless,” concludes Michael Sligh, RAFI-USA’s Director of Sustainable Agriculture, and member of the Biotech Advisory Committee. According to Sligh, “USDA’s promotion of Terminator technology puts private profits above public good and the rights of farmers everywhere.” Sligh spearheaded efforts amongst Advisory Board members who urged the USDA to abandon Terminator.

USDA places the following conditions on D&PL’s deployment of Terminator:

The licensed Terminator technology will not be used in any heirloom varieties of garden flowers and vegetables and it will not be used in any variety of plant available in the marketplace before January 1, 2003.

RAFI’s Comment:

In other words, Terminator will not be commercialized, at the earliest, until 2003 – only 17 months from now. To suggest that USDA is protecting heirloom varieties from genetic seed sterilization technology is ludicrous. There’s no money to be made on genetic modification of heirloom vegetables and flowers. The seed industry aims to engineer seed sterility in major crop commodities – especially those crops that have not been successfully hybridized on a commercial scale such as soybeans, rice and wheat.)

USDA scientists will be involved in safety testing of new varieties incorporating the GM trait for seed sterility, and a full and public process of safety evaluation must be completed prior to regulatory sign-off by USDA.

RAFI’s comment:

Can USDA play a role in both developing and regulating this technology? Is it a blatant conflict of interest for the agency to conduct a biosafety review of a product in which it holds a financial interest?

All royalties accruing to USDA from the use of Terminator will be earmarked to technology transfer efforts for USDA’s Agricultural Research Service innovations that will be made widely available to the public.

RAFI’s comment:

“Technology transfer” is a very broad concept. Terminator seeds in every foreign aid package? More paper clips for ARS patent lawyers?

USDA concludes that Terminator “is a valuable technology.” Ironically, the agency promotes Terminator as a “green” technology that will prevent gene flow from transgenic plants.

We reject the notion that Terminator is a biosafety bandage for GM crops with leaky genes, but even if it were, biosafety at the expense of food security is unacceptable, concludes RAFI’s Silvia Ribeiro.

Last year the FAO’s Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture concluded that Terminator seeds are unethical. When heads of state meet at FAO’s World Food Summit Five Years Later in Rome, 9-15 November, they will have the opportunity to re-affirm that finding, and recommend that member nations ban the technology. In keeping with its image as a rogue, isolationist state in international treaty negotiations on global warming and biological weapons, the US also appears to stand alone on Terminator.

Delta & Pine Land (Mississippi, USA) is the world’s 9th largest seed corporation, with revenues of $301 million in 2000. The company has joint ventures and/or subsidiaries in North America, Brazil, Argentina, China, Mexico, Paraguay, South Africa, Australia, and China. [ back to text ]

RAFI is an international civil society organization based in Canada. We are dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and to the socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. [ back to text ]

Four hundred million Indians—one quarter of India’s population—have no electricity, but as far as the United States and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are concerned, they can keep sitting in the dark.

On Wednesday, it was announced that a WTO dispute panel had found that India’s subsidies for solar power contravene WTO trade rules. India must now remove the subsidies or face trade sanctions.

The United States filed the WTO complaint in 2013. The US alleged that India’s subsidies for the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (NSM) discriminate against foreign suppliers of solar components.

The National Solar Mission is essential to India’s goal of increasing the share of renewables in the country’s energy mix. India currently produces 255 gigawatts of electricity. 71% of that is generated from coal (International Energy Agency, 2012). Only 3 gigawatts of India’s electricity is produced from solar power, 20 gigawatts from wind power. Established in 2010, as part of India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, NSM’s ambitious goal is to generate 100 gigawatts of electricity annually from solar power by 2022, according to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.

The subsidies which provoked the ire of the United States are in the form of Domestic Content Requirements (DCRs). These mandate that a set proportion of specified materials used in the NSM must be manufactured in India. In Phase I of the NSM, the DCRs only covered solar cells and solar modules. From the US standpoint, that was bearable: US companies export few solar cells and solar modules to India. What worried the US was that India might extend the DCRs to include solar thin film technologies. US exports of thin film technologies have dominated the Indian market. US fears were realized in October 2013 when Phase II of NSM extended the DCRs to include thin film technologies.

The WTO decision issued privately to the two nations last week agreed with the United States that India’s DCRs discriminate against foreign manufacturers. This was no surprise. A few years earlier, Ontario had launched a similar effort to encourage the growth of solar power. Japan and the European Union objected to the local content requirements (LCRs) included in Ontario’s Green Economy and Green Ecology Act (GEA). In 2013, the WTO Appellate Body ruled that the GEA’s local content requirements were discriminatory.

Oddly, the trade dispute has taken place at a time when the two countries, at least on the surface, appear to be on good terms. Even stranger, the US is providing its own subsidies to assist India’s solar sector. The US has pledged to provide India with $4 billion to foster the growth of Indian solar power. On November 18, 2014, the two nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) under which the US Export-Import Bank agreed to broker up to one billion dollars in low-interest loans for development of renewable energy sources in India. The MoU was signed two months after the WTO, acting at the behest of the US, established a dispute settlement panel to hear the US challenge to India’s subsidies for solar power.

The Ex-Im Bank is currently in limbo, but that does not affect $2 billion in loans for Indian solar energy from the US Trade and Development Agency or a $1 billion loan from the federal Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Now that the WTO has struck down India’s DCRs, all that money can go to purchasing solar equipment from US corporations. So US subsidies to India serve double duty as subsidies to US corporations.

President Obama visited India in January for a summit with Prime Minister Nahendra Modi. Did the US attack on India in the WTO produce friction between the two leaders? Not so you could tell. It was all smiles between Obama and Modi.

Enviros had hoped that the summit would result in a climate deal similar to the one Obama made with China in November 2014. In November, the US agreed to cut its carbon emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. China pledged that its emissions would cease to grow by 2030. The agreement is non-binding.

No such deal was reached at the Indian summit. Obama and Modi did release a peppy Joint Statement on January 27, 2015. Buried among proposals for cooperation on technology, trade, investment, communications, defense, and education are two paragraphs on clean energy and climate change. India and the US agree to work together to curb emissions. Yet unlike the China deal, no targets are set, making this no more than a feel-good assurance.

In fact, Modi has little interest in cutting carbon emissions which he regards, reasonably enough, as the responsibility of the developed countries. India’s carbon emissions of 1.7 tons per person each year are dwarfed by the Bigfoot-sized carbon footprint of the US: 17 tons for each US citizen each year (World Bank figures for 2011).

US Double Standard on Energy Subsidies

The US attack on India’s energy subsidies represents breathtaking hypocrisy. The US itself provides subsidizes for renewables. Over the past five years, federal subsidies for renewable energy have averaged $39 billion a year. The IRS provides a 30% investment tax credit for solar power. LCRs are part of many state and federal projects in the United States. India has called attention to LCRs attached to renewable energy programs in Michigan, Texas, and California. Apart from renewables, water utilities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and parts of New England include LCRs.

India could bring a legal challenge against these subsidies. India has taken what often is the first step leading up to a WTO complaint. India has served questions on the US through the WTO asking the US to explain how its subsidies are consistent with WTO rules. But India has not gone on to file a complaint against subsidies for renewables in the US. Nor has India filed an anti-dumping complaint against the US for selling solar materials in India below cost.

And while the US sends up howls of protest that India’s DCRs constitute protectionism, the US protects its own solar sector. The US imposed tariffs against Chinese solar. China successfully challenged the US tariffs in the WTO.

Why hasn’t India dragged the US before the WTO? The answer, unsurprisingly, is money. Modi’s goal of expanding India’s reliance on renewables is achievable, but it won’t come cheap. It will take at least $100 billion in new investment. More than half of that $100 billion is going to have to come from overseas, specifically the United States. India won’t see a dime of that if it takes the US to the WTO.

So Modi had no choice but to grin for the cameras with his pal Obama at the January summit. India has been able to resist US urging that it set targets for emissions cuts, but other than that the US has gotten everything from India that it wants.

Subsidizing Climate Change

If anything, US subsidies for renewables are too stingy. Not so, US subsidies for fossil fuels. US subsidies for fossil fuels top $15 billion per year. The International Monetary Fund projects fossil fuel subsidies of $333 billion worldwide in 2015. It makes sense when you think about it. Some organizations would not survive without subsidies, like your local ballet company or ExxonMobil or BP.

Imagine that subsidies for fossil fuels were eliminated worldwide. According to an estimate from Faith Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, eliminating subsidies for oil, gas, and coal would cut world GHG emissions in half. This move alone would keep the planet under the 2 C limit required to avert a global environmental catastrophe.

The developed countries know this. And they are concerned about how fossil fuel subsidies contribute to climate change. At its 2009 summit in Pittsburgh, the G20 counties committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Since then, fossil fuel subsidies have only increased. Looking solely at the United States, since Obama took office in 2009 federal subsidies for fossil fuel production and exploration have climbed 45%. Federal subsidies for fossil fuel production and exploration are only a portion of all US subsidies for fossil fuels.

The National Solar Mission will survive; the WTO decision only strikes down the NSM’s domestic content restrictions. However, removing the DCRs may hobble the project. The WTO may have made it more difficult for India to create a future in which all Indians have electricity without the need to pump more carbon emissions into Earth’s atmosphere. The WTO decision confirms yet again that neoliberalism always favors trade over environmental protection. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) contains all the same features which enabled the WTO’s decision against India’s solar subsidies. Currently, negotiations over the TPP are stalled due to Canada’s resistance to allowing US entry into the Canadian dairy market. Good—the TPP may blow up on the launch pad. If it doesn’t, expect TPP attacks on the environment which will rival—or even surpass—the WTO’s latest decision.

The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) on Sunday morning started the construction of a security fence along the Occupied Palestine-Jordan borders.

According to the Israeli public radio, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and war minister Moshe Ya’alon are expected to announce, in the course of the weekly cabinet meeting, the launch of the construction project near the borders with Jordan

The first 30-kilometer stretch of the separation fence is set to run from Eilat to the outskirts of the new airport.

Occupied Palestine shares a border of 360 kilometers with Jordan.

If there was any doubt about what constitutes at least part of the agenda behind the shameless media exploitation of the refugee crisis, it’s been entirely eliminated in the hours since our first piece on this was published. Since then we have had BBC revelations that UK ministers are arguing for “military action in Syria”, followed by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian (“Aylan Kurdi: this one small life has shown us the way to tackle the refugee crisis”) echoing the anonymous editorial we quoted in our previous piece.

After a few paras of rather perfunctory sentiment about little Aylan Kurdi and the wider human tragedy he embodies, Freedland delivers the kicker.

Action for refugees means not only a welcome when they arrive, but also a remedy for the problem that made them leave. The people now running from Syria have concluded that it is literally uninhabitable: it is a place where no one can live. They have come to that conclusion slowly, after four years of murderous violence. To make them think again would require action a thousand miles away from the level of the district council, an international effort to stop not just the killers of Isis but also Bashar al-Assad’s barrel bombs.

That might mean the creation of safe havens and no-fly zones. More trenchant voices say the bombs won’t stop until anti-Assad rebels can fire back with anti-aircraft weaponry….

So, there we have it. The agenda. Delivered soft, and oblique, but even clearer than before. In order to save the refugees we need more war, not less. We have to get rid of Assad. We have to arm the “rebels” with “anti-aircraft weaponry.” (which “rebels” does Freedland mean? Al Nusra? Al Qaeda? ISIS? Is he seriously advocating givingany of these lunatics surface to air missiles?).

It’s official. Orwell was right. War really is peace.

Unsurprisingly it doesn’t matter to the ethically dyslexic Freedland any more than it does to the anonymous author of the “Guardian View” that many claim it is western intervention and western-backed terrorists that have made parts of Syria “literally uninhabitable”. He and the rest of the mainstream journos just don’t care thatHuman Rights Watch and the British media have been caught using wrongly attributed footage to “prove” their claims about “Assad’s barrel bombs”, just as the BBC and the US government used lies and fake footage about chemical weapons last time they wanted to prime us for war with Syria.

Interesting to note, by the way, that Freedland’s wording “creation of safe havens and no-fly zones” is almost identical to the Anonymous editorial’s “the establishment of credible safe havens and the implementation of a no-fly zone”. Are these two gents just coincidentally thinking along extremely similar lines on the same day? I suspect we’ll probably be seeing a lot more repetition of the “creation of safe havens and no-fly zones” meme over the next few weeks, unless something stops this roll-out in its tracks.

Yes, the war agenda is rolling out again. And this time the warmongers are hoping to take us all with them on a tidal wave of outrage and empathy. They think nothing of exploiting the pain and tragedy they have created in order to get our endorsement to do more of the same. They hope to whip up such a surge of feeling in us, such a need to ‘do something’ we’ll sign off on their war before we even notice what’s being asked of us.

I hope no one falls for this latest desperate bid to get western troops in to Syria. I hope people won’t mistake the cheap media hysteria and even cheaper theatrics for real compassion. I hope we all refuse to be manipulated and remember Aylan Kurdi and all the other dead and misplaced souls deserve better than to be exploited as a cynical excuse for more murder and more human misery.

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.’ David Cameron speech to National Security Council 13 May 2015

The Cameron government would have us believe that the solution to the terrorist threats facing the British people lie in combating ”extremist ideologies” and bringing out more repressive laws such as the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This repressive piece of legislation is a recipe for injustice and seeks to criminalise non-violent speech and protest.

According to Liberty it contains:

 …a raft of proposals as unsafe as they are unfair– including passport seizure and retention powers, ripe for discrimination; a regime of exclusion orders, which risks exposing British citizens to torture; statutory ‘terrorism prevention’ duties for a whole range of public bodies, including universities and schools; new data retention powers, mirroring those rejected as unlawful by the Court of Justice of the EU; and provisions which seek to breathe new life into the widely-discredited TPIMsregime.

Over the last few months David Cameron has made numerous speeches about the central importance of combating extremist ideologies which pose a grave and present danger to the British people. A key pillar of this is the Prevent counter terrorism strategy. which places a legal duty upon schools and universities to combat extremist ideologies.

This pernicious piece of Stalinist sounding legislation is accompanied by the duty that British schools now have to promote ”British Values”. This piece of legislation became legally binding upon schools and universities this July and instructs them to try and prevent young people being drawn to terrorism by combating extremism which is defined as:

vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.

No one would oppose attempts to stop young people being drawn towards terrorist groups such as IS. However, this counter terrorism legislation is aimed just as much at trying to stifle dissent and opposition within British society at the reactionary political agenda of the Conservative government.

I recently found out from first-hand experience that the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy has a much wider definition of extremism than the legislation lets on.

On the last day of term at the school where I work we had a staff training session. We were told how the government expects us to teach ‘’British Values’’ to the kids and that this would be monitored by OFSTED. This was controversial as what exactly are British Values? But it got a lot worse in the last session of the day.

A police officer from the local counter-terrorism PREVENT unit addressed us about the dangers of extremism facing the kids we teach. He informed us that PREVENT is a key government initiative to help combat the threat of terrorism in the UK.

He started off by talking about the dangers of Islamic terrorism and then the threat from neo-Nazi groups such as the EDL and National Front.

He went on to say that the police regard anti-fracking protesters as extremists and referred to the behaviour of Green MP Caroline Lucas before her arrest as an act of extremism. He finished off by pointing that far left socialist groups are also regarded as extremists who are monitored by the police. In effect he was equating socialist and environmental groups with IS and the neo-fascists of the EDL. I could not believe my ears as I heard this authoritarian speech and wondered if I was back in Germany in January 1933.

We were told that we have to become spies and pass on any concerns we may have over school kids who are espousing ‘’extremist’’ views to the assistant head teacher with responsibility for safeguarding. They will then pass the name of the child on to the local PREVENT liaison committee. The police officer’s slogan was, ‘If it doesn’t sound right pass it on’’.

There was no mention of how British military interventions in Muslim countries are a major cause of the terrorist blow back that poses a threat to ordinary people. Apparently, the focus is upon reporting and monitoring extremist beliefs and comments. It reminded me greatly of the Stasi in Stalinist East Germany where huge numbers of ordinary people were spied upon and spied for the police state.

After listening to the police officers’ view on extremism for about 15 minutes I interjected and pointed out to him the deeply authoritarian nature of what he was saying. Over the last three hundred years many ordinary people have gone to prison fighting for basic human rights and had to break unjust laws in the process. In the present political climate such people would be regarded as dangerous extremists by the current government and be subject to police monitoring. I asked a question saying that I had been on strike a year ago and if that made me an extremist who would be monitored by the police? He had no answer to my question or the points that I raised.

The recent collapse in global stock markets represents a turning point in the lives of all people on the planet. We are entering another global recession which will make the 2008 crisis look like a walk in the park. This will have devastating effects upon billions of people across the planet and will lead to social and political explosions which the ruling classes fear. Hence their attempts to distract people with the ‘War on Terror’ with its endless military interventions all over the world and the start of Cold War 2.0 with Russia.

The emergence of the IS bogeyman in the last couple of years together with recent terrorists attacks such as in Tunisia that left 30 British citizens dead have led the British media and political elite to go into hysterical over drive about the ”extremist threats” posed to UK citizens.

The British Prime Minister repeatedly makes the specious argument that our attentions must be devoted to combating extremist ideologies that give rise to the terrorist threat to Britain and its allies. He dismisses anyone who tries to examine geopolitical issues that helped create the terrorist threat in the first place, such as the illegal US-UK invasion of Iraq, as ”grievance justification”.

A cursory examination of the recent bloody history of the Greater Middle East reveals how Western Imperialist powers such as Britain and the US have committed acts of violence on a massive scale that have left millions homeless and over a million people dead. This massive use of state sponsored violence is a leading cause of the terrorist threat to ordinary people.

We could start with the US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 which was not authorised by the UN security council and which Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at California’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law has described as “a patently illegal use of armed force.” A recent study by the Watson Institute For International Studies at Brown University estimates that total direct war deaths in Afghanistan stand at 91,991 people and nearly a hundred thousand injured by this illegal war. The resurgence of the Taliban poses a grave threat to the Western sponsored government in Kabul. Besides this, is the continuing presence of Al-Qaida and now groups affiliated to IS which provide support to global terrorist activity.

We could then move on to the US-UK illegal invasion of Iraq which various estimates hold responsible for the deaths of between 500,000 and a million Iraqis. This intervention based on lies and falsehoods helped shatter the country’s infrastructure leaving behind the toxic legacy of sectarian civil war which rages to this day. TheUS-UK intervention in Iraq destabilised the country to such an extent that it is directly responsible for the emergence of the IS bogeyman which the media hysterically claims is a direct threat to our society.

We could then move on to the US/NATO intervention in Libya which has helped create a failed state. AsSeamus Milne has observed the Western intervention in Libya while dressed up in humanitarian terms signally failed to save lives. In fact it helped create a situation where the civil war that followed Gaddafi’s overthrow killed up to 50,000 people. Islamic fundamentalist groups have flourished in Libya since the ‘humanitarian intervention’ of the Western Imperialist powers. These groups are fuelling the horrendous civil war in Syria and responsible for numerous massacres of civilians. Libya has now become a safe haven for Al-Qaida, Ansar Al-Sharia and IS all of which are targeting Europe.

We could then move on to the civil war in Syria where a myriad of Islamic fundamentalist groups are waging war against the forces of the Assad regime. These groups are financed and armed by the Gulf allies of Britain and America. This is something that Cameron’s government will not publicly acknowledge. Yet IS and Al Nusra and the myriad of other Sunni terrorist groups that carry out massacres of civilians from different religious and ethnic groups in Syria are funded by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The British government turns a blind eye to the large sums of money poured into London real estate by the various Gulf dictatorships while it encourages British arms sales to the same dictators whose hands are covered in the blood of their own people.

Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British army summed it up nicely when he commented:

It is not acceptable, for example, to welcome large capital injections into prestige projects like The Shard in London while not exerting the strongest pressure on the Qatari Government to crack down on some of their own citizens. Such potential hypocrisy runs the risk of undermining many of the other political and military actions being taken to discredit and destroy the caliphate ambitions of the jihadists.

Meanwhile, the US and its British ally are back in Iraq carrying out air strikes against the very same terrorist groups that are financed and armed by our so-called Gulf allies. The hypocrisy of this is breathtaking. Never mind the fact that the air campaign has been a failureand is provoking opposition from the Shiite militias leading the fight against IS in Iraq.

The insanity of the war against IS is shown most clearly by the US/UK bombing IS while their NATO partner Turkey bombs Kurdish forces who have been the most effective opponents of IS on the ground. We should not forget that Turkey a key NATO ally is openly facilitating IS by allowing its supply lines to run across it border into Northern Syria and operate training/recruitment camps on its territory.

Cameron and the corporate puppets who make up the majority of MPs in the House of Commons ignore the recent history of bloody interventions by the US and Britain into the Middle East which have left millions of people as displaced refugees and left over a million people dead.

In March of this year the the medical-political peace organization Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War issued ajoint report Body Count:Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the ‘War on Terror’ which noted how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are responsible for the deaths of between 1 and 2 million people in the Greater Middle East. This massive use of violence that is responsible for death on a monumental scale has been ignored by the mainstream media and majority of our lawmakers in Parliament. The report made the salient point that:

A politically useful option for U.S. [and UK] political elites has been to attribute the on-going violence to internecine conflicts of various types, including historical religious animosities, as if the resurgence and brutality of such conflicts is unrelated to the destabilization caused by decades of outside military intervention. As such, under-reporting of the human toll attributable to ongoing Western interventions, whether deliberate, or through self-censorship, has been key to removing the “fingerprints” of responsibility.

The so called ‘War On Terror’ in which the UK has played an active role has led to death, destruction and suffering on a massive scale. The numerous military interventions across the Greater Middle East have helped foster and create terrorist groups such as IS. The independent advocacy group CAGE has observed that:

The British Government has always been reluctant to look to its own violence and policies in the Muslim world for inspiring Muslim violence. As such it cannot be a neutral arbiter in analysing and dealing with conflicts, as it is itself all too often a party to them.

The Prevent counter-terrorism strategy will do nothing to address the root causes of the violence that is tearing apart the Greater Middle East. The military interventions of the imperialist powers have helped create jihadist groups that have murdered British citizens and continue to pose a threat to the public.

All Prevent will do is to alienate many young people. It will fail abysmally at stopping the radicalisation of ordinary people into various movements fighting killer austerity cuts and defending the environment.

The trade unions, environmental groups and human rights groups need to expose and campaign against this repressive state body which will be used to try and suppress opposition to the Cameron government and its big business backers.

It didn’t take long for the universal and entirely justified outrage over a picture of a dead three-year-old to be funneled by the “do something” pundits to justify regime change in Syria.

The “do something” crowd wants us to “do something” about the refugee crisis and “solve” the “bigger problem,” which, of course, involves regime change. To create the moral urgency and to tether the refugee crisis to their long-standing warmongering, these actors have to insist the US has “done nothing” about Syria. Here’s the Guardian editorial from Thursday:

The optimism of the Arab spring is spent. Colonel Gaddafi was a tyrant, yet Libya has unravelled violently in the aftermath of his removal. The refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad gave the Syrian president permission to continue murdering his people.

Here’s London Mayor Boris Johnson in the Telegraph:

I perfectly accept that intervention has not often worked. It has been a disaster in Iraq; it has been a disaster in Libya. But can you honestly say that non-intervention in Syria has been a success? If we keep doing nothing about the nightmare in Syria, then frankly we must brace ourselves for an eternity of refugees, more people suffocating in airless cattle trucks at European motorway service stations, more people trying to climb the barbed wire that we are building around the European Union.

Photo of Syrian refugees coming ashore on the Greek island of Lesbos that accompanied the Guardian‘s editorial (9/3/15) condemning “the refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad.” (photo: Angelos Tzortzinis/Getty)

And here’s an op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post from the same day:

At many points during the past four years, even relatively small actions might have reduced the pace of civilian casualties in Syria. How hard would it have been to destroy the helicopters dropping barrel bombs on neighborhoods? A number of options well short of major intervention might have reduced the regime’s destructive power and/or strengthened the capabilities of more responsible forces. All were untaken.

But this is all a fantasy. The US has been “intervening” in the Syrian civil war, in measurable and significant ways, since at least 2012—most notably by arming, funding and training anti-Assad forces. According to a report in theWashington Post from June:

At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents theWashington Post obtained from former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

US officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.

In addition to this, the Obama administration has engaged in crippling sanctions against the Assad government, provided air support for those looking to depose him, incidentally funneled arms to ISIS, and not incidentally aligned the CIA-backed Free Syrian Army with Al Qaeda. Regardless of one’s position on Syria—or whether they think the US is somehow secretly in alliance with Assad, as some advance—one thing cannot be said: that the US has “done nothing in Syria.” This is historically false.

Most of those advocating for the removal of Assad probably know this, but can’t say “the US should do more,” or “they haven’t done enough,” because this would raise the uncomfortable question of what they have done already.

And the answer to that, as is with most US meddling in other countries, is a lot of covert programs US officials—and thus their court press—can’t openly acknowledge. So those in the establishment media are left to do a strange dance: at once ignoring all the US has already done while insisting the US should join a fight it’s been a party to for over three years.

Another idea being advanced, for instance in the Guardian op-ed above, is the creation of a no-fly zone to help stem the tide of refugees:

To begin restoring that hope will inevitably mean international intervention of some kind. The establishment of credible safe havens and the implementation of a no-fly zone must be on the table for serious consideration.

Two things before discussing this further:

A) A no-fly zone would only be applied to Assad because anti-Assad forces don’t have an air force.

B)  While it may sound like a simple humanitarian stop gap—and that’s no doubt how it’s being sold—literally every no-fly zone in history has eventually led to regime change. Which is fair enough, but those pushing for one should at least be honest about what this means: the active removal of Assad by foreign forces. Indeed, if one recalls the NATO intervention in Libya was originally sold as a no-fly zone to prevent a potential genocide, but within a matter of weeks, NATO leaders had pivoted to full-on regime change.

But here again, there’s some serious fudging going on by the Guardian. While there’s no doubt many of the refugees are escaping Assad’s bombing of cities, the boy in question, Aylan Kurdi, wasn’t: He was escaping ISIS and the US bombing of his hometown of Kobani, far from anything the Assad government is doing. A no-fly zone would not have saved his hometown. An absence offueling jihadists by the United States and the subsequent bombing of said jihadists by the United States? Perhaps.

Once again, the disease becomes the cure, because a holistic diagnosis is not being advanced by Western media—only an evil dictator vs. freedom fighter cartoon. And why wouldn’t it? These nuances complicate the messy narrative of “If we get rid of Assad we can solve the crisis,” which has been US and UK orthodoxy since 2011. But the Guardian still has all their work ahead of them: If the West removes Assad, then what? Will the tens of thousands of radical, medieval wahabbists that have flooded in simply go away? Will the US bombing of ISIS simply stop?

The US funded, armed and fueled the very crisis its partisan media are now calling for it to swoop and in save. The moral ADD required by those pushingfurther US involvement in the Syrian civil war in the face of this fact is severe. That some in the media, eager to settle old scores, would so blatantly ignore history to indulge this fantasy is as pernicious as it is predictable.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron this week said “as a father I felt deeply moved” by the image of a Syrian boy dead on a Turkish beach. As pressure mounts on the UK to take in more of those fleeing to Europe from Syria and elsewhere. Cameron added that the UK would fulfil its “moral responsibilities.”

On hearing Cameron’s words on the role of ‘morality’, something he talks a lot about, anyone who has been following the crisis in Syria would not have failed to detect the hypocrisy. According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009. He told French TV:

I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business… I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.

Writing in The Guardian in 2013, Nafeez Ahmed discusses leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, that confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

He goes on to write that, according to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years,” starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.

In 2009, Syrian President Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets in direct competition with Russia. Being a Russian ally, Assad refused to sign and instead pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran crossing Iraq and into Syria that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe. Thus Assad had to go.

And this is where Cameron’s concerns really lie: not with ordinary people compelled to flee war zones that his government had a hand in making but with removing Assad in order for instance to run a pipeline through Syrian territory and to prevent Iran and Russia gaining strategic momentum in the region.

Ordinary folk are merely ‘collateral damage’ in the geopolitical machinations of bankers, oilmen and arms manufacturers, only to be shown any sympathy when the media flashes images of a dead Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach or people drowned at sea trying to escape turmoil at home. It is then that people like Cameron are obliged to demonstrate mock sincerity in the face of public concern.

It is not only Syrians who are heading for Europe and the UK but also people from Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Countries that Britain has helped to devastate as part of the US-led long war based on the Project for a New American Century and the US right to intervene unilaterally as and when it deems fit under the notion of the US ‘exceptionalism’ (better known as the project for a new imperialism – the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’).

Cameron said that Britain is a moral nation and would fulfil its moral responsibilities. Large sections of the population – ordinary men and women – are certainly ‘moral’ but that is unfortunately where any notion of morality seems to stop. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray has called the UK a rogue state and a danger to the world. Last year, he told a meeting at St Andrews University in Scotland that the British Government is deeply immoral and doesn’t care how many people its kills abroad if it advances it aims. Moreover, he said the UK was a state that is prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy.

He added that Libya is now a disaster and 15,000 people were killed when NATO (British and French jets) bombed Sirte, something the BBC never told the public. Murray told his audience what many already know or suspect but what many more remain ignorant of:

I’ve seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign interventions are almost always about resources. It is every bit as corrupt as others have indicated. It is not an academic construct, the system stinks.

Murray was a British diplomat for 20 years. But after only six months, he said that in the country where he was Ambassador, the British and the US were shipping people in order for them to be tortured and some of them were tortured to death. As far as Iraq is concerned, Murray said that he knew for certain that key British officials were fully aware that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. He said that invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie.

Back in 2011, 200 prominent African figures accused Western nations and the International Criminal Court of “subverting international law” in Libya. The UN has been misused to militarise policy, legalise military action and effect regime change, according to University of Johannesburg professor Chris Landsberg. He said it is unprecedented for the UN to have outsourced military action to NATO in this way and challenges the International Criminal Court to investigate NATO for “violating international law.” In 2015, the outcome has been to turn Africa’s most developed nation to ruins and run by armed militias fighting one another.

Is this the stability and morality Cameron preaches?

Yet for public consumption, Cameron flags up his ‘morality’ by stating that the UK would continue to take in “thousands” of refugees. But he cautions that this is not the only answer to the crisis, saying a “comprehensive solution” is required. Awash with self-righteous platitudes he hoped would drown out any hint of hypocrisy or irony, Cameron added: “We have to try and stabilise the countries from which these people are coming.”

One year ago, Cameron told the United Nations that Britain was ready to play its part in confronting “an evil against which the whole world must unite.” He also said that that “we” must not be so “frozen with fear” of repeating the mistakes of the 2003 Iraq invasion. He was attempting to drum up support for wider Anglo-US direct military action against Syria under the pretext of attacking ISIS.

At the same time, Cameron spoke of the virtues of the West’s economic freedom and democratic values as well as the horrors of extremism and terror. Cameron’s was a monologue of hypocrisy.

Over a million people have been killed via the US-led or US-backed attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so we were told. It did not. That was a lie and hundreds of thousands have paid with their lives. We were told that Gaddafi was a tyrant. He used the nation’s oil wealth well by presiding over a country that possessed some of the best indices of social and economic well-being in Africa. Now, thanks to Western backed terror and military conflict, Libya lies in ruins and torn apart. Russia is a threat to world peace because of its actions in Ukraine, we are told. It is not. The US helped instigate the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Ukraine and has instigated provocations, sanctions and a proxy war against an emerging, confident Russia.

But how far in history should we go back to stress that the West and Cameron and his ilk have no right to take the moral high ground when it comes to peace, respect for international law, self-determination, truth or democracy? The much quoted work by historian William Blum documents the crimes, bombings, assassinations, destabilisations and wars committed by the US in country after country since 1945. And since 1945 the UK has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with Washington.

Cameron stood at the UN and talked of the West’s values of freedom and democracy and the wonders of economic neoliberalism in an attempt to promote Western values and disguise imperialist intent. But it’s a thin disguise. The Anglo-US establishment has imposed its economic structural violence on much of the world by bankrupting economies, throwing millions into poverty and imposing ‘austerity’ and by rigging and manipulating global commodity markets and prices. Add to that the mass illegal surveillance at home and abroad, torture, drone murders, destabilisations, bombings and invasions and it becomes clear that Cameron’s ongoing eulogies to morality, freedom, humanitarianism, democracy and the ‘free’ market is hollow rhetoric.

Apart from attempting to legitimise neoliberal capitalism, this rhetoric has one purpose: it is part of the ongoing ‘psych-ops’ being waged on the public to encourage people to regard what is happening in the world – from Syria, Iraq and Ukraine to Afghanistan and Libya, etc – as a confusing, disconnected array of events (perpetuated by unhinged madmen or terror groups) that are in need of Western intervention. These events are not for one minute to be regarded by the public as the planned machinations of empire and militarism, which entail a global energy and trade war against Russia and China, the associated preservation of the petro-dollar system and the encircling and intimidation of these two states with military hardware.

Any mainstream narrative about the current migrant-refugee ‘crisis’ must steer well clear of such an analysis. Instead, we must listen to Cameron talking about the West ‘helping’ to stabilise the countries it helped to destabilise or destroy in the first place. It’s the same old story based on the same misrepresentation of imperialism: the US-led West acting as a force for good in the world and reluctantly taking up the role of ‘world policeman’.

Whether it’s the now amply financially rewarded Blair or whether it is Cameron at the political helm, the perpetual wars and perpetual deceptions continue.

Cameron plays his role well. Like Tony Blair, Cameron’s media-friendly bonhomie is slicker (and cheaper) than the most experienced used car salesman. And like Blair before him, Cameron is the media-friendly PR man who beats the drums of war (or mock sincerity, as the situation dictates), courtesy of a global power elite, who through their think tanks, institutions and financial clout ultimately determine economic policies and decide which wars are to be fought and for what purpose:

“… the Davos-attending, Gulfstream/private jet-flying, money-incrusted, megacorporation-interlocked, policy-building elites of the world, people at the absolute peak of the global power pyramid. They are 94 percent male, predominantly white, and mostly from North America and Europe. These are the people setting the agendas at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, G-8, G-20, NATO, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. They are from the highest levels of finance capital, transnational corporations, the government, the military, the academy, nongovernmental organizations, spiritual leaders and other shadow elites. Shadow elites include, for instance, the deep politics of national security organizations in connection with international drug cartels, who extract 8,000 tons of opium from US war zones annually, then launder $500 billion through transnational banks, half of which are US-based.” – David Rothkopf (Project Censored ‘Exposing the transnational ruling class’)

Michael Meacher was Minister of State for the Environment for six years, though for some reason Tony Blair did not appoint him to the Cabinet. Meacher gained a fine reputation, well-respected as a skilled negotiator and a minister with full command of his complex brief. He helped John Prescott to clinch the Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions in 1997 and was one of the first in Government to come to grips with the issue of global warming.

Meacher notes in his recent Global Research article , that after hi-jacking the party down a route utterly alien to its founders, in order to ingratiate himself with corporate and financial leaders on their terms . . . Tony Blair appears not to understand why the Corbyn earthquake is happening or  the passionate resentment which he and New Labour created:

• by laying the foundations for the financial crash of 2008-9 and making the squeezed middle and brutally punished poor pay for it,
• by aligning New Labour alongside the Tories in pursuit of austerity from 2010 onwards, though Osborne’s policy (to shrink the State) has been unsuccessful in reducing the deficit,
• by taking Britain without any constitutional approval into an illegal was with Iraq,
• by introducing into politics the hated regime of spin and manipulation,
• by indulging now his squalid lust for money-making
• and by clearly having no more overriding desire than to strut the world with Bush.

He then asked three searching questions about Blair’s conduct:

Why did he urge the Blairites to support the government’s welfare bill which opposed every tenet of the real Labour Party?

Why did he push for privatisation of the NHS and other public services?

Why did his ally Mandelson say “New Labour is “relaxed at people becoming filthy rich”, and proved it by letting inequality balloon to even higher heights than under Thatcher?

And concluded: “He has a lot to learn . . .”

–

Read the whole article here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/tony-blair-is-living-in-a-state-of-deluded-denial/5473462

This article first published in July 2000 during the election campaign under the title  Dangerous Lady: Political Sketch of the Chief Foreign Policy Adviser to George Bush, Jr. It was posted on GR on September 30, 2001.

When a Glamor correspondent asked Governor Bush what he thought about the Taliban, he just shrugged his shoulders, bemused. It took a bit of prompting from the journalist (“discrimination against women in Afghanistan”) for Bush to rouse himself:

Taliban in Afghanistan! Absolutely. Reprisals. I thought you were talking about some rock group.

That’s how well-informed about the outside world the prospective U.S. president is. Even about very important present-day developments that are on everyone’s lips – that is, everyone with the slightest pretensions to culture; developments that he, if elected, will have to deal with.

The person partly responsible for this is Prof. Condoleezza Rice, his chief foreign policy adviser widely tipped as the national security adviser in the Bush administration. The fact is that she herself – how shall I put it – is a little out of her depth in anything that does not concern nuclear weapons and Russia.

Ms. Rice is a professional Soviet-watcher; she worked in the Bush Sr. administration for two years; she was an expert on the Cold War – just as, incidentally, all her colleagues in Bush’s future foreign policy department. Whatever her failings, false modesty is certainly not one of them: There was a time, she says, when I knew more about the Soviet General Staff than the General Staff itself did.

However, because the Soviet General Staff – for all its sins – cannot be blamed for discrimination against Afghan women, Ms. Rice is rather hazy about the Taliban. At least talking about Iran as a rogue state that supplied arms to Islamic fundamentalists, she included the Taliban among its clients. Mercifully, she did not mistake it for a rock group but she seemed to be unaware that there was no love lost between Iran and the Taliban.

Condoleezza Rice, a petite, fragile-looking, and relatively young (45) Afro-American, grew up in a well-to-do family of college teachers in Birmingham, Alabama. Her parents wanted their daughter to become a pianist. She first went on stage at four, but ultimately opted for an academic career. At Denver University, Condoleezza’s tutor was Prof. Josef Korbel (the father of Madeleine Albright). By her own admission, it was he who (unfortunately for us) got her interested in Russia. She is even fluent in Russian.

Ms. Rice’s colleagues, however, maintain that her apparent fragility is deceptive. Richard Armitage, her former boss in the Bush administration, says that if you look at her past, you will see a field strewn with the bodies of those who underestimated her.

Be that as it may, her influence on Governor Bush is enormous. Whenever something happens in the world, the presidential hopeful turns to her for explanation. She forced him to memorize his recent policy speech on the national missile defense program, and especially rehearse answers to questions that could be asked.

At the last moment, however, Ms. Rice did not entrust him with responding to them. She took them herself. The audience was treated to a fascinating show. Standing on the stage were two former state secretaries, including Henry Kissinger; two former national security advisers, including Gen. Powell (who is widely seen as state secretary in the Bush administration); a former defense secretary, and the presidential hopeful himself. Yet, questions were fielded by a diminutive black woman who had been all but invisible among those massive figures.

It was of course great fun to watch. What really matters, however, is Ms. Rice’s foreign policy views. As far as can be judged from her recent article in Foreign Affairs, they are as traditional as can be: balance of power, geopolitics, etc. – all of it couched in terms of the Cold War that provided the backdrop for her entire professional career. Globalization, the building of a “new Europe,” which discarded geopolitics, and the dramatic changes that have occurred over the past decade in Russia somehow went unnoticed by her. The only difference is that she now attributes the role of the former USSR to China.

On the whole, her views can be summed up by one phrase: What is good for America, is good for the world. This, you will agree, is strongly reminiscent of the long-derided formula: What is good for General Motors, is good for America. The problem is that the world could disagree. And what would then happen to America?

A dangerous lady, this Condoleezza Rice. What a shame that she did not listen to her parents and devote herself to music…

Dick Cheney is no stranger to defending the indefensible. But lately he’s been even more aggressive than usual

Every so often, former Vice President Dick Cheney seems to jump out of his caliginous hole to make rounds through the media, and defend the indefensible. He seems to believe that if you spew the same lies over and over again, eventually, people will start to believe that it’s true (which is unfortunately accurate for some people). Cheney, who, move over Idris Elba, has the perfect appearance and disposition for the next James Bond villain, is currently promoting his new book, “Exceptional.” And unlike former President Bush, who has become an apolitical painter since leaving office seven years ago, Cheney has doubled down on evil and has been a cheerleader for war with Iran, which, ironically, probably helped President Obama receive the necessary votes (few Democrats have the gall to agree with Cheney on war).

During his book promotion this week, he adamantly defended the war in Iraq, claiming that it was not only warranted, but a complete victory until Obama messed it all up. On Wednesday, Juan Williams of Fox News asked him, “Well, if people say, ‘Dick Cheney was wrong about Iraq, why should they listen to you on Iran?’”

Like a perfect sociopath, without an iota of self-doubt, Cheney replied, “Because I was right about Iraq. Our objective was to take down Saddam Hussein. We did it. The world’s a much better place without him.”

Cheney ignores that small bit about weapons of mass destruction, which, as in modern Iran, was the real instigator of the invasion of Iraq. He now concludes that the elimination of the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein and the freeing of the Iraqi people was the real goal. Of course, he didn’t much care about stopping the tyrannical Hussein in 1994, when he said that invading Iraq would obviously result in a quagmire:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

Volatile indeed. Today, we can see that Cheney’s 1994 assumption was accurate, but when asked on Wednesday whether the Middle East, more unstable than ever, is safer without Saddam in power, he replied that it was. It’s as if he is trying to convince himself what he knows in his new transplanted heart to be untrue.

So what really made Cheney change his mind about invading Iraq? Surely it was not 9/11, which Hussein had nothing to do with, or because he suddenly realized how evil the dictator was (America has nothing against dictators, as long as they’re good for business). It is also quite clear today that Cheney and the Bush administration largely manufactured the WMD intelligence. A former CIA intelligence briefer under the Bush administration, Michael Morell, has basically admitted that the administration “gave a false presentation of what [he] said to them” to encourage invasion. It has even been revealed that two “highly-placed human sources at the very top of Saddam’s regime” said that the dictator did not have active WMDs, and both were conveniently ignored by the warmongering administration.

On Sunday, 30 August 2015, more than 100,000 Japanese protested in the vicinity of the Japanese parliament against new security bills tabled in the upper legislative chamber by the Shinto Abe government. About 300 similar rallies were held in different cities all over the country. One television station estimated that perhaps a million people had participated in the mass protests.

There is overwhelming opposition to the bills which allow the Japanese armed forces to engage in overseas combat if that was required to protect Japanese interests. Protecting Japanese interests is given a wide interpretation as to include cooperating militarily with allies in foreign operations. Prime Minister Abe sees this as a form of “collective self-defence.” The bills were passed by the powerful lower legislative chamber in July 2015, in spite of popular opposition. They are almost certain to be adopted by the upper chamber at the end of September where Abe’s ruling bloc has a majority.

Most Japanese constitutional scholars argue that the bills violate the Japanese Constitution, specifically Article 9. Under Article 9, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.” This is why they, and a whole spectrum of academics from various other disciplines, have denounced Abe’s security bills and are campaigning for the preservation of the sanctity of Article 9.

A lot of Japanese are afraid that if the bills are passed, Japan would be drawn into regional and global armed conflicts that serve the narrow interests of elites at home and in the United States who want Japan to play a more direct and decisive role in containing China. It follows from this that Japan’s relations with China could deteriorate further. North Korea could become even more hostile towards Japan. Ties with South Korea could take a turn for the worse. Japan could find itself adopting military postures on behalf of one party or the other in unresolved territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In a nutshell, Japan’s interaction with the rest of Asia would be fraught with new challenges expressed through friction and tension.

This is why ASEAN citizens and other Asians should be deeply concerned about what is happening now in Japan. If Japan seeks a more militaristically oriented role, it would have an adverse impact upon present and future generations in the continent. We should make it abundantly clear that we do not want to see Japan embroiled in wars and conflicts in other lands. We should be explicit in our support for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. In 2007 and in 2014, in inter-religious conferences in Tokyo, I had underlined the significance of Article 9 to peace in Asia and the world. Article 9, I opined, should be incorporated into the constitution of every nation on earth.

At a time like this when Article 9 is being subverted by powerful forces within and without Japan, we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our sisters and brothers in Japan as they demonstrate their total commitment to peace.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

On Sunday, 30 August 2015, more than 100,000 Japanese protested in the vicinity of the Japanese parliament against new security bills tabled in the upper legislative chamber by the Shinto Abe government. About 300 similar rallies were held in different cities all over the country. One television station estimated that perhaps a million people had participated in the mass protests.

There is overwhelming opposition to the bills which allow the Japanese armed forces to engage in overseas combat if that was required to protect Japanese interests. Protecting Japanese interests is given a wide interpretation as to include cooperating militarily with allies in foreign operations. Prime Minister Abe sees this as a form of “collective self-defence.” The bills were passed by the powerful lower legislative chamber in July 2015, in spite of popular opposition. They are almost certain to be adopted by the upper chamber at the end of September where Abe’s ruling bloc has a majority.

Most Japanese constitutional scholars argue that the bills violate the Japanese Constitution, specifically Article 9. Under Article 9, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.” This is why they, and a whole spectrum of academics from various other disciplines, have denounced Abe’s security bills and are campaigning for the preservation of the sanctity of Article 9.

A lot of Japanese are afraid that if the bills are passed, Japan would be drawn into regional and global armed conflicts that serve the narrow interests of elites at home and in the United States who want Japan to play a more direct and decisive role in containing China. It follows from this that Japan’s relations with China could deteriorate further. North Korea could become even more hostile towards Japan. Ties with South Korea could take a turn for the worse. Japan could find itself adopting military postures on behalf of one party or the other in unresolved territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In a nutshell, Japan’s interaction with the rest of Asia would be fraught with new challenges expressed through friction and tension.

This is why ASEAN citizens and other Asians should be deeply concerned about what is happening now in Japan. If Japan seeks a more militaristically oriented role, it would have an adverse impact upon present and future generations in the continent. We should make it abundantly clear that we do not want to see Japan embroiled in wars and conflicts in other lands. We should be explicit in our support for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. In 2007 and in 2014, in inter-religious conferences in Tokyo, I had underlined the significance of Article 9 to peace in Asia and the world. Article 9, I opined, should be incorporated into the constitution of every nation on earth.

At a time like this when Article 9 is being subverted by powerful forces within and without Japan, we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our sisters and brothers in Japan as they demonstrate their total commitment to peace.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

The Pentagon is in the process of finalizing a $1 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia for the delivery of a cache of weapons, consisting primarily of missiles to arm the fleet of F-15 fighter jets it had previously purchased from the US.

While this latest weapons transfer, first reported by the New York Times, is being presented in the media as part of a bid by the administration of President Barack Obama to assuage the Saudi monarchy’s concerns over the US-Iran nuclear deal, it also facilitates the continuation and escalation of the bloody assault on Yemen that Saudi Arabia has been carrying out along with its allies since March.

The deal serves as a green light from the Obama administration for an escalation of the brutal military offensive against the Houthi militias that took control over much of Yemen’s western provinces earlier this year.

According to UN estimates, more than 4,300 people have been killed since the anti-Houthi offensive began March, with more than half of these being civilians, including many women and children. Nearly 1.5 million people have been internally displaced by the fighting, with tens of thousands more fleeing the country.

With American military intelligence and logistical support, Saudi Arabia and its allies have used US-supplied F-15s to drop US-supplied bombs on residential neighborhoods, markets, schools, factories and ports. The Saudi-led forces have repeatedly dropped internationally outlawed cluster bombs, munitions also supplied by the US government.

After months of punishing airstrikes against targets throughout Yemen, thousands of troops from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other Gulf state monarchies have entered the country and are preparing for a ground offensive to retake the capital of Sanaa.

Fifty soldiers from the UAE and Bahrain were killed on Friday in the northern province of Marib after a rocket reportedly fired by Houthi forces struck a weapons depot, setting off a massive explosion.

The US weapons transfer, which awaits almost certain approval by Congress, was announced as Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud made his first state visit to the United States since ascending to the throne in January.

For the three-day visit to Washington, DC, the Saudi monarch rented out all 222 rooms at the Four Seasons Hotel in the posh Georgetown neighborhood to accommodate his highness and an entourage of several hundred.

The Four Seasons staff laid out a red carpet in the parking garage and hotel hallways to keep the royal feet of the king and his courtiers from touching the ground. And to further ensure ultimate comfort the hotel’s furniture was replaced with gilded equivalents.

“Everything is gold,” a regular hotel patron told Politico. “Gold mirrors, gold end tables, gold lamps, even gold hat racks.”

King Salman and President Obama’s agenda reportedly included discussions on the Iran nuclear deal, the war in Yemen, the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and energy policy. They also discussed escalating US military training programs for the Saudi armed forces.

On Friday, in a joint press briefing with King Salman held in the White House’s Oval Office, President Obama extended a warm welcome to his “personal friend” whose executioners have beheaded at least 130 people so far this year.

Obama also expressed his “concern” over the situation in Yemen, facetiously calling for the restoration of “a functioning government that is inclusive and that can relieve the humanitarian situation there.”

The President also used the public briefing to press for a “political transfer process” in Syria, where the United States and Saudi Arabia have worked together to stoke a four-year civil war aimed at ousting President Bashar al Assad. Saudi Arabia has been one of the key supporters of Islamic fundamentalist jihadist groups fighting in Syria, including the Al Nusra Front, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, as well as ISIS.

The conflict, fueled by the weapons and fighters funneled into Syria by the Obama administration and its Saudi partners, has killed more than 220,000 Syrians and displaced millions, contributing to the flood of refugees now attempting the perilous trek through Europe.

The deal reported by the Times on Friday is only one of a number of pending arms sales to Saudi Arabia being negotiated by the Pentagon. In 2010 the Obama administration announced a $60 billion, 20-year agreement, the largest-ever US arms deal, which will provide Saudi Arabia with, among other things, 84 new F-15 fighter jets and 70 new Apache attack helicopters.

The Saudi government is currently in discussions with the Pentagon to purchase two frigates being built by Lockheed Martin for more than $1 billion. The US-supplied warships will serve as the cornerstone of the Royal Saudi navy’s upgrade of its eastern fleet. A deal worth $1.9 billion for 10 MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to shore up the Saudi navy’s antisubmarine capabilities is also expected to be signed before the end of the year.

The Pentagon approved a number of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia at the end of July, including a $5.4 billion deal for 600 Patriot Missiles and a $500 million deal for more than a million rounds of ammunition as well as land mines and hand grenades for the Saudi Arabian Army.

Supported by the United States, Saudi Arabia has undertaken a massive effort to upgrade and expand its military forces over the last ten years with military expenditures increasing 112 percent between 2005 and 2014. In 2014, the Saudi monarchy committed approximately $80.8 billion, a whopping 10.4 percent of the country’s GDP, to military expenditures.

Speculating and theorizing about the existence of yet undiscovered planets in our solar system has been bounced around for centuries. Prior to each new discovery of another outer planet has come detection of anomalies in the erratic, inexplicable motions of the outermost known planet. For instance, before Neptune’s existence was determined, for decades astronomers had been theorizing that Uranus’ (discovered in 1781) irregular movement may have been caused by the presence of yet another undiscovered planet. Indeed that was the case in 1846 when Neptune was first sighted and identified.

The now dethroned ninth planet Pluto discovered in 1930 (relegated in 2006 to minor dwarf planet status) and Pluto’s later found moon Charon were then used to explain the observed “wobbles” in Uranus and Neptune’s respective orbits. Thus, errors in calculating precise positions of known planets hold an enduring pattern of later confirmation of cause determined by each newly discovered planet. Hence, for over a century scientists have debated that yet more major planets and dwarf planets belonging to our solar system are still out there in space waiting to be found and existing anomalies to be explained.

Way back in 1940 Chilean astronomer Carlos Munoz Ferrada predicted accurately that the powers-that-be would attempt to cover-up Planet X when it comes barreling towards the earth. Ferrada referred to Nibiru/Planet X as a “Comet-Planet” because it has the size of a planet but speed and elliptical orbit of a comet.

The most controversial “undiscovered” planet operating within our solar system dubbed Nibiru or Planet X was made (in)famous in 1976 by noted researcher-author Zecharia Sitchin in his bestselling book The 12^th Planet. As one of few scholars able to read and interpret Sumerian clay tablets, Sitchin utilized those ancient texts to make a highly plausible case for the existence of Planet X (also known as planet Nibiru the Destroyer in ancient scripts) coming closest to planet earth every 3600 years. The Sumerians lived over 6000 years ago in what is today Iraq. They are credited as the first known civilization on earth, inventing mathematics, writing, agriculture, law, schools, astronomy and astrology.

The sun in our solar system is similar to 90% of the solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy, all part of a binary star system containing two or more suns. The Planet X system can be considered a mini-constellation consisting of our sun’s twin, classified a brown dwarf star called Nemesis. This dark star is largely invisible even with infrared due to its surrounding red iron oxide dust clouds. Nemesis possesses at least three planets that revolve around it, Nibiru and Helion both with moons, and Arboda. Though Nibiru travels along an elliptical shaped orbit and enters our solar system approximately every 3600 years, one by one crossing the orbits of our solar system planets, it does not revolve around our sun.

In 1990 researcher-author Zecharia Sitchin interviewed the supervising astronomer of the US Naval Observatory Robert S. Harrington to discuss Harrington’s recent discovery of the red Planet X. Harrington set up a special telescopic observatory in New Zealand to track Planet X. But the renowned head of the Naval Observatory suddenly died mysteriously at age 50 of a rare form of cancer under suspicious circumstances. His wife is convinced he was murdered for allegedly leaking too much information about Planet X.

Yet two years after the Sitchin-Harrington interview and just months prior to Harrington’s January 1993 death, a NASA press release was still publicly embracing Nibiru/Planet X as real:

Unexplained deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune point to a large outer solar system body of 4 to 8 Earth masses on a highly tilted orbit, beyond 7 billion miles from the Sun.

Also in 1992 a confident NASA scientist named Ray T. Reynolds went on record proclaiming, “Astronomers are so sure of the 10^th planet they think there is nothing left but to name it.” NASA at that time did everything but scream “Nibiru!” from the mountaintops.

But ever since Harrington’s untimely death with few exceptions, the lid has been tightly sealed on any more accurate information released by mainstream sources directly to the public. Apparently the US government had made the decision to keep Nibiru and its projected earthly destruction under wraps. In recent years the feds have sent out trolls to disseminate disinformation and false propaganda in attempts to debunk any would-be truth-tellers. The elite ensure that hired shills are planted to busily churn out concentrated disinfo campaigns smearing lies to prevent the story that never quite goes away from ever having full disclosure.

Hyped up predictions of past non-event disasters are most common, like the recent predicted May 28^th San Andreas earthquake purposely timed with the opening of the film of the same name, or the 2012 Mayan calendar doomsday non-event, or the 5/5/2000 ice age that never cometh, and who can forget theY2K fiasco, and on and on so it goes. The more of these “end days” predictions that are proven to be false, the more chance that any legitimate warnings of Planet X will be summarily scoffed at and ignored. The “boy who cried wolf” syndrome effectively desensitizes the human population into doubting any actual evidence or truth about Nibiru will ever be taken seriously by any reasonably sane person, notwithstanding the “aluminum foil hat” crowd of conspiracy realists who are more often right than wrong these days when it comes to exposing the myriad of government cover-ups, false flags and lies.

The effects of such a large celestial body as Nibiru/Planet X estimated to be from 4 up to 8 times the size of the earth reentering our solar system is generating off-the-chart internet frenzy in 2015, convinced it will cause enormous amounts of huge sized space debris from an asteroid belt, potential comets (one recently cited to be two and half miles wide) and countless meteors plummeting violently to the earth. It’s believed that the impact of such giant objects crashing into the earth will push the reset button for another axis tilt, likely causing yet another mass extinction and radically altering global climate zones, raising sea levels dramatically to reshape coastlines worldwide, decreasing land mass and increasing oceanic water surface. In addition to tilting the earth’s axis, it’s speculated that Nibiru’s gravitational upset and electromagnetic fireworks on our planet will set off mammoth cracks in the tectonic plates resulting in never before seen killer quakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, tidal waves, hurricanes, record winds,massive flooding and tornados.

Scientific Evidence

Rather than dig into ancient mythology or biblical prophecy as so much of the current speculation about Nibiru already covers, this presentation will limit its focus to reviewing the most tangible, credible pieces of scientific evidence supported by astronomers and astrophysicists who in recent years have risked destroying their careers, reputations and their very lives promoting their controversial findings and conclusions. This year more than ever the movement’s growing authenticity of the Planet X story is in fact gathering momentum, at least garnering lukewarm support from some rather high profile notables within the scientific community. This article will chronicle this growing body of empirical evidence validating not only Planet X’s existence but its eminent approach towards earth.

This highly controversial Planet X system entering our solar system with potential catastrophic implications was first featured in a Washington Post article way back in 1983. NASA’s infrared astronomical telescope found the mysterious planet “possibly as large as Jupiter” near the constellation of Orion. As distant a time as thirty-two years ago, it was considered to be the closest heavenly body to the earth beyond Pluto.

Researcher-activist John Moore has long asserted that a number of his inside ex-military and government intelligence sources have independently confirmed that a top secret meeting took place in 1979 in a New Orleans briefing room where highest ranking US Naval flag officers were first informed of the coming inevitable Planet X disaster that would occur within their lifetime.

In October 2003 a highly significant and telling Department of Defense sponsored government paper was published called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.” This paper notes that oceanic saline levels were dropping, causing “thermohaline circulation collapse.” A serious disruption of the Atlantic conveyor belt that pushes warm saltwater near the surface circulating northward from the south while deeper cooler water flows southward would have a devastating impact on global climate. The paper concludes with the following sobering predictions: wars over energy, food and water resources, increasing draught over wider land mass, and violent climate change effects producing more frequent, higher magnitude natural catastrophes of all kinds.  A dozen years later all of these most disturbing developments are clearly manifesting.

Of course the current standard politically correct scientific dogma is that global warming aka climate change emanating from CO2 greenhouse gases is the obvious culprit. This mass deception is designed to conveniently obscure the multiple dire effects caused by many decades of the globalists’ geoengineering, HAARP, weather modification and weather wars, not to mention the hidden, “nonexistent” Planet X system hurtling towards us deeper inside our solar system that’s likely causing tremendous changes at the surface of all our solar system planets of course including our own earth’s atmosphere and global surface.

In March 2010 the mainstream UK newspaper The Telegraph ran a story entitled “Search on for Death Star that Throws out Deadly Comets.” The sub-headline announced that NASA is looking for the twin sun that’s the brown dwarf star Nemesis slowly circling our sun and periodically “catapulting” deadly comets to the earth. So as tight-lipped NASA has been over the years, little tidbits reflecting that it’s still keeping an ever-present eye out for the cataclysmic Planet X system still manages to seep through to the public every now and then from so called “reputable” news sources. The article goes on to state that the star that’s “five times the size of Jupiter” is the prime suspect that wiped out the dinosaur 65 million years ago.

The then latest NASA trophy piece surveying the heavens, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), was capable of detecting the faint heat emanating from the dwarf star 25 times the distance between earth and the sun, or one third a light year away. Launched in January 2009 WISE discovered at least 1000 dwarf stars located within 25 light years from the sun until October 2010 when its coolant was scheduled to run out. Twice as far out as Nemesis is the Oort Cloud which is the sphere of icy bodies surrounding our solar system.

With the Planet X system entering our solar system, its gravitational force is believed to launch trajectories of comets and asteroids that are large-sized space debris objects of icy rocks and dust that bombard our solar system planets including the earth. Professor John Matese of the University of Louisiana Lafayette believes that this Nemesis that includes planet Nibiru as part of the Planet X system is mainly responsible for supplying such a concentrated volley of comets from the Oort Cloud into our inner solar system.

In May 2012 livescience.com and examiner.com both featured headline stories heralding the probable discovery of Planet X. Astronomer Rodney Gomes of Rio’s National Observatory of Brazil had just presented new evidence of the mysterious planet at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Gomes demonstrated that the icy objects outside Neptune’s orbit in the Oort Cloud displaying irregular movement that cannot be explained by known mathematical laws of astrophysics but can be by the gravitational influence of so called Planet X. Additionally, the dwarf planet Sedna’s peculiar orbit can also only be accounted for by the presence of a large unknown planet. Gomes findings were very well received by his peers, believing that he got his math right. But of course not wanting to endorse Planet X completely, they dutifully towed the scientific/gov. line of status quo by tempering their enthusiasm with a call for more research and posing alternative theories that may not involve another large planet.

Then in November of last year iflscience.com reported evidence that two new undiscovered planets may be lurking in our solar system. A January 2015 article from Space.com also addressed the possibility of two more planets beyond Neptune and Pluto moving in the outer limits of our solar system subtly influencing the orbits of the dwarf planets. Carlos de la Fuente of Madrid’s University of Complutense stated:

This excess of objects with unexpected orbital parameters makes us believe that some invisible forces are altering the distribution of the orbital elements of the ETNOs [extreme trans-Neptunian objects], and we consider that the most probable explanation is that other unknown planets exist beyond Neptune and Pluto.

Still another team of astronomers in March 2014, Chadwick Trujillo and Scott Sheppard, announced the discovery of 2012 VP113, another ETNO joining Sedna as two known members of the “inner Oort Cloud,” the comet-filled sphere that lies just beyond the Kuiper Belt and Pluto. Trujillo and Sheppardclaim these two objects’ orbits comply with the gravitational presence of a big “perturber,” up to even 10 times the mass of the earth.

Major unheard of changes are currently appearing on the surface and atmosphere of the sun and all the planets. Astronomer Mike Lockwood from California’s Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories found that since 1901 the sun’s overall magnetic field has increased by 230%. Solar flares and storms have also increased. The earth’s moon now has a 6000 kilometer-deep atmosphere of Natrium that it never had before. Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, now has grown polar ice. Venus’ brightness has skyrocketed by 2500% and experienced major changes in its atmosphere in the last four decades. Meanwhile, further away from the sun than the earth, Mars has melted polar icecaps and its magnitude of storms has strengthened exponentially.

Jupiter has had the brightness of its plasma clouds increase 200% accompanied by a pattern of intermittent thickening then weakening. The largest planet in our solar system’s enormous belts have been changing color with radiation levels erratically waning and then flaring up again. An increase in asteroid and comet activity crashing into Jupiter likely from Nibiru’s entrance into our solar system has also been observed. During the last three decades the jet stream on Saturn’s equator has slowed in velocity while X-rays at the equator have spiked. Uranus has become brighter with a huge flare-up of storm activity when its surface before was always placid. Neptune has also increased in brightness by 40%. The atmospheric pressure on Pluto has jumped up by 300% despite it moving further from the sun. The glowing plasma on the edge of our solar system has increased 1000%. The profound changes being measured in space are unprecedented. An increase in energy emission is changing the fundamental structure of all matter throughout our solar system. Taken together, these massive, across the board changes most likely are all effects from Planet X moving through our solar system.

Of course changes on the earth have been pronounced as well, most notably with electromagnetic changes, yearly incremental polar axis changes, and extreme weather changes. For instance, North Pole, Alaska recently sawits late spring temperatures soar to mid to high 80’s F. From 1963 to 1993 the frequency of natural disasters globally has leaped up by 410%. And in more recent years the rate of disasters has soared even higher. With an increasing number of volcanic eruptions along the Pacific Ring of Fire and earthquakes felt globally particularly along the San Andreas and the New Madrid fault lines, coupled with the Nepal 7.8 earthquake a couple months ago, major volcanic and earthquake activity in 2015 is rapidly on the rise. As early as November 2013 10 different long- dormant volcanos went active, first suggesting Planet X’s presence. The rate of volcanic eruptions from 1875 to 1975 has increased by 500%, but even greater now.

An exponential increase in 3.0 or higher earthquakes are shaking America’s heartland due to fracking, in Oklahoma alone going from two or three a year prior to fracking to 562 last year alone. Since 1973 earthquakes have risen worldwide by 400%. 6.0 magnitude earthquakes or greater have also spiked in recent years, jumping on average from 108.5 earthquakes per year in the 1980 to 1989 decade to 160.9 earthquakes per year from 2000 to 2009, increasing by 38.9%. In the first quarter of 2014 alone, more than twice as many large earthquakes occurred than on average since 1979. Two months ago scientists at the European Science Foundation warned that in the years to come there is a 5-10% chance that a colossal sized volcano could send the earth back to pre-civilization status. A significant rise in landslides and floods have also been measured.

For the last 2000 years the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing gradually. But in the last 500 years that decrease has become much more dramatic. Just this month scientists have been shocked at the alarming rate that the earth’s magnetosphere has been disappearing. The planet’s natural shield preventing solar winds and radiation from reaching the earth’s surface is being lost. This disturbing discovery comes while solar storm activity is also flaring up this year. These solar blasts seriously threaten to interfere with satellite and GPS communications, and risk bursts of electromagnetic pulses (if not launched by EMP weapons in the wrong hands like ISIS) that could be lethal to America’s power grid, instantaneously placing millions of people in the dark without any source of electricity for months or even years at a time.

Effects from a diminishing magnetic field would double the amount of radiation causing an epidemic of skin cancer deaths, speed up climate change and magnify extreme weather. Solar winds would eliminate ions that allow the earth to retain water and air. All these horrific changes are happening right now. What next to no scientist who wants to stay alive is revealing is that this torrid rate of ecological degradation and life killing earth surface change are more than likely caused by Planet X racing ever-closer toward us.

Another rather peculiar development to the Planet X story has been Google Sky’s strange actions. Several years ago no doubt in literally keeping with the media blackout, Google actually did black out the grid in the sky to ensure that Planet X was X’d out of its sky map. Then about a week ago Google Sky mysteriously reinserted back in the missing grid fully depicting the flaming winged Nibiru. So it’s visible from both the actual sky, and the Google Skynow… more evidence that the tide is turning toward the truth about Planet X.

Back in mid-April the European Space Agency invited astronomers, physicists, nuclear engineers, mathematicians and even soldiers in space defense from around the world to a conference in a Rome suburb to discuss the topic of an asteroid striking the earth, with the proposed hypothesis not if, but when. Hmm, sounds familiar to the Nibiru cataclysm scenario, minus the forbidden planet of course.

This Planetary Defense conference strategizing how to collectively handle Near-Earth Objects (NEO’s) plunging toward us using space weapons technology has been an annual event the last six years. 12,700 asteroids have been identified as NEO’s with orbits coming within 121 million miles from our main sun.

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

At 3:00 pm on 4 September 2015 five hostile U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents picked up Rwandan asylum seeker Dr. Leopold Munyakazi in a surprise Gestapo-like raid on his home in Baltimore MD.  A man that international human rights experts believe to be the victim of a smear campaign by the criminal military regime in Rwanda, Dr. Munyakazi has over the course of his struggle for freedom (since 2009) 100% complied with all immigration reporting and monitoring requirements.  After years of appeals leading to a 2736 page document on his case, on 5 June 2015 U.S. Immigration Appeals Judge Elizabeth Kessler dismissed the likelihood of torture upon return to Rwanda and subsequently denied asylum. Why was he picked up with such hostility and removed for deportation at the beginning of a long holiday weekend?

At 3:00 pm on 4 September 2015 five hostile U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents stormed the Baltimore MD home of Rwandan asylum seeker Dr. Leopold Munyakazi in a surprise Gestapo-like raid. A man that international human rights experts believe to be the victim of a smear campaign by the criminal military regime in Rwanda, Dr. Munyakazi has 100% complied with all immigration reporting and monitoring requirements over the course of his six year struggle to regain his freedom.

On 5 June 2015, after six years of appeals, U.S. Immigration Judge Elizabeth Kessler dismissed the likelihood of torture upon return to Rwanda and denied asylum.  Why was this man who was originally welcomed to the U.S. through the “scholars-at-risk” program, who provided exemplary teaching at a renowned U.S. college, and who followed all U.S. laws and immigration protocols — and showed zero risk of flight after his persecution by Rwanda began — treated with such hostility and taken into custody for deportation at the beginning of a long holiday weekend?

Dr. Leopold Munyakazi at his home in 2009. AP.

“The problem is that ICE picked him up on a Friday afternoon before Labor Day weekend.” Immigration attorney Ofelia Calderon has dedicated the past six years of her life to Dr. Munyakazi’s defense, pro bono, because she believes him to be an innocent man who faces certain death upon removal to Rwanda. “So tonight I filed a motion for an Emergency Stay that referred to a document that is 2736 pages, but no one is looking at that, and no one is going to look at that before Tuesday.  They can put him on a plane and send him back to Rwanda at any moment.”

The United States, Britain, Canada, Germany and Israel have been the primary backers of the Rwandan regime, which along with the regime in Uganda offers strategic bases for the Pentagon’s AFRICOM (Africa Command) and SOCOM (Special Operations Command) deployments in the Great Lakes countries, East Africa and Sudan.

Wanted by the regime of President Paul Kagame on fabricated “genocide” charges since 2009, Dr. Munyakazi has never deviated from mandated controls on his whereabouts (wearing an ankle GPS tracking device for the past five years) and was amicably compliant with every detail of his immigrations and asylum protocols.

Dr. Leopold Munyakazi is listed as a WANTED criminal on the INTERPOL web site. Meanwhile, INTERPOL does not list as WANTED the 40 high-ranking Rwandan military officials indicted by Spanish Judge Andreu Merelles on 6 February 2008 for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorism under the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction.

Dr. Munyakazi’s home in a Baltimore suburb was today (4 September 2015) stormed by some five uniformed ICE agents who arrived in two unmarked SUVs.  Dr. Munyakazi, who had been lounging on his sofa in underclothes watching TV, was handcuffed for removal without any opportunity to dress properly or recover his medications to take with him. Only after pleading with the sole female ICE agent was a distraught Catherine Munyakazi allowed to partially dress her husband in a shirt and shoes.

Tonight Dr. Munyakazi was shipped off to Maryland’s Howard County Immigration Center for immediate deportation back to Rwanda for what many Rwanda observers claim will be certain death at the hands of the regime.  

On 2 July 2015, Dr. Munyakazi’s lawyer Ofelia Calderon filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit and the deadline for her opening brief was scheduled for early September.  Why was ICE so cagey in picking up Dr. Munyakazi at 3:00 pm on a Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend, knowing full well that any legal petition for a stay of deportation won’t even be seen until offices open on Tuesday morning?

Dr. Leopold Munyakazi was a professor employed at Goucher College in Maryland until 2008, when he was arrested by ICE agents after making a public speech decrying the abuses of the Kagame regime, the falsification of genocide charges and the lies of the official Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) genocide narrative.

On 23 May 2010, U.S. attorney and ICTR defense counsel Peter Erlinder was arrested and illegally detained in Rwanda.  Mr. Erlinder flew to Rwanda to represent his client Victoire Ingabire, a Hutu woman also persecuted by the Kagame regime.  Professor Erlinder, charged with ‘genocide denial’ and denied bail twice, was released on medical grounds after 21 days incarceration but then faced charges with punishment up to 25 years; he returned to the United States in June 2010.

Victoire Ingabire arrived in Rwanda in January 2010 to contest the upcoming presidential elections.  She and her aides were immediately arrested and she was charged with genocide denial and other thought crimes.  Rwanda’s most notable dissident at present, Ms. Ingabire remains in prison in Rwanda and her story is mostly unknown by the world.

The military and intelligence apparatus directly run by President Paul Kagame maintains elite networks of death squads inside and outside Rwanda.  Tasked with hunting and neutralizing any dissidents, critics, intellectuals, writers, human rights activists, or other ‘opposition’ to the regime of Paul Kagame, these agents operate freely throughout Africa, Europe, Canada and the United States.  Anyone critical of the Kagame military regime is falsely accused of involvement in genocide, ‘genocide negationism’ or ‘genocide denial’.

The official narrative on ‘genocide’ — distilled to a simple sound-bite about Hutus killing Tutsis in 100 days of genocide — is maintained by the current government of Rwanda and its military, political and economic partners to silence debate and manufacture a version of events that protects the perpetrators and criminalizes victims like Dr. Leopold Munyakazi, Beatrice Munyenyezi, and many others.

President Paul Kagame runs the military dictatorship in Rwanda with his closest military associates from the former Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army (RPF), now known as the Rwanda Defense Forces. In October 1990, the RPF guerrilla army invaded northern Rwanda from neighboring Uganda, backed by the United States, Canada, Britain and Israel. Over the next four years the RPF terrorized Rwandan civilians as they slowly seized the country and overthrew the Hutu-majority government of President Juvenal Habyarimana in a coup d’etat.  The presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and their top military advisers were assassinated on 6 April 2015, with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s backing.  The double presidential assassination set in motion events that would lead to the death of some 800,000 to 1.5 million innocent Rwandan Hutu, Tutsi and Twa people, the subsequent invasion of the Congo, and the deaths of millions of Congolese and Rwandan (mostly Hutu) people there.

Minister Gen. James Kabarebe (R)—indicted by Spain for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Central Africa—speaks to US AFRICOM chief General William Ward in Rwanda, July 2010. (Photo credit AFRICOM.)

Predominantly comprised of hardened Uganda guerrillas of the Tutsi ethnicity who fought (1980-1985) to bring Uganda’s strongman Yoweri Museveni to power, these guerrillas, backed by the Britain, Canada, Germany, Israel and the US, have perpetrated massive genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity on millions of innocent civilians in Uganda, Rwanda and the Dem. Rep. of Congo.

Contrary to popular propaganda, the sound bite claiming that the RPF ‘stopped the genocide against Tutsis’ in Rwanda is a gross mischaracterization of the nature of genocide versus civil war in Rwanda. It is also a sound bite that deflects attention from the RPF role in mass atrocities in Rwanda and Congo. The Kagame regime is able to get away with anything it wants — arrest and torture opponents, persecute refugees everywhere, plunder minerals from Congo and perpetrate genocide there — because President Paul Kagame has provided the Pentagon its biggest, centralized base for the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM.

Dr. Munyakazi was framed by the Kagame regime and publicly branded as a genocidaire by a short-lived NBC News television program that sought prime-time ratings by tracking down and ‘exposing’ supposed genocidaires. The program was titled The Wanted, and the morality of ‘good versus evil’ was underscored by the choice of the show’s commentator, Scott Tyler, an ex-Navy Seal, while the wanted man, Dr. Leopold Munyakazi, was their embodiment of evil. The zealous NBC News team acted as accuser, judge and jury against Dr. Munyakazi.

U.S. prosecutors in Rwanda asylum cases are generally very ignorant of the politics of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Rwanda, or they have been irreconcilably swayed by the propaganda of the Kagame regime and its partners, which is everywhere in the western media.  Also, Rwandan agents continue to operate within the U.S. borders, influencing, bribing and co-opting U.S. government officials.

In two related U.S. court cases, two U.S. prosecutors traveled to Rwanda and later testified in court to that it was very easy to get the information they wanted, they did not need a clearance from the Rwanda government, and that they went to the countryside and met witnesses without government assistance or monitoring. They even went to prisons to talk to prisoners without Rwanda government help, they claimed, and reported to the court that conditions of prisoners were excellent.

While U.S. government prosecutors who have worked in Rwanda under these supposed ‘independent’ conditions have not been deposed under oath, their claims are impossible under the current military regime in Rwanda.  Dr. Munyakazi’s investigation was conducted by ICE special agent Jason Hyman, the U.S. government’s star witness, “a boy doing a man’s job” who spent three weeks in Rwanda on his first ever human rights investigation.

In the case of Dr. Munyakazi, he was required to show a preponderance of evidence proving his innocence, the exact opposite of the U.S. judicial standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court decided he was guilty of genocide based on the spurious investigation and testimony of an unqualified and inexperienced agent seeking to make a name for himself.

Usually the RPF regime provides ‘handlers’ that manage investigations and spoon-fed investigators with information fabricated or cleared by the regime.  Rwanda experts for the defense at asylum hearings, including ICTR lawyer Peter Erlinder and Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian Rwanda expert, have testified (as experts for the defense) to the problems of asylum cases and the interference by the Kagame regime in court cases in Rwanda, at the ICTR and abroad.  Dr. Munyakazi’s defense experts at his original trial in 2009 included Peter Erlinder, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and myself.

“The RPF brooks no opposition to its policies, and is allergic to criticism of any sort.” Rwanda scholar Dr. Susan Thomson of Colgate University is an expert whose field research in Rwanda brought the wrath of Kagame down upon her.

 “It also does not tolerate any form of political dissent; instead, it works to maintain total control over the political and social landscape.  The RPF beats up or imprisons political moderates, as well as prominent members of civil society who speak out against the post-genocide policies are perceived to have criticized the government.  Individuals who can flee into exile will do so; if they are prominent members of Rwandan society, the RPF will ostracize the individual in question, labeling them as enemies of the state. Some, particularly senior politicians and journalists who have fallen afoul of government policy, are tracked down in their places of exile and assassinated, presumably by agents of the RPF.  Others like Dr. Munyakazi, are subject to the long-arm of political harassment that seeks to return potential asylum seekers home to Rwanda.”

“It is my professional opinion,” wrote Dr. Thomson in Expert’s Report of Dr. Susan M. Thomson in the Matter of Leopold Munyakazi (never allowed into evidence), “that Dr. Leopold Munyakazi is the target of a RPF-led smear campaign of his character which has in turn affected his ability to enjoy a fair immigration process.”

Why would they take him on a Friday afternoon,” his attorney Ofelia Calderon stated late Friday evening on 4 September, “before a Labor Day weekend, knowing how hard it will be for me to respond, and that I don’t have any options to prevent his removal?  They can send him back to Rwanda at any moment.

This is not a deportation, it is U.S. government collusion in the certain death of an innocent Rwandan Hutu intellectual who is listed on the U.S.-backed Rwandan regime’s hit list of enemies.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair stated that yesterday was not the time to allocate blame for the death of Aylan Kurdi, his mother and brother, and thousands of other Syrian refugees. Actually, while the boy’s tragic death, his small body washed up on a Turkish beach in his family’s desperate attempt to escape the war against Syria, is fresh in the minds of Canadians, yesterday was actually a good day to do so.

That blame should squarely fall upon the government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. According to NDP candidate, Fin Donnelly, the boy’s family tried unsuccessfully to apply for  refugee status in Canada. (1)

We agree with the statement of Aylan’s aunt, Fatima Kurdi, a resident of Coquitlam, BC, who told CBC radio news today that the war in Syria must end. It is precisely the undeclared western aggression against Syria, using terrorist mercenaries as its foot soldiers, that has produced today’s refugee crisis in which Aylan Kurdi is the latest victim.

In December 2011, Harper’s government instructed its ambassador to Tunisia to organize a pre-conference for the founding conference of the so-called “Friends of Syria” Group (FSG). The FSG was formed in Tunis in 2012 at U.S. instigation illegally to overthrow the Syrian government and organized a covert war of aggression using supposedly “moderate” Syrian mercenaries. Over the course of this five-year war, the mercenaries, mostly non-Syrians, morphed into the Nusra Front and ISIS, both al-Qaida affiliates, and drove more than 10 million Syrians from their homes.

In addition, in June 2013, Harper’s government chaired the FSG’s Working Group on Sanctions at a conference in Ottawa and made life for Syrian civilians even more unbearable, causing many more to flee the country.

With its further commitment to to the U.S.-led military mission to Syria and Iraq, Harper’s government might accurately be placed in the thick of the regime-change operation in Syria, and is responsible in large part for the refugee crisis. As a consequence, the very least Canada could do now is to open its doors wide to Syrian refugees.

In responding to media questions about the death of Aylan Kudri, Harper deflected criticism of his government’s deplorable record on resettling Syrian refugees in Canada by claiming that Canada has the most generous immigration policy in the world, a claim completely unsupported by the facts.

Canada’s deplorable track record Re Syrian refugees

At the FSG founding meeting in Tunis, the great powers of the world, minus Russia and China, agreed upon a division of labour in this illegal war. The USA officially agreed to supply non-lethal aid to the so-called “moderate Syrian rebels” such as satellite communications and night-vision goggles. In reality, however, as is now well-documented, it shipped thousands of tons of armaments to the mostly foreign mercenaries in Syria from the armouries of defeated Yugoslavia and Libya. The British and French agreed to provide training for the “insurgents” in training camps conveniently provided by Turkey and Jordan. The Arab monarchs reached into their deep pockets to provide the funding for the terrorist mercenaries. The commitment by the Harper government to this nefarious plot was to provide for Syrian refugees. Specifically, it was to provide some $600,000,000 in humanitarian aid and to repatriate some of the refugees to Canada.

$600 million may sound like a lot of money. And obviously the FSG didn’t expect the war to go on for four and half long years because there are now some 4 million Syrian refugees living outside of Syria and another six or seven million internally-displaced Syrian refugees (that is to say, Syrians who have been driven from their homes by the foreign mercenaries to seek shelter in government-held areas). So, altogether, there are about 10 million Syrian refugees – almost half the total population of Syria – in theory to share $600 million (CAD) which works out to $60 each over 4.5 years. That’s less than $15 each for each refugee per year. And, of that $60 m. CAD, not all of it went to humanitarian aid. Some of it, as is also well-documented, went to fund the foreign mercenaries. (2)

The other commitment made back in 2012 by the Harper government of Canada was to bring 1300 Syrian refugees to Canada. 1300 of about 4 million external Syrian refugees, a paltry commitment indeed, given the magnitude of the tragedy.

However, the Harper government could not even manage to achieve this miniscule goal in two and a half years. On June 11, 2014 – a little over a year ago – in an interview with the CBC’s As It Happens radio show, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander was embarrassed by the radio show’s host. The minister didn’t even know how many Syrian refugees his department had admitted to Canada in the previous two years and he tried to fudge the numbers with refugees from Iraq. He was so embarrassed that he ended up hanging up the phone on his radio host. As a result, a few days later in Parliament, he was force to admit that his department was way below the quota of 1300 and promised to do better. And so, by the end of 2014, Citizenship and Immigration Canada managed to finish the paperwork to admit 1285 Syrian refugees to Canada, though about 200 of these refugees are probably still not here and many will have to be privately sponsored. In January of this year, after being pressured by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Alexander made another paltry commitment to resettle 10000 more Syrian refugees within three years, again with many of these to be privately sponsored. Alexander also promised another paltry $90 million in humanitarian aid to refugees for all of Syria and Iraq. At the time, the opposition parties in Parliament were highly skeptical of the minister’s promises given Chris Alexander’s miserable track record.

In an interview yesterday on CBC radio, Alexander claimed his government had resettled about 2300 Syrian refugees in Canada. (3) Yesterday as well, after the untimely death of little Aylan Kurdi, both the NDP and Liberals promised to vastly increase the number of Syrian refugees that they would admit to Canada if each formed majority governments.

Harper promotes war as a solution

At various campaign stops yesterday, Harper paid lip service to the tragic death of Aylan Kudri  but mainly lambasted the Liberals and NDP for not supporting his war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Harper’s position is consistent with that of Obama, Cameron, Hollande and other western leaders who have tried to rebrand a neo-colonial war of aggression against  sovereign states as a “humanitarian” intervention. Western leaders know that there is no stomach for their military adventures in the Global South among the working people in their own countries. So they repackaged their regime change operation in Syria and their continuing attempt to balkanize Iraq into warring statelets by spinning them as an attempt to wipe out the bad guys in ISIS.

The truth is, of course, that ISIS is a US asset. The USA created it to destabilize Iraq and Syria as part of its plan to redraw all the borders of the Mideast which were established in the wake of WW1. The US and its coalition partners have no intention “to degrade and destroy ISIS.” As in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, terrorist mercenaries provide for the US coalition the expendable “boots on the ground” to attack its enemies and, at the same time, provide a pretext for the continuing US military presence in Iraq as well as for regime change in Syria. The immediate Western plan is merely to contain ISIS. The long term strategy of the US empire is hegemonic. Syria and Iraq are stepping stones to weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Iran, objectives which coincidentally benefit the State of Israel. Hezbollah and Iran, in turn, are stepping stones to the subjugation of Russia and China.

While both the NDP and Liberals voted against the Harper government’s decision to join the US-led coalition to wage war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and while Thomas Mulcair made a significant campaign promise to withdraw Canadian troops and warplanes from Iraq and Syria if he formed a majority government,  there is much more that the opposition parties could do and say during the current election campaign. They could follow the example of other countries in reopening diplomatic relations with Syria. Such a move would indicate de facto recognition on their parts of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country of Syria. They could pledge to end Canada’s participation in the FSG economic sanctions regime against Syria. They could promise to withdraw Canada from the FSG itself. And they could pledge the governments they plan to form after October 19 to support the renewed UN peace process for Syria in Geneva which has been recently strengthened by the appointment of a new UN special envoy for Syria and a flurry of diplomatic initiatives undertaken by Russia and Iran to promote a political, made-in-Syria solution to the humanitarian tragedy in that country.

To answer Harper in a few words, opposition politicians and Canadians in general could simply point out that war is not the answer to the refugee problem. In fact, wars create refugees. Most of today’s refugees come from theatres of war – Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Libya – where western countries, led by the USA, have waged illegal wars against sovereign states.

If any of the opposition parties were to do so as a result of the current media focus on the Syrian refugee crisis, the death of young Aylan Kudri would not have been in vain.

Ken Stone is the treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War.

Notes

1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ndp-candidate-tried-to-help-family-of-drowned-syrian-boy-1.3213949

2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/canadas-harper-government-supports-covert-mercenary-war-on-syria-funds-al-qaeda-afiliated-rebels/5357781

3. http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/does-canada-do-enough-for-refugees-1.3215279

The Guardian is currently providing us with a good example of what is often called the “problem-reaction-solution” method of controlling public discourse.

Step One: Find, create, emphasise, or de-contextualise a problem

In this case, the “refugee crisis”, currently screaming from the front pages of most mainstream media outlets. The unanimity and hysteria should immediately alert us to a potential agenda. Yes, of course there are thousands of refugees and their plight is appalling. Yes the way they are being received by the EU is predictably callous and racist. But this is what happens when you start imperialist wars, and even the Guardian admits it’s not new. The MSM has been content to ignore the plight of displaced Libyans since 2011, displaced Iraqis since 2003, displaced Syrians and Ukrainian since 2014.

So we need to ask why the western media are suddenly headlining this ongoing human tragedy?

Why the blatant attempts to create mass hysteria through manipulation of basic human emotions – fear (of the alleged incoming hordes of displaced people) and outrage (for their plight)?

Is it because the media and its masters are suddenly discovering their humanity and conscience? Well, it’s always possible, but I think we’d be unwise to make that a first assumption. And in fact, a more likely answer presents itself in the Guardian’s response to the crisis it has chosen this moment to define…

Step 2: Reaction

First thing to note is how, in the media narrative, the plight of these displaced people is entirely removed from any real geopolitical context. Note that nowhere in its prurient and emotive rolling coverage of overturning dinghies, private funerals, mass-marches, tent-camps in shopping malls, endless “personal stories” from unsourced individuals, does the Guardian refer to the fact that western war mongering created this crisis in its entirety.

Likewise, in the latest “Guardian View“, the anonymous author offers only elision, flimsy images of unspecified ‘conflicts’ and ‘repressive and failed states’…

There is a wide arc of conflict-ridden, repressive and failed states running from the Middle East, round the Horn of Africa and along the southern Mediterranean coast. There are tens of millions of people living in that region who might reasonably decide that the only future for them and their families lies in Europe….

He mentions Libya has “unravelled” but avoids discussion of how and why. He implies – without compromising himself enough to actually state – that the Syrian refugees are fleeing Assad, not “coalition” bombs….

The optimism of the Arab spring is spent. Colonel Gaddafi was a tyrant, yet Libya has unravelled violently in the aftermath of his removal. The refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad gave the Syrian president permission to continue murdering his people

Apparently in New Guardianspeak drone attacks, air strikes and the funding of insane jihadists = “reluctance to intervene”, and it’s our wimpy pacifism that’s causing all the problems out there – not our bombs, drones and lunatic jihadists.

(Not just in Guardianspeak either – in fact a disturbingly similar “this is because we did nothing” meme is being sold by Boris Johnson in the Telegraph. This ‘coincidence’ of opinion pieces is even more suggestive of a pre-planned agenda rollout).

Which neat bit of reality-inversion leads us nicely on to….

Step 3: Solution

“Much more must be done,” screams the Guardian’s headline. But what does this “more” actually mean? The anonymous author – assigned the task of selling this ‘solution’ to the Guardian’s core readership – sets it out obliquely, but obviously enough.

Although it is essential in discussion of the current crisis to remember the legal distinction between refugees – seeking sanctuary from imminent danger – and the wider category of people who migrate in search of a better future for themselves and their families, it is also important to acknowledge that, in places where economic activity, law and order are breaking down, the line between the two categories is technically and ethically hard to draw.

Translation: the problem isn’t going away until we fix the failed states that the refugees/migrants are fleeing from, and of course…

Since Syria’s plight is the most immediate moral and strategic problem, that is where Europe must begin the search for solutions.

Ah, and what might the ‘solutions’ entail, oh non-agenda-driven anonymous Guardian sage?

The increase in refugee numbers heading for the EU describes a collapse of hope among millions of Syrians, many displaced in neighbouring countries, that their home will be safe again in their lifetime. To begin restoring that hope will inevitably mean international intervention of some kind.

“Intervention of some kind”? By western armed forces you mean? Yes indeed he does…

The establishment of credible safe havens and the implementation of a no-fly zone must be on the table for serious consideration. Russia, as the state with most influence over Assad, must somehow be convinced to rein him in. EU powers must be prepared to spend more of their efforts and resources fostering the conditions for ceasefire.

“Implementing a no-fly zone” in a foreign country is basically a declaration of war against that country. So, by amazing coincidence, the solution to the current refugee crisis being so mercilessly hyped in the media, is the very same war with Syria that the PTB have been trying to sell to the masses since 2012. Incredible isn’t it! And about as convincing as a snake oil salesman turning up at your door day after day touting the same cure for different diseases. Want to save the Kurds? Bomb Syria! Want to stop ISIS? Bomb Syria! Want to save the helpless refugees?…

But this time they are hoping we’ll forget our earlier scepticism and buy it, because we’ll be so scared the ‘disposessed’ hordes will get us…

The need for Europe to develop a coherent account of its place in the wider world has often been discussed as the goal once internal matters are settled, but that moment keeps being deferred. Yet the rest of the world is not waiting. Its fearful dispossessed are rattling Europe’s gates.

Right there is the heart of the message. ‘The EU has to get behind the US agenda, support and even assist with an invasion of Syria, maybe also implement other as yet unspecified legislation to bring us inline with the US – or be swamped by the ‘fearful dispossessed’.’

Fear porn in other words, but carefully laced with faux compassion. Everything else you read or see in the MSM is about planting this idea the collective mind. They are trying to create the meme that the refugee crisis is suddenly (and inexplicably, but never mind that), so huge and so impossible to manage, sothreatening to European security, to domestic economies and everything else we care about that bombing Assad and thereby starting a proxy war with Russia actually looks like the better alternative.

This – and not any kind of compassion – is why the MSM is wall-to-wall with increasingly implausible, hysterical and unexamined refugee stories. This is why pictures of a little boy’s funeral “emerge” inexplicably on to the pages of the Guardian. The fact his family were not fleeing from Syria, but from Turkey – a NATO member, currently brutalising its own Kurdish population – is not going to make any difference at all.

It’s not a well-deserved crisis of conscience over displaced people, however much we might like to think it is. It’s the final push to get us to approve the Empire’s longstanding bid to wipe out yet another centre of opposition to its hegemony.

Update

If there was the smallest doubt about the real agenda behind the “refugee crisis”media meme it’s been entirely eliminated in the hours since this piece was published. Since then we have had BBC revelations that UK ministers are looking to put British troops on the ground in Syria, followed by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, echoing the anonymous editorial quoted above almost word for word.

After a few paras of requisite and formulaic sentiment about poor dead little Aylan Kurdi, and a few more of drivel about how austerity Britain with its 40% cuts in public services will find a magic money well to help the displaced people, Freedland delivers the kicker

Action for refugees means not only a welcome when they arrive, but also a remedy for the problem that made them leave. The people now running from Syria have concluded that it is literally uninhabitable: it is a place where no one can live. They have come to that conclusion slowly, after four years of murderous violence. To make them think again would require action a thousand miles away from the level of the district council, an international effort to stop not just the killers of Isis but also Bashar al-Assad’s barrel bombs.

It doesn’t matter that little Aylan’s family had been living in Turkey for three years, or that the Turks have a worse human rights records than Syria when it comes to the Kurds. It’s irrelevant that the barrel bombs are no more Assad’s than the poison gas the tame media also lied about last time they wanted to prime us for war.

Fatal Shelling in Gorlovka

On May 26, 2015 three civilians were killed when artillery shells landed in the Ozeryanovka district of Gorlovka, a town controlled by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) opposite the front lines of the Ukrainian Army. Anna Tuv lost her arm, her husband Yuriy, and her 11-year-old daughter Katya when two shells struck their home around 6pm. Her two youngest children received minor injuries, and there was another casualty nearby.

May 26, 2015 – Shelling in Ozeryanovka district, Gorlovka^[1]

The following day the home of the Tuv family and and other affected areas were visited by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine. They wrote the following about the shelling:

…The SMM saw nine crater impacts (all within a radius of 200 metres) at three locations in residential areas and conducted crater analysis at one location. At this location, the SMM saw the body of a deceased woman close to two crater impacts. The SMM estimated that the craters were caused by incoming artillery from the north-north-west. In both craters the SMM found shrapnel consistent with 122mm artillery. The SMM saw a house in Planernaya Street that had sustained a direct hit that destroyed the eastern facade, and found shrapnel consistent with 122mm artillery. At this location the SMM saw traces of blood. According to the “DPR” “emergency services” and local residents, a 38 year old man and his 11 year old daughter were killed instantly in this strike and his wife and two young children had been hospitalized with injuries. At City Central Hospital No.2 the SMM spoke with the wounded mother. She and her children had suffered shrapnel wounds. Later, the SMM saw three bodies at the mortuary (one a middle aged man, one woman and a child). The SMM assessed that all three were victims of the shelling.^[2]

May 27, 2015 – OSCE with shell fragments in Gorlovka^[3]

After speaking with the OSCE monitors in hospital Anna also gave an interview to Graham Phillips. Understandably distraught, she described what happened the day before:

It was horror inside. I pulled my child, my little boy, from under the rubble. He can’t open his eyes. And my daughter got torn in half, my little girl, my beautiful girl. My husband, what’s left of him, is in the mortuary, with his legs and arms torn off… My boy got his eyes burned. He got stitches after they took shrapnel out. They cut off my arm, to the elbow. My daughter got torn to pieces. They’re having a closed casket funeral for her tomorrow. Two shells landed there. One hit the house. The other one landed in the garden. It hit the hallway where we all were…

The Tuv family home^[4]

When I came to, I managed to save, I’d given birth to a girl on May 12, to this little baby, and saved my two and a half year old boy. But my 11-year old girl, my beauty is being buried tomorrow. She was going to be a model. She was the most beautiful girl in the school. She got torn in half…

My beautiful. My helper and supporter. She was always so helpful. Every morning she would bring me flowers, postcards. With the little ones, she would look after them as if she were their mom. And now I’m by myself. I’m 31 years old, and I’m a cripple with two little ones. And my beloved one is lying all torn. I don’t know how I’m going to live without him, without my daughter. I don’t know. Friends came to visit. They said my little boy is lying with his eyes closed. He hears a car and says: “Daddy came!” He’s always calling for his daddy and his sister.^[5]

When Graham asked where the shelling came from, she said:

From Dzerzhinsk, of course, you could see. Katya’s birthday was on May 21. There were explosions. Tracers were coming, guiding, from there. There was a very specific high-pitched noise. We live behind the garages. A shell landed near the checkpoint. We squatted in the garden back then. The same thing happened yesterday. Only this time our house got hit…

We had just discussed how happy our lives were, how many kids we had, and how happy our future was going to be, and how it was being quiet, and then in a single moment they destroyed everything, my family. They mained my little girl, my beloved husband without whom I can’t live. I don’t know how I will be waking up without him. I can’t breathe without him. I just don’t know how I can live any more. I would give everything just so they could live. Everything. I’d rather I lost all my limbs so he and my little girl would have stayed alive. When I saw this with my own eyes, I don’t know…

I don’t know where to go when I get out of the hospital. My parents live at Stoiteley. They get shelled every day. Our house is also destroyed. I don’t know where to hide them, so they don’t get killed. These two little, very little kids. Where can I put them, so they don’t get hurt? I saved them by some miracle. By miracle. 

Show it to everyone, what Poroshenko does to our children, to our families. We are not the military, we are not the army, but they’re fighting with civilians. They’re killing peaceful people, because he is a coward. He has no courage to fight against our fighters that are protecting us, because they can fight back. That’s why he is killing our children, from his own helplessness. Let Poroshenko see this video. What he has turned me into. My little girl. My beloved husband with whom we wanted to live till old age in happiness…

OSCE came and registered all this. Who will bring them back?^[6]

The OSCE report quoted earlier made no estimation of who fired the artillery shells, only that some came “from the north-north-west”. It made no mention of the Ukrainian positions in that general direction at Mayorsk and Dzerzhinsk, or the locals who claimed the shelling came from there.^[7,8,9]

Instead it mentioned a claim by the party which Anna Tuv and others blame for the attack:

The Ukrainian Armed Forces Major General, head of the Ukrainian side to the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) headquarters in government-controlled Soledar (77km north-north-east of Donetsk) alleged that the 26 May shelling of Horlivka came from Mine 6-7 (42km north-north-east of Donetsk and 7km north-west of Horlivka respectively), in areas controlled by “DPR”. The Major General alleged that the shelling was observed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces representative at the JCCC office in government-controlled Volnovakha (35km south-west of Donetsk).^[2]

According to the Ukrainian Major General, his Armed Forces observed the shelling from Volnovakha, 90km away from Gorlovka. He claims it came from DPR positions at Mine 6-7, which is very close to the unmentioned Ukrainian positions at Mayorsk. The Mine 6-7 area itself has been shelled repeatedly.^[10,11,12]

The Ukrainian government has accused the DPR forces and their Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) counterparts of firing at their own cities on numerous occasions. One example is the attack on the Lugansk Administration Building that killed at least 7 people on June 2, 2014, which Ukraine claimed LPR forces were responsible for. It has since been proven (though not widely reported) that the cause was an aircraft firing over 30 rockets on the city,^[13] not a MANPAD rocket fired from the ground as was claimed by the actual guilty party^[14] and repeated by the US government.^[15] President Obama met with Ukrainian President Poroshenko 2 days after the airstrike^[16] and offered $5 million of new security assistance to the Ministry of Defence.^[17]

June 2, 2014 – Airstrike in Lugansk

The US Department of State

Jeff Rathke from the US Department of State was questioned about the shelling at the May 27 Daily Press Briefing.^[18] “There was shelling by the Ukrainian Army in the town of Gorlovka, in the Donetsk Region on Tuesday, three civilians died including an 11-year-old,” said Russia Today correspondent Gayane Chichakyan. “Is that alright under the Minsk agreement to use heavy artillery in residential areas like that?”

“Well let’s take a step back and look at the situation in eastern Ukraine, because there’s a whole more to it than this this report that you’ve mentioned which I’m not able to confirm and I’m not familiar with,” said Rathke, who focused on reported violence around Shirokino, the Donetsk International Airport and Avdiivka. “The overwhelming majority of the ceasefire violations have been conducted by combined Russian separatist forces attacking Ukrainian positions on the Ukrainian side of the line of contact, which is clearly contrary to the Minsk agreements.”

“Are you saying that the shelling by the Ukrainian Army is justified?” asked Chichakyan.

“Look, you’re citing reports with which I’m not familiar, so I’m not going to comment on them,” responded Rathke.

“How closely do you follow with what’s happening in east Ukraine?”

Associated Press correspondent Matt Lee later added: “Perhaps you could look into, and familiarise yourself, or have some one do it, with the reports that she’s mentioning, and then come back to us and tell us whether or not you think that they were violations or that they are totally in line…”

Lee asked if Rathke had looked into the Gorlovka shelling at the following Daily Press Briefing on May 28.^[19] Rathke again mentioned the same reports of ceasefire violations around Avdiivka and Shirokino, but refused to comment on Gorlovka. “I don’t have anything further to add to what we discussed yesterday, that is the overwhelming majority of the violations of the ceasefire are coming from the Russian and separatist side.”

“Are you picking and choosing what to read from the OSCE report or is that the whole thing?” Lee asked.

“Well I think it’s important to keep the big picture in mind,” Rathke responded, before beginning to repeat his comments about the overwhelming majority of ceasefire violations.

“Ok, fair enough, but is that the whole report that you’re reading from?” Lee interjected.

“I don’t have the entire report in front of me…”

Earlier Rathke was asked by another reporter about American military trainers in Ukraine referring to Ukraine’s role in the conflict as an anti-terrorist operation. “Is this how you essentially see things in Ukraine? It’s an anti-terrorist operation in your view?”

“Well, I think you’re probably aware but I’ll highlight,” began Rathke, “there is a Ukrainian law from June of 2014 in which the Ukrainian government established the Anti-Terrorist Operation, so this is Ukrainian terminology that underscores how they view their defensive operations against the combined Russian and separatist forces but I don’t have any further…”

“But those are US military personnel,” interjected the reporter.

American military trainers in Ukraine^[20]

“Well I think it’s only natural as they are there working with Ukrainian colleagues, that they’ve probably heard the Ukrainian terminology for it,” said Rathke. “I think our point of view on what’s happening in eastern Ukraine and, on the, our support for the Ukrainian government as they fight against this, the, what’s been happening in eastern Ukraine remains unchanged.”

He was also asked about a declaration from Ukraine’s Rada (parliament) that Ukrainian authorities would not be able to fully observe human rights in eastern Ukraine.

“We’ve seen reports that the Ukrainian legislature passed a resolution that purports to temporarily pass responsibility to Russia for the protection of human rights in those areas of Ukrainian territory that Ukraine does not control,” he responded. “Which includes Crimea and certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. We’re still reviewing the language of the resolution, I don’t have further comment…”

Yuriy and Katya’s Funeral

Yuriy and Katya Tuv were buried on May 28. Anna left the hospital with the assistance of a wheelchair to attend the funeral, and a large number of people from the town joined her. Graham Phillips filmed some of the procession, and a few people conveyed their anger and sorrow on camera.

“Tell Poroshenko that he is scum and crud,” one said. “Damn you, your children, your grandchildren, and let a rocket fly to the red lilies in your house, you bastard! The President of peace, you’re not the President of peace! You’re a fascist and a murderer! Damn, there are kids! What terrorists and separatists?! These are children, people of peace! Bastard, bitch, damn you!”^[21]

“Graham, tell all the world, they are killing us,” said another. “How many more will they destroy? Let the world know.”^[22]

Six days after funeral Anna spoke with Russell “Texas” Bentley from a hospital in Donetsk. Bentley is an American volunteer for the Donetsk People’s Republic, currently doing video reports for Essence of Time. Five days earlier he reported from the ruins of Anna’s house.^[23] With her mother and two young children in the room, she said:

If I’m shown to Petro Alekseevich Poroshenko, I want, I’m not black-hearted at all. I’m too religious, but, from the bottom of my heart, I wish you a long life, I want you to suffer the same pain I’m suffering now every moment for the rest of your life. The wounds will heal up, but this is you who planted a dagger in my heart, who bereft me of my child. You bereft me of my beloved I was living and breathing. I wish you were in the same awful fear my little daughter had been in before she was torn asunder. If you’re not totally devoid of humanity yet, I beg you, stop. 

I beg all the world: Stop Ukrainian regime. Stop hammering mothers and their children. Guys. Armed Forces of Ukraine.  Everyone, who’s trying to mobilise to Ukrainian Army, this is not your war! Nobody will reward you. When you have your arms and legs shot away, you won’t get social payments. Nobody will say “thank you”. You’re forwarded to fight not with militarists. You’re encouraged to kill children and women and civilians. You’re just stooges, tools of your bosses. I beg you, stop. I beg everyone. I’m addressing the whole world just now. On behalf of my little girl, who’s no more, who used to love the entire world and meant no harm to anyone… 

My husband was everything to me. Everything hung on him. Just everything. We’ve given birth to our daughter recently, we had a joyful family. My life has collapsed. I just can’t understand what for. What is our fault? 

The dad was so happy to have a daughter. My little Katya was torn into two parts. I had no chance even to see them in the coffin for the last time, because they were disfigured and mutilated. And how many mothers like me are crying at the moment?…

Look at this girl. Why? My honey. I had not one hand shot away, I had three of them shot away. She used to do everything. She was just the child from the heavens. Why her? I was being driven in an ambulance, and she was just torn asunder. Bottom and legs. An ear was torn out. She was mutilated all through. My husband, a handsome man, was torn asunder. My Katya is no more, no more. This is all I have now. Only these two pictures of her. Petro Poroshenko has bereft me of her.^[24]

More Shelling in Gorlovka

The northern suburb of Holma reportedly came under artillery fire on May 31. Graham Phillips interviewed some residents about it the following day.^[25] “You know, it was scary,” said one woman, Alla. “It started, they fired once at first. I heard a high pitched noise. I was working in the garden. I was weeding. I threw the hoe and ran towards the house. Then it was quiet for 5-10 minutes. And then it really started. And lasted for about 40 minutes for sure. This high-pitched noise. We hid in a hole in the ground.”

Graham asked her where it was coming from. “It was coming from the direction of Kurdyumovka, Kodema,” she said. “Before that, from Dzerzhinsk.”

“So, from the Ukrainian positions?” asked Graham.

“Yes, Ukrainian. They, by the way, shell very frequently, even though on television – we watch it – right after they shell us from there, they immediately report it’s the DPR guys that did the shelling, of themselves, as it turns out. But we’re not blind or deaf, and these lies of theirs, we can see and hear where it’s coming from and where they’re shelling from. They’re shelling from the Ukrainian side.”

“How long are we going to have to take this?” said another resident, Ira. “Poroshenko – this jackass. You’re killing people and children, you bastard… We haven’t been able to live in peace for a year now. How much more are we going to have to suffer? And all this, it’s civilians, civilians that live here. Nobody else is here. They have no shame. Vermin. Let them croak, those bastards.”

Some other residents who were listening in the background laughed, and after smiling Ira continued: “What? Come on, how much longer do we have to take this? Kids, little kids have to hide in basements. Yesterday, all the kids were hunkering down in basements. Here, the school, everyone was in the basement. Children, elderly women, everyone was in the basement… We’ve lived here all along. We’re all local residents.”

The western suburb of Stoitel was shelled on June 1^[26]

Gorlovka was attacked again on June 8 in the western suburb of Kurganka.^[27] “This is from Dzerzhinsk,” said one resident filmed for a report by Newsfront the next day.^[28] “It could be nothing different. We know it’s from Kurdyumovka when it flies from that side. If this side, then it is from Dzerzhinsk.”

More shelling hit the western outskirts of Gorlovka on June 10. Three people were killed^[29] and a 16-year-old girl was injured and died in hospital a week later.^[30]

July 10, 2015 – Western Gorlovka^[31]

When the OSCE arrived the following day the locals were desperate.^[32] “You come here when nobody’s shelling,” one said. “You should come here at night and take a look. At 23:00. To see what happens here.”

“We don’t have the right to come here at night,” responded one of the monitors.

“Well, that’s because everyone knows, my dear, when you come, they just keep quiet.”

“Or maybe you just correct the fire for them,” added another local.

“I have a relative who lives in Kurdyumovka,” said one woman. “She called me and told me that yesterday, from Magdalinovka they were shooting from 300 metres away from here house, the Ukrainian military was shooting. According to the time, it was at the time they were shelling our houses.”

“We can only talk about facts,” said the monitor. “I can’t comment on anything else.”

“If you have UAVs there, can’t you check?” asked the woman. “That the Ukrainian artillery was doing the shelling at that time.”

“Can you not yell? Speak calmly.”

“If you were there and in the neighbouring room when a person was killed,” began another woman…

“Ma’am, don’t yell,” the monitor said.

“I will yell, because I’ve had enough of this. Do you understand? It’s impossible. Three people got killed behind the wall. This is unreal. You, OSCE, go ahead, tonight, spend a night at our house number 105.”

“We don’t want to live under fascism,” said another civilian to a Newsfront camera.^[33] “Don’t bomb these children. They haven’t seen life yet… We’ve already become not just regions, but Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and that will be so, regardless of your wish. We’ll live independently… Give me a stick, give me a gun. Poroshenko, you bitch, I’ll go and kill you, tart!”

“I don’t know where to go in the apartment,” added a woman seated nearby. “They want to exterminate us.”

Despite being filmed analysing numerous shell craters, the OSCE report published on June 12 only said the following:

In Horlivka (“DPR”-controlled, 29km north-north-east of Donetsk) the SMM was approached by around 70 local inhabitants, visibly upset and distressed and verbally aggressive and critical towards the SMM. Some members of the crowd make violent threats. The SMM left the scene after the OSCE flag was broken off the vehicle and thrown to the ground. A Russian Federation Armed Forces representative of the JCCC’s office in Horlivka was present when the incident occurred.^[34]

They eventually published their findings in the June 13 report.^[29] Without mentioning where the Ukrainian positions were, it said: “The SMM conducted crater analyses and assessed that most of the impacts originated from a north to south direction…”

July 15, 2015 – Shelling in Kurganka, Gorlovka^[35]

Anna, Zakhar and Milana on TV

Anna Tuv described her ordeal on the July 1 episode of “Politics with Peter Tolstoy” on the Russian TV stationChannel One:

It happened in broad daylight. On that day, my daughter finished her school year with flying colours. On the 21st of May, we celebrated her birthday under shelling.

May 21, 2015 – Gorlovka^[36]

On the 26th of May, we were watering vegetables with our children. My little Milana was in the house on her own. We heard characteristic whistles. Something dropped nearby. We hurried into the house, the children hiding in the corridor. After hearing the whistle, I was the last who ran indoors. A shell dropped on our house at that moment. 

I came to soon after the burst. I saw that one arm was absent. I heard my son Zakhar crying from under the ground and I dug him out. Then I saw the body of my daughter, Katya, torn in two halves. She had her 11th birthday on the 21st of May. I ran to the bedroom. My injured Milana was lying there. She was born on the 12th of May, 2 weeks before that day. 

Then, the second shell dropped. An ambulance couldn’t arrive for long time due to continuous shelling. Our district is under permanent shelling from Ukrainian militaries. We can see from where all this flies…

 (My husband) pushed me out, using himself as a shield to protect me. He was running to see from where this was flying. He was torn into parts in the corridor, at the entrance.  

…this was during the “ceasefire” on the 26th of May. My daughter was to participate in a fashion show on the 1st of June, Day for Protection of Children. She should have been a model for that show. They died before my eyes. They were torn into parts. Zakhar, Milana, and I survived…

“I know you’ve arrived at this studio to address Petro Poroshenko,” said one of the hosts. “Here’s the camera.”

I’m addressing you personally, Petro Poroshenko. I ask you: be a man. Stop killing women and children. Don’t conduct genocide. Stop sending punisher battalions who rape, kill and torment civilians. We have not been occupied by terrorists. We just don’t want to be with you. Stop giving monstrous orders to kills civilians. We didn’t start this war, we have nothing in common with it. We just lived our lives. I address you on behalf of all mothers and women who lost their children and husbands because of you. You’ve turned people into invalids. Stop killing civilians. Be reasonable. Stop this bloodshed that makes orphans of our children.^[37]

Victoria Shilova, prominent member of the Ukrainian “Anti-War” group which had been raising money for Anna, was also in the studio. “I’m living in the city of Kiev,” she said to the Ukrainian representatives opposite her. “86% of the population are hating you for killing people. You didn’t even say to this baby…”

She walked over to Anna and Milana. “Anechka, give her to me, please,” she said before taking the baby right up those defending the government.

“Look at her. Look. You too, look at her! That’s whom you kill and cripple. See? Seen it, feeling sorry? Seen her? There are a few hundred children like her! Look, do you feel sorry for this baby? Her 11 year old sister was killed. Torn in half!”

Four days later Russell Bentley again visited Anna, giving her some flowers and Zakhar some toys. He told her about a fundraiser he helped set up in her name. “People from all over the world are pitching in,” he said. She thanked people for their support and gave an update on her situation:

Today is the fortieth day after my families’ death, after, my life turned upside down. Actually, I’ve just returned from them…

A psychologist has been working with him for three weeks, so the fright already passes. He sleeps peacefully, without crying. Even during powerful and loud shelling he doesn’t cry or fall over the floor. The stress passes little by little. My hearing has recovered. I have a rupture of the eardrum, one piece is missing. I began to hear the right ear. The contusion is practically recovered too, the shoulder blades have almost grown together and I can already work with my right hand. The bandages from this (left) arm have already been removed, the wounds are healing. The fragments of mines are also gone…

We don’t want back to Ukraine. Never again. Never. We will never forgive, the people will never forgive. I think Petro Poroshenko will finally understand that we won’t put up with this. No matter how much they’re going to kills us, to cripple us – we won’t pull back, we won’t give up. We will fight for our freedom, for our world outlook to the last breath. We won’t put up with this regimen…

Photo posted to Russell Bentley’s Facebook page^[38]

I’m very happy that you support me, that you’re with me. I need it like breath now. You haven’t left me alone. Thank you. I’m very grateful. The movability of my hand depends on this. It’s very important for me. I save every penny for the prosthetic hand, because someday I want to tie bows on Milana’s head, I want to hug Zakhar with two arms. He is always asking, when the hand will grow again.^[39]

Videos:

May 26, 2015 – Shelling Kills Civilians in Gorlovka (13mins)
May 28, 2015 – Funeral For Shelling Victims Yuriy and Katya Tuv (10mins)
June 8, 2015 – Shelling in Kurganka, West Gorlovka (5mins)
June 10, 2015 – Overnight Bombardment of Gorlovka Kills Civilians (20mins)
July 1, 2015 – Shelling Survivors Anna, Zakhar and Milana Tuv on TV (11mins)
FULL DOCUMENTARY – “War Crimes in Gorlovka – The Anna Tuv Story” (84mins)

Notes

^{[1] “May 26, 2015 – Shelling Kills Civilians in Gorlovka,” Watchdog Media Institute, Aug 9 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVes1htZj_g
[2] “Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 27 May 2015,” OSCE, 28 May 2015, http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/160611
[3] “Ukraine: OSCE investigates deadly shelling in Gorlovka *GRAPHIC*,” Ruptly TV, May 27 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpvG-HOmocY
[4] “Destroyed Houses of Gorlovka,” Airdonbass, June 2 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSe_AKEjQKc
[5] “Gorlovka – Interview with Anna, part 1/2,” Graham Phillips, May 28 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guZl45s_rkc
[6] “Gorlovka – Interview with Anna, part 2/2,” Graham Phillips, May 28 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_O6lv7OjzQ
[7] “Gorlovka – 27.05.2015 – Witness,” Graham Phillips, May 28 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp7EGIFRkAk”
[8] “Gorlovka 27.05.15 – Witnesses,” Graham Phillips, May 28 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WznKazuOfUw
[9] “Gorlovka,” Anatoly Shariy, May 28 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBpDO5cw9JM
[10] “Security forces launched an offensive: Storming of Gorlovka,” Riafan, May 13 2015, http://riafan.ru/273549-siloviki-nachali-nastuplenie-idet-shturm-gorlovki/
[11] “Gorlovka June 8, 2015 The shelling of the area of the mine 6 7,” Marcus Macerinus, June 8 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnEvszi7dcM
[12] “Gorlovka. Destroyed Mines Area 6-7,” Opasnie, June 16 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK7oOt2eSu0
[13] “Airstrike in Lugansk City [June 2, 2014],” Watchdog Media Institute, June 1 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuS2UD1mbt0↩
[14] “On Luhansk Bombing, Ukraine PR Denies Then Tells ICP of OSCE Web Site Blocked, Odessa Probes,” Innercity Press, June 4 2014,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE0Qre4jRr8
[15] “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, June 3 2014, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/06/227073.htm
[16] “Obama declares commitment to Kyiv, but is it enough?” Euronews, June 4 2014, http://www.euronews.com/2014/06/04/obama-declares-commitment-to-kyiv-but-is-it-enough
[17] “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, June 4 2014, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/06/227099.htm
[18] “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, May 27 2015, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/05/242942.htm
[19] “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, May 28 2015, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/05/242972.htm
[20] Andrew E. Kramer. “Battle Tested, Ukraine Troops Now Get U.S. Basic Training,” New York Times, May 9 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/world/europe/ukraine-troops-receive-us-basic-training-after-battle.html?_r=0
[21] “Tell Poroshenko that he is scum – Gorlovka funeral procession today,” Graham Phillips, May 28 2015,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLpGdHPdXVA
[22] “Graham – tell the world that they are killing us,” Graham Phillips, May 28 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZbQ4zJw-Gk
[23] “Family suffered from the punishers shelling. Gorlovka. DNR. Episode 475,” Essence of Time, May 31 2015,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgB2bhFfEtM
[24] “Texas with Tuv family. English Subtitles, Donetsk. DPR. Issue 484,” Essence of Time, June 5 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDmNMH3iKsE
[25] “Golymovskiy – Witness Shelling ‘Terrible’,” Graham Phillips, June 1 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmZoAUGvn5g
[26] “Gorlovka Under Fire #1 – Special Report, June 2nd,” Graham Phillips, June 3 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzXlGfZeCj4
[27] “The shelling of Gorlovka! Komsomolets! 06/08/15,” ИБ Пятнашка, June 8 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzXViUuOxNY
[28] “DNI. Shelling Gorlovka June 8 – traces of crime and punitive comments civilians,” Newsfront, June 9 2015,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHMoZE08LlU&feature=youtu.be
[29] “Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 12 June 2015,” OSCE, June 13 2015, http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/164141
[30] “Donbass News Today (#1) Funeral for 16-year-old Victim of Ukrainian Shelling,” Graham Phillips, June 1 2015,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h8IXMwjGXU
[31] “10 – 11 June 2015 Gorlovka. The consequences of the shelling of the city Armed Forces of Ukraine,” Gorlovka Infocentre, June 10 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbgwnoqQhE
[32] “News Release 11.06.15,” Gorlovka Channel 6, June 11 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWw7S-XaL8s
[33] “Residents Gorlovka desperate curse Ukrainian punitive and Kiev authorities, bombing their homes,” Newsfront, June 1 2015,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFXi53OatSM&feature=youtu.be
[34] “Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 11 June 2015,” OSCE, June 12 2015, http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/164126
[35] “Shelling Gorlovka 15.07.15,” ИБ Пятнашка, July 16 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWu7Fm1GX3w
[36] “May 21, 2015 – Shelling in Gorlovka,” Watchdog Media Institute, August 9 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2HJmLZRXSA
[37] “Politics with Peter Tolstoy. “War in the Donbass: the tragedy of the people” (01.07.2015) © Channel One,” Channel One, July 1 2015,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viI6LSAiln4&feature=youtu.be
[38] “Facebook photo,” Russell Bentley, July 5 2015, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207114782650849&set=a.1078784572742.2013519.1320094225&type=1&permPage=1
[39] “Anna Tuv (English Subtitles),” Essence of Time, July 7 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvR_dDHQ6uE}

“Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian?” Viktor Orbán, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sep 3, 2015

The Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, is getting his figures, and history, muddled. In many contexts, history is often cited, less as an opportunity to inspire than to enrage and enforce a status quo. The better spirits of men and women are left behind, and in place, fear plays takes centre stage.

The human throngs making their way to various European transit points as of this writing have struck fear into the rightwing Orbán government. A range of measures have been enacted, the sort of one would expect from a government in fear of its own life.

These include three-year jail terms for those breaching the razor-wire barrier being built along the Hungarian-Serbian border. Hungarian citizens who collaborate or provide assistance to that end, including aid and shelter, also face state sanctioned punishments.

Orbán’s views on resettling Syrian refugees, among others, in Europe, are making their way up the charts of populist eccentricity. For him, Europe is under incessant siege, and rather than treating Clio as wise and far sighted, he is treating the Muse of history as insightfully dangerous.

The Turkish horde that besieged Vienna twice during the might of the Ottoman Empire has been reincarnated. “We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim.”[1]

This theme is a constant one for Orbán, despite having been an atheist. The mysticism that accompanies the craft of protecting the state brings with it strange stimulants. The sacred state becomes the voice of God – or some deity, and Orbán doesn’t resist harking back to it.

The European centre, in this context, is Christian, and by definition, opposed to perceived rivals. This insular myth allows Orbán to keep busy about a fiction: that Europe was somehow immutable in its institutions and cultures, worshipping at the same altar. Islam had no role to play, despite being Europe’s cultural incubator for centuries as the sacred centre slumbered.

By implication, allowing non-Christian individuals (read Muslim) into the centre is an invitation to conquest, surrender and subjugation. “Everything which is now taking place before our eyes threatens to have explosive consequences for the whole of Europe. We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation.”

This is the classic counter rhetoric that warns of re-visiting victimisation. The Hungarian sense of being done out of history’s rewards is powerful. From empire to ruin is a powerful theme, one that resounds from the battlegrounds of Mohács (1526), where Suleiman the Magnificent dealt the death blow to the Jagiellon dynasty, to World War II. Outsiders, invaders and sinister external forces are the demons to be wary of. As with the aftermath of Mohács, partition from all sides will stare you in the face.

Orbán, suitably aware of these historical references, has put his money (well, the taxpayers) where his mouth is. Church-owned schools have been allowed, courtesy of benefits, to flourish, enabling the spread of “national, Christian and European traditions”. These are the symbolic trenches, awaiting the enemy that is around the corner.

To critics, the Hungarian leader has one, repeated rebuff. And yes, it comes in the form of historical experience, because that explains everything. To former Polish prime minister and current president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, Orbán explained that he had “to say that when it comes to living together with Muslim communities, we are the only ones who have experience because we had the possibility to go through that experience for 150 years.”[2] (He conveniently leaves the Serbs and Greeks out of this equation.)

Such commentary seems at odds with what was said in 2013 during the opening of a Hungarian cultural centre in Istanbul. Then, at least, the historically invasive Turk was treated with greater accommodation. “Being Hungarian in Turkey is a good thing,” suggested Orbán, “and being Turkish in Hungary is a good thing.”[3]

Not so now. The militarisation of the entire refugee issue is in full swing. From London to Budapest, there is a sense that asylum seekers and designated refugees have hidden arms, dangerous messengers of a subterranean Caliphate. People trafficking networks are their allies.

In all of this, Orbán gives an impression that Europe should thank this modern soldier against immigration, guarding the gates against the hordes. All this, despite the recent decision to use buses to transfer the initially detained refugees to Austria and Germany. “Ceterum censeo: there is no alternative, and we have no option but to defend our borders.” This absurdity which leads to a self-imposed logic of fear is reductionist and even pathological: avoid, whatever the cost, another Mohács.

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

Notes

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/muslims-threaten-europes-christian-identity-hungarys-leader-says/

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/world/europe/hungarian-leader-rebuked-for-saying-muslim-migrants-must-be-blocked-to-keep-europe-christian.html?_r=0

[3] http://dailynewshungary.com/orban-opens-hungarian-cultural-centre-in-istanbul/

More than 100,000 people in the United Kingdom have now signed a petition demanding the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes against Palestinians when he visits London later this month.

The petition, which was published on the website of the British Parliament on August 7, calls upon the British government to apprehend the 65-year-old chairman of Israel’s Likud party upon arrival in London next Wednesday for the massacre of thousands of Palestinians during the Israeli military’s 50-day onslaught against the blockaded Gaza Strip last year.

The petition garnered 100,021 signatures as of Saturday morning.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is under fire for the killing of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. (© AFP)

“Under international law, he should be arrested for war crimes upon arrival in the UK for the massacre of over 2,000 civilians in 2014,” the petition says, referring to the Israeli prime minister’s scheduled September visit.

After 10,000 signatures, the British government must respond to the petition, and after 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in the parliament.

Palestinian workers remove the rubble of a building that was destroyed during the 50-day Israeli military onslaught against Gaza Strip last summer in Gaza City’s eastern neighborhood of al-Shejaiya on August 25, 2015. (© AFP)

The British government has, in return, stated that “under UK and international law, visiting heads of foreign governments, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have immunity from legal process, and cannot be arrested or detained.”

Israel started its military campaign against the impoverished Gaza Strip in early July 2014. The offensive ended on August 26, 2014. Nearly 2,200 Palestinians, including 577 children, lost their lives in Israel’s war. Over 11,100 others – including 3,374 children, 2,088 women and 410 elderly people – also sustained injuries.

Major security plans have been put into action ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s UK visit amid fears of protests over his record on Gaza and the treatment of Palestinians.

A major demonstration has been planned by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) to take place on Wednesday at Downing Street, where Netanyahu is due to meet Prime Minister David Cameron.

A statement on the PSC website says: “Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for the war crimes identified by the UN Human Rights Council following Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza last summer.

More than 2,000 Palestinian men, women and children were killed by Israeli forces during that 50-day massacre, and much of Gaza was destroyed.

“And yet the British Prime Minister will shake Netanyahu’s hand next Wednesday and doubtless discuss, among other things, more arms deals between the UK and Israel,” it adds.

An online petition to have Netanyahu arrested for his involvement in the 2014 Gaza war has now reached over 100,000 signatures.

The petition’s founder Damian Moran told the Anadolu agency: “I never really understood the Palestine conflict until about 10 years ago when I did some actual research on it and was horrified by what I found.

I could empathize greatly with Palestinians with all the horrors they faced.

The British government has said it will not arrest Netanyahu because “under UK and international law, certain holders of high-ranking office in a state, including heads of state, heads of government and ministers for foreign affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction.

Conservative MP Eric Pickles also joined the debate, saying that he welcomed “the government’s unambiguous response, which reiterates its support for Israel’s right to self-defense and condemnation of Hamas’s terrorist tactics.

The petition will have no impact upon the UK-Israel relationship which is stronger than ever and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s forthcoming visit will enhance it further.

“Spontaneous.” “Genuine.” Defiant.” The US State Department’s marketeers have used these labels in attempts to differentiate its latest wave of global “color revolutions” from the now tired, ineffective, and familiar formulas used everywhere from the US-engineered “Arab Spring,” to the Euromaidan in Ukraine, to Bersih 4.0 in Malaysia.

The latest target is Lebanon where protests have begun in the streets of the capital, Beirut. Branded the “YouStink!” marches, the alleged provocation was dysfunctional municipal garbage collection services. However, very predictably, the protests have shifted quickly from what could have been perceived as legitimate demands to outright calls for regime change.

Color Revolutions 2.0

Just recently in Armenia, the US conducted what appeared to be a test run of its new and improved “color revolution” system of regime change. It attempted to create a movement with little if any initial political affiliation and with deeply hidden ties between protest organizers and their US State Department affiliations. Ultimately the so-called “Electric Yerevan” protests, whose alleged grievances were rising electric bills, spent so much time trying to convince Armenians and people around the world that they weren’t a US-backed mob, they never succeeded in building up sufficient momentum to move on to the next step.

The trick was to first use rising electrical costs as a pretext to stage the protests, then quickly swing them around to demand a change in government. Likely, provocations and violence were planned for later stages, as well as opportunities for America’s client opposition parties to take over and swell the ranks of street mobs with their supporters.

In Armenia, America’s next generation of color revolutions failed.

In Beirut, however, it seems that the protests have made it at least to the point where the alleged pretext – piles of garbage – have now been replaced with demands for regime change.

Despite the 2005 so-called “Cedar Revolution” being exposed as entirely US-engineered, paving the way for the expulsion of Syrian troops from Lebanon and an Israeli attack on the country the following year, many even in the alternative press have been taken in by what should be an obvious, albeit more carefully concealed, follow-up to 2005’s events.

Spot the Leaders, Follow the Money 

Transcending emotional appraisals of street mobs and reciting the alleged demands and motivations of the protesters themselves, protests are like anything else in the real world – they require leaders, organization, money, logistics, and infrastructure to function. The “YouStink!” protest is no different. Trawling through the Western media’s reports, several names are repeatedly mentioned as “organizers” and “leaders.”

They include Asaad Thebian, an alumni of the US State Department’s U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). In 2014, Thebian would be standing in front of American flags, and behind a podium with the US State Department’s seal affixed to it at a MEPI event, berating the Lebanese government. Now in 2015, he is attempting to overthrow it. Thebian would be quoted by Al Jazeera claiming:

“We started as dozens of protesters and now we’re thousands,” Asaad Thebian, an activist with the You Stink! campaign, said during Friday’s press conference. “We are demanding parliamentary elections.”

The International Business Times would expand on what is clearly taking shape as the true agenda behind the protests. In their article, “‘You Stink’ Demonstrators In Beirut Issue 72-Hour Ultimatum, Vow To Spread Protests In Lebanon Nationwide,” they would report that:

In Beirut’s symbolic Martyrs’ Square recently, protesters have chanted, “The people want the downfall of the government” and “Revolution!” Some have drawn parallels between these rallies and the demonstrations that swept many Arab countries in 2011 and 2012, which led to the toppling of a number of regimes in the Middle East and North Africa.

Joining Thebian is Michel Elefteriades who helped co-organize the US-backed mobs in Lebanon in 2005’s “Cedar Revolution” and worked for years to expel Syrian troops from Lebanon. The International Business Times would conduct a lengthy interview with him in their report, “Lebanon You Stink protests: We are not Egypt, claims activist Michel Elefteriades.” The report would quote Elefteriades as saying:

“This is not similar to what happened in Egypt or elsewhere where people were manipulated, or without greater political awareness,” Elefteriades exclusively told IBTimes UK from Beirut.

Elefteriades, in addition to claiming somehow their protest is different, would also attempt to assuage fears of a power vacuum forming if the current government was ousted:

“There is a leadership that is ready to take over and there will not be a vacuum,” Elefteriades explained. “There are many people, with great capacities, but that are still suffocated by this political elite and this new class will never be able to lead this country because those in place don’t want to give them space. So, as soon as that old political class will have left, there will be the emergence of a new political class, from one day to the next.” 

Also telling is Walid Jumblatt’s support of the mobs. In a Lebanese National News Agency report titled, “Jumblatt urges You Stink organizers to halt political manipulation of their movement,” it was stated that:

MP Walid Jumblatt tweeted on Sunday that yesterday’s protest in Down Town Beirut truly expressed the pains suffered by the Lebanese. He compelled those responsible for You Stink movement not to allow political parties to take advantage of this “spontaneous movement” and abort it prematurely. He also urged the movement’s organizers to study the proper mechanism to execute their demands.

Jumblatt’s calls are similar to those made by US-proxy political opposition parties in Armenia who insisted the protests were “spontaneous” and urged the clearly politically motivated movement to remain ‘unpolitical.’ An added touch to Lebanon’s current round of protests was the protesters rejecting Jumblatt’s support for the movement. It is likely that Jumblatt and others will end up literally on stage leading protests if they escalate long enough before sectarian violence is finally triggered.

Jumblatt role is significant and his name should be familiar to those following events in the Middle East. It was Jumblatt who conspired with then US Vice President Dick Cheney on how best to undermine neighboring Syria in the years leading up to the 2011 war. Revealed in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 report “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” Jumblatt suggested using the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a scheme that even at the time had already gotten underway.

Hersh would report:

Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.

Hersh would also report that funding was already being channeled by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Brotherhood. Of course, by 2011, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood along with Al Qaeda would use those resources to begin an armed confrontation with the Syrian government which rages on to this day. The events Jumblatt helped set in motion in 2007 and the war in Syria that has played out since 2011, is linked directly to the “YouStink!” protests. Considering that the various common threads between all involved in Lebanon’s current protests include US backing and an overt hatred for Syria, claims that sectarian motivation and politics do not drive “YouStink!” are patently false – an intentional misdirection predicated on “piles of garbage” and repetitive slogans claiming somehow this revolution is not just another US-engineered color revolution. But like in Armenia earlier this year, it is just another US-engineered color revolution.

First Piles of Garbage, Then Piles of Rubble 

The ultimate goal is to create chaos in Lebanon sufficient enough to disrupt Hezbollah’s operations regionally against the army of terrorist the US and its regional allies, including supporters of “YouStink!” helped organize as far back as 2007. As in the past, protests in Lebanon are aimed not at improving the future of the Lebanese people, but aimed instead at disrupting the stability of neighboring Syria.

What follows these disingenuous protests is likely a rerun of what followed the so-called “Cedar Revolution” in 2005. After that admittedly US-backed protest and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, Israel conducted extensive air raids and even a ground invasion of the country in the following year. Despite the impression that the “Cedar Revolution” left Lebanon particularly vulnerable, US-backed Israeli operations against Lebanon ended catastrophically for Tel Aviv. The air campaign failed to achieve any strategic or even tactical objectives and the ground invasion was essentially repelled with Israel calling off the operation before reaching the Litani River – the stated objective of Israeli ground forces.

If “YouStink!” can evolve into a sufficient level of chaos undermining Hezbollah in Lebanon, and with the organization’s resources already stretched in neighboring Syria fighting terrorist armies backed by the US and its regional allies, Israel will likely be used again in a 2006-style conflict or worse in the hopes that this time the dynamics of the region are decidedly working in the West’s favor.

Regardless of the outcome of “YouStink!,”the additional pressure political destabilization in Lebanon puts upon Damascus and Tehran can only detract from efforts to restore peace and stability across the Levant.

“YouStink!” organizers claim they are fighting for the future of Lebanon. In reality, they are jeopardizing not only Lebanon’s future, but that of the entire region. They are attempting to strike a match in a region already parched by the heat of the fires of nearby conflict. If “YouStink!” succeeds in their true objectives, they will bring immeasurable suffering to all in Lebanon and to many more beyond their borders. And as in the wake of the “Cedar Revolution,” the only parties that stand to benefit are the US and its regional allies who seek nothing less than Lebanon’s complete and perpetual failure as a sovereign state.

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

The WikiLeaks Files – the only comprehensive analysis of the full archive of diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks – is an essential reference for understanding the contours of American policy. For example, the current war in Syria.

The US strategically schemed to cause unrest in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad government. Faced with the rise of ISIS, which the US was not only aware of but also encouraged, the US slides deeper into a complicated war it helped escalate in the first place, recently involving the once reluctant Turkey and clandestinely including 80 British personnel as well.

Dec 13, 2006

Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006

William Roebuck, Chargé d’affaires, US embassy, Damascus

We believe Bashar’s [Bashar-al-Assad, Syrian President] weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and the signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.” [Emphasis added]

The WikiLeaks Files 

This cable suggests that the US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any available means, and that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have…In public, the US was opposed to ‘Islamist terrorists’ everywhere; but in private it saw the ‘potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists’ as an ‘opportunity’ that the US should take action to try to increase.

Robert Naiman
The WikiLeaks Files

US ally Turkey joined the supposed war against ISIS in Syria with airstrikes and by allowing US to use its airbase in Icirlik along the Syria-Turkey border. That “Turkey’s intelligence agency helped supply arms to parts of Syria under Islamist rebel control in late 2013 and early 2014” clarifies Turkey’s aims. While appearing to launch attacks on ISIS, Turkey simultaneously targeted PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in Iraq, the parent-wing of the PYD (Democratic Union Party in Syria) consisting of Syrian Kurds, who have been the main opposition to ISIS on-ground, thereby alienating “America’s most important military ally in the Syrian war.” In fact, Turkey’s airstrikes have disproportionately targeted PKK rather than the ISS. And the US is not innocent here either.

US intelligence is used by Turkish warplanes to bomb Kurdish villages where the PKK has a strong presence, killing many civilians in the process.

Conn Hallinan
The WikiLeaks Files

Of the 1032 people arrested by Turkey, 847 are accused of links to the PKK and just 137 to ISIS. Turkey has also refused to give air cover to Syrian Kurdish soldiers fighting against the ISIS. Well aware of this, US remains reluctant to condemn Turkey. US has never shied away from using its allies and enemies to suit its own strategic interests, without paying attention to the consequences of such collaborations, however harmful.

By 2014, the sectarian Sunni-Shia character of the civil war in Syria was bemoaned in the United States as an unfortunate development. But in December 2006, the man heading the US embassy in Syria advocated in a cable to the Secretary of State and the White House that the US government collaborate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shia as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government. At that time, no one in the US government could credibly have claimed innocence of the possible implications of such a policy. This cable was written at the height of the sectarian Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq, which the US military was unsuccessfully trying to contain. US public disgust with the sectarian civil war in Iraq unleashed by the US invasion had just cost Republicans control of Congress in the November 2006 election. The election result immediately precipitated the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. No one working for the US government on foreign policy at the time could have been unaware of the implications of promoting Sunni-Shia sectarianism.

Robert Naiman
The WikiLeaks Files

And yet the US proceeded to do exactly that in Syria, repeating its horrendous attack on Iraq, which reduced it to a warring, fragmented and unstable country. Verso author Patrick Cockburn writes, “The result is that the US may find it has helped to destabilize Turkey by involving it in the war in both Iraq and Syria, yet without coming much closer to defeating Isis in either country. If so, America will have committed its biggest mistake in the Middle East since it invaded Iraq in 2003.”

US foreign policy in the Middle East has generally rested on four pillars: Turkey, Egypt, the Persian Gulf monarchies, and Israel. That combination of strategic placement, wealth and military power has successfully kept the region divided and powerless for more than a half century.

Conn Hallinan
The WikiLeaks Files

Interpretations by scholars in The Wikileaks Files on US diplomatic cables related to Syria, read in combination with those on Turkey, Iran and Iraq, are key to understanding US’s strategic involvement in the ongoing war in Syria.

…to randomly pick up isolated diplomatic records that intersect with known entities and disputes, as some daily newspapers have done, is to miss ‘the empire’ for its cables…This book begins to address the need for scholarly analysis of what the millions of documents published by Wikileaks say about international geopolitics.

                           Julian Assange
Introduction to The WikiLeaks Files

The WikiLeaks Files is a comprehensive analysis of all of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, assembled by a team of independent foreign policy experts—an essential reference guide to the 21st century’s most explosive diplomatic revelations.

A Petition on the British Government Web Site warns Israeli coalition leader he could be arrested for complicity in alleged war crimes if he travels to Europe.

Benjamin Netanyahu plans to hold talks in London onSeptember 9th. Under international law he could be arrested for alleged complicity in commissioning a war crime in 2014 when he authorised the documented killing of over 2000 civilians including hundreds of children in an attack upon the Palestinian population of Gaza as a reprisal against militant protestors of Israel’s seven year long illegal blockade of essential supplies.

The illegal blockade of 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza, under the pretext of arms control in order to maintain Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank, has included the killing, in international waters, of unarmed civilians aboard the Turkish registered vessel, the Mavi Marmara, in May 2010, which was carrying humanitarian supplies.

Forensic teams subsequently identified some 250 (Israeli) bullet holes in the ship. During the struggle, nine activists were killed including eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish American, and many were wounded. A tenth member of the flotilla subsequently died in hospital after being in a coma for four years.

Netanyahu was severely condemned for this atrocity and Israel was forced to apologise and pay substantial compensation to the bereaved families. But no one has yet been brought to trial.

Another international atrocity was the assassination of a Palestinian political activist in a hotel bedroom in Dubai, in 2010, by agents using forged EU passports. No one has yet been brought to trial, either, for this killing.

Britain’s foreign secretary subsequently expelled an Israeli diplomat after the UK turned up evidence that Israel had forged copies of British passports. The Australian government also expelled an Israeli diplomat after concluding that there was “no doubt Israel was behind the forgery of four Australian passports” related to the assassination. Similar action was taken by Ireland.

It is very clear: Britain and all EU states have a duty to detain anyone suspected of complicity in the commissioning of a war crime and where there is sufficient evidence, of bringing them by force if necessary before the International Court.

It is also clear that the British government should not trade or negotiate with anyone so suspected, and certainly should not offer immunity from prosecution.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105446

More than 6,400 civilians have been killed and nearly 16,000 injured as result of criminal actions of Kiev regime during the conflict in Donbass, Chairman of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin said on Thursday. Also, more than 10,000 residential infrastructure facilities have been fully or partially destroyed and burnt. Since last April, more than 1 million Russian-speaking residents of Lugansk and Donetsk regions had to flee their homes, and more than 110,000 people having a refugee status have applied for the Russian citizenship. The war has been continuing.

Ukrainian capital being wrapped in smoke due to a spate of regional wildfires, including a forest fire that broke out in the village of Zazimye located about ten kilometers from Kiev earlier this week. The head of the Kiev Ecological and Cultural Center, Vladimir Boreyko believes forest fires on the outskirts of Kiev are connected with a “pathological foolishness of the government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk”. He explained that Yatsenyuk had banned the inspection of any economic entities in Ukraine under the guise of fighting corruption. The logic of Ukrainian activists is awesome. On the one hand, they support oligarchs and corruptionists killing citizens of Donbass. On the another hand, they are surprised that oligarchs and corruptionists ignore the country’s interests. Wow, what a news!

Europe is sticking to US policy in dealing with the massive inflow of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East, which is leading to drastic consequences that Russia had warned about, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum on Friday. According to the Russian president, the migrant crisis was expected as enforcing Western standards without taking into account the historic, religious and cultural characteristics of the Middle East and North Africa was bound to lead to unsatisfactory results. Russia “has repeatedly said that there would be major large-scale problems if our so-called western partners conduct the erroneous, as I have always said, foreign policy, especially in the regions of the Muslim world, the Middle East, North Africa,” Putin said.

About 12,000 servicemen as well as 500 units of military hardware and over 200 military aircraft took part in a military parade dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two, that was held in Beijing, China. Some 30 foreign leaders attended the memorial event, representing countries from Russia and Belarus, to Egypt, South Korea and Venezuela. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also attended the parade, while the majority of “high-profile” Western leaders including Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, have passed on the event.

Earlier, on Monday, Tokyo said it has complained to the United Nations over Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s plan to attend a huge military parade in Beijing to mark the 70th anniversary of Japan’s defeat in World War II. Top government spokesman Yoshihide Suga called on the UN to be “neutral”, after Tokyo issued a complaint to the 193-member body on Friday. In July 2014, the Abe Cabinet introduced a reinterpretation of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces’ role, giving more power to the SDF and allowing it to take part in foreign military actions. This action ending so-called “Japan’s long-standing pacifist policies”, was supported by the U.S. but was heavily criticized by China and North Korea.

The New York Times says in an article today that, although the US won’t join the majority of the world by signing the treaty banning cluster bombs, it has “abided by its provisions”.

Glenn Greenwald published an article in response documenting that, in fact, the US “continually violates all” of the provisions of the cluster bomb treaty, “systematically and as a matter of policy doing exactly that which the treaty expressly bans.”

Many journalists, such as Robert Parry, methodically note the propaganda of the self-proclaimed “paper of record”, but some fall into the trap of thinking that NYT has only recently started “becoming” a propaganda rag, or has been “descending” into propaganda for the last ten or twenty years.  As a fewexamples illustrate, this is a misconception.

1872: “A three-month strike of 100,000 workers in New York won the eight-hour day, and at a victory celebration in June 1872, 150,000 workers paraded through the city. The New York Times wondered what proportion of the strikers were ‘thoroughly American.’”

1961: The New York Times “cooperated with the Kennedy administration in deceiving the American public” on the US invasion of Cuba. “James Reston and Turner Catledge of the New York Times, on the government’s request, did not run a story about the imminent invasion. [Historian] Arthur Schlesinger said of the New York Times action: ‘This was another patriotic act…’”

1991: “The two leading news magazines, Time and Newsweek, had special editions hailing the victory in the [Gulf] war… A New York Times editorial (March 30, 1991) said: ‘America’s victory in the Persian Gulf war … provided special vindication for the U.S. Army, which brilliantly exploited its firepower and mobility and in the process erased memories of its grievous difficulties in Vietnam.’”

In its 1991 invasion of the Gulf region, the US killed approximately two hundred thousand people.

The cases are endless, and have led one of the West’s leading media analysts, Chomsky, to conclude and show, time and again, that “[t]he New York Times is pure propaganda.”

Robert Barsocchini focuses on force dynamics, national and global, and also writes professionally for the film industry. @_DirtyTruths

The classic definition of terrorism is the intentional killing of civilians to make a political point, as in planting bombs near the finish line of a marathon or crashing commercial jetliners into buildings filled with office workers. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has broadened the definition to include killing U.S. soldiers or allied troops even those operating in foreign lands.

For instance, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman on Wednesday cited as a supposed example of “Iran’s terrorism” the bombing of the Marine base in Beirut in 1983, “believed to be the handiwork of Iran’s cat’s paw, Hezbollah.” And Friedman is hardly alone in citing the Marine bombing in 1983 as “terrorism” along with Iran’s support for Shiite militias who fought the American occupying army in Iraq last decade.

The U.S. media routinely treats such cases as deserving of the unqualified condemnation that the word “terrorism” implies. Similarly, that attitude is extended to Hezbollah attacks on Israeli military forces even in the 1980s when Israel was occupying southern Lebanon.

But attacks aimed at military forces – not civilians – are not “terrorism” in the classic definition. And this is an important distinction because the word carries deservedly negative moral and legal implications that can put those nations accused of “terrorism” in the cross-hairs of economic sanctions and military attacks that can kill hundreds of thousands and even millions of civilians.

In other words, abuse of the word “terrorism” can have similar consequences as terrorism itself, the indiscriminate deaths of innocent people — men, women and children. Much of the case for sanctions and war against Iraq in the 1990s and 2000s was based on dubious and even false claims about Iraq’s alleged support for Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

And, the 1983 case is especially significant because it is a go-to emotional argument in accusing Iran of having “American blood on its hands” and thus unworthy of any normal diplomatic relations. However, when examining the real history behind the Marine barracks bombing, a much more complex and nuanced story unfolds with blame to be apportioned to all sides.

The immediate context for the tragedy was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the multi-sided civil war raging among Lebanese factions. Israeli invaders reached the Lebanese capital of Beirut in a matter of days as part of a campaign to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Then, after more fighting and protracted negotiations, Israel forced the P.L.O. to leave Lebanon, departing for Tunisia. But the P.L.O. left behind women and children in refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila, where Israeli officers allowed Israeli-supported Christian militia forces to massacre more than 700 and possibly thousands of Palestinian and Shiite civilians, one of the most shocking atrocities of the war.

Into this chaos, President Ronald Reagan dispatched a force of Marines as peacekeepers, but they gradually were pulled into the fighting on the side of Israel and its militia allies.

National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, who often represented Israel’s interests in the upper echelons of the Reagan administration, convinced the President to authorize the USS New Jersey to fire long-distance shells into Muslim villages, killing civilians and convincing Shiite militants that the United States had joined the conflict.

On Oct. 23, 1983, Shiite militants struck back, sending a suicide truck bomber through U.S. security positions, demolishing the high-rise Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 American servicemen. Reagan soon repositioned the surviving U.S. forces offshore.

Though the U.S. news media immediately labeled the Marine barracks bombing an act of “terrorism,” Reagan administration insiders knew better, recognizing that McFarlane’s “mission creep” had made the U.S. troops vulnerable to retaliation.

“When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides,” Gen. Colin Powell wrote in his memoir, My American Journey. In other words, Powell, who was then military adviser to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, recognized that the actions of the U.S. military had altered the status of the Marines in the eyes of the Shiites.

Reagan’s redeployment of the Marines offshore also didn’t end U.S. intervention in Lebanon. The tit-for-tat violence in Beirut continued. CIA Director William Casey ordered secret counterterrorism operations against Islamic radicals and dispatched veteran CIA officer William Buckley. But on March 14, 1984, Buckley was spirited off the streets of Beirut to face torture and death.

In 1985, Casey targeted Hezbollah leader Sheikh Fadlallah in an operation that included hiring operatives who detonated a car bomb outside the Beirut apartment building where Fadlallah lived.

As described by Bob Woodward in Veil,

“the car exploded, killing 80 people and wounding 200, leaving devastation, fires and collapsed buildings. Anyone who had happened to be in the immediate neighborhood was killed, hurt or terrorized, but Fadlallah escaped without injury. His followers strung a huge ‘Made in the USA’ banner in front of a building that had been blown out.”

In other words, the U.S. government dove into the bloody swamp of terrorism even as it was condemning other parties of engaging in terrorism. But the moral morass that was Lebanon, circa 1982-85, is not what Friedman and other U.S. propagandists describe when they smear Iran as some particularly evil force. Nor does Friedman operate with an objective definition of terrorism.

As Colin Powell recognized, once the United States joined the Lebanese civil war as a belligerent, U.S. troops became legitimate targets for retaliation. As much as one may lament the deaths of 241 U.S. personnel (or any deaths for that matter), it was not an act of “terrorism.”

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.

NATO terror network implicated in Bangkok blasts, appears to have been running Uyghur terrorists through Asia, into Turkey and onward to fight NATO’s proxy war in Syria.  

An unprecedented blast in Bangkok, Thailand last month left 20 dead and over 100 injured. The blast was the latest in a string of violence carried out by US-backed proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, who himself was ousted from power in 2006 and finally had his political party removed from power completely in 2014 after massive street demonstrations and a military coup toppled the regime headed by his own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

While the blast represented an escalation in violence, it should be remembered that terrorist networks operating in support of Shinawatra have carried out egregious acts of violence in the past, including fielding up to 300 armed militants in Bangkok’s streets in 2010 leading to weeks of gunbattles between Thai troops and Shinawatra’s armed supporters, leaving almost 100 dead and culminating in city-wide arson.

As for bombings themselves, while generally these networks have used grenades to attack institutions and individuals perceived as enemies of Shinawatra and his foreign sponsored agenda, precisely the same pipe bombs used in the August blast have been implicated in explosions in 2010 and 2014 where bomb makers accidentally killed themselves while assembling devices. In February 2015, a double pipe bombing would be carried out just down the street from where the most recent blast occurred. The devices used were linked to the 2010-2014 incidents.

And while it is clear the bombing was used as a form of violent coercion against a Thai government increasingly drifting away from accommodating both Shinawatra and the foreign interests he representsand closer toward regional partners including China, what was not certain was which networks specificallythese interests used to carry out the attack.

Recent evidence has emerged as several suspects have been identified and arrested, suggesting this network includes NATO’s “Grey Wolves” and several other Uyghur groups long backed, funded, and directed by the US as a means of eliminating its enemies across Eurasia and up to and including China. In addition to carrying out attacks in Thailand, they appear to have also been moving militants from across Asia and feeding them into NATO’s proxy war in Syria.

Global Gladio, Target Thailand  In the immediate aftermath of the bombing in Bangkok, the BBC would be the first to float the idea the blasts were in retaliation for Thailand’s deportation of Uyghurs to China – Uyghurs apparently on their way to fight in NATO’s proxy war in Syria – according to Reuters’ report, “Uighurs ‘on way to jihad’ returned to China in hoods.”

Images: The US State Department’s NED refers to China’s Xinjiang region as “East Turkistan,” a fictional realm that does not exist. The US seeks to either destabilize or carve off a vast sum of Chinese territory through supporting terrorism in western China.

On the very same day when the deportations occurred, Thursday July 9th, protests broke out in Turkey, both in Ankara the capital, and in Istanbul at the Thai consulate. Leading the protests in Ankara was the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), a US-funded, Washington D.C. and Munich based political front that specializes in supporting terrorism under the guise of defending “human rights.”

Image: Thailand’s consulate in Istanbul Turkey was destroyed on the same day Thailand deported Uyghur terror suspects back to China. One may find it difficult to speculate who on Earth currently possesses the operational capacity to organized a same-day retaliation anywhere in the world besides a handful of actors – NATO among them.

WUC admits that violence broke out among the mobs it was leading in Ankara but denied any affiliations with the protesters in Istanbul who attacked the consulate and destroyed it on the same day, in the same country, over the same alleged grievances. WUC itself suggested it was the work of the “Grey Wolves,” an organization they admit was “clandestinely funded by the US government.”The Grey Wolves are comprised of Turks and Uyghurs, and throughout the Cold War served as part of NATO’s “stay behind networks” referred to as Gladios. They were used to purge NATO’s enemies from Turkey in bloody violence that would leave over 6,000 dead. Since the Cold War, the Grey Wolves have set up operations internationally, including terrorist training camps in Xinjiang, China – all indicating that NATO’s Gladio has gone global.

Image: The US-based and funded World Uyghur Congress admits it led mobs on the same day the Thai consulate was attacked. Their mobs in Ankara also turned violent, however Turkish police were able to maintain control. While WUC claims they have no ties to the Grey Wolves they claim were likely behind the consulate attack, they admit they, like WUC itself, have been funded by the US government.

During the days following the Bangkok blast, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) would give a presentation implicating the Uyghur-linked Turkish “Grey Wolves” terrorist network.

The FCCT is a group of foreign journalists from several of the most prominent Western news networks including the BBC, CNN, Reuters, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse. They have systematically manipulated events in Thailand in efforts to support the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra. The goal of the FCCT’s recent presentation was to help deflect as much blame as possible from Thaksin Shinawatra over the bombings and to suggest Thailand faces “international terrorism.”

Despite the detailed presentation the FCCT provided and the immediate headlines across the Western media attempting to sell the theory to the public, no mention ever was made of the Grey Wolves’ NATO or US funding. Similarly, no mention has been made by the Western media regarding US funding and support behind many, if not all Uyghur opposition groups both in Xinjiang and beyond.

What is clear is that Thailand has inadvertently stumbled upon a highly organized, well-funded, international criminal and terrorist network operating from Xinjiang, China, across Southeast Asia, and as far as Turkey and Syria. This terrorist pipeline appears to have been “tapped” by those seeking to undermine the Thai government, causing its toxic contents to spill over into the ongoing crisis already racking Thailand.

That the Grey Wolves, Uyghur opposition front, and Thaksin Shinawatra are all backed by the US and instruments of US global hegemony, indicates that such instruments often share resources when necessary and are even used interchangeably. NGOs created and maintained in Thailand to support the regime of Shinawatra now cover for Uyghur terrorism, and Uyghur terrorism used against China and Syria is now used to strike hard at Shinawatra’s political foes.

America’s One-Size-Fits All Global Terror Racket 

NGOs the United States funds and directs in Thailand, and primarily used to undermine the current government and defend the remnants of Shinawatra’s political front, were quick to not only condemn the Thai government for deporting terror suspects back to China, but have since then attempted to justify the bombing as Thailand’s deserved return for doing business with China. One Bangkok Post op-ed penned by a former Reuters employee titled, “Should Regime Not Deported Uighurs?” attempted to argue that:

In retrospect, should Thailand not have expelled the Uighurs to China? Or to be more precise, should the ruling junta, which is not fully recognised by the democratic world, have been less responsive to Chinese demands?

National interest always comes first in a country’s diplomacy. But being so accommodating to a superpower’s demands, making Thailand the target of an international outcry and what is looking increasingly like an international terror attack, does not bode well for the country in the long term. 

The ransacking of the Thai consulate in Istanbul failed to alert the Thai security services that the anger was real and long-lasting, and could possibly turn into a calamity 

It should be noted that the author uses the term “international” to describe what is exclusively the US and Europe’s “recognition” and “outcry.”

This op-ed and many like it pervading the Western media are sending a message to the Thai government that failure to comply to the demands of the “international community” will result in terrorism – whether it is a mob destroying your consulates abroad, or bombs exploding in the heart of your nation’s capital. And while this “international community” has many terrorist proxies to use against Thailand, it appears they have selected their “Uyghurs” to stand in the front ranks.

Ousted-exiled dictator Thaksin Shinawatra most likely still possesses the terrorist networks and paramilitary organizations he created and eagerly used during his time in power. However, by using them, he would only further justify the current government’s moves to permanently uproot Shinawatra from Thailand’s political landscape. Just as NGOs assigned by the West to support Thaksin Shinawatra have now become instrumental in justifying and manipulating the recent Bangkok bombing, the West’s terrorist networks used to destabilize nations elsewhere from China to Syria have had terrorism in Thailand apparently outsourced to them.

So far, the investigation suggests this network has been in Thailand for years, long before the deportation of Uyghurs in July. Evidence also suggests a link between the uncovered terror network and previous terror networks uncovered at the height of Shinawatra’s violence in 2010 and 2014. A large amount of forged Turkish passports and ties to Uyghur trafficking networks appear to implicate the terror network in what Syrian and Chinese authorities have attempted to expose for years now – a terror pipeline feeding militants from all over the globe first into Turkey where they are armed, trained, and staged, then into Syria to fight NATO’s proxy war against the government in Damascus.

Do Business With China and Die 

It should be stated that the vast majority of China’s Uyghurs do not support the aspirations of the terrorists and US-funded fronts which claim to represent them. Forty-five percent of Xinjiang’s population – some 10 million people – are Uyghurs. It is likely that if even half of them supported violent separatism, they would have already gained their “independence.”

In reality, Uyhgurs are perhaps the first and foremost victims of US-backed terrorism in Xinjiang and beyond. Those who seek to live in peace and stability with their Chinese compatriots, and who condemn the means and methods of US-backed groups are themselves attacked. The most prominent example of this is that of Imam Jume Tahir, 74 years old, hacked to death in front of China’s largest mosque by terrorists.

The imam had openly condemned US-backed violence and in particular called for street clashes with Chinese police to end.

Image: Uyghurs in China who attempt to lead normal lives often find themselves the primary target of US-backed terrorism. The mosque pictured above, the 600 year old Kah Mosque, saw the murder of its imam, Jume Tahir, by US-backed terrorists for the “crime” of condemning violent protests.

In the wake of his brutal murder, the Western press would write him off as a “state-appointed leader,” while the US-funded World Uyghur Congress would repeatedly justify the murder throughout the Western media. In the New York Times article, “Chinese Court Sentences Teenagers to Death in Killing of Jume Tahir, Islamic Cleric,” it was reported that:

Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress, an exile group based in Germany, condemned the harsh sentences for the defendants in the imam’s murder, saying they would do little to stem the rising tide of Uighur discontent. 

“The Chinese government should examine the roots of the problems, which are caused by coercive policies that Uighurs find unbearable,” he wrote. “It should respect the Uighur religion and traditional way of life, and stop provocations to avoid triggering new turmoil.” 

In another report titled, “The Day Imam Tahir Died,” the World Uyghur Congress again justify the murder:

Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the exiled political organization World Uyghur Congress, told Reuters that local Uighurs, “suspected that he had a special relationship with China’s Ministry of Public Security” and that he helped the authorities monitor Uighur religious activity. His support for Beijing most likely bred resentment among Kashgar’s Uighurs, many of whom disdain the central government.

No where can it be found in WUC’s many US-funded press releases, congressional assemblies, or publications anything even closely resembling condemnation for the murder of an unarmed elderly man who advocated non-violence. WUC’s message, like that of the Western media in the wake of the Bangkok blast is simple – do business with China and you will die.America’s Grand Strategy in Asia in One Word – Primacy 

In this it is clear that “Uyghur terrorism” is simply another attempt to conceal what is essentially yet another tool devised to achieve and maintain American global hegemony. Looking at a map of China, it is clear why this otherwise minuscule, obscure ethnic group has been propelled to center stage by American interests.

Image: The US has much to gain by backing separatists in western China.

The Xinjiang region along with Tibet, if successfully destabilized or carved off from China, would sever Beijing’s long-laid plans to construct a modern-day Silk Road. It would deprive China of both its territory, its resources, and drive tens of millions of its people eastward from their homes in a refugee crisis that would strain the very stability of Chinese society.

And because the US-Uyghur cause is not genuine nor enjoys popular support even in Xinjiang, it is no surprise that those willing to participate can be persuaded to fight overseas in other projects of American hegemony – essentially as mercenaries.

The use of minority groups to divide and destroy a targeted nation is a tactic as old as empire itself. And while the Western media works ceaselessly to explain how various organizations, advocacy groups, and militant fronts all operate in an apparent vacuum, only “coincidentally” propelling US foreign policy forward, it is clear through both a study of history and current US policy papers that global hegemony is still at the very heart of Western ambitions globally and includes all forms of coercion, from propaganda to paramilitary groups.

In one of the  most recent US policy papers on the subject, published this year by the influential Council on Foreign Relations – a corporate-funded think tank that represents the collective interests of some of the most powerful Western corporate-financier interests on Earth – the goal of maintaining “primacy in Asia” is literally spelled out.

Their report, “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” states in no uncertain terms:

Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.

The report was written by US political administrator and political lobbyist Robert Blackwill who has throughout his career played a role in grooming prospective client regimes in Asia through which the US planned to maintain its regional primacy. Among these client regimes was Thaksin Shinawatra himself. The use of violence and terrorism by Shinawatra to take and maintain control over Thailand is well documented. To think that the US would simply abandon its aspirations to control Thailand, or other nations throughout Southeast Asia vis-a-vis China would be misguided. What would be predictable would be instead an increase in terrorism and political destabilization.

Thailand is now being coerced through a concerted campaign of propaganda and organized violence, seized on by Shinawatra’s supporters who are eagerly exploiting the socioeconomic and political damage the recent bombing has incurred, while so-called “rights” advocates invent creative defenses for otherwise indefensible violence directed at entirely innocent people.

Dismantle the Pipeline 

Gladio was successful throughout the Cold War because those among NATO who employed such tactics did so within their borders. “Global Gladio” has networks stretching around the world, vulnerable to police and military operations carried out by host countries.

While the bombing in Bangkok appears to have been aimed at the government for its continued attempts to remove Shinawatra from power and divest from American interests by moving closer to China, the bombing itself stands as the single greatest example of just why Thailand has chosen to change tack in the first place. Accelerated military and counter-terrorism cooperation with China will  now be necessary to ensure the peace and security of both nations. As long as one serves as a base of operations for terrorism aimed at the other, neither will be safe.

For Thailand specifically, it is clear that Shinawatra’s political existence was meant to infiltrate and overwrite Thailand’s current political order. While threats and terrorism are being used to coerce Thailand into accommodating Shinawatra, it should be noted that by doing so, violence, division and destruction are all that await Thailand as a guarantee. The slow, patient dismantling of his political networks, along with a measured pivot toward Beijing appears to be Thailand’s best bet.

For the rest of the world – NATO’s “Gladio” networks are vast and varied. From Ukraine to Syria to Thailand, the most violent and criminal elements in any given society have been organized by the West in a bid to divide, destroy, and dominate the planet. From the original Gladio program in Western Europe, the means of expertly manipulating these criminal gangs has been perfected. Increasing awareness of how Gladio works will not only better arm society to take action against it, but perhaps even dissuade eager criminal elements from joining organizations that are essentially cannon fodder for NATO.

An unexpected change of ruling party leadership took place in Myanmar in mid-August after troops were dispatched in a late-night mission to remove Thura U Shwe Mann from the Union Solidarity and Development Party’s (USDP) headquarters. The Central Executive Committee was also reshuffled almost immediately afterwards after many of its members were purportedly “allowed to resign”. The government, for its part, said that Shwe Mann was “too busy” juggling his dual roles as party chairman and parliamentary speaker, and that he’s okay and in full health, but this did nothing to assuage observers who rightfully noted a clear changing of the guard taking place. However, unlike what is being ‘reported’ in Western media, President Thein Sein’s initiative against Shwe Mann wasn’t a ‘suppression of democracy’ ahead of the November elections, but rather a strong response aimed at stultifying the growing soft coup attempt that the former USDP chairman had cooked up with Aung San Suu Kyi.

The first part of the article begins by discussing the soft coup attempt that was supposed to be carried out by Shwe Mann and Suu Kyi, explaining its contours and planned implementation before it was publicly foiled. Afterwards it examines the failed power grab that exposed Shwe Mann’s connection to Suu Kyi and prompted the government to initiate the crackdown against him and his military-political supporters. Finally, Part II analyzes the fallout of this event and makes an effort to predict the lasting impact that it’ll have on the country, especially in light of the upcoming elections.

Tricking The Power Tandem

Situational Background:

Up until the soft coup plot was exposed, President Thein Sein and USDP chairman Shwe Mann operated as a sort of power tandem in maintaining peace and stability in Myanmar while it edged towards its planned Western-modeled ‘democratic transition’. The country’s military rulers made a conscientious decision to formally cede power and transition to civilian-led rule in 2011, ending the official control that they had exercised over the state since 1962. However, the onset of Myanmar’s first civilian government in nearly half a century didn’t change the fact that its institutions were still largely in the hands of the military, whether this was openly recognized or not. For example, 25% of parliamentary seats are automatically allocated to the military per the new constitution of 2008, and since a more than 75% majority parliamentary majority is needed to amend the said document, it means that the military wields de-facto veto power over this process. This legal facet will be important to remember for the subsequent section, which identifies the explicit power play that Shwe Mann clumsily tried to pull off, but which unwittingly (and obviously, it can be said) alerted authorities to his connection with Suu Kyi.

Power Tandem Contours:

To speak more about the trick that was supposed to be played on the power tandem, Suu Kyi and her external backers knew that there would be no way for them to seize power in Myanmar without a ‘man on the inside’, namely in the government and/or military itself, who could propel them to the country’s greatest heights. Through a series of events that have yet to be chronicled, Suu Kyi’s ‘inside agent’ came to be Shwe Mann, who as it happened to be, as per the power tandem arrangement with Thein Sein (who announced he wouldn’t be seeking a second term), was predicted to have been the government’s preferred candidate for the presidency after November’s election. It’s necessary at this stage to explain another legal peculiarity of Myanmar’s political system, and it’s that the president isn’t chosen by the people, but by the parliament through a complicated procedure about three months after the general election is held. What this means is that the president’s selection is a highly regulated and controlled process largely overseen by the establishment (military) in order to preserve its interests, and it’s unlikely that any ‘outsider’ would ever stand a chance to enter into that circle of power. This is why Shwe Mann’s prospective presidential bid was envisioned by Thein Sein to be a shoo-in and the logical progression of the power tandem between them.

Soft Coup Plot:

Speaker Thura U Shwe Mann attends a USDP meeting on August 12, flanked by vice chairs Thura U Aye Myint (left) and U Htay Oo (right). The following morning, U Htay Oo replaced him as acting party leader. Photo: Aung Khant / The Myanmar Times

The fatal flaw in this strategy, though, is that Shwe Mann was co-opted by Suu Kyi and her external patrons without Thein Sein or his government’s knowledge, meaning that he would have served as a puppet for their interests instead of a defender of Myanmar’s sovereignty and stability as would have been expected of him by the establishment. If the power tandem would have been successfully tricked and exploited to foreign advantage, then the entire state structure would have been radically changed with the advent of Shwe Mann’s presidency, who would have then sped through his ‘reforms’ (and purges) with rapid speed before anyone of significance could properly react to counter him. Should there be any institutional pushback whatsoever, it was expected that Myanmar’s ‘new friends’ in the West would threaten various asymmetrical warfare measures (a reintroduction of sanctions, a Color Revolution against the resistant authorities/military, and/or an exacerbation of secessionist warfare) to scare those forces into backing down from any counter-coup or “anti-democratic” (as the West would label it) attempt against Shwe Mann’s power surge, with the result of solidifying his ‘leadership’ through the suppression/intimidation of any actual competition to it. This soft coup was primed for success and likely could have achieved its ambitious goals in record time, but a greedy power grab by Suu Kyi and her proxies (including Shwe Mann) in late June exposed the conspiratorial mechanisms at play and precipitated the government crackdown against it.

Get Greedy, Get Caught

The plan concocted between Suu Kyi and Shwe Mann called for the former USDP chairman to go through all the motions of government loyalty in order to be guaranteed the country’s top spot, and then once serving as president, to behave as a proxy for Suu Kyi and her “National League of Democracy” (NLD) interests. This secret power tandem between Suu Kyi and Shwe Mann would have superceded the planned one between Shwe Mann and Thein Sein, and up until less than two months ago, it was proceeding at full speed without anyone having caught on. That dramatically changed, however, when Suu Kyi got greedy and decided to test the limits of Myanmar’s political process (and the suspicions of the authorities) by having her ally Shwe Mann surprisingly press for constitutional changes that would have allowed her to become president.

The Gambit:

The proposed amendments in question would have lowered the parliamentary majority needed to change the constitution from 75% to 70%, which essentially would have removed the military’s de-facto veto power, and would also have eliminated the constitutional reference to prohibiting a presidential candidate from having foreign spouses (but not the one pertaining to children with foreign citizenship). The latter would still not have allowed Suu Kyi to immediately ascend to the presidency because her two sons still hold British citizenship, but had the first part about lowering the necessary parliamentary majority for amendments passed, then a potential free-for-all could have commenced (either then or after the elections) to have changed the constitution further to accommodate Suu Kyi’s specific situation with her children. In fact, if Shwe Mann would have been able to garner the support for the first change, then he would have obviously had the institutional influence to carry through with the second one and so on and so forth.

Big Failure:

Aung San Suu Kyi, Photo by Claude TRUONG-NGOC (CC BY-SA 3.0)

It’s not known why Suu Kyi forced Shwe Mann to attempt this ultimately failed gambit, but it could have been that she got personally antsy with her presidential ambitions and prematurely decided to launch her soft coup attempt instead of patiently waiting for Shwe Mann to enter the presidency as previously planned. For whatever reason it transpired, though, it served to lift the cover off her strategic ties with Shwe Mann. Reuters reported after his dismissal as USDP leader that “[he] angered the military by supporting an attempt in parliament in June to amend the constitution to limit the political role of the armed forces”, and the BBC wrote that “[he] had been rumoured to be discussing an alliance with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi” prior to that. Suu Kyi’s ‘dirty laundry’ was openly aired out for all to see when she pushed Shwe Mann to support the constitutional changes, since the move confirmed the rumors that he was acting in support of her interests.

Out Of The Closet:

Caught red-handed in light of this exposure, the two conspirators had no choice but to make their alliance public in the interests of mutual self-preservation, understanding that the fate of one is now intimately interlinked with the other as part of this grand scheme, and that legal repercussions against one will likely lead to the same against the other. At the same time, both sides are hoping that Western capital has become such an important part of the country’s development plan that the government won’t risk having it cut off with the threat of renewed sanctions in response to any forthcoming crackdown against them. The Myanmar government has thus only gone halfway in stopping the soft coup – they exposed it in practice to show the plotters that they’re aware of what’s going on and intend to stop it, but they have yet to call it by its actual name out of fear that doing so will be seen as ‘political repression’ against the ‘opposition’ before the upcoming and much hyped-about elections. This reluctance puts the government in a very precarious position and creates an opportune environment for destabilizing scenarios to unfold.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

Myanmar’s already fragile domestic stability has been further undermined by this soft coup attempt and the subsequent high-risks game being played out through Suu Kyi and Shwe Mann’s public alliance against the government. The country has been mired in the world’s longest-running civil war (despite the uneasy truce signed at the end of March), but on top of that, it’s recently had to deal with the continued threat of another Indian cross-border military intervention, the rise of a “secular ISIL”, and a South Asian “Kosovo” in Rohingyaland.

There’s no doubt that Myanmar can ill afford a split in the government at this critical moment of its history, but that’s apparently what’s happened with Shwe Mann and his affiliates’ purge from power and their subsequent alliance with Western ‘darling’ Suu Kyi and her hyper-nationalist Buddhist thugs. It’s not yet ascertained what extent of influence Shwe Mann had prior to his removal as USDP chairman (although it can be inferred that his hold on the military wasn’t as substantial as some believe since he ultimately failed to accomplish Suu Kyi’s constitutional gambit), but one must assume that he still has some allies and support among the general masses, especially since he had been so publicly groomed for what was expected to be his next imminent position. Joining forces with Suu Kyi is intended to connect each of their respective support bases into an on-the-ground social superstructure that could pose a serious threat to the government, both in terms of the upcoming elections and any possible Hybrid War provocations immediately afterwards.

Here’s the upcoming three-step sequence of events that observers should monitor in order to gauge the government’s strength amidst this heightened asymmetrical threat:

1. Does The Government Blow The Whistle?

Right now the government has the prerogative over whether or not it labels Shwe Mann and Suu Kyi’s earlier secret alliance and constitutional initiative as the soft coup attempt that it really was. From the looks of it, it doesn’t appear as though they will, but nonetheless, one should still prepare for what would happen in the event that they decide to take action:

Yes:

Calling out the earlier soft coup attempt (and Shwe Mann’s intended presidential puppet status for Suu Kyi) would allow the government to commence a formal crackdown against the two conspirators and their supporters. It would also add some clarify to the confusion that’s pervaded the country ever since Shwe Mann’s dismissal from the USDP chairmanship. On the one hand, this could mollify the masses that are unsure about what exactly had happened (and thus susceptible to Suu Kyi and her network’s false and politically self-serving ‘victim’ explanation), but on the other, it could potentially scare some in the population who are fearful of a crackdown and genuinely (and naively, it must be said) in support of both individuals.

The latter could push them closer towards making the decision to actively participate in any forthcoming destabilizations organized by their idols or in their name. Also, on the international front, identifying the previous events and secret relationship as a soft coup attempt would earn universal condemnation from Myanmar’s new ‘Western friends’, which would surely threaten to re-impose sanctions amidst any crackdown against their proxies. The question thus becomes whether or not the Myanmar government is able to sovereignly assert its interests in the face of such economic and destabilizing threats, as well as the degree to which Western capital has become a controlling factor in the country’s future.

No:

Parliamentary speaker Shwe Mann.

In the most likely of the two scenarios, the government will refrain from labelling the events as a soft coup attempt and will allow the Suu Kyi-Shwe Mann alliance to play out as far as possible, short of calling for a Color Revolution against the authorities. Of course, it might be much too late by that time for the government to effectively deal with these domestic destabilizers and what they’ve unleashed, but it appears as though Naypyidaw is too scared of earning the consternation of its ‘Western friends’ to take any further resolute action at this time.

If the West accuses it of ‘backtracking on democracy’, then it’s really implying that it’ll cut the country off from access to Western markets and finance, on which it appears to be betting its future. It’s telling, then, how far Myanmar has come in the past couple of years since it’s ‘democratic decision’ in 2010/2011, as the ‘Old Myanmar’ wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at what the West would have said about any potential crackdown, but the ‘New Myanmar’ is seriously apprehensive about what could happen in this regard. Of course, it doesn’t mean that the country has lost all of its sovereignty (after all, they did expose the soft coup attempt without calling it that), but that its capacity to take independent decisions in regulating its domestic affairs is now seriously limited by what the West will say and do in response and how this will reflect on Myanmar’s ‘international’ (Western) reputation.

1. Shwe Mann’s Fate

For the time being, Shwe Mann has been allowed to retain his seat as parliamentary speaker, likely due to the considerations outlined previously about Myanmar damaging its ‘international’ (Western) reputation by taking any resolute steps against him (despite his open anti-government alliance with Suu Kyi). That could of course change, however, if the government happens to indict him on charges of corruption or any other possible crime that they could link him to, which in any case, whether or not it’s actual or staged, would be for the implicit purpose of punishing him for his soft coup attempt and earlier secret Suu Kyi conspiracy. Therefore, Shwe Mann’s fate is important to consider when forecasting what could happen in Myanmar in the coming months, since he has basically become the highest-serving ‘opposition’ politician in the government seemingly overnight, and his dismissal from leading the USDP has become a matter of international (Western) attention (purposely so, it might be added). Here’s what it would mean if he were charged with a crime or allowed to remain operating with impunity:

Charged With A Crime:

Going after Shwe Mann with any sort of legal charge (no matter how justified) will lead to a knee-jerk reaction from the West, which would accuse Naypyidaw of using the matter as a cover for political repression prior to the elections. This is exactly the type of rhetoric that the government seeks to avoid, but still, going about punishing Shwe Mann via the indirect mechanism of an anti-corruption investigation, for example, could stave off any conversation about reintroducing sanctions and leave the rhetoric solely at the level of tough-sounding talk and nothing more. It’s a risk, that’s for sure, but it might be one that the government is willing to take if it doesn’t have the self-confidence to directly accuse Shwe Mann of conspiring a soft coup against it. This is of course the lesser effective of the two options, but it would indicate that the authorities view him and his alliance with Suu Kyi as a threat, and that while they can’t touch the Western ‘darling’ without receiving a surefire reprimand from their mutual ‘Western friends’, they do have the liberty to do so with Shwe Mann and set a precedent for other likeminded internal conspirators that might come after him.

At the same time, it must be noted that taking any sort of legal action against Shwe Mann would lead to Suu Kyi and her followers (including her external patrons) immediately transforming him into a type of ‘persecuted pro-democracy’ icon, similar to Suu Kyi’s own artificial and carefully crafted narrative. Her history of imprisonment would make this campaign all the more effective and resounding on the ‘international’ (Western) and some of the domestic audiences, since the country’s first ‘persecuted pro-democracy’ icon would basically be lionizing her spiritual successor.

When the ‘first martyr’ anoints the ‘second martyr’, it would create a second level of ‘political holiness’ for Shwe Mann and turn him into the focal point of negative ‘international’ (Western) coverage about Myanmar. In fact, if it proceeds fast enough, it could even be the fuse needed for the West to begin threatening the re-imposition of sanctions in order to publicly humiliate the government by forcing a political concession out of it over the issue. Therefore, taking legal (non-coup-related) action against Shwe Mann is a double-edged sword that could go both ways for Naypyidaw – on the one hand, it could beneficially provide a plausibly deniable justification for getting him out of the way and setting a precedent to any other anti-government cells embedded within the highest levels of the establishment, but on the other, it could prompt the same type of Western sanctions talk that the authorities are desperately keen to prevent.

Allowed To Operate With Impunity:

Should the authorities refuse to take any further action against Shwe Mann and allow him to freely operate with impunity, then it would undoubtedly embolden the Suu Kyi-Shwe Mann alliance to continue pressing their limits against the government. Most worrisome, however, is that it would demonstrate the level of fear that the government has of upsetting its ‘Western friends’, thereby confirming the analysis that Western capital has become too influential in the country and its future planning ever since it was reintroduced to Myanmar after the 2010/2011 ‘democratic transition’ first began. In this case, while Naypyidaw might hope that its lack of punitive action against Shwe Mann might make his Western handlers (whether direct or indirect in this role) pleased to the point of reconsidering their soft coup ambitions, it would surely be proven wrong, since those same forces would actually be motivated to pump more money and resources into fulfilling the secret regime change goal that they so nearly achieved before the failed gambit exposed its true nature.

1. The General Election

The upcoming election will take place on 8 November, and the event is expected to be one of monumental importance for the entire country. Because of Myanmar’s relative media and information opacity, it’s not possible to accurately predict the outcome of the vote (especially given the new Suu Kyi-Shwe Mann alliance that threatens to shake up domestic politics), but it’s much more easier to identify the three categories of parties that are competing against one another and their distinct characteristics:

“The Opposition”:

This category is composed of Suu Kyi’s NLD and may involve Shwe Mann and his supporters as either an official part of the organization or as a candidate or figurehead for a new, NLD-controlled front party. Should the latter come to be, then it would function as an electoral outlet for dissatisfied USDP supporters unhappy with the establishment, yet hesitant to support the NLD and Suu Kyi. Additionally, it’s expected that the typical voter profile for both the NLD and any prospective Shwe Mann-affiliated party would be the ethnic majority Burmese population, with additional appeal being seen by those of a nationalist tilt. Given the NLD’s track record, it can be surmised that the party and its possible Shwe Mann proxy might attempt to stage another Color Revolution in the event that they don’t achieve their envisioned electoral success. This scenario is especially worrisome for the government, since it’s already well aware of what happened the last time it tried to squash such an uprising in 1989, and all evidence in since 2010/2011 points to its extreme reluctance to repeat this course of history. For these reasons, the NLD and Shwe Mann hold a commanding influence over the stability of Myanmar immediately before and after the elections, and the initiative is on their side over whether or not they’ll throw the country into chaos.

Ethnic-Minority Nationalist Parties:

The next group of parties competing in the upcoming election could accurately be described as ethnic-minority nationalists composed of the country’s myriad non-Burmese citizens. These groups are forbidden from explicitly supporting separatism as a prerequisite for their legal status and participation in the elections, but it’s an open secret that some of them might be planning for this end (especially in the event of a total state collapse). Officially, however, the 11 ethnic armies fighting the government are part of the United Nationalities Federal Council, so it can be understood that their affiliated political branches (such as the Shan Nationalities Democratic Party and Chin National Party) are in favor of federalization (not separatism) as well.

These groups might rightfully be fearful of the NLD’s hyper-nationalist Buddhist thugs and thus not vote for the party, even if it does offer the best possible way for reaching their federalist ends as soon as possible. They also don’t support the ruling party either, but the USDP could in hindsight be seen as responsible for their participation in these same elections because of the lax attitude it and its military members have taken towards the creation of ethnic-minority parties (perhaps in an attempt to split minority voters from the NLD). Thus, it can be thought that this political category believes it can work within the system to eventually transform the fragile truce into a lasting peace, but only on the condition that there’s no incentive to spoil the progress achieved thus far and that the military remains united and stable enough to counter them if they decide to do so. Should the ‘temptation’ arise to break the truce and an opportunity be seen to strike against the government when it’s at its weakest and most vulnerable (e.g. putting down a Color Revolution), then an immediate resumption of Unconventional War against the authorities is very likely.

The Establishment:

The ruling establishment is represented by the USDP, and its message is as simple as the two emphases placed in its name – solidarity and development. The government wants to keep the country running smoothly, albeit on tract for an eventual transition into a political system more representative of Western ‘democracies’ than before. How far it intends to go in this direction is another matter, but it’s very possible that the momentum it’s unleashed is no longer fully controllable and could take the country down a path that its military overseers hadn’t initially intended. This party is the one with the most to lose in the upcoming elections, since the combination of the Suu Kyi-Shwe Mann alliance and a possible upsurge of ethnic-minority nationalism will predictably steal votes away from it, but it’s uncertain at this point to how much of an extent this will be. Still, given that this is still the (military) establishment’s only political vehicle, it’s all but guaranteed that it will somehow ‘manage’ to become the official majority force in parliament, despite these formidable electoral challenges against it.

Concluding Thoughts

Doing a cross-analysis of the three political categories described in the above-mentioned section, the government’s worst nightmare becomes dreadfully apparent – an outbreak of Hybrid War initiated by an NLD/Shwe Mann Color Revolution which quickly evolves into a simultaneous all-out return to Unconventional War in the peripheral provinces.

The reasons for this fear are obvious, since the NLD/Shwe Mann political forces have already been proven to have conspired together during June’s failed constitutional gambit, which foreshadows that a second regime change attempt is imminent, albeit one that most likely won’t be as ‘soft’ or secret. It can thus be expected that this would take the form of a Color Revolution, which is why Suu Kyi was imprisoned in the first place back in 1989. The domestic political calculus (in line with the geopolitical one) has changed since then, however, and now it seems as though the government doesn’t want to do anything that could be inferred as ‘suppressing’ her ‘political rights’, and this raises the clear-cut danger that it might not act against her and her cohorts until it’s far too late.

By that point, it would require a more muscular military response, as well as the imperative to temporarily refocus military attention away from the tense, rural provinces and over to the rebellious, uprising cities. This is precisely the incentive that the ethnic-minority nationalist parties and their armies need to recommence their Unconventional War in these very same areas that the military had to neglect for the moment, with the resultant Hybrid War (Color Revolution in the cities, Unconventional War in the countryside) stretching the military to the breaking point and either necessitating a return to martial law (and subsequently, full economic rejection by the West and the immediate re-imposition of sanctions) or the complete collapse of the state.

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims ‘Jews are a superior people’.

Apart from small extremist rightwing sects who exhibit visceral anti-Semitism and denigrate everything Jewish, there are very few academics and politicians willing to question this supremacist doctrine. On the contrary, there is an incurable tendency to advance oneself by accepting and embellishing on it.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Biden, John Boehner, 2011

For example, in August 2015, US Vice-President Joseph Biden attributed ‘special genius’ to Jews, slavish flattery that embarrassed even New York’s liberal Jewish intellectuals.

Israel’s dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to intervene in US politics and push Israel’s agenda.

What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel?

After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the highest positions of prestige and responsibility. Why would they parrot the policies of Israel and follow the dictates of Israeli leaders (a foreign regime), serving its violent colonial, racist agenda?

What binds a majority of highly educated and privileged Jews to the most rabidly rightwing Israeli regime in history – a relationship they actually celebrate?

What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?

What prevents many intelligent, liberal and progressive Jews from openly questioning Israel’s agenda, and especially confronting the role of Zionist zealots who serve as Tel Aviv’s fifth column against the interest of the United States?

There are numerous historical and personal factors that can and should be taken into account to understand this phenomenon.

In this essay I am going to focus on one – the ideology that ‘Jews are a superior people’. The notion that Jews, either through some genetic, biologic, cultural, historical, familial and/or upbringing, havespecial qualities allowing them to achieve at a uniquely higher level than the ‘inferior’ non-Jews.

We will proceed by sketching the main outline of the Jewish supremacist ideology and then advance our critique.

We will conclude by evaluating the negative consequences of this ideology and propose a democratic alternative.

Jewish Supremacism

Exponents of Jewish Supremacism (JS) frequently cite the prestigious awards, worldly successes and high honors, which, they emphasize, have been disproportionately achieved by Jews.

The argument goes: While Jews represent less than 0.2% of the world population, they have produced 24% of the US Nobel prize winners; over 30% of Ivy League professors and students; and the majority of major US film, stage and TV producers.

They cite the ‘disproportionate number’ of scientists, leading doctors, lawyers and billionaires.

S. Freud

They cite past geniuses like, Einstein, Freud and Marx .

They point to the founders of the world’s great monotheistic religions – Moses and Abraham.

They lay claim to a unique learning tradition embedded in centuries of Talmudic scholarship.

Jewish supremacists never miss a chance to cite the ‘Jewish background’ of any highly accomplished contemporary public figures in the entertainment, publication, financial fields or any other sectors of life in the US.

Disproportionately great accomplishments by a disproportionate minority has become the mantra for heralding a self-styled ‘meritocraticelite’…. and for justifying its disproportionate wealth, power and privileges – and influence…

Challenging the Myths of Jewish Supremacists

There are serious problems regarding the claims of the Jewish Supremacists.

For centuries Jewish ‘wisdom’ was confined to textual exegesis of religious dogma – texts full of superstition and social control, as well as blind intolerance, and which produced neither reasoned arguments nor contributed to scientific and human advancement.

Jewish scholarship of note occurred among thinkers like Spinoza who revolted against the Jewish ghetto gatekeepers and rejected Jewish dogma.

Notable scientists emerged in the context of working and studying with non-Jews in non-Jewish institutions – the universities and centers of learning in the West. The majority of world-renowned Jewish scholars integrated and contributed to predominantly non-Jewish (Moslem and Christian) and secular institutions of higher learning.

Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society.

Secondly , Jewish Supremacists persist in claiming ‘racial credit’ for the achievements of individuals who have publically renounced, denounced and distanced themselves from Judaism and have dismissed any notion of Israel as their spiritual homeland. Their universal prestige has prevented them from being labeled, apostate or ‘self-hating’. Albert Einstein, often cited by the Supremacists as the supreme example of ‘Jewish genius’, denounced Israel’s war crimes and showed disdain for any tribal identity. In their era, Marx and Trotsky, like the vast majority of emancipated European Jews, given the chance, became engaged in universalistic organizations, attacking the entire notion that Jews were a ‘special people’ chosen by divine authority (or by the latter-day Zionists).

Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive role.

After all is it Jewish ‘genius’ that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America?

Among the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are three Israeli Prime Ministers who waged wars of ethnic cleansing against millions of Palestinians and expanded racist ‘Jews only’ settlements throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. These include Menachem Begin (notorious career bomber and terrorist), Yitzhak Rabin (a militarist who was assassinated by an even more racist Jewish terrorist) and Shimon Peres. Among Jewish American Nobel ‘Peaceniks’ is Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the ‘template for regime change’ by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chilean President Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state terror; and who supported Indonesia’s destruction of East Timor!

In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as ‘examples of Jewish Supremacy’, have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations – giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction.

Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we d find a disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of ‘Jewish genius’ to a list of financial mega-felons.

Among the less respectable notables whose material successes have been tarnished by personal weaknesses – we have the billionaire and pedophile pimp, Jeffry Epstein; IMF Boss Dominique Strauss Kahn, entrepreneur and ‘nudist’ Dov Charney, New York Governor and ‘repeat customer’ Elliot Spitzer, Congressman and exhibitionist Anthony Weiner and the fun-loving sports impresario who brought down FIFA, the piratical Chuck Blazer. Curiously, none of these extraordinarily successful notables have been cited as examples of Jewish Supremacy.

As we contemplate the millions of war refugees driven from the Near East and North Africa, we should credit the role of US neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologues and policymakers –a disproportionate percentage of whom are Jews. Millions of Chilean workers suffered as Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys ‘advised’ Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet on dismantling the welfare state (even if it required the murder of trade unionists!). Ayn Rand (Alyssa Rosenbaum) and her fanatical free market epigones have savaged all progressive social legislation and turned the most retrograde forms of selfishness into a religion of ‘superiority’!

Paul Wolfowitz

The disastrous US war against Iraq was largely organized, promoted and justified by a disproportionate percentage of US Jews (Zionists), including leading Neocon policymakers in the Bush and Obama administration – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, David Frum, Shulsky, Levey, Cohen, Rahm Emanuel etc… They continue to push for war against Iran and should be seen as the ‘godfathers’ of the tragedies of Iraq, Syria and Libya where millions have fled.

The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period – including the horrific suffering these have entailed!

Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can always find safe haven in the ‘Promised Land’!

On the cultural front, the finest Jewish writers, artists, musicians, scientists have emerged outside of Israel. A few may have immigrated to the Jewish state, but many other intellectuals and artists of note have chosen to leave Israel, repelled by the racist, intolerant and repressive apartheid state and society promoted by Jewish Supremacists.

Conclusion

The record provides no historical basis for the claims of Jewish Supremacists:

What has been cited as the disproportionate ‘Jewish genius’ turns out to be a two-edged sword – demonstrating the best and the worst.

Claiming a monopoly on high academic achievement must be expanded to owning up to the Jewish authors of the worst financial and foreign policy disasters – they too are ‘high achievers’.

Donations from financial billionaires, all ‘geniuses’, have financed the war crimes of the Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions.

In fairness, the most notorious Jewish swindler in contemporary America was even-handed: ‘Bernie’ Madoff swindled Jews and Goys, Hollywood moguls and New York philanthropists – he wasn’t picky about who he fleeced.

The latest fashion among Jewish Supremacist ‘geneticists’ is to extoll the discovery of uniquely special ‘genes’ predisposing Jews to experience the ‘holocaust’ and even inherit the experience of suffering from long dead ancestors. Such ‘scientists’ should be careful. As Jazz artist and essayist, Gilad Altzmon wryly notes, ‘They will put the anti-Semites out of business’.

Ultimately, Jews, who have assimilated into the greater society or not, who inter-marry and who do not, are all products of the social system in which they live and (like everyone else) they are the makers of the roles they decide to play within it.

In the past, a uniquely disproportional percentage of Jews chose to fight for universal humanist values – rejecting the notion of a chosen people.

Today a disproportionate percentage of educated Jews have chosen to embrace an ‘ethno-religious’ Supremacist dogma, which binds them to an apartheid, militarist state and ideology ready to drag the world into a global war.

Never forget! Racialist supremacist doctrines led Germany down the blind ally of totalitarianism and world war, in which scores of millions perished.

Jews, especially young Jews, are increasingly repelled by Israel’s crimes against humanity. The next step for them (and for us) is to criticize, demystify and stand up to the toxic supremacist ideology linking the powerful domestic Zionist power configuration and its political clones with Israel.

The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia: a demented ideology that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate and exploit the majority of American people. The time will come when the accumulated disasters will force the American people to push back, unmasking the elite and rejecting its supremacist doctrines. Let us hope that they will act with passion guided by reason.

Author’s note

This article was first published by Global Research on 12 March 2004 under the title “Financial Bonanza behind the 9/11 Tragedy: Who are the Financial Actors behind the WTC?” On September 11, 2015, we will be commemorating the tragic events of 9/11.

The original URL was  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html. 

The article focussed on “verifiable facts” available in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

The Article presented a short timeline of major financial transactions pertaining to the WTC implemented in the months preceding the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Three major interrelated transactions occurred involving the Blackstone Group, the New York and New Jersey Port Authority,  Silverstein Properties, Westfield America Inc.

Michel Chossudovsky,  September 4, 2015

*      *     *

1. On October 17, 2000, eleven months before 9/11,

Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, of The Blackstone Group, L.P, purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by World Trade Center, Building Seven.1

Transactions

2. On April 26, 2001

The Port Authority leased the WTC for 99 years to Silverstein Properties and Westfield America Inc,

The transaction was authorised by Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg.

This transfer from the New York and New Jersey Port Authority was tantamount to the privatization of the WTC Complex. The official press release described it as “the richest real estate prize in New York City history”. The retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America Inc.2

3. On 24 July 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11

Silverstein took control of the lease of the WTC following the Port Authority decision on April 26.

Silverstein and Frank Lowy, CEO of Westefield Inc. took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot WTC complex. “Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the WTC, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.”3

Explicitly included in the agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield “were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed“. 4 (emphasis added)

In this transaction, Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC over 99 years amounting to 3,2 billion dollars in installments to be made to the Port Authority: 800 million covered fees including a down payment of the order of 100 million dollars. Of this amount, Silverstein put in 14 million dollars of his own money. The annual payment on the lease was of the order of 115 million dollars.5

In the wake of the WTC attacks, Silverstein [was] suing for some $7.1 billion in insurance money, more than double the amount of the value of the 99 year lease.6

Who Are the Financial Actors Behind the Purchase of the WTC

1. Silverstein Properties Inc. is a Manhattan-based real estate development and investment firm that owns, manages, and has developed more than 20 million square feet of office, residential and retail space.

2. Westfield America, Inc. is controlled by the Australian based Lowy family with major interests in shopping centres. The CEO of Westfield is Australian businessman Frank Lowy.

3. The Blackstone Group  is a private investment bank with offices in New York and London; It was founded in 1985 by its Chairman, Peter G. Peterson, and its President and CEO, Stephen A. Schwarzman.

Blackstone purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by World Trade Center, Building Seven 

As we recall WTC building 7 (The Salomon Brothers Building) which was not hit by the planes, collapsed mysteriously in the afternoon of September 11. The announcement of its collapse by the media (CNN and BBC) occurred more than 2o minutes prior the actual collapse. 

In addition to its Real Estate activities, the Blackstone Group’s core businesses include Mergers and Acquisitions Advisory, Restructuring and Reorganization Advisory, Private Equity Investing, Private Mezzanine Investing, and Liquid Alternative Asset Investing.7

Blackstone chairman Peter G. Petersen is also Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). His partner Stephen A. Schwarzman is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Peter G. Petersen is also named in widow Ellen Mariani’s widow civil RICO suit filed against. George W. Bush, et al.

4. Kissinger McLarty Associates, which is Henry Kissinger’s consulting firm has a “strategic alliance” with the Blackstone Group “which is designed to help provide financial advisory services to corporations seeking high-level strategic advice.” (www.blackstone.com) .

For details on the insurance claims in 2001 pertaining to the WTC, see Centre for Research on Globalization, The WTC Towers Collapse: an Enormous Insurance Scam (selected articles), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WTC312A.html , 19 December 2003

Notes

1 Business Wire, 17 October 2000

2. See Paul Goldberger in The New Yorker, May 20, 2002.

3 C. Bollyn, “Did Rupert Murdoch Have Prior Knowledge of 9/11?” Centre for Research on Globalization, globalresearch.ca, 20 October 2003.

4. Goldberger, op cit

5, Associated Press, 22 November 2003. See also Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 11, 2001.

6. Alison Frankel, The American Lawyer, Sept 3 2002

7 Business Wire, op cit

Amnistía Internacional (AI) es una de las organizaciones de derechos humanos más importantes del mundo. Sus declaraciones modelan la opinión pública, mientras que los Estados se sienten obligados si no a tenerle en cuenta, cuando menos a responderle. Un movimiento a favor de la justicia que aspire a llegar a un público amplio y a influir en la política de Estado no se puede permitir ignorar a AI si esta se equivoca o cuando lo hace. Esta monografía considera que AI ha perdido verdaderamente el norte y su objetivo es documentarlo con la esperanza de que AI haga una corrección o de que sus miembros de base le obliguen a hacerla.

En lo últimos años AI ha publicado informes de derechos humanos meticulosamente documentados y legalmente impecables sobre el conflicto israelo-palestino, por ejemplo Operation “Cast Lead”: 22 days of death and destruction [Operación Plomo Fundido: 22 días de muerte y destrucción] [1], una virulenta crítica del ataque de Israel a Gaza en 2008-9. Pero este no ha sido siempre el caso. Durante muchas décadas esta venerable organización de derechos humanos dio de hecho carta blanca a Israel para su práctica generalizada de la tortura en los territorios palestinos ocupados [2]. A juzgar por sus informes publicados después del ataque israelí a Gaza en el verano de 2014, la Operación Margen Protector, AI está volviendo a sus disculpas anteriores. Para quienes han llegado a fiarse de AI y citarla como fuente de un correcto informe de derechos humanos esta evolución es inquietante y profundamente frustrante. El principal objetivo de esta monografía no es dar cuenta del aparente retroceso de AI, aunque en la conclusión se aventurarán algunas conjeturas al respecto, sino documentarlo exhaustivamente y centrarse en particular en la acusación global que hace AI a Hamas [3] en el informe Unlawful and Deadly: Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict [Ilegales y mortales: ataques con cohetes y mortero de grupos armados palestinos durante el conflicto Gaza/Israel de 2014] [4].

Un balance falaz

El cuadro 1 presenta los datos brutos con los que empieza necesariamente una valoración desde el punto de vista de los derechos humanos de la Operación Margen Protector (en adelante OMP) [5]. 

TABLE 1 Civilian Losses in Operation Protective Edge

· * Las cifras de Gaza se han redondeado. En toda esta monografía las cifras altas se redondean en decenas, centenas o miles.

· ** Uno de los civiles era un trabajador inmigrante tailandés.

· *** Otras 11 sufrieron algún daño.

· **** Otras 38.000 sufrieron algún daño.

“Una vez más los civiles de ambas partes fueron los más castigados por la tercera guerra a plena escala en menos de seis años”, observa AI en in Unlawful and Deadly. Aunque se podría decir que esta afirmación es cierta [9], oculta la abismal diferencia entre la magnitud del sufrimiento infligido a los gazíes en comparación con el de los civiles israelíes [10]. Resulta difícil encontrar un ejemplo más gráfico de una diferencia cuantitativa que se convierte en cuanlitativa que el único niño israelí frente a los 550 niños gazíes asesinados y no merma el carácter sagrado de cada vida el indicar que si la muerte de un niño israelí es terrible, entonces, según el mismo cálculo, la muerte de niños en Gaza es 550 veces más terrible. Una Misión Médica de Investigación internacional reclutada por la filial israelí de Médicos por los Derechos Humanos y formada por eminentes profesionales médicos concluía su informe sobre OMP con esta advertencia: “Sin querer minusvalorar en modo alguno los traumáticos efectos de la guerra sobre los civiles israelíes, estos palidecen en comparación con las consecuencias de la destrucción generalizada provocada a Gaza”[11]. Incluso el Secretario General de la ONU Ban Ki-moon, que en el pasado deshonró su cargo con su apología a favor de Israel [12], diferenció claramente entre los ataques letales de Israel a instalaciones de la ONU durante OMP, los cuales “deplora”, y el mal uso que hizo Hamas de las instalaciones de la ONU, por el que “está consternado” [13]. Se busca en vano un reconocimiento o matización similares por parte de AI.

En conformidad con esta imagen de imparcialidad AI transmite la impresión de que Israel y Hamas fueron igualmente culpables de haber violado las leyes de guerra. Publicó dos informes después de la guerra que documentaban los crímenes de Israel y otros dos que documentaban los crímenes de Hamas (cuatro informes en total), aunque sorprendentemente dedicó en total muchas más páginas a acusar Hamas (107) que a Israel (78)[14]. En su informe Operation “Cast Lead” AI formuló más acusaciones contra Israel (60 páginas frente a 13), con lo que la distribución del espacio relativo de este informe anterior era más acorde, aunque todavía no lo fuera totalmente, con la muerte y destrucción infligidos por cada parte [15]. La introducción a cada uno de estos informes de postguerra sobre OMP equilibra metódicamente la distribución de la culpa. Como si esto no fuera suficientemente problemático, en Unlawful and Deadly se detalla a lo largo de más de dos páginas la muerte de cada niño israelí a consecuencia de los ataques de Hamas. Si AI hubiera buscado verdaderamente ser equilibrado, ¿acaso no debería haber dedicado 1.100 páginas a los niños gazíes asesinados? AI incluso sugiere que Hamas fue la parte más manifiestamente culpable en el conflicto. Así, la conclusión de Unlawful and Deadly deplora claramente “el flagrante desprecio por parte de Hamas del derecho humanitario internacional” mientras que uno de los informes recíprocos de AI, Families under the Rubble: Israeli attacks on inhabited homes [Familias bajo los escombros: los ataques israelíes a casas habitadas], concluye cautelosamente que la destrucción creada (18.000 viviendas gazíes fueron destruidas o quedaron inhabitables, lo que dejó a 110.000 personas sin hogar) “plantea preguntas difíciles al gobierno israelí que por el momento no ha contestado” [16]. Por supuesto, se puede imaginar que Hamas cometiera tantos crímenes como Israel, si no más, durante OMP, pero a primera vista sería una conclusión de lo más anómala. Tanto en términos absolutos como relativos, el grado de culpabilidad parece inclinarse fuertemente del lado israelí: Hamas mató a 73 israelíes, solo el 8% de los cuales eran civiles, mientras que Israel mató 2.200 gazíes un 70% de los cuales eran civiles; el daño causado a las infraestructuras civiles de Gaza (4.000 millones de dólares) multiplica por 70 el causado a las infraestructuras de Israel (55 millones de dólares), mientras que la proporción de viviendas civiles destruidas por Israel frente a las destruidas Hamas es de 18.000 a 1. La pregunta fascinante es cómo consigue AI convertir este balance tan enormemente desequilibrado en una acusación “ecuánime” de ambas partes en el conflicto.

 Norman Finkelstein

Articulo original : https://www.byline.com/project/13/article/14, 9 de Julio de 2015

Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Beatriz Morales Bastos.

Notas

[1] 2009. [Se puede consultar en castellano en http://amnistiainternacional.org/publicaciones/80-israel-gaza-operacion-plomo-fundido-22-dias-de-muerte-y-destruccion.html].

[2] Norman G. Finkelstein, Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish romance with Israel is coming to an end (New York: 2012), p. 97.

[3] El nombre Hamas se utiliza aquí para indicar todos los grupos armados en Gaza.

[4] 2015. [Se puede consultar en castellano en https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/mde21/1178/2015/es/]

[5] Para los antecedentes de OMP, véase Norman G. Finkelstein, Method and Madness: The hidden story of Israel’s assaults on Gaza (New York: 2014).

[6] La mayor parte de los datos de esta monografía provienen del Estado de Israel, The 2014 Gaza Conflict, 7 July-26 August 2014 (Mayo 2015). Esta informa de que las indemnizaciones totales por daños directos a civiles israelíes ascenderán a 40 millones de dólares, mientras que el Estado gastará una suma adicional de 15 millones para reparar las infraestructuras públicas dañadas (párrafos 112, 223).

[7] Las cifras de víctimas y daños en el caso de Gaza se basan en el informe de la Oficina para la Coordinación de Asuntos Humanitarios de la ONU (OCHA, por sus siglas en inglés), Fragmented Lives [Vidas fragmentadas] (marzo de 2015). Las principales organizaciones de derechos humanos que trabajan en Gaza (Al Mezan, Palestinian Center for Human Rights) cifran la cantidad de civiles muertos entre 1.600 y 1.700. [El informe de] Israel 2014 Gaza Conflict afirmaba que de los 1.700 muertos gazíes que habían sido clasificados de un total de 2.125, 940 (44 %) eran “militantes” de Hamas, 760 (36 %) eran civiles y 420 (20 %) estaban “por clasificar”. También afirma que “en todos los casos excepto raras excepciones, las mujeres, niños menores de 16 años y los ancianos se clasificaban automáticamente como “no implicados” en sus cálculos”. Dejando de lado todas los demás absurdos de la contabilidad de Israel, la cantidad de mujeres y niños gazíes asesinados (esto es, sin incluir ningún hombre adulto) sumaba ya un total de 850 personas, según la OCHA (la única discrepancia leve es que la OCHA consideraba niño a toda persona menor de 17). El informe israelí culpa a la OCHA de basar su distinción combatiente/civil en “las listas diarias de muertos publicadas por el ministerio de Sanidad de Gaza controlado por Hamas”, que, continúa, “no identifica si la persona fallecida era un militante”. Es difícil imaginar cómo la OCHA se pudo basar en cifras desglosadas del ministerio si este no las había proporcionado. Véase 2014 Gaza Conflict, p. 56n165; Anexo—Palestinian Fatality Figures in the 2014 Gaza Conflict, párrafos 9, 13, 26-27.

[8] Estado de Palestina, The National Early Recovery and Reconstruction Plan for Gaza (Octubre de 2014), p. 9.

[9] Por otra parte, solo un 8 % del total de las víctimas israelíes eran civiles

[10] En su último informe publicado, “Strangling Necks”: Abductions, torture and summary killings of Palestinians by Hamas forces during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict (2015 [se puede consultar en castellano con el título “Gaza: Palestinos torturados y ejecutados sumariamente por Hamás durante el conflicto de 2014 “, https://www.amnesty.org/es/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/]), AI menciona brevemente que “la magnitud de las víctimas y la destrucción causadas en Gaza por las fuerzas israelíes excede con mucho las causadas por los ataques palestinos a Israel, lo que refleja, entre otros factores, la mucho mayor potencia de fuego de Israel”.

[11] Jutta Bachmann et al., Gaza 2014: Findings of an independent medical fact-finding mission (2015), p. 101 (en adelante Misión Médica de Investigación)

[12] Finkelstein, Method, pp. 101-20.

[13] Los comentarios de Ban Ki-moon se publican adjuntos al sumario del informe final de una comisión de investigación de la ONU a la que encargó investigar “determinados incidentes ocurridos en la Franja de Gaza entre el 8 de julio 2014 y el 26 de agosto de 2014” (en adelante Comisión de Investigación de la ONU).

[14] Además de Unlawful and Deadly y de “Strangling Necks” AI publicó Families under the Rubble: Israeli attacks on inhabited homes (2014) y “Nothing Is Immune”: Israel’s destruction of landmark buildings in Gaza (2014). Conviene señalar que estos cuatro informes se publicaron entre el final de OMP y la publicación del informe del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU sobre esta operación en junio de 2015. Todo lo que AI publique después del informe de la ONU tendrá poco impacto político o ninguno. Casualmente, el informe de la ONU utiliza abundantemente estos cuatro informes de AI, una cuestión sobre la que volverá este escritor en una próxima monografía.

[15] Una yuxtaposición precisa arroja aún más sombra sobre las asignaciones espaciales de AI: en cifras absolutas, la escala de civiles muertos y de destrucción infligida por Israel durante la Operación Muro Protector fue mucho mayor mientras que en el caso de Hamas fue casi la misma.

[16] Por otra parte, “Strangling Necks” afirma categóricamente: “Las fuerzas militares israelíes cometieron crímenes de guerra y otras violaciones graves del derecho internacional durante la Operación Muro Protector”. Human Rights Watch (HRW) también condenó mucho más rápidamente a Hamas que a Israel. “Obviamente es más fácil denunciarlo como crimen de guerra, a saber, el lanzamiento por parte de Hamas de cohetes a zonas civiles”. El director ejecutivo de HRW Kenneth Roth comentó durante OMP: “Esto es abiertamente obvio. No se necesita una investigación exhaustiva para constatarlo. Para Israel hace falta más de una”. (http://m.democracynow.org/stories/9979).

The great problem with corporate capitalism is that publicly owned companies have short time horizons.  Unlike a privately owned business, the top executives of a publicly owned corporation generally come to their positions late in life.  Consequently, they have a few years in which to make their fortune. 

As a consequence of the short-sightedness of reformers and Congress, the annual salaries of top executives were capped at $1 million.  Amounts in excess are not deductible for the company as an expense.  The exception is “performance-related” pay, which has no limit.  The result is that the major part of executive pay comes in the form of performance bonuses.  Performance means a rise in the price of the company’s shares.

Performance bonuses can be honestly obtained by good management or mere luck that results in a rise in the company’s profits. However, there are a number of ways in which performance bonuses can be less legitimately obtained, almost all of which result in short-term gains to executives and shareholders and long-term damage to the corporation and economy.

Replacing American workers with foreign workers is one way. The collapse of communism in Russia and China and the collapse of socialism in India resulted in the under-utilized Indian and Chinese labor forces becoming available to American corporations.  Pushed by “shareholder advocates,” Wall Street, and large retailers, US manufacturing corporations began closing their manufacturing plants in the US and producing offshore the goods, and later the services, that they market to Americans.

From the standpoint of the short-term interests of executives and shareholders, this decision made sense.  But to transform manufacturing companies into marketing companies, as happened for example to Apple Computer, which apparently does not own a single factory, was a strategic mistake for the long-term.  By offshoring the production of their products, US corporations transferred technology, physical plant, and business knowhow to China.  American corporations are now dependent on China, a country that the idiots in Washington are endeavoring to turn into an enemy.

Further downside comes from the fact that research, development, and innovation are connected to the manufacturing process, because it is difficult for these important functions to be successful in a sterile atmosphere removed from the production process.  As time goes by, US companies are transformed from manufacturing enterprises into sales organizations and lose connection to the work process, and these functions relocate abroad with the manufacturing jobs.

Offshoring manufacturing jobs left Americans with fewer high-value-added well-paid jobs, and the US middle class downsized.  Ladders of upward mobility were taken down.  Income and wealth distributions worsened. In effect, the One Percent got richer by giving away US incomes and GDP to China.  Economists who shilled for the offshoring corporations promised new and better jobs to take the place of the lost manufacturing jobs, but as I have pointed out for years, there is no sign of these promised jobs in the payroll jobs releases or ten-year jobs projections.

Jobs offshoring began with manufacturing, but the rise of the high speed Internet made it possible to move offshore tradable professional skills, such as software engineering, Information Technology, various forms of engineering, architecture, accounting, and even the medical reading of MRIs and CT-Scans.  The jobs and careers of university graduates were sent abroad and denied to Americans.  Many of the jobs that remained in the US were given to foreign workers brought in on H1-B and L-1 work visas based on the obviously false claim that there was a shortage of talent in the US.

The gains in executive bonuses and shareholder capital gains were achieved by destroying the economic prospects of millions of Americans and by reducing the growth potential of the US economy.  In the long-run this means the demise of the US as a world power.  As I forecast in 2004, “the US will be a Third World country in 20 years.”

As jobs offshoring ran its course and had fewer remaining gains to offer the One Percent, short-term greed turned to new ways of wrecking both corporations and the US economy in behalf of executive and shareholder gains.  Executives of utility companies, for example, forewent maintenance and upgrades and used the money instead to buy back their own shares.  If you have ever wondered why you can’t get faster Internet in your area or why your electricity is constantly interrupted, this is probably the cause.

Executives also use the company’s profits to repurchase shares, and when they lack profits executives arrange bank loans to the companies in order to buy back shares. Executive “performance pay” goes up, but the corporations are left more heavily indebted and thus more vulnerable to recession and foreign competition.  In recent years, buybacks and dividends have used up most of corporate profits, leaving the corporations bereft  of updates and reserves.

Publicly owned capitalism’s short-term time horizon is also apparent with regard to nature’s resources and the environment.  Ecological economists, such as Herman Daly, have established the fact that environmental destruction is the consequence of corporations moving many of the waste costs associated with their activities off their profit and loss statements and onto the environment. As other ways of artificially raising corporate profits and share prices become exhausted, expect corporations to push harder against pollution control measures.  As the environment declines in its ability to produce new resources and to absorb wastes or pollution—for example the large growing dead areas in the Gulf of Mexico—the planet’s ability to sustain life withers.

President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in order to reduce the external or social costs that corporations impose on the environment.  However, the polluting industries were not slow in taking over or capturing the agency, as University of Chicago economist George Stigler predicted.

A basis of economic theory is the absurd assumption that man-made capital is a perfect substitute for nature’s capital. This means that if the environment is used up and ruined, not to worry. Innovation and technology will substitute for nature.  This absurd foundation of economic theory is why there are so few ecological economists. Economics teaches not to worry about the environment.

To sum up, the One Percent have enriched themselves at the expense of the economy’s potential and everyone else.

Where does the economy stand at the present time, a question on many of your minds?  I am not a seer.  Nevertheless, various things are obvious.  In the US consumer demand is constrained by high debt and the absence of growth in real median family income.  Evidence of the constrained US consumer shows up in lackluster real retail sales and in year-over-year declines in factory orders. On September 2, Zero Hedge reported that factory orders had fallen for 9 consecutive months.

As I point out, the monthly payroll jobs announcements are always overblown and consist largely of lowly-paid, part-time, domestic service employment. The 5.3% unemployment rate is phony, because it does not count any discouraged workers, and there are millions of them.  Indeed, the absence of jobs is the reason the labor force participation rate has continually declined, a contradiction to the alleged recovery.  On September 1,  the Economic Cycle Research Institute reported that the US government’s data on employment/population ratios by education shows that the employment/population ratio for those with high school and college diplomas is lower now than when the alleged economic recovery began in June 2009.  The only job gains have been for those without a high school diploma, the cheapest labor available in the US. Clearly, these are not jobs that will produce any rebound in consumer demand. And clearly education is not the answer.

The main economic releases from Washington—the ones that make the headline news: the unemployment rate, payroll jobs, GDP, and the consumer price index—are worthless.  The unemployment rate does not include millions of unemployed, the CPI is rigged to undercount inflation, and as inflation is undercounted, real GDP is over-reported. Indeed, in my opinion and that of economic-statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com, nominal GDP deflated with a correct measure of inflation shows essentially no growth during the alleged recovery. What the government and financial media call economic growth is essentially price rises or inflation.

What is happening to America is that all of the surplus in the system accumulated over decades of success is being used up. Americans have had no interest income from their savings since the Federal Reserve decided to print trillions of dollars with which to purchase the troubled financial assets of a small handful of mega-banks.  In other words, the Federal Reserve decided that, contrary to the propaganda about serving the public interest, the Fed exists to serve a few oversized banks, not the American people or their economy. As an institution, the Federal Reserve is so corrupt that it should be shut down.

The elderly avoid the stock market, because a decline can be long-lasting and eat up a large chunk of one’s savings.  The same can happen from long-term bonds. Therefore, older people prefer shorter term interest instruments.  The Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy means that older people are using up their savings, at the expense of their peace of mind and their heirs, in order to prevent a collapse in their standard of living. The elderly are also drawing down their savings in support of unemployed children and grandchildren.  Unable to find jobs that will support the formation of a household or even an individual existence, many young college educated Americans are living with parents or grandparents, something I have not previously seen in my lifetime.

All the while the corrupt financial media pump us full of good economic news.

Many readers want to know if the stock market decline is over.  It remains to be seen.  In my opinion two opposite forces are at work. Based on earnings and the economy’s prospects, stocks are overvalued.  However, the appearance of a successful economy is important to Washington’s power, and this brings in the Plunge Protection Team, a US Treasury/Federal Reserve team that intervenes to support the market. Wall Street managed to get the team created in 1988, and in the recent troubled days there are signs of it in operation.  For example, suddenly during a time of market decline strong purchasing appeared, arresting the decline. Normally, optimistic purchasers who interpret declines as buying opportunities wait until the decline is over.  They do not buy into the middle of a decline.

Today most stock purchases are made by money managers, such as mutual funds and pension funds.  Individuals do not account for much of the market.  Money managers are judged by their performance relative to their peers.  As long as they move up or down with their peers, they are safe.  Once the professionals see that government is supporting the market, they support it.  This behavior is bolstered by greed. Participants want the market to go up, not down. Therefore, even if money managers understand that stocks are a bubble, they will support the bubble as long as they think the Plunge Protection Team is holding up the market.  The unanswered question in the minds of money managers is whether the Treasury and Fed are committed to maintaining an overvalued market or whether they are just holding it up long enough for their well-connected friends to get out.  Only time will tell.

My book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, will introduce you to the damage done by jobs offshoring and to the mistaken assumption of economists that the environment puts no constraints on economic growth.

The other part of the story comes from Michael Hudson, who explains the financialization of the economy and the transformation of the financial sector, which once financed the production of real goods and services, into a money-sucking leach that sucks all life out of the economy into its own profits.  I recently posted a link to Pam Martens’ review of his book, Killing The Host. 

If you can absorb my book, Michael Hudson’s book, and one of Herman Daly’s books, you will have a much firmer grasp on economics than economists have.  Go to it.

The gut-wrenching images of a three-year-old Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach, lying face-down in the sand, his lifeless body then cradled by a rescue worker, have brought home to people all over the world the desperate crisis that is unfolding on Europe’s borders.

The family of the toddler, Alan Kurdi, had come from Kobani, fleeing along with hundreds of thousands of others. A protracted siege by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and an intense US bombing campaign has left the northern Syrian city in ruins, its houses as well as water, electrical, sanitation and medical infrastructure destroyed. The boy was one of 12 who drowned in an attempt to reach Greece, including his mother and five-year-old brother. His distraught father, the family’s sole survivor, said he would return to Syria with their bodies, telling relatives that he hoped only to die and be buried alongside them.

There is plenty of blame to go around for these deaths, which are representative of many thousands more who have lost their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean or suffocated after being stuffed like sardines into overheated vans.

Canada’s Conservative Party government ignored a request made in June by the boy’s aunt, who lives in British Columbia, to grant Alan’s family asylum.

The countries of the European Union have treated the surge in refugees as a matter of repression and deterrence, throwing up new fences, setting up concentration camps and deploying riot police in an effort to create a Fortress Europe that keeps desperate families like Alan’s at bay and condemns thousands upon thousands to death.

But what of the US? American politicians and the US media are deliberately silent on Washington’s central role in creating this unfolding tragedy on Europe’s borders.

The Washington Post, for example, published an editorial earlier this week stating that Europe “can’t be expected to solve on its own a problem that is originating in Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya and—above all—Syria.” The New York Times sounded a similar note, writing: “The roots of this catastrophe lie in crises the European Union cannot solve alone: war in Syria and Iraq, chaos in Libya…”

What, in turn, are the “roots” of the crises in these countries which have given rise to this “catastrophe”? The response to this question is only guilty silence.

Any serious consideration of what lies behind the surge of refugees into Europe leads to the inescapable conclusion that it constitutes not only a tragedy but a crime. More precisely, it is the tragic byproduct of a criminal policy of aggressive wars and regime change interventions pursued uninterruptedly by US imperialism, with the aid and complicity of its Western European allies, over the course of nearly a quarter century.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US ruling elite concluded that it was free to exploit America’s unrivaled military might as a means of offsetting US capitalism’s long-term economic decline. By means of military aggression, Washington embarked on a strategy of establishing its hegemony over key markets and sources of raw materials, beginning first and foremost with the energy-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.

This strategy was summed up crudely in the slogan advanced by the Wall Street Journal in the aftermath of the first war against Iraq in 1991: “Force works.”

What the world is witnessing in today’s wave of desperate refugees attempting to reach Europe are the effects of this policy as it has been pursued over the whole past period.

Decade-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, waged under the pretext of a “war on terrorism” and justified with the infamous lies about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” succeeded only in devastating entire societies and killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

They were followed by the US-NATO war for regime change that toppled the government of Muammar Gaddafi and turned Libya into a so-called failed state, wracked by continuous fighting between rival militias. Then came the Syrian civil war—stoked, armed and funded by US imperialism and its allies, with the aim of toppling Bashar al-Assad and imposing a more pliant Western puppet in Damascus.

The predatory interventions in Libya and Syria were justified in the name of “human rights” and “democracy,” receiving on this basis the support of a whole range of pseudo-left organizations representing privileged layers of the middle class—the Left Party in Germany, the New Anti-Capitalist Party in France, the International Socialist Organization in the US and others. Some of them went so far as to hail the actions of Islamist militias armed and funded by the CIA as “revolutions.”

The present situation and the unbearable pressure of death and destruction that is sending hundreds of thousands of people into desperate and deadly flight represent the confluence of all of these crimes of imperialism. The rise of ISIS and the ongoing bloody sectarian civil wars in both Iraq and Syria are the product of the US devastation of Iraq, followed by the backing given by the CIA and US imperialism’s regional allies to ISIS and similar Islamist militias inside Syria.

No one has been held accountable for these crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and others in the previous administration who waged a war of aggression in Iraq based upon lies have enjoyed complete impunity. Those in the current administration, from Obama on down, have yet to be called to account for the catastrophes they have unleashed upon Libya and Syria. Their accomplices are many, from a US Congress that has acted as a rubber stamp for war policies to an embedded media that has helped foist wars based upon lies upon the American public, and the pseudo-lefts who have attributed a progressive role to US imperialism and its “humanitarian interventions.”

Together they are responsible for what is unfolding on Europe’s borders, which, more than a tragedy, is part of a protracted and continuing war crime.

En días pasados, varios medios de prensa (ver por ejemplo  nota  de El Comercio o esta nota de Elpais.cr) han dado a conocer que la Comunidad de Estados de América Latina y del Caribe (CELAC) ha incluido el tema de la devolución de Guantánamo a Cuba en sus discusiones sobre la normalización de las relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos.

Durante la III Cumbre de la CELAC realizada en San José, Costa Rica, en el mes de enero del 2015 (ver  texto  de la Declaración Final), no se había logrado incluir el tema: ver a ese respecto esta  nota  de prensa en la que se lee que “El canciller de Costa Rica, Manuel González, confirmó a que el problema de Guantánamo “no figurará” en las resoluciones de la CELAC“.  No obstante, esta cumbre realizada en Costa Rica fue la escogida por las máximas autoridades de Cuba para externar sus condiciones ante una posible normalización de sus relaciones con Estados Unidos (ver nota de El Universal): en el texto del discurso de su Presidente se leyó que “El restablecimiento de las relaciones diplomáticas es el inicio de un proceso hacia la normalización de las relaciones bilaterales, pero esta no será posible mientras exista el bloqueo, no se devuelva el territorio ilegalmente ocupado por la Base Naval de Guantánamo, no cesen las trasmisiones radiales y televisivas violatorias de las normas internacionales, no haya compensación justa a nuestro pueblo por los daños humanos y económicos que ha sufrido”. Es de notar que la mención de Guantánamo provocó aplausos de varios de los Presidentes presentes a la cita (Nota 1).
Una concesión territorial sin plazo

Como es sabido, un tratado de 1903 entre Cuba y Estados Unidos, concede la soberanía exclusiva de Estados Unidos en esta zona de 117,6 kilómetros cuadrados: el tratado de 1903 (ver texto en inglés), de tres artículos tan solo, no prevé expiración alguna o plazo para que Cuba pueda recobrar paulatinamente su soberanía en esta parte de su territorio. En 1934, el tratado de 1903 fue objeto de una leve readecuación (ver  texto ) en un tratado bilateral suscrito entre Cuba y Estados Unidos, sin fijar un plazo de tiempo a partir del cual se ponga fin al peculiar régimen territorial establecido desde 1903. Una exposición en París en el 2004  (ver nota) exhibió varios de los cheques por 4,085 dólares que anualmente Estados Unidos paga a Cuba por concepto de arrendamiento de Guantánamo, y que Cuba se rehúsa a aceptar desde 1959.

Usualmente, las concesiones territoriales acordadas a finales del siglo XIX o a inicios del siglo XX eran hechas por un plazo de tiempo determinado, o bien objeto de acuerdos posteriores para reintegrar el territorio cedido a su titular original. Así lo ilustran devoluciones recientes: la devolución en 1997 de Hong Kong resulta de los términos de la concesión de China al Reino Unido suscrita en 1898 por un plazo de 99 años. Otro ejemplo, entre varios,  lo constituye la zona del canal de Panamá: el 31 de diciembre de 1999, Estados Unidos procedió a devolver la zona del canal a Panamá, luego de suscribir una serie de tratados bilaterales, entre ellos el tratado de 1977 que establece esta fecha para poner fin al control de Estados Unidos sobre esta zona del territorio panameño (ver texto). Otras cesiones de territorios mucho más antiguas se mantienen, tal como por ejemplo, la cesión de España al Reino Unido en 1713 de Gibraltar (ver estudio reciente con ocasión de los 300 años del tratado de Utrecht).

Foto extradía de esta nota de prensa publicada en Canadá: “Guantanamo detainees were tortured, medical exman show”.

Una “usurpación” del territorio para Cuba

Desde 1959, Cuba rechaza esta concesión territorial otorgada desde 1903 por medio de un tratado bilateral, que permite a Estados Unidos mantener fuera de su territorio su base militar más antigua. Cuba considera nulo el tratado de 1903 y el acuerdo posterior de 1934 y refiere a esta situación como una “usurpación” de su territorio en foros internacionales: ver por ejemplo, el  discurso  del 2009 de su Canciller durante la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. También la califica como una “ocupación ilegal”: el Artículo 11 de la misma  Constitución de Cuba  estipula que “Cuba repudia y considera ilegales y nulos los tratados, pactos o concesiones concertados en condiciones de desigualdad o que desconocen o disminuyen su soberanía e integridad territorial”.

El pasado 21 de julio del 2015, en el marco de la reunión de los jefes de la diplomacia de Cuba y de Estados Unidos, se leyó, por parte del Canciller de Cuba, Bruno Rodríguez, (ver  reporte  de conferencia de prensa) que: “He expresado también que para Cuba la normalización de relaciones supone la solución de toda una serie de problemas pendientes, entre los cuales he mencionado el cese del bloqueo a Cuba, la devolución del territorio de Guantánamo y el completo respeto a la soberanía de nuestro país“.  En esta  versión  del discurso oficial dado por el representante cubano con ocasión de la reapertura de la embajada de Cuba en Estados Unidos, se lee que: “Solo la eliminación del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero que tanto daño y privaciones ocasiona a nuestro pueblo, la devolución del territorio ocupado en Guantánamo y el respeto a la soberanía de Cuba darán sentido al hecho histórico que estamos viviendo hoy.”

El tema del bloqueo impuesto unilateralmente por Estados Unidos a Cuba ha sido conocido y condenado en cada Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas en los últimos 22 años, con un último ejercicio en el año 2014 (ver  nota   del sitio oficial de Naciones Unidas) que arrojó el siguiente resultado de la votación del proyecto de resolución A/69/L.4: 188 Estados a favor, 3 abstenciones (Islas Marshall, Micronesia y Palau) y dos votos en contra: Estados Unidos e Israel. Por su parte, el tema de la devolución de Guantánamo a Cuba es un ámbito sobre el que han insistido los delegados cubanos, pero que no ha encontrado tanto eco dentro de las Naciones Unidas.  Para muchos integrantes de la comunidad internacional, se trata de un problema bilateral entre Cuba y Estados Unidos que debe ser resuelto mediante negociaciones entre ambos.

Guantánamo: una zona de no derecho desde el 2001

Un aspecto de Guantánamo que sí ha recibido particular atención de parte de distintos actores de la comunidad internacional y de las Naciones Unidas, es la situación de las personas detenidas que se encuentran en su base naval. Como bien se sabe, desde el 2001, esta base naval de Guantánamo es utilizada por Estados Unidos para enviar e interrogar a personas susceptibles de participar en actividades terroristas, en condiciones tales que Guantánamo ha sido considerada como una verdadera “zona de no derecho”: en el mes de julio del año 2004 tuvimos la oportunidad de indicar en un  artículo  publicado en La Nación  sobre el carácter persistente de la tortura que “es para intentar sustraerse al derecho humanitario por lo que se recurre a la noción de “combatientes ilegales” ideada por el Pentágono para calificar a las personas capturadas en Afganistán a partir de enero del 2002; es para realizar interrogatorios “intensivos” a estas personas, sin la posible intervención de un juez, o de un abogado, por lo que se crea una verdadera zona de “no derecho” en la base militar norteamericana de Guantánamo”. La muerte del yemení Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif el 8 de septiembre del 2012, quién nos dejó un desgarrador testimonio bajo la forma de poemas, ilustra la insensatez a la que se llegó en Guantánamo. El 24 de abril del 2011, la organización Wikileaks publicó la lista detallada de cada uno de los 779 detenidos (todas disponibles en este enlace). Otra organización como Wikipedia, procedió luego a clasificar esta lista, en particular según la nacionalidad de cada detenido y que suman en total 24 distintas nacionalidades (ver enlace). Uno de los más jóvenes detenidos, Omar Kahdr, de nacionalidad canadiense (ver foto a sus 14 años en la ficha realizada por Wikipedia), fue capturado a sus 15 años y enviado a Guantánamo en julio del 2002 (ver ficha del Departamento de Defensa norteamericano), para ser repatriado a Canadá en el 2012: casi 13 años después de su captura, Omar Kahdr fue objeto de varios reportajes recientes en The Guardian, en los que se lee (ver artículo del 7/05/2015), por parte de un representante de Human Rights Watch, que “When Khadr was repatriated, instead of providing him with the rehabilitation he deserved as a former child soldier, Canada threw him in prison”: ver también  artículo del 15/05/2015 sobre decisión de los tribunales de Canadá.

Un artículo en una publicación especializada en derechos humanos en Estados Unidos ya advertía en el 2002 de manera vehemente que: “In the interest of its own credibility, as well as the future safety of its own armed forces, the U.S. government would be well advised to reconsider its position and comply with all of its obligations under the Conventions” (Nota 2).

El estatuto jurídico de las personas encarceladas en Guantánamo (a la luz de las garantías que otorga el derecho internacional humanitario y el mismo derecho norteamericano) ha sido objeto de abundantes acciones legales ante la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos. Remitimos al lector al análisis de María Dolores Bollo Arocena del caso Hamdan del año 2006 publicado en España titulado “Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Comentario a la sentencia dictada por el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos el 29 de junio de 2006” (ver  enlace  a texto completo de este artículo). Otros estudios por parte de la doctrina en derecho internacional han sistematizado la reflexión sobre la situación imperante en la base militar de Guantánamo (Nota 3).  En el caso de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR), el entusiasmo de una estudiante de Licenciatura en el 2007 no logró superar la renuencia de los encargados de autorizar este tema para una tesis de Licenciatura (Nota 4).

Como previsible, una zona de “no derecho” como Guantánamo no podía sino expandirse para lograr plenamente sus objetivos: en el 2006, un informe de la Asamblea Parlamentaria del Consejo de Europa criticó duramente a los Estados europeos que colaboraron con autorizaciones de aterrizaje y de sobrevuelo a operaciones clandestinas y vuelos furtivos solicitados por Estados Unidos para trasladar a personas desde Oriente Medio hacia su base en Guantánamo. La parte II de dicho informe denominado “Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states” da una idea del esfuerzo de creatividad al que fueron sometidos varios Estados para burlar los controles previstos por su propio derecho interno (Parte II del informe disponible aquí ).

En junio del 2015, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) adoptó el  informe  denominado “Hacia el cierre de Guantánamo“.  Un  enlace   del sitio oficial de la OEA ofrece un detallado panorama de las diversas gestiones realizadas desde la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, sin mayor éxito, entre el 2002 y el 2015.

El título de este informe de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos posiblemente recuerde una promesa de campaña del Presidente Barack Obama para su primer mandato en el 2009 y para su segundo. Con relación a las expectativas creadas por la administración del Presidente Obama en el 2009, un largo editorial del American Journal of International Law – cuya lectura recomendamos – concluía en el 2009 que, luego de los abusos cometidos durante la administración del Presidente Georges W. Bush, Estados Unidos tenía ante sí una oportunidad histórica de rectificar el rumbo equivocado en su lucha contra el terrorismo: “The Supreme Court, the Obama administration, Congress, and legal advocates now have a new opportunity to decide whether and how to align U.S. legal discourse and policy with the longstanding international legal framework” (Nota 5).

Cuba y Guantánamo ante la Comisión de Derechos Humanos en el 2005:

Vale la pena recordar que en el 2004, Cuba había elaborado un texto a ser presentado y votado en el seno de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas (compuesta por 53 Estados miembros) para que se investigara la situación de los detenidos en Guantánamo. Ello dio lugar a numerosas gestiones de Estados Unidos y de la Unión Europea para torpedear esta iniciativa. En este cable de Wikileaks, se informa de las gestiones de Estados Unidos con República Dominicana para que votara en contra (ver cable de Wikileaks del 21/04/2004) y del “seguro” alemán previsto por Estados Unidos en caso de que Cuba cumpliera con su amenaza; mientras que Guatemala (ver cable del 6/04/2004),  así como Italia, y muchos otros, garantizaban a Estados Unidos un voto en contra del texto cubano (ver cable  Wikileaks del 20/04/2004). En este cable del 2005 publicado por The Guardian en el 2010 (ver cable), se lee, con relación al papel jugado por los Países Bajos, que “The Dutch also helped sway the EU to vote against the Cuban-sponsored resolution on Guantanamo at the Human Rights Commission last year despite concerns about the treatment of detainees”.  En el caso de las discusiones de los diplomáticos de Estados Unidos con sus homólogos de Bahrein, se lee en este cable del 18/04/2004 que su reacción los sorprendió: “When Charge then raised the Cuban resolution on Guantanamo, the Minister of  State’s categoric assertion surprised us.  The fate of six  Bahrainis in Guantanamo is a big domestic political issue; it is often front-page news here. A variety of domestic human rights groups as well as members of the Parliament regularly criticize the MFA for not helping the six Bahrainis. The MFA is, predictably, quite sensitive about the criticism”.

Finalmente, ante la posible presentación de una moción para evitar que se conociera el texto (la cual hubiera sido auspiciada por miembros de la Unión Europea), y ante las fuertes presiones de Estados Unidos sobre varias delegaciones,  Cuba optó por no solicitar voto alguno y retiró su texto  (ver  nota  del NYTimes).

Un año después, en abril del 2005, un proyecto de resolución similar fue presentado por Cuba: se trata del documento E/CN.4/2005/L.94/Rev.1 cuyas versiones oficiales están disponibles en este enlace . La parte dispositiva se leía como sigue:

“1. Pide al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América que autorice una misión de determinación de hechos imparcial e independiente a cargo de los procedimientos especiales correspondientes de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos sobre la situación de los detenidos en su base naval en Guantánamo;

2. Pide también al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América que, con miras a alcanzar ese fin, autorice a la Presidenta-Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria, al Relator Especial sobre la cuestión de la tortura, al Relator Especial sobre el derecho de toda persona al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental y al Relator Especial sobre la independencia de los magistrados y abogados a visitar los centros de detención establecidos en esa base; …“

Presentada la iniciativa cubana, a pesar de presiones para que no lo hiciera, el texto fue votado con el siguiente resultado: la propuesta fue rechazada por 22 votos en contra, 23 abstenciones y 8 votos a favor, entre los cuáles, además de Cuba, se unieron por parte de América Latina, Guatemala y México (ver  nota  de La Nación). Entre los 22 Estados que votaron en contra, en América Latina se incluyen a Costa Rica, Honduras y Perú. Entre los que se abstuvieron, se contabilizó a Argentina, Brasil, Ecuador y Paraguay por parte de América Latina (ver  detalle  del voto).

Esta iniciativa cubana con relación a Guantánamo se dio unos días después del voto de una resolución por parte de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos, auspiciada por Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, exigiendo establecer un mecanismo de monitoreo sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Cuba (ver  nota  de El Pais). La parte dispositiva de dicha resolución se leía como sigue:

“1. Invita a la Representante Personal de la Alta Comisionada para los Derechos Humanos a que informe a la Comisión sobre el estado actual de las situaciones tratadas en las mencionadas resoluciones de esta Comisión;

 2. Decide seguir examinando esta cuestión en su 62º período de sesiones en relación con el mismo tema del programa, ocasión en la que la Representante Especial de la Alta Comisionada presentará su informe”.

La resolución fue adoptada por 21 votos a favor, 17 en contra y 15 abstenciones (ver  detalle  del voto de la Resolución E/CN.4/2005/L.31). En el primer grupo, además de Estados Unidos y Canadá se contabilizaron por parte de América Latina a Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras y México. En contra votaron, por parte de América Latina, únicamente Cuba, y se abstuvieron Argentina, Brasil, Ecuador,  Paraguay, Perú y República Dominicana.

Para algunos analistas la votación de ambos textos en abril del 2005 puso a prueba la consistencia  de varios Estados en materia de derechos humanos ante la opinión pública internacional, como por ejemplo lo evidencia esta nota sobre el caso particular de México (ver  nota  de La Jornada). En el caso de la Unión Europea, los delegados de sus Estados miembros hicieron caso omiso de una resolución del Parlamento Europeo adoptada unos años atrás sobre la situación en Guantánamo (ver  texto  de resolución del 2002) y de una recomendación al Consejo emanada del mismo Parlamento en febrero del 2004 (ver texto).

Más allá de las inconsistencias de algunos, y de las usuales presiones ejercidas por otros, el tema de Guantánamo mantuvo el interés de varios órganos de Naciones Unidas durante el 2005. Unos meses después del delicado ejercicio diplomático realizado en abril del 2005, diversos relatores  y expertos independientes de Naciones Unidas en materia de derechos humanos hicieron público un llamado conjunto a Estados Unidos (ver  texto  integral en inglés con fecha de junio del 2005) en el que indicaban que: “We deeply regret that the Government of the United States has still not invited us to visit those persons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Guantanamo Bay naval base”. Antes de concluir su misiva con la  indicación detallada de las diversas gestiones realizadas desde el 2001 sin obtener respuesta por parte de Estados Unidos, los expertos señalaban en el 2005 que: “Due to the seriousness of the allegations, the lack of cooperation and given the responsibilities to our respective mandates, we will jointly conduct an investigation based on all credible sources regarding the situation of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. In the meantime, should the Government of the United States extend a visit to Guantanamo Bay we would welcome this development and would incorporate the findings from our mission into our other investigations“.

El comunicado de la CELAC: un primer paso con posibles repercusiones

Volviendo al tema de la devolución del territorio de Guantánamo a Cuba como tal, este ha sido objeto de pocos llamamientos por parte de otros Estados, con excepción de declaraciones oficiales dadas por algunos de los integrantes de la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de nuestra América (más conocida como ALBA). A diferencia de algunos titulares de prensa de los últimos días que refieren a palabras tales como “exige, “pide” o “reclama”, el comunicado oficial adoptado por la CELAC en Ecuador el pasado 28 de Agosto del 2015 en el marco de una reunión de coordinadores nacionales, utiliza términos más moderados. Ello puede resultar, al menos en parte, de una negociación tendiente a adoptar el texto por consenso, único mecanismo de adopción de decisiones vigente a la fecha en el seno de la CELAC.  De manera a ofrecerle al lector mayor claridad en cuanto a los términos y al tono acordados entre los 33 delegados de la CELAC, nos permitimos reproducir al final de estas líneas el texto completo del comunicado oficial de la CELAC. No obstante, y a modo de conclusión, se puede señalar que se trata de un primer comunicado de un foro internacional sobre la devolución de Guantánamo a Cuba, realizado en un marco multilateral como el de la CELAC y que hace eco al discurso en Costa Rica del Presidente de Cuba del mes de enero del 2015.

Este primer llamado bien podría ser segundado, a corto y mediano plazo,  por otras resoluciones y/o declaraciones adoptadas en el marco de otros recintos internacionales.

—–Texto oficial del comunicado de la CELAC sobre la devolución de Guantánamo a Cuba——
La Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC),

Reiterando su compromiso con el multilateralismo, los principios consagrados en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y el Derecho Internacional, incluyendo la igualdad soberana y la integridad territorial de los Estados,

Reafirmando la Proclama de la América Latina y el Caribe como Zona de Paz, acordada en su II Cumbre en La Habana, el 29 de enero de 2014,

Consciente de la existencia por más de un siglo, de la Base Naval de los Estados Unidos en Guantánamo, territorio de la República de Cuba,

Actuando a la luz del proceso hacia la normalización de relaciones entre la República de Cuba y los Estados Unidos de América, que constituye un elemento que contribuye a la estabilidad de la América Latina y el Caribe,

Considera que la devolución a la República de Cuba del territorio que ocupa la Base Naval de los Estados Unidos en Guantánamo debe ser un elemento relevante de ese proceso, mediante un diálogo bilateral apegado al Derecho Internacional.

Notas

1. El discurso completo del Presidente de Cuba durante la III Cumbre de la CELAC en enero del 2015 se puede apreciar en este video (ver enlace).

2. Véase CHLOPAK E., “Dealing with the Detainees at Guantanamo Bay: Humanitarian and Human Rights Obligations under the Geneva Conventions”, Vol. 9, Human Rights Brief (2002), pp. 1-5, p. 5. Texto disponible aquí

3. Ver por ejemplo, entre muchos, el artículo  de Ruth Abril publicado en España en la Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales durante el año 2005 titulado “De Guantánamo, a Bagdad. Estatuto jurídico y trato a los “detenidos en la lucha contra el terrorismo”  (texto disponible aquí) y el de Luis Benavides publicado en el Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional (AMDI), titulado “El estatus jurídico internacional de los prisioneros detenidos por Estados Unidos de América en Guantánamo, Cuba, a raíz del conflicto en Afganistán” (texto disponible aquí). De igual manera, el artículo publicado en la Revista del Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICIR) de Silvia Borelli, titulado “Echar luz sobre un vacío jurídico: el derecho internacional y las detenciones en el extranjero en el marco de la “guerra contra el terrorismo” publicado en el 2005 (texto disponible aquí). O bien, entre muchos otros,  el  siguiente artículo de Wanda Mastor publicado en el Annuaire Français de Droit International del 2008 titulado “La prison de Guantanamo : réflexions juridiques sur une zone de «non-droit »  (texto disponible aquí)  y la investigación de Camile Jacquot publicada en Suiza en el 2011 y titulada : “Le statut des détenus de Guantanamo capturés en Afghanistan au regard du droit international humanitaire et du droit international des droits de l’homme : quelle protection dans le cadre de la « guerre contre le terrorisme » ? »  (texto disponible aquí).

4. Pese a una declaración jurada de la estudiante de octubre del 2007 indicando que el tema “La lucha contra el terrorismo vs. Los derechos humanos: el caso específico de Guantánamo” no se encontraba en el sistema computadorizado de la biblioteca de dicha casa de estudios ni tampoco en el fichero del Área de Investigación de la misma, el rechazo a su tema se mantuvo con la siguiente mención: “El tema ha sido investigado recientemente. Podría replantearse desde una óptica distinta (más general tal vez) sin incluir específicamente Guantánamo”. Omitiremos el nombre del distinguido colega a cargo de aprobar los temas de tesis de manera a no provocar mayores sonrojos a los ya causados.

5. Véase GOODMAN R., “Editorial. The detention of civilian in armed conflict”, Vol. 103 AJIL (2009), pp. 49-74, p.74.  Este reporte de CQ Researcher titulado “Closing Guantanamo. Can Obama close the detention camp within one year?”, en sus páginas 198-199 referencia parte de la abundante bibliografía producida en Estados Unidos sobre la situación de los detenidos en la basa naval de Guantánamo hasta el 2009.

Nicolás Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR).

Despite doubts and denials, Russia is about to embark on an ambitious expansion of its Syrian presence, likely to change the game in the war-torn country. Russia’s small and dated naval repair facility in Tartous will be enlarged, while Jableh near Latakia (Laodicea of old) will become the Russian Air Force base and a full-blown Russian Navy base in the Eastern Mediterranean, beyond the narrow Bosphorus straits. The jihadi multitudes besetting Damascus are likely to be beaten into obedience and compliance, and the government of President Assad relieved from danger and siege. The war with Da’esh (ISIS) is to provide the cover for this operation. This is the first report of this fateful development, based on confidential and usually reliable Russian sources in Moscow.

The knowledgeable and Damascus-based French investigative journalist and dissident Thierry Meyssan noted the arrival of many Russian advisers. Russians began to share satellite imagery in real time with their Syrian allies, he added. An Israeli news site said “Russia has begun its military intervention in Syria” and predicted that “in the coming weeks thousands of Russian military personnel are set to touch down in Syria”. Russians promptly denied that.

President Bashar al Assad hinted at that a few days ago expressing his full confidence of Russian support for Damascus. First six MiG-31 fighter jets landed in Damascus a couple of weeks ago, as reported in the official RG newspaper. Michael Weiss in the far-right Daily Beast presented a flesh-creeping picture of a Russian penetration of Syria. Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper referred to Jableh as the second-base location.

Now we can confirm that to the best of our knowledge, despite denials (remember Crimea?) Russia has cast its lot and made a very important decision to enter the Syrian war. This decision may yet save Syria from total collapse and incidentally save Europe, too, from being swept by refugee waves. The Russian air force will ostensibly fight Da’esh, but probably (as Michael Weiss guessed) they will also bomb not just Da’esh but the US-allied opposition of al-Nusra (formerly al-Qaeda) and other non-Da’esh Islamic extremists for the simple reason that they can’t be distinguished from Da’esh.

The Russian Foreign Minister Mr Sergey Lavrov proposed to organise a new coalition against Da’esh including Assad’s army, Saudis and some opposition forces. The US envoy visiting Russia said that there is no chance that the Saudis or other Gulf states would agree to join forces with Bashar Assad. Russia still plans to build this coalition, but in the view of the American rejection, apparently President Putin decided to act.

Russia is worried by successes of Da’esh, as this force fights and displaces Christians in Syria, while Russia considers itself a traditional protector of these people. Russia is also worried that Da’esh may begin operations in Muslim areas of Russia, in the Caucasus and on the Volga River. And the US-led anti-Da’esh coalition didn’t do the trick.

The US and Turkey ostensibly fight Da’esh, but they have their own interests, quite different from those of Syrians, Europeans and Russians. Turkey fights the Kurds who are staunch opponents of Da’esh. The US uses the war with Da’esh as a smokescreen to fight the legitimate government of Bashar Assad who was recently re-elected by vast majority of the Syrians. Da’esh does not suffer much from the US raids, as opposed to the Syrian Army. Moreover, the US sent hundreds of trained terrorists to Syria after providing them with a military upgrade in Jordan and elsewhere. Recently David Petraeus called for the arming of Jabhat an Nusra so they would fight Da’esh. This silly idea was laughed out of court but it is far from dead.

The US and its allies have wreaked havoc in Syria. The US is far away and can enjoy the show. Europe is a loser once removed as it gets the flood of refugees. Turkey is a direct loser, as it gets refugees, terrorism, the rapid decline of President Erdogan’s popularity, and a drop of living standards, all this being due to its erroneous policies in Syria.

Now Russia has taken over the difficult task of saving the situation. If Erdogan, Obama, Kerry, and the Saudis had thought that Putin would drop Assad, now they are having a rude awakening from such delusions. The Russian position is rather nuanced. Russia will not fight for Assad, as it did not fight for [the Ukrainian President] Yanukovych. Russia thinks it is up to Syrians to decide who will be their president. Assad or somebody else – that’s an internal Syrian affair. On the other hand, Obama and his allies do fight against Assad. He had “lost his legitimacy”, they say. They have a problem with Assad, as they admit. Russia has no problems with Assad. As long as he is popular with his people, let him rule, Russians say. If some members of the opposition will join him, fine.

Russia does not intend to fight the armed opposition per se, as long as this opposition is ready for peaceful negotiations and does not demand impossible (say, Assad’s head). In real life, nobody can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate groups and Da’esh. All of them are likely to suffer when the Russians will begin to do the job seriously. They’d better negotiate with the government and come for some arrangement. The alternative (destruction of Syria, millions of refugees, uprooting of Middle Eastern Christendom, jihadi attack on Russia proper) is too horrible to contemplate.

The War in Syria is fraught with dangers for Russia; that’s why Putin steered clear of direct involvement since 2011. The adversary is well armed, has some support on the ground, it has the wealth of the Gulf states and fanatic warriors likely to unleash a wave of terror attacks in Russia. The US position is ambiguous: Obama and his staff does not react on the growing Russian involvement. Thierry Meyssan thinks that Obama and Putin came to agreement regarding the need to defeat Da’esh. In his view, some American officials and generals (Petraeus, Allen) would like to undermine this agreement; so do the Republicans and the Neo-Cons.

Some Russian officials are worried. Perhaps Obama keeps mum in order to lure Putin into the Syrian War. Remember, the US enticed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. Russian and American planes in the air over Syria could come to hostile encounters. Others say: shouldn’t Russia get involved in the Ukraine, rather than in Syria? But the apparent decision of Putin to enter war in Syria makes sense.

A war far away from home presents logistic challenges, as the US experienced in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but there is much less danger of war spilling into Russia proper. In the distant theatre of war, Russian army, navy and air force will be able to show their pluck.

If they will succeed, Syria will regain peace, refugees will return to their homes, while Russia will remain forever in the Eastern Mediterranean. Russian success will cool the warmongers in Washington, Kiev, Brussels. However, if they will fail, NATO will think that Russia is ripe for reaping and may try to move war close to home.

We can compare it with military campaigns on 1930s. The Russians under brilliant Marshal Zhukov soundly trashed the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol in 1939, and the Japanese signed Neutrality pact with Russians and refrained from attacking Russia during the Soviet-German war. But the Red Army managed poorly against Marshal Mannerheim in Finland in 1940, and this encouraged Hitler to begin the war.

This time Russia will act within the international law framework, as opposed to Saddam Hussein’s adventure in Kuwait. While the US and Turkey bomb and strafe Syria without as much as ‘by your leave’ from the legitimate government of the state, Russia is coming by permission and by invitation of the Syrian authorities as their ally. There is a Mutual Defence Treaty between Russia and Syria. Syrian government offered Russians its facilities, airports and harbours for the defence purposes.

The Christian Churches of the Middle East welcome Russia and ask for its assistance in the face of the jihadi onslaught. The ancient Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem welcomed Russian involvement. The most high-ranking and politically active Palestinian clergyman, Archbishop Theodosius Atallah Hanna expressed his hope the Russians will bring peace to Syria and the refugees will return home.

For the Europeans, this is the chance to wean themselves from blind support of the US policies, to return millions of refugees home from European railway stations and hostels.

If it will work, this Putin’s initiative in Syria will count with his greatest achievements. He is playing his hand keeping cards very close to his chest, and this report is the first emanating from his vicinity.

Israel Shamir reports from Moscow and can be reached at [email protected]

The Syrian Army and the Lebanese Hezbollah Resistance Movement took control of Syria’s border region of Zabadani from the terrorists early Wednesday. The border city was purged of the terrorists after two months of intense clashes. Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra Front terrorists withdraw from the Southern parts of Zabadani towards al-Mazaya region. The Ahrar al-Sham terrorist group conducted artillery fire and exercised offensive actions on the two towns of Fuaa and Kafraya.

Meanwhile, the Syrian forces killed more than 14 terrorists of the “Islam army” and “Fajr al-Umah” in operations carried out in al-Ghouta to the east of Damascus. The military leader of Islamic Union for Anjad al-Sham in al-Ghouta al-Sharkiya” Kasem Halaweh, Abu Walid in Harasta was killed there.

Same time, Syrian forces clashed with Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists in al-Karak al-Sharqi in the northeastern countryside of the southern Daraa province. Both sides reports that ‘numerous enemies were killed’. The clashes have been also going in Daraa al-Balad neighborhood in the city of Daraa.

Syrian army has been trying to cut terrorist supply routes from the Jordanian side in the area to the east of Shaaf town on the outskirts of al-Badiya desert in the southern Sweida province.

Local militia groups clashed with ISIS terrorists in the surroundings of Mua’ath hill and Shaqa town in the northwestern countryside of the province following the terrorists’ infiltration attempt from Tal Sa’ad towards Mua’ath hill and Shaqa town. The Syrian army has been continuing to fight the ISIS in the farms of al-Slaybeh to the west of al-Qaryatain in the eastern countryside of the central Homs province. Also clashes against ISIS were observed in Rahoum village in eastern Homs and in Kisin village in al-Rastan area.

The Syrian Air Force exercised airstrikes in Muhambal, Kafr Nubbul, Saraqeb, Ta’um, al-Tura’a, and Oram al-Joz in the southern countryside of Idleb province.

10 civilians were killed and 25 were injured in a terrorist car bomb attack which took place at the outskirts of Lattakia city on Wednesday. Sources at the province told that terrorists detonated a white van loaded with large amounts of explosives that was parked in front of Imad Ali School at al-Hamam Square at the outskirts of Lattakia.

Earlier, on Tuesday evening, the authorities managed to dismantle two car bombs that terrorists were trying to sneak into Lattakia city and arrested members of the terrorist group responsible for rigging the two cars with explosives.

Two civilians were killed and 15 others were injured by rocket shells fired by terrorist organizations on residential areas in Damascus city on Wednesday.

Islamic State fighters moved closer than ever to central Damascus. Street battles reportedly raged in the Asali neighborhood of the capital’s southern Qadam district over the weekend, killing at least 15 fighters as Islamic State militants seized at least two streets. The district had been relatively quiet since rebels and government forces reached a localized truce a year ago.

Thus, despite the local success of Syrian armed forces, the situation keeps to be critical.

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/

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has replaced deposed Egyptian leader, Hosni Mubarak, as Netanyahu’s new sleeping partner notwithstanding Israel’s documented killing of more than 2000 civilians, including hundreds of children, in Gaza, in 2014, ­ killings now alleged to be war crimes

Binyamin Netanyahu was previously in bed with the former President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak ­ now in prison. Both were paid millions of dollars by the United States government to implement and maintain an inhumane blockade of essential goods into Gaza, under the pretext of arms control. This blockade was, and still is, intended to keep 1.8 million men, women and children at just under subsistence level in a, so far, failed attempt to effect a regime change in Gaza.

 Netanyahu is, of course, a proponent of the political Zionism movement whose charter requires the expropriation of all the land of former Palestine in order to achieve a ‘Greater Israel’ through the ethnic­ cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian Arab who has lived in the region for a millennium.

 Now Netanyahu has a replacement sleeping partner, this time in Europe ­ Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron who, in comparison with Egypt’s Mubarak, is just a child. A child that Netanyahu can manipulate and control through his lobby in the House of Commons ­ the CFI Conservative Friends of Israel lobby that claims to have the membership of virtually the entire Conservative cabinet.

Netanyahu who has proved to be a ruthlessly clever operator with strings into both Westminster and Washington is, of course, more than satisfied with this new arrangement particularly as, since last week, he now has his own Likud Zionist representative in the House of Lords, Britain’s second legislative chamber.  It is too surreal even for a House of Cards series.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105446

Anthony Bellchambers, London. 04 Aug 2015