Possession Is Nine Tenths of Your Soul

April 6th, 2023 by Emanuel Pastreich

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The entire Earth is haunted by a specter, the specter of the complete possession of the human and the natural worlds by a band of unaccountable overlords. Those self-appointed global rulers, the billionaires, supported by the politicians and public intellectuals that they play with for sport, have carved out for themselves a separate reality where within they make up new rules for governance, local, national, and global, and then pass those rules down to us.

Central to this project is the radical alteration of the concept of possession.

Their audacious claim of possession of everything has been successful because it appears to be supported by all institutions of government, by universities and newspapers of repute, and other prominent international organizations which previously had legitimacy.

The billionaires have systematically laid down the foundations for this claim of ownership, using diverse tools, whether it be the control of our minds through constant bombardment with advertisements, the launch of natural assets companies (NAC) on Wall Street that claim private ownership of the oceans and the land, of the water and the air, of every aspect of the natural world, or  the ownership of our bodies through the patenting of DNA and the claim of the right to force citizens to accept injections of privately-patented substances that alter the physical, genetic, and psychological state of the individual.  

Through some magic process at the World Economic Forum the imperative to become modern and to be competitive as part of some imagined fourth industrial revolution gives these unaccountable authorities complete possession of all aspects of our existence.  

Such a claim to unlimited possession of everything only works if the concepts of possession that we have relied on from the distant past are erased and the citizen loses all sense of affiliation with local or national, ethnic or spiritual, roots that might offer an alternative concept of ownership.

The billionaires, above all, do not want any concept of ownership that is linked to a sense of belonging, or of participation. The concept that we own the land, the waters and the myriad plants and animals only in that we belong to that land and to those waters, and we are responsible to them, is a vision of our world with ancient roots which cannot be tolerated by the high priests of the World Economic Forum.  

Unlimited possession by multinational corporations, and by the governments that they have taken over, can only be achieved if all sense of belonging for people is torn to shreds, leaving behind no organizations of substance that can oppose this takeover except for the toothless controlled opposition that the global elite have prepared for us in advance–the Jeffery Sachs and Warren Buffets of the world.

Belonging, after all, is the central concept of the United States Constitution. Without the imperative that the citizen must belong to the republic, the property rights defined by that document are reduced to a travesty. Such was the intended consequence of corporations replacing the citizen with the consumer and the Constitution with markets over the past four decades.

Ultimately, the claim by the individual, the family, or the community to possess a house, a river, or a mountain, to be entitled to clean air or to healthy food that does not destroy the body, has been undermined by multinational interests who isolate individual from friends and family, from community members and like-minded people, thereby destroying any trace of belonging and encouraging a one-way hypnotic relationship with far off celebrities, cute pictures of fat cats, and glimpses of fashion and food, pornography and violence.

Fashion magazines, TV dramas, movies, cartoon characters, and video games induce an indulgent narcissistic cult of the self within which the individual competes against everyone. Personal possessions, not community solidarity, become the primary goal in life.

The ability of unaccountable multinational corporations to own everything, from farmland to houses, from transportation and phone lines, to the internet and media, is rarely questioned, and an alternative system is never suggested by any public intellectual.

Gone from our society is sharing and cooperation, serving those less fortunate, or for standing together for the common good against the greedy few.

The battle ground was well prepared by the corporate consulting firms before the first shot was fired, so as to facilitate this horrific final takeover.

The disenfranchisement of entire populations is not new in human history, but the current project is unprecedented in its scale and in its speed. If we were to look for a parallel, the destruction of the civilizations of North and South America by the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, and the English from the 16th century to the 19th century is most apposite.

Just as was true then, this time a handful of private interests (like Blackrock, the modern equivalent of the British East India Company) have set out to destroy all customs, learning, institutions, values, and concepts in the nations targeted. But this time it is not the Aztecs and the Iroquois who are being targeted. This time, all civilizations on the Earth are fair game in the radical shift of ownership being planned by supercomputers.

The wild bid of the billionaires to buy up all farmland in the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and most every country, using the fake money cooked up by multinational investors using the cover of the Federal Reserve, and other central banks, resembles the process by which England and Spain claimed ownership of the “New World” by magic, introducing the alien, and completely artificial, concept of real estate.

They made up their own maps back in London or Madrid, just as billionaires make up cryptocurrency and derivatives in London and New York, and then used those maps to claim ownership of vast swaths of forest and plains, mountains and bays. The key to their success was the use of false authority, backed by pay-to-play public intellectuals, to define who owned what.

It was a financial operation, and it was often a military operation when force was needed to assure acceptance of the new order. But above all, then and now, the takeover was an ideological operation, an epistemological move whereby the concept of ownership, and of nationhood, were violently, but silently, remade by the imperialists sitting in their lavish parlors.

The first step toward taking possession of everything today was for the billionaires to take control of money, and of the institutions that defined its value: the Federal Reserve, the Department of Treasury, departments of economics and business at universities, economic experts, and the newspapers of repute that report on the economy.

Once the institutions that define value were taken over, corporations could then employ authority figures in those institutions to convince the people that the stock market had a relationship to the economy, that the efforts of corporations benefited the citizen.

Image source

We were told that we must, following some obscure law of nature, invest our savings in the stock market, and that the “innovative” geniuses of Wall Street like Elon Musk are entitled, because of their claims to be working for the good of humanity, to take over everything in the human realm.

The current project was greatly facilitated by the destruction of the humanities in education in the 1980s. Our children ceased to receive education in the fundamentals of metaphysics, aesthetics, morality and epistemology—and in art, literature and history.

My high school had a philosophy club back in the 1980s. Such extracurricular activities for high school students are rare today. Instead,  mass-produced images are put out by multinational corporations like Apple and branded as, somehow, related to the humanities. In reality, the images of people engaged in artistic expression that are broadcast in IPhone commercials are simply a bid of corporations to lay claim to possession of individual expression of emotions and sentiments–to make creative acts a product that must be downloaded.

How did we get here?

When global capital shook off the chains that had been wound around its neck in the 1930s (and that required tremendous effort back then) it was able to bribe and to seduce intellectuals and policy makers so as to create an educational system that was engineered to destroy the capacity of the individual to understand how society functions, and to undermine the ability of the student for himself or herself. In the place of the temple education they erected a false palace of mirrors, filled with practical studies like economics, engineering, and public relations that are presented as more realistic than those fluffy humanities courses. But these new “practical” studies form a Trojan horse that is filled with an ideological soup mixing narcissism, consumption culture, short-term thinking, and scientism (the religion holding that science is an oracle presented by select authorities at blue chip institutions that cannot be questioned from below).

Economics and business administration, marketing and public relations are the new fields promoted by the rich that hold that growth and consumption are positives without a scrap of proof, and they create a mythical set of metrics for success in business that are less scientific than bloodletting techniques of the 18th century.

Four decades of our country stewing in this ungodly soup has produced a generation of highly-educated citizens who are good at taking tests and at following directions, but who are incapable of perceiving the manner in which society is manipulated in an ideological and aesthetic sense.

Unlike the intellectuals of the 1930s, the last time we ran into a crisis on this scale, current intellectuals are blind to ultimate causes, incapable of grasping class conflict, or ideological indoctrination, or the manipulation of the people by technology. In fact, AI, the primary weapon used to degrade the capacity of citizens to think independently, is promoted as a positive for society by treasonous intellectuals.

For pay-to-play intellectuals, scholarship means that facts are piled up in meaningless piles and then exchanged for grants from foundations. Distinguished scholars whose chairs are endowed by wealthy patrons with agendas to alter the nature of possession, gather at Princeton University or Brookings Institution to congratulate each other on their latest books.

The purpose of their research is to give legitimacy to the take over of everything by the few and thus rise in their careers, obtaining the public recognition in the corporate-controlled media that soothes their egos. They are not interested in understanding how the world works; they do not feel any moral responsibility beyond lining their own nests.

This criminal operation, reinforced by subliminal messages in advertising, in posters, and billboards, in TV commercials, or in television dramas and movies, tells us from childhood how we should define possession and belonging. We are told that wealth rightfully belongs to people who demonstrate no moral responsibility and live glamorous lives, consuming grotesque amounts of resources. They are to be envied and admired, we are told.

These images of consumerist possession possess us in the manner that one is possessed by an evil spirit.   

There are no longer regulators or independent intellectuals out there to step forward to declare that manipulative advertising, deceptive education, is an assault on the ability of citizens to think for themselves. Few citizens are confident enough in their understanding of the world to recognize that this harmless advertising we see around us is, in fact, a war waged on our souls.

Possession has ceased to be defined by ancient customs and habits, by obligations and moral imperatives, or even by laws and regulations. Rather possession has become a magical state which is determined by those with the ability to alter perceptions. If Twitter, the New York Times, and Google announce that someone owns something, it becomes the truth: It becomes theirs.

In this new culture, one can possess objects instantaneously by ordering them over the internet. Just a few dollars of digital currency and it is yours. You are encouraged to possess things that are insubstantial, like castles in Mine-craft. For many, the objects possessed virtually seems more substantial than any real object.  

But such possessions can be taken away just as easily by unaccountable forces. And there is no rule, no means to appeal, in the digital transactions that increasingly define possession.

Just miss a few payments for your mortgage, or fall behind on your bill for internet service, and suddenly you are homeless and cut off from the world. Faceless and unaccountable powers are empowered to determine what you can and cannot do.   

In effect the house, the computer, the internet service and everything else you supposedly possess is ultimately owned by the banks and you have only conditional rights to use them as long as you conform to certain conventions.

Possession has become radically tangential, unbearably contingent, and tantalizingly ephemeral.

Now that possession only exists for the citizen in an abstract manner, while all the tools that define possession are controlled by private IT firms that determine our online communication, and increasingly control local and central government as well, we have been primed for the final stage of disenfranchisement: the introduction of digital currencies that will allow hidden powers to stop possession with the flip of a switch.

A brief history of possession

Let us consider the transformation of possession that took place over the last three hundred years. Ancient peoples lived in small groups and the land was common to them. The home was private property in the sense that it had belonged to the family for generations, but no individual was free to do whatever he pleased with the land he or she inhabited. The individual was part of a family and the family, as part of the community, was but custodian of the land for future generations.

Possession could not be separated from belonging. You belonged to the land, to the mountains and the rivers, as much as, or more than, you possessed them.

A drawing depicting a 17th-century trade scene between Dutch merchants and Native Americans. Common trading items were beaver pelts, Dutch tools, and wampum beads used as currency.

A drawing depicting a 17th-century trade scene between Dutch merchants and Native Americans. Common trading items were beaver pelts, Dutch tools, and wampum beads used as currency. (IMAGE COURTESY NORTH WIND PICTURE ARCHIVES)

The growth of international trade in the seventeenth century, the concentration of wealth in the hands of bankers and merchants in the 18th century, the displacement of farmers from their lands through the enclosure acts in Britain and elsewhere from that time, and the emergence of workers dependent on paid work in factories in the 19th and 20th centuries who did not own anything, could not produce their own food, and did not belong to any social institution or organization, revolutionized the concept of possession.

New technologies undid, or undermined, the ancient technologies for growing crops, forging iron, blowing glass, weaving clothes, cobbling shoes, and generating energy by wind, water, or horse.

All around the Earth, land that had belonged to the people, who also belonged to it, became the property of strangers, of far off nations, and of “corporations” and “trusts” –opaque organizations that protected owners from any personal responsibility.

Along the way, the pseudo-scientific discipline of geography took hold in the universities of London and Paris, Berlin and Boston, an academic field wherein powerful people in cities made up maps with pretty colors that define where nations start and end, which corporation, or which individual, owned enormous swaths of Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania.

Those empowered by this seizure, were refined and educated men, wearing three-piece suits when they gathered at the club for gin and tonics, surrounded by scholarly books and exquisite paintings.They then had their classmates from Oxford and Princeton pass laws in their national assemblies, that made the mountains and rivers, the fields and bays, the islands and peninsulas of far off lands suddenly theirs. It was a ridiculous magic trick that was justified by using the cloak of science and the fairy tale of civilization.  

The destruction of traditional concepts of possession by a tiny handful of colonialists between the seventeenth century and the nineteenth century, is immediately relevant to us because the current push to disenfranchise and destroy the mass of humanity today follows virtually that same game plan. 

The cult of the new made long-term relations with places and things less important, even a burden to those who wished to be “modern,” to be fashionable.

Suddenly, a two-hundred year old house in one’s native village is worth less than a tiny apartment in the city with which one has no connection at all.

This new apartment offers a television and air conditioning, but it could be easily taken away through the use of eminent domain, rigged-up bankruptcy, or any number of tricks.

The shift in the nature of possession is also a product of the promotion of trade. The growth of global trade routes and supply chains, invisible to all but the specialists, has created a real economy, following strict rules that is never described in any newspaper.  

Corporations outsource manufacturing to the far corners of the Earth not simply so as to take advantage of low labor costs, but also so as to take complete control of how things are made, distributed, and sold. There is no recourse the citizen can take in response to the horrific economic implications of how products are produced before they arrive at Walmart.

And in this new economy there is no space for a craftsman, a farmer, or a carpenter–none of the profits find their way back to the community. Almost all profits go to the billionaires hiding behind the corporations.

Mass production is held up, without a scrap of scientific data, as a sign of human progress. A society in which the necessities of daily life are produced by strangers, often offshore, through unaccountable corporations, is presented to our children as an ideal.

The makers of things and the users of things have been separated by an unbridgeable chasm.  

To put it simply, the means of production, distribution, advertising, and consumption have been completely possessed by the billionaires.

This possession takes the form of invisible network of global manufacturing, logistics, distribution, and retail sales, that is supported by the private banks that underwrite the entire game.

No political candidate of the left or the right will even mention this possession of the entire system when running for office.  

Money, not the ancestors, nor the traditions of the village, nor ethical imperatives to be a good son, mother, or neighbor, has become the only determinant of ownership–and that money is itself a chimera cooked up by the central banks.

When philosophy was murdered in the educational system and extirpated from intellectual discourse, when citizens were torn away from nature, from agriculture, and from communities violently as part of a new culture of modernity that glorified the radical dependence of the individual on systems of production that were controlled by corporations, on money controlled by banks, they wandered out into the swamp of slavery.

But the posters around them, the popular Hollywood movies they watch, suggest that personal freedom, and true self-expression, can only be achieved by becoming dependent on a money economy.

As a result, most of us pass our days without asking ourselves what possession means.

Of course, you might answer, we possess our clothes, our furniture, the computers and the software that we use at work, the house in which we live, and that ownership is protected by laws. Our bodies are ours and we are free to choose what we buy and where we live.

That form of possession is fool’s gold. Merely default on a loan, even though the money that the bank loaned you was made up from thin air by that bank, and you will find that you do not own anything.

Debt is roped to possession. Everything you might desire to possess, and the commercial media from morning to evening is set on brainwashing you into believing that you must possess, requires that you borrow money to obtain it.

You have no choice but to take that loan in order to get the education necessary to find employment, or to buy the automobile you need to go to work.

The banks and the corporations are authorized to penalize you for nonpayment of these loans, and to fine you as they see fit for late payments. You have no right to demand anything in the “contracts” you must sign to get the loans required.

They can easily force us to sell all your possessions so as to avoid homelessness and destitution. In many cases, the banks are authorized to take those items from us using the police. And the police are authorized to seize your possessions on the flimsiest excuse. 

Your right of possession as a citizen is radically tangential, but the possession of banks and multinational corporations is assumed to be legitimate even when it is obtained using dubious assets like stocks, derivatives and stocks. These mythical creatures create value by employing authority, media coverage and on occasion, the threat of force.

Yet, as unreal as these products may be, the system is set up so that they can be used by institutional investors as collateral to buy up the land that we use to grow food, to control the energy that we need to move, or to heat our homes, and to monopolize everything of value in the world through acts of black magic.

Armies of economics professors and business journalists line up to give this occult form of transsubstantiation a veneer of legitimacy. The primary job of experts in economics is to convince us that the stock market, Wall Street, represents the economy, and that the rise and fall of those stocks reflects our well being–not the profits of the rich.

But this Wall Street magic is not magic at all. They create inflation for the rest of us by devaluing the money in our bank accounts; They set up a series of financial crises for ordinary people that allows the rich to use the funny money pumped into the stock market by the Federal Reserve to buy up stock, or to buy up the real estate that the little people are forced to sell. 

The trillions of dollars that the billionaires created in this massive Ponzi scheme called the stock market, along with trillions of dollars more produced by money laundering through the military, allows them, using their various holding companies, not only to take possession of real things like land and water, food and mineral resources, housing and transportation systems.

It also allows them to hire advertising firms, consulting groups, and politicians to redefine the nature of possession so that their power will be unlimited and we will be slowly reduced to slavery.

Possession is the true name of the game.

Our last stand

Sadly, the more brazen the grab for possession of everything grows, the more passive and confused the population becomes. The shifts are so dramatic, so overwhelming, that most are lost in the mad rush forward.

Following the fictions fed to them in the media, many see Warren Buffett or Elon Musk, not as criminals trying to destroy humanity, but as models of how one can grow wealthy and independent by being innovative. The enemy of humanity are painted as a concerned friends.

We have entered the critical period when the last traces of freedom and belonging are being swept into the ash bin of history. All that will be left will be possession by the few and the resulting slavery for the many.

Will we have the self-awareness and bravery to make a stand?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Philippines announced on April 3 that the locations of four new military bases that the US will gain access to have been identified. These bases, an expanded part of the defence agreement between the two countries, will allow the US to approach Taiwan from the south in the event of war and acts as another part of its China containment strategy.

The US-Philippines joint military exercise Balikatan-2023 will be held across the South East Asian country from April 11 to 28, the US embassy in Manila announced on April 4. This will be the largest exercise in the history of the Philippines. About 9,000 service members took part in last year’s exercise. However, this year, more than 5,000 Philippine troops and more than 12,000 US troops will participate. 

It is noteworthy that the US Embassy announced the drills only a day after Manila revealed the locations of the four new military bases that will allow rotating US troops – three on the main island of Luzon, close to Taiwan, and one in Palawan province in the South China Sea. 

The licensing of these four sites was probably decided during the trips of US officials to the Philippines in recent months, first Vice President Kamala Harris, and then Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. A US presence at new military facilities in the Philippines, as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy, will increase the potential for Washington to influence the situation in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

One of the strategic intentions of the US is to build a base on Balabac Island as it could provide future support and logistics in any future military operation in the region. Three of the new bases could be used primarily by the US military to respond to any situation in the Taiwan Strait from the south. This would work alongside their bases to the north of Taiwan, specifically those in Okinawa in southern Japan. In this way, the new bases in the Philippines will fill the gap in the south, which is very important for the implementation of the US containment strategy.

Although the Philippines has a dispute with China over maritime sovereignty space, from Beijing’s perspective, Manila has brought a foreign power to the region. For the Americans, the Philippines is an important springboard for operations against China in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, and because of this, China will certainly take retaliatory measures, which could include a force build-up. This in turn will see tensions rise in the sea area adjacent to the Philippines, which can lead to a serious deterioration in Beijing-Manila relations.

“China has sent a signal to the Philippines to not allow third parties to sabotage the friendly relations between the two countries,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Yi said at a meeting in Beijing with former Philippine President, Senior Vice Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 

At the same time though, Manila announced on April 4 that talks with China on joint oil and gas exploration in the disputed South China Sea will resume the following month. Resumptions of talks was first indicated when Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted his Philippines counterpart Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in Beijing during the latter’s first state trip outside of the Southeast Asian region.

“China will work with the Philippines to continue to properly handle maritime issues through friendly consultation, resume negotiations on oil and gas exploration, promote cooperation on oil and gas exploration in non-disputed areas, and conduct green energy cooperation on photovoltaics, wind power, and new energy vehicles,” Xi said at the time.

A statement released by the Philippines’ presidency also said Marcos mentioned the “continuing negotiation for the joint exploration between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, which he said is very important to the Philippines.”

However, it is recalled that the Philippines Supreme Court had declared only days after Marcos’ trip to Beijing that the country’s tripartite agreement with China and Vietnam for energy exploration in the disputed South China Sea was void and unconstitutional.

Even so, the fact that Manila will allow four new US bases to open just weeks before discussions with Beijing will resume suggests that Philippine leaders will continue deepening their country’s military relations with the US whether improvements are made with China or not. China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea is a move that has angered its neighbours, but they will also prove to be a first line of defence for the Asian country as the US continues to strengthen its military presence in the region, as seen with its new access to four Philippine bases.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It was an uphill struggle to get GMO labeling laws in place, and now things have become more complicated. With the new name, Bioengineered, the presence of GMO’s will be harder to identify in your food purchases. Read on to learn about the changes and how to make wise choices about the food you eat.

In the days of our great-grandparents and grandparents, there was not much concern regarding food purity and food safety, because wholesome farm-to-table was the norm – not a special event. That is, as long as the people upstream didn’t pollute the river!

Our generations have more to think about, as over 80% of processed foods in the USA contain genetically modified organisms. The concern for food purity took a twist early last year, when the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) decided to rename Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) as Bioengineered (BE) foods.

For many decades, tech companies have been developing ways to genetically modify, enhance and (in their opinion) add value to the foods we grow and eat. There is much written on the sketchy “science” that forms the basis of this program of modifying foods.

Rather than debate those points, the main issue is that the new designation of BE carries a loophole that does not include some GMO foods. Disappointingly (but not surprisingly) this new federal law falls short of fulfilling GMO labeling standards.

The new law came into effect in January 2022, without much fanfare, and most people didn’t even notice it. The law states that in order to be labeled as BE, foods must contain a detectable amount of genetically modified material. Unfortunately, there are many genetically modified foods that are untestable, and therefore are eliminated from the labeling requirement.

What Foods Fall Under The Bioengineered (BE) Umbrella?

The USDA provides a list of foods that contain genetically modified material and require the BE label:

  • Alfalfa 
  • Arctic™ Apple
  • Canola
  • Corn
  • Cotton
  • Bt Eggplant
  • Ringspot virus-resistant Papaya
  • Pink Pineapple
  • Potato
  • AquAdvantage® Salmon
  • Soybean
  • Summer squash
  • Sugarbeet

Numerous processed foods will now include the BE label. Some of those foods are :

  • Sodas/soft drinks
  • Frozen foods (meals and single items)
  • Canned soups
  • Baked goods
  • Tofu made from GMO soy beans
  • Non-organic milk made from cows fed genetically modified soy products
  • Sweetened juices
  • Dressings made with GMO canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower
  • Cereals

However, the new labeling law does not include products that are manufactured using these basic ingredients and forming a new product. There are numerous products made with new GMO techniques, ones we are just now hearing about in the news, for example: CRISPR, TALEN and RNAi techniques. These techniques do not have commercially available tests, and it is impossible to identify the genetically modified ingredients that they contain; therefore they are excluded from the BE labeling requirement.

The Non-GMO Project provides this list of products excluded from labeling:

  • Some foods for direct human consumption are exempt, such as meat, poultry and eggs.
  • Multi-ingredient products in which meat, poultry or eggs are the first ingredient listed are exempt even if other ingredients with detectable modified genetic material are included in the product. 
  • Animal feed, pet food and personal care products are all exempt from BE labeling.

To give an example, the non-GMO Project describes labeling for a can of soup that contains BE corn, but the ingredient list of the soup names meat as the main ingredient (second to water and broth or stock, which are overlooked for this purpose). As the law does not require BE meat to be labeled, the soup does not have to identify that BE corn is present in the soup. So, that means a can of cream of corn soup that contains BE corn as a primary ingredient must be labeled, but any canned soup that contains BE corn not as the main ingredient, does not need to have a BE label.

What Does This New Law Mean For The Consumer?

The short answer: Confusion

For the last decades, many consumer-oriented organizations, including the Non-GMO Project and Jeffrey Smith, of the Institute for Responsible Technology, have worked tirelessly to educate the public about the health risks of GMO’s and their effect on the environment. At this point in time, most people are quite familiar with the concept of GMO… and over 40% of the USA population wants to know what’s in their food. Now the federal government has renamed GMO’s (while excluding some of them). Most people are not familiar with the term Bioengineered (BE) and have no idea that it means genetically modified organisms are in their food.

Language Is Important.

We have all seen over time that language changes and, slowly, the meanings of words shift in common usage. For example, in the 60’s, the Flintstones cartoon theme song happily mentioned having a “gay old time” (as in: carefree) but nowadays you can’t use that phrase without meaning something entirely different.

Or, how about the slang usage of the word “sick” to mean something great? Or a dude, used to mean a man working on a ranch, but is now used as a gender-nonspecific slang term. Or, as on the east coast of the USA, the term “wicked” means really good, not evil.

So, here we go again, with an unneeded and unwanted name change for something that people have come to understand – GMO’s.

Add this to the confusion of the new labeling term: For decades now, in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, the term “Bio” or “Biologishe” has become synonymous with natural organic products – the exact opposite of this new BE usage of the word “BIO” in the USA. In fact, one of the largest trade shows for organic products for all of Europe, attended by thousands of organic food and product companies from around the world, is named BIOFACHE.

SO, this new definition of the word “Bio” also serves to undermine the understood and accepted usage of the terminology commonly used by those who want to know that their food and personal care products have not been altered in a laboratory. This appears to be yet another designed plan of those corporate entities who are driven to tinker with genetics.

After the last few years, the public has become more aware of what can happen when RNA and DNA gene “therapy” is introduced into the population. It sure seems to me that this new Bioengineered name for GMO’s is an attempt to obscure the fact that these products are genetically modified.

This fits right in with the agenda being promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) to create a fourth industrial revolution. The WEF’s leader, Klaus Schwab, doesn’t hesitate to announce that their aim is to “fuse our physical, digital and biological identities.” If that rings some alarm bells for you, you might also want to take a look at our article about understanding social engineering and how it is creeping into our world (and not in the most positive way!).

Why Would You Want To Avoid GMO And BE Foods?

We’ve already mentioned that while average consumers are going about their daily lives, big tech companies (chemical and food manufacturers) are actively creating new GMO’s in their laboratories. These foods have also been nick-named “Frankenfoods” because, like Frankenstein, the mixing, matching and splicing of genetic material in a laboratory has untested and unseen consequences.

However, those involved in the practices claim that what they are doing is not much different than traditional crossbreeding, but changes just occur a bit faster. While moving forward with their agenda to genetically modify our food supplies, they also do not address consumer concerns about allergies, cancer and environmental issues surrounding these altered products.

This attitude is disconcerting because it does not take into consideration the very complex micro-changes in the natural world that occur over long periods of time. I question this whenever I see an item listed on a food label as “nature identical” – which means it has been chemically produced using the same chemical components of a natural item – but is it really identical?

If so, why not use the natural ingredient? I don’t think it is identical, even if it has the same chemical composition, because it does not come from a natural environment. There is so much that contributes to the the components of a fruit or vegetable grown in nature. Whether you consider the birds, bees, wind, sunlight, soil, water, even the caring attention of the attending farmer – all of this synergy adds together to create a nourishing food item that we can utilize for our health.

Circumventing these natural contributing factors seems irresponsible. It will not produce the same result if we speed up the natural evolution of something by artificially reproducing it in a laboratory environment. Just like Frankenstein, it takes time to know what the effects of tinkering with nature will be. In a world that is always rushing to achieve more, gain more, do more, fill your days to the max… we tend to go more with the idea that inspired the Slow Food Movement… take time to enjoy the natural food as it grows in its own time. 

Conclusion

Like it or not, the USDA has made a decision to change the name of GMO’s and that is reflected in their required labeling. When you see the new circular labeling on packaged foods that says either “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering” you should be aware that means genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are contained in those foods.

At the same time, not all foods that contain GMO’s will be required to have a BE label. Since you can no longer be sure that a product does not contain genetically modified material, the best way to avoid these products is to:

  • make sure that you buy organic products whenever possible
  • avoid processed foods, or if you do use them, use those that contain organic ingredients
  • look for Non-GMO labels or the Butterfly label from the Non-GMO Project that guarantees no BE ingredients in the products that bear the label
  • try to purchase from small local farmers and producers that share your views on GMO’s

If you are not sure about a product, our motto is always, “When in doubt, leave it out!”

When in doubt, do some research, so you are more informed about what BE products are. And, if you choose, figure out how you can avoid them. At the very least, you are now aware of the new label and what it means, so you can make educated decisions about what you are eating for your health.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s website, Enchanted SpiceBox.

Featured image is from Enchanted SpiceBox

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Zelensky’s visit is intended to shape the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war over the next three months ahead of the bloc’s summit in early July. Warsaw’s role in forthcoming events will powerfully influence what Kiev does during this crucial moment in that conflict, hence the timing with which the Ukrainian leader decided to meet with his counterpart. For as carefully as Zelensky is planning everything, however, he might still fail in reversing his side’s fortunes.

Symbolism & Substance

Zelensky’s first state trip to Poland since the start of Russia’s special operation last year took place earlier this week, during which time he was awarded with his host country’s highest civilian honor, the Order of the White Eagle. His visit occurred at a crucial moment in the NATO-Russian proxy war, which adds an element of intrigue to it, as does its symbolism. The present piece will thus analyze the aforesaid in order to better understand the importance of Zelensky’s latest trip.

The Latest Military-Strategic Dynamics

To begin with, the NATO chief declared in mid-February that his bloc is in a so-called “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia, one which Moscow is winning as evidenced by its continued military resilience and Zelensky’s remark late last month about running out of ammunition. Wagner founder Prigozhin also recently claimed victory in the Battle of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut” after his group captured that city’s administrative center, which prompted a policy reversal from the Ukrainian leader.

Back in late February, he said that his forces might abandon that area if their losses there become unreasonable, but then he told CNN last month that losing that city might result in Russia rolling through the rest of Donbass. Zelensky then built upon this prediction to warn just a little more than a week ago that he’ll be pressured at home and abroad to “compromise” with Moscow if that happens, but now he’s snapped back to his prior position after preconditioning the public to expect a possible withdrawal.

It remains to be seen what’ll ultimately happen, but there’s no doubt that the military-strategic dynamics favor Russia. This isn’t wishful thinking either but is predicated on the damning details contained in the Washington Post’s report from the middle of last month about how poorly Kiev’s forces are faring. With this larger context in mind, it’s clear that Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland truly took place at a crucial moment in this conflict.

The De Facto Polish-Ukrainian Confederation

As for the symbolism, Poland is among Ukraine’s top allies, so much so that those two declared their mutual intent last May during President Duda’s visit to Kiev at the time to eventually remove all borders between them. This resulted in them gradually merging into a de facto confederation, which advances Poland’s geopolitical project of restoring its lost commonwealth in pursuit of its grand strategic goal of once again becoming a Great Power.

Zelensky’s reaffirmation of their mutual intent to remove all borders between them during his latest trip to Poland extends credence to this assessment, as does a neoconservative lobbyist’s push for that geopolitical project in a recent article for the influential Foreign Policy magazine. With a view towards legitimizing Ukraine’s status as his country’s de facto protectorate, Duda declared that Warsaw is seeking additional security guarantees for its neighbor ahead of this summer’s next NATO summit.

Polish-Ukrainian Problems

For as much as those two want to gradually merge their countries into a de facto confederation, there still remain some very serious obstacles in their way. For starters, there’s obviously the question of financing this geopolitical project, which Poland can ill afford. Second, Poles are disgusted with Ukraine’s glorification of Hitler’s fascist genocidal collaborator, Bandera. The more that the Polish state tolerates this in spite of its occasional rhetoric in defense of historical truth, the angrier that average Poles get.

Building upon the aforementioned observation, the third challenge to this geopolitical project is rising anti-establishment sentiment in Poland, which could lead to the Confederation party winning enough votes during this fall’s elections that the ruling party is forced to form a governing coalition with them. That outcome could throw a wrench in these plans, thus indefinitely delaying their implementation, especially if Confederation finds a way to block the requisite funding and/or security guarantees.

The Prospects Of A Polish Military Intervention

There’s still plenty that can still happen before the next elections, however, including a Polish military intervention in Ukraine. Its Ambassador to France thundered late last month that “If Ukraine fails to defend its independence, we will have no choice but to enter the conflict. Our fundamental values, which are the cornerstone of our civilisation, our culture will be in fundamental danger, so we don’t have a choice.” Even though the embassy said his words were decontextualized, the intent was clear.

Russia has been warning about this scenario for quite a while already, which could represent an unprecedented escalation in NATO’s proxy war against it by dint of Poland being an official member of that bloc whose countries have mutual defense obligations to one another. A Polish intervention could therefore serve as a tripwire for that anti-Russian alliance to formalize its role in this conflict, especially in the event that Poland announces its “unification” with Ukraine and brings it under their umbrella.

While this sequence of events remains speculative, it’s nevertheless founded on a factual basis as was explained thus far in this piece, especially considering the disadvantageous military-strategic dynamics that cast a cloud over Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland. Returning to those and keeping in mind the words of the Polish Ambassador to France as well as these two countries’ leaders reaffirming their desire to remove all borders between them, observers shouldn’t discount the possibility that this transpires.

Scenario Variables

In fact, it could very well unfold prior to the next elections in fall should Russia’s capture of Artyomovsk lead to it rolling through the rest of Donbass like Zelensky earlier predicted might happen, which could prompt Poland to intervene in accordance with the conditions that its Ambassador to France stipulated. The only variables that could credibly offset this scenario are Russia continuing to only make piecemeal progress on the ground or Kiev agreeing to a ceasefire with Moscow prior to resuming peace talks.

The first’s chances could be strengthened by a surge of modern Western weapons to Ukraine while the second’s could be reduced by Poland promising whatever support Kiev requires in order to not feel forced by circumstances into negotiating with Russia. Therein lies the likely purpose behind Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland, namely to explore exactly what Warsaw could provide in this respect so as to better assess whether it’s worth seriously considering during this crucial moment in the conflict.

Reassessing Duda’s Demand To NATO

Duda implied during an interview with Le Figaro in early February that he feared France might try to broker a ceasefire, the scenario of which could be advanced by Macron’s ongoing trip to China, whose 12-point peace plan was praised by President Putin during his counterpart’s visit to Moscow last month. The political dynamics of this conflict are therefore just as disadvantageous from Kiev’s and Warsaw’s shared perspective as the military-strategic ones since they both point to an impending ceasefire.

This observation adds further context to Duda’s demand that NATO give Ukraine more security guarantees. His statement can now be interpreted as either hinting at a forthcoming Polish military intervention (irrespective of whether this is preceded by formalizing their confederation) or suggesting that these could soon be extended to reassure Kiev of that bloc’s enduring support in the event that it’s forced by circumstances into agreeing to a ceasefire with Russia (regardless of who might mediate it).

Ukraine’s Upcoming Counteroffensive

Duda’s desire for this to be done sometime in the next three months before early July’s NATO summit places a concrete deadline on his demand, which coincides with Kiev’s expected counteroffensive. About that, the Washington Post’s earlier cited report tempered expectations about its success, as did the latest assessment from the former commander of the Polish Land Forces. Waldemar Skrzypczak told leading Polish media that Ukraine is “not ready” for this and that “Now it’s time for politicians.”

Cynics who might claim that this retired official doesn’t have accurate information about the conflict’s military-strategic dynamics should be reminded of what incumbent Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces General Rajmund Andrzejczak told publicly financed media in late January. He warned that time is running out for Kiev, confirmed that Russia’s military might still remains formidable, and expressed serious concern that Ukraine could ultimately be defeated.  

Despite this dire analysis from Poland’s top military official, who’s indisputably in a position to receive the most up-to-date classified information about the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, Kiev will probably still attempt its planned counteroffensive anyhow. That will in turn influence whether Poland formalizes their de facto confederation and/or militarily intervenes in its support, exactly which security guarantees NATO might give Kiev, and whether a ceasefire is reached before the bloc’s summer summit.

Concluding Thoughts

This insight leads to the conclusion that Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland was super significant since it’s intended to shape the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war over the next three months. Warsaw’s role in forthcoming events will powerfully influence what Kiev does during this crucial moment in that conflict, hence the timing with which the Ukrainian leader decided to meet with his counterpart. For as carefully as Zelensky is planning everything, however, he might still fail in reversing his side’s fortunes.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

For the last three years, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been one of America’s strongest voices in defending our Constitutional Republic from public health officials and politicians wielding emergency power. In a series of rousing speeches reminiscent of his father’s famous University of Capetown address in 1966, RFK, Jr. has articulated why we should never allow our constitution to be compromised by fallible men who promise to keep us safe. Today, April 5, 2023, he filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for President of the United States in the 2024 election.

Mr. Kennedy was an environmental activist thirty years before it became fashionable. For decades, he worked as an attorney to protect the natural world from corporate industrial polluters. He has been especially troubled by the contamination of our waterways such as the Hudson River with hazardous waste, including mercury. In 2005 he became concerned about a mercury compound used as a preservative in childhood vaccines, which prompted him to conduct a thorough investigation of vaccine safety in general. He found it especially alarming that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act granted vaccine manufacturers immunity from all civil and criminal liability for injuries or deaths caused by their products.

In the absence of legal liability, he realized that the only thing likely to regulate their conduct is scrutiny from a public figure, and because no other public figures were stepping up to do it, he himself assumed the responsibility. No good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes. Mr. Kennedy’s critical scrutiny of vaccine makers (coining billions while bearing zero product liability) has not been met with debate, but with vitriolic, ad hominem attacks and accusations of being a conspiracy theorist. Implied in these attacks is that no one should dare even question the safety of vaccines.

In 2021, he published his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, meticulously cataloguing the corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power rampant in the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex in which Dr. Fauci has played a key role. Every statement in Mr. Kennedy’s book is documented with a citation of primary sources including federal agency documents, peer reviewed medical literature, and public records. Any reader can easily evaluate these sources. The Kindle edition features hyperlinks to the documents.

The sixty-nine year-old Kennedy was educated at Harvard College and the London School of Economics, graduating from Harvard in 1976 with a Bachelor of Arts in American History and Literature. He went on to earn a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia and a Master of Laws from Pace University.

It seems to me that even Republicans and dedicated Donald Trump supporters should welcome this momentous event. Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly demonstrated his dedication to preserving the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life it sustains. More so than any public figure with presidential ambitions, he has fought to protect individual American citizens from federal mandates and other acts of state overreach. He may be the only Madisonian classical liberal left who has an affiliation with the Democratic Party. Against the Republican contender in 2024, Mr. Kennedy would be an honorable and worthy opponent.

Readers of this Substack are encouraged to register on his TEAM KENNEDY website, which will soon announce the details of his campaign kickoff ceremony in Boston on April 19.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from CD

Regime Changed, System Remains in Place in Montenegro

April 6th, 2023 by Stephen Karganovic

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

Milo Djukanovic, the outgoing Western puppet who ruled and plundered Montenegro for the last three decades, betrayed everything he ostensibly ever stood for during his insufferably long public career. Everything, that is, with the single exception of his own political survival. His finely tuned antennas assisted him at every turn to make opportunistically correct choices. The end came when it no longer depended on him and his puppeteers decided that his shelf life was over.

Djukanovic will now be swept away as were Mobutu, Suharto, Mubarak, and scores of similar satraps who were allowed to misrule and steal for decades, until the inscrutable overseers decreed that their time was up. Will Djukanovic be humiliated like the deposed Mobutu who memorably showed up at a Brussels bank to withdraw some of the plundered cash, only to be told that his account was frozen pending clarification of “human rights violations” that had been alleged against him? Or will he be put on trial in a cage like Mubarak (he was, after all, chased out of office in a rough Montenegrin equivalent of the “Arab Spring,” such as marked the end of Mubarak’s rule)? We will find out as the scenario, which certainly is not being written in Montenegro, further unfolds.

In the meantime, the clueless masses joyously celebrate what they believe to be their electoral victory. They never learn that regimes are fungible, but that the system that oppresses them is sacrosanct and immutable. Their notion of a solution for their problems rarely goes beyond the infantile search for a “new face.” They almost never notice that the new face, delivered to satisfy their craving for novelty, is but a mask.

In elections held on Sunday, April 2, Djukanovic was replaced by Jakov Milatovic, a virtual political unknown but with impeccable Atlanticist credentials (see puff piece here). The pretentious name of Milatovic’s party, “Europe now!”, of course makes absolutely no sense at a time when the European Union and its “values” are imploding. But it is a powerful virtue signal to the new President’s future overlords, leaving no doubt about his policy commitments.

For those who do not remember, and they should not be blamed if they don’t because Djukanovic’s public presence has been intolerably long and his chameleonic transformations too numerous to keep track of, here are some highlights of his treacheries. He began as an ardent Serbian nationalist and political ally of Slobodan Milosevic in the late 1980s. When the civil war in the former Yugoslavia began in earnest, Djukanovic was personally at the front lines, directing fire and making threatening noises against those that would soon become, in one of his future incarnations, his allies. During the 1990s, as Yugoslavia was developing survival strategies to defeat Western sanctions, Djukanovic saw an opportunity to turn national policy into a source of private profit. He kept for himself a steadily increasing cut of the proceeds of goods that under state auspices were being smuggled from neighbouring Albania and from across the Adriatic Sea not to stuff his pockets but to relieve the plight of the population that was being devastated by merciless Western sanctions.

Image: Đukanović giving a speech in 2018. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

undefined

He liked this cash cow system so much that he continued to operate it long after sanctions were removed. He simply substituted more lucrative items such as drugs and tobacco for consumer goods.

As a result, according to no less an authority than the London “Independent,” the President of tiny, impoverished Montenegro which produces nothing of substance (“mysteriously,” as the British coyly put it) managed to join the ranks of 20 richest heads of state. A business genius of such calibre, now that he is leaving politics, unless he is arrested, should perhaps be usefully hired as a consultant by failing Western banks. That just might save the financial system.

When he judged the moment opportune, Djukanovic eventually turned his back on everyone who ever helped him in his rise. He grasped very early which way the wind was blowing and that identifying with his mentor Slobodan Milosevic would put him at a severe disadvantage in amassing ill-gotten wealth and surviving politically, so he hosted Milosevic’s political opponents on his Montenegrin turf. During the 1999 NATO bombing he went a step further and brazenly hosted on territory under his rule Western intelligence operatives while his country, Montenegro, and the rest of Yugoslavia were being demolished by air strikes.

Djukanovic’s most radical betrayal, perhaps, was of his indisputably Serbian roots. He is a descendant of proudly Serbian ancestors who included a prime minister of the Kingdom of Montenegro and a commander in the nationalist anti-Axis movement of General Drazha Mihailovic. But when he grasped that the Western-engineered fragmentation of Yugoslavia was more than merely political dismemberment and that it encompassed the ethnic break-up of the Serbian nation as well, he unhesitatingly jumped on that bandwagon, not caring that his grandfathers and uncles were turning in their graves. He reinvented himself overnight into a vociferous proponent of a distinct Montenegrin ethnicity and, absurdly enough, of language also.

Djukanovic also dutifully turned his back on Russia, Montenegro’s traditional ally and protector, imposing “sanctions” on its historical patron. Montenegro’s grateful attachment to Russia went so far that in 1905 it declared war on the Japanese Empire in a gesture of solidarity. To this day the declaration of hostilities against Japan has not been officially rescinded, nor has a peace treaty been signed. Djukanovic, who is poorly educated and reputed by those who know him well to be a man who does not read books, was probably unaware of this curious historical fact. Otherwise, he surely would have ostentatiously apologised to the Japanese for the insulting gesture of his patriotic forebears.

Toward the end of his interminable rule Djukanovic apparently fell victim to a delusion of omnipotence. He actually pioneered (or tried to) in his country the creation of a fake, regime-sponsored Orthodox Church to which he planned to assign the assets of the genuine, canonical Orthodox Church of Montenegro, which is in communion with and an integral part of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (Alert readers will unmistakably detect elements of the Ukrainian scenario in self-admitted atheist Djukanovic’s insolent scheme.) But far from submitting to the pillage of their church, in 2020 for months the people of Montenegro staged massive, spontaneous processions in every corner of their country to protest Djukanovic’s hubris. Faced with popular intransigence, the greedy tyrant was compelled to concede and withdraw the church seizure law that he had previously rammed through his puppet legislature.

That marked the start of his undoing. His sponsors realised that Djukanoic was turning into a liability. His voiceless subjects were seriously tired of him and the massive self-organised protest, though triggered by predominantly religious concerns, could easily acquire unambiguously political characteristics. Unless adroitly deflected, such a development could topple the system which for decades had served Western interests perfectly and had held Montenegro in subjection as a geopolitical pawn.  

The solution was found, and his name is Jakov Milatovic. He combines all the features that are required to successfully deceive the masses and by their enthusiastic and uncritical consent to replace the discarded political dinosaur. Milatovic unquestionably is a “new face” (his previous public exposure having been minimal), he is also young (as if that mattered) and, unlike Djukanovic, he probably has read a few books in the course his life. He has also had a semblance of education (much as Andrey Martyanov would undoubtedly and rightfully sneer at it). But it was acquired in all the wrong places, given the geopolitical realities and all the known and ominous facts about how “young leaders” are groomed and “educated” in the shrinking domain known today as the West-centric “international community.”

Milatovic learned everything he knows, and will soon apply it as President of Montenegro, as the beneficiary of educational grants at Illinois State University, Vienna Economic University (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien), La Sapienza University in Rome, where he spent a year on a grant generously provided by the European Commission, and finally as a UK government grantee when he attended economics training at the University of Oxford.

Milatovic received additional preparation and instruction in programs such as Oxbridge Academic at Oxford, numerous International Monetary Fund programs, as well as the London School of Economics and the Stanford University Leadership Academy. An impeccable CV, is it not, for things to change in order to remain the same?

Wise Montenegrin Orthodox cleric, archpriest Jovan Plamenac, was on to something when he commented the election outcome thus:

“I am glad that Djukanovic lost, but I take no joy in Milatovic’s victory!”

The Russian foreign policy establishment shouldn’t, either.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: Jakov Milatovic (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Regime Changed, System Remains in Place in Montenegro
  • Tags:

Australia: Executive Donkeys and War Powers Reform

April 6th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The decision to go to war should be as burdensome as possible.  The more impediments to such folly, the better.  Such a state of affairs does not characterise the Westminster system of government.  It certainly does not apply to Australia, which is all the more troubling given a string of disastrous military interventions led by a slavish, ignoramus complex.

As things stand, the National Security Committee, comprising inner cabinet members including the Prime Minister, determines whether Australia goes to war.  It replicates the British monarchical traditions of old, and speaks against, rather than in favour, of a Parliamentary voice.

Attempts to challenge such a convention have been previously made.  The Australian Democrats made efforts to that end in 1985, 1988 and 2003, all in vain.  The Greens have also made similar efforts, with similar results.

In December 2020, Australian Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John introduced a bill before parliament with the express purpose of curbing executive powers in favour of parliamentary debate.  “Australia,” stated Steele-John in his second reading speech on the bill, “is one of the few remaining democracies that can legally deploy its defence forces into conflict zones without recourse to the parliament.”

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas) Bill 2020 would require both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass a resolution permitting troops to be sent overseas before any planned deployment.  That attempt has passed into oblivion.

In 2020, a Roy Morgan poll found that 83% of respondents favoured reforms requiring parliamentary approval prior to any decision to go to war being taken.  In 2021, a Digital Edge poll found that 87% of Australians were in agreement with the proposition that “war decisions should be subject to parliamentary approval always or unless there is immediate danger to Australia”.

In March 2021, the Australian Labor Party at its national conference determined that, should it find itself in government, hold a parliamentary inquiry into whether war powers should fall within the purview of parliament or continue to be a matter of the executive arm.

With such momentum, much was expected from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Its Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making promised a departure from convention.  But for anyone familiar with Australian political life, committees and selected parliamentary inquiries are alpha signatures of the static.  When it comes to challenging the ancient conventions of executive war making powers, it was expecting much to suppose any change in direction.

On looking at the submissions, this should not have been the case.  The inquiry received 111 submissions, with 94 arguing for parliamentary involvement in the war making process.  But it became clear in the months leading to the publication of the final report what direction the members were heading.

Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong, in comments made in Parliament on February 9, revealed that the inquiry would not derail or obstruct the accepted wisdom of executive war making powers.  In her reply to a question posed by Senator Steele-John, Wong proved a figure of stale convention.  “The executive should account to the parliament for such a decision.”  That said, “it is, in our view, important for the security of the country that that remains a power and prerogative of the executive.”

On March 31, 2023, the Committee released its final report.  It proved intensely underwhelming.  Its members acknowledged Australia’s participation in “a number of wars over its comparatively short history, many of which have been tarnished by controversy.”  Despite such a chequered history, the members merely affirmed “that decisions regarding armed conflict including war or warlike operations are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive”.  The role of parliament was deemed important, as was “the value of improving the transparency and accountability of such decision-making and the conduct of operations.”  In other words, little would change.

In her response to the report, the President of Australians for War Powers Reform , Alison Broinowski could only express resounding disappointment.  “The first recommendation confirms our worst fears – it reaffirms the status quo by insisting that decisions regarding armed conflict are fundamentally up to the PM and the executive.”  The implication of this was clear: “MP’s and Senators will continue to have no right to vote on a war decision before troops are sent overseas.”

In his scathing account of the leadership overseeing the British Expeditionary Forces in France during the initial stages of the First World War, Alan Clark recalled a famous exchange between two German generals, Erich Ludendorff and Max Hoffmann.  “The English,” observed Ludendorff, “fight like lions.” “But,” came the assuring reply from Hoffman, “don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys.”

The failure of securing war powers reform, at least at this juncture, ensures that the executive donkeys will take Australians into the next needless conflict, fatuously purposed for the US war machine.  And it will be done with Parliament gazing at a distance, irrelevant before the slaughter and homicidal impulses of the establishment.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Penny Wong (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia: Executive Donkeys and War Powers Reform

U.S. Gun Violence During the COVID Crisis: Teenage Deaths and Injuries Increased by 64.8%

By Gun Violence Archive and Global Research, April 05, 2023

The following table. from the Gun Violence Archive confirms a significant increase of reported cases of deaths and injuries during the three year period of the Covid Crisis (2020-2022).

Detroit Activists Battle Bailiffs in Defense of the Tiny Home of Taura Brown

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 05, 2023

Taura Brown, a dialysis patient fighting eviction from the Tiny Homes on the west side of Detroit, has been a target of the Cass Community Social Services (CCSS) non-profit agency which claims that it is providing shelter for homeless people in the city.

What Trump’s Indictment Means

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 05, 2023

President Donald Trump is being arraigned on the basis of sealed charges.  It is unclear why the charges are sealed.  Imagine arresting someone on the basis of charges kept from the person.  It happens in America as it did in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Taiwan Leader Set to Meet US House Speaker Despite China Warning

By TRT World, April 06, 2023

Taiwan has pushed back against threats of retaliation by China, ahead of an expected meeting between the island’s president and the US House speaker that will underscore her administration’s claim to sovereignty.

Canada Must Condemn, Sanction Brutal Israeli Attack on Al-Aqsa Worshippers

By Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, April 06, 2023

Widely circulating videos from inside the Al-Qibli prayer hall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque show Israeli police brutally beating Palestinian worshippers who had been performing the religious practice of Itikaf during Ramadan.

So the Russian Incursion in Ukraine Was “Unprovoked”, Eh?

By Don Hank, April 05, 2023

The West knew that the Constitution of the Russian Federation calls on the RF to defend groups of Russians anywhere who are attacked militarily. And, in a deliberate provocation, the US-installed Kiev regime started attacking civilians areas in the Russian-speaking Donbass and murdering ethnic Russians.

Urgent Threats to Peace for Humanity in the 21st Century

By Antonio Tujan, April 05, 2023

Peace is not simply the absence of war. A call for world peace has to take account of the causes of un-peace – these four major contradictions in world of humanity that create violence against the people and the planet.

Vatican Renounces Euro-supremacist “Doctrine of Discovery”

By Richard Becker, April 05, 2023

More than five centuries after it was formulated in a series of papal decrees, the Vatican issued a formal announcement on March 30 repudiating the Euro-supremacist “Doctrine of Discovery.” In essence, the “doctrine” said that all lands not occupied by “Christians” passed into the hands of the European conquerors as soon as they were “discovered,” and their inhabitants enslaved.

A Most Perfect Genocide

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, April 05, 2023

We know that for a while the many, in their illusions, have cherished their so-called individuality and autonomy. They have traveled far more widely than should have been their wont, and much less expensively than ever.

The Meeting Between Lula’s Chief Foreign Policy Advisor & President Putin Was Very Important

By Andrew Korybko, April 05, 2023

In order to remove any doubt that Lula is deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense and wasn’t just misled into doing so, leading Russian officials wanted to make sure that he and his team knew the Kremlin’s position on their proxy war with NATO in Ukraine.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: U.S. Gun Violence During the COVID Crisis: Teenage Deaths and Injuries Increased by 64.8%

Canada Must Condemn, Sanction Brutal Israeli Attack on Al-Aqsa Worshippers

April 6th, 2023 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to condemn the Israeli government in the strongest terms following last night’s brutal attack on worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem. Widely circulating videos from inside the Al-Qibli prayer hall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque show Israeli police brutally beating Palestinian worshippers who had been performing the religious practice of Itikaf during Ramadan. Hundreds of Palestinians, including women, children, and elderly, were staying overnight in the mosque to pray. During the attack, a health clinic was destroyed and media teams were blocked from accessing the injured. CJPME urges Canada to respond to this aggressive attack on a place of worship by imposing sanctions on Israel, starting with an immediate arms embargo.

“Words cannot express the horror of Israel’s brutal attack on Al-Aqsa worshippers, which we all witnessed as captured on video,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “Israel’s repeated attacks on religious freedom are fueled by decades of impunity from the international community. Canada must act now to immediately suspend all military trade with Israel to ensure that we are not contributing to this violence,” added Bueckert.

Contrary to Israeli reports that Israel was responding to “rioters,” the worshippers in Al-Aqsa were practicing Itakif, a common Ramadan tradition in which worshippers stay inside mosques overnight to reflect and pray. To forcibly remove them, Israeli forces attacked the mosque with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets, and beat worshippers with metal chairs, batons, and rifles as women and children were crying in the background, according to video footage and harrowing eyewitness accounts. Israeli forces also destroyed a health clinic during the assault and denied the Palestinian Red Crescent access to the dozens of injured, in a brazen attack on the health care of an occupied population.

CJPME notes that Israel’s latest attack is not unique to its current far-right government, but follows repeated violent raids on Al-Aqsa in 2021 and 2022. Last weekend, Israeli police in occupied East Jerusalem killed a 26-year-old Palestinian Bedouin medical student outside of the Al-Aqsa gate as he attempted to stop police from assaulting a Palestinian woman, and Israel’s police chief was caught on tape making racist statements that Palestinians “murder each other. It’s in their nature.” However, CJPME is deeply concerned about the specific dangers posed by Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is an extremist disciple of the fascist Kahanist movement, with a long history of inciting violence against Palestinians. Ben-Gvir and other ministers also have close ties to the extremist Temple Mount movement, which is threatening to make provocative invasions of the Al-Aqsa compound during Passover, which would inevitably lead to the further repression of Palestinian worshippers on the site. The Canadian government has not yet released a statement on the attack.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Palestinians pray as Israeli security forces take positions at the Al-Aqsa compound [Ammar Awad/Reuters]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Taiwan Leader Set to Meet US House Speaker Despite China Warning

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Journalists throughout the West repeated ad nauseam that word unprovoked. No journalist dared to write about the Russian incursion without adding that magic descriptor.

It was as if someone were holding a gun to their heads. And the motivation behind this new iron-clad rule of journalism was that the special operation was not unprovoked at all. And to be effective, a lie must be repeated often, just as flowers must be watered daily to make them thrive.

When the US-NATO broke its promise not to move NATO “one inch further east,” that was clearly a provocation.

Shortly after the deal was signed between Russia and the West whereby Russia gave up the Warsaw Pact that had once defended its sovereignty, new NATO members began to spring up around Russia like mushrooms in the forest after a summer rain.

The genocide against Russian speaking civilians in Donbass was also a provocation.

The West knew that the Constitution of the Russian Federation calls on the RF to defend groups of Russians anywhere who are attacked militarily.

And, in a deliberate provocation, the US-installed Kiev regime started attacking civilians areas in the Russian-speaking Donbass and murdering ethnic Russians.

The genocide against Donbass civilians started in 2014–15 when the US-controlled Kiev regime bombed Donbass civilians from the air. It was no duel because no one was shooting back at the bombers.

As a Russian speaker and aficionado of all things Russian, I started reading Russian-language blogs by activists in Donbass in 2014 and viewing videos of aerial bombings of civilian areas.

It can only be called a systematic genocide, although the reports from there portrayed the action as a war, with pro-Russians and Russian allies dueling with their Ukrainian counterparts.

The first videos I was watching were of aerial bombings from Ukrainian army jets and the targets were residential areas.

There were numerous such videos on YouTube, but they have all all been deleted in the meantime. All that I could find was one photograph of the carnage and devastation, but it tells the story eloquently: see this.

Within a few months, the Kiev government stopped the bombing and switched to artillery shelling of Donbass.

We know today that many or most of the shells were coming from the area of Avdeevka (Avdiivka in Ukrainian), a highly fortified stronghold with massive underground bunkers. The Wagner groups are currently fighting there and are making headway. The going is slow because the fighting is from building to building.

After over a year of the Russian campaign, the culprits of the Donbass genocide are starting to be defeated.

For those victims of Western propaganda who find it difficult to imagine that the Russian special op was provoked, I invite you to browse among the following videos of the undeniable provocation that you’re not supposed to believe in.

Herein below are videos from 4 different Westerners who ventured into Donbass during what I rightfully call the Ukrainian genocide, and said videos clearly illustrate my point:

Christelle Néante: Shelling of Donbass (Sakhanka) by Ukraine army, June 7-10, 2018

OSCE disinterested, didn’t listen to victims

Graham Phillips in Donetsk before war (you can surf the video if you don’t have a lot of time)

Anna Lipp charged with crime of telling the truth

In each video below, showing homes damaged and destroyed, Patrick Lancaster asks residents where the shelling came from and in each case, they tell him it came from the Ukraine side.

He also always asks his interlocutors whether there are any military installations in the shelled area, and they say there are none. The camera then pans to show that the area is indeed residential and that there are no military facilities there. This questioning is necessary because since the beginning of these attacks by Ukraine on Donbass, the Kiev government and the US news outlets have been clearly lying, asserting that this was a war, with the militaries of each side, Ukraine and Russian, exchanging fire (thanks to the media cover-up, most Westerners still believe this fable). Patrick’s videos clearly show that these reports are simply lies, invented by the Kiev regime and passed on to the US msm, which regurgitate the lies to the Western audiences.

These lies are criminal because they have led to the current war in Ukraine and have misled the public into believing the Russian incursion into Ukraine was an “unprovoked” invasion.

Further, this disinformation in the minds of the Western people prepares them to accept the Russophobic war mentality and willingly accept the donation of astronomically priced arms shipments. This in turn leads the world perilously close to a nuclear exchange.

Patrick Lancaster in Donbass, before the Russian special operation (May 30, 2020)

Patrick Lancaster, 6 years ago, Ukraine shells, burns down 3 homes in residential area of Donbass

Patrick Lancaster, 6 years ago, Ukraine shells home in residential area in Donbass

Patrick Lancaster, Feb 21, 2022, attack on school

Chart showing increase in shelling of Donbass by Ukraine, which led Putin to order the special military operation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Fort Russ

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

With each successive generation, it seems we get one step closer in Western civilization to peak nihilism.

The Twitter thread below starts with a truncated summary of Gen Z psychology (but also, I would argue, applicable to millennials, the generation I belong to): “to be serious is to be ‘cringe’, to be in love is to be a ‘simp’, and to be ambitious is to be a ‘try-hard’.”

The initial diagnosis is followed by greater elaboration deeper into the thread.

The entire thread is worth reading, as it touches on nearly every social illness that grips the younger generations – modern feminism, hookup culture, the rejection of meaning and objective reality itself, and – which I wish to focus on here – the full-throated embrace of irony as a coping mechanism in a world cleansed of inherent meaning.

Irony as a worldview is a pestilence – the song of the bird that has grown to love its own cage, as it has been put elsewhere. David Foster Wallace described the essential problem with irony best:

“Sarcasm, parody, absurdism and irony are great ways to strip off stuff’s mask and show the unpleasant reality behind it. The problem is that once the rules of art are debunked, and once the unpleasant realities the irony diagnoses are revealed and diagnosed, “then” what do we do? Irony’s useful for debunking illusions, but most of the illusion-debunking in the U.S. has now been done and redone…

Postmodern irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy. Few artists dare to try to talk about ways of working toward redeeming what’s wrong, because they’ll look sentimental and naive to all the weary ironists. Irony’s gone from liberating to enslaving.” [emphasis added]

The sincere search for meaning, in Gen Z/millennial psychology, is a fool’s errand – one that demonstrates an individual’s antiquated sentimentality, an essential weakness that must be purged from all interpersonal interactions: “Since the zoomer can’t express his true self, nor his emotions, he must remain conscious of himself at all times, like a larp,” the Twitter thread reads.

I would like to take this analysis in a different, but related, direction that is not addressed in the Twitter thread, excellent though it is.

Part of what is going on is spiritual dissatisfaction with the empty promises of material abundance/consumerism.

Material wealth is useful, of course, and a net benefit to a people’s quality of life – poverty of any sort is not ideal. Yet it cannot, despite the fervent promises of clever advertisers, confer spiritual meaning to life.

Over the course of the previous eighty years after World War II and the advent of the global liberal economic order, the West has slowly come to grips with this reality. But Third World countries, which I have spent much time in and which only recently escaped the mire of hand-to-mouth poverty, are still optimistic about the potential of material wealth to deliver the nirvana – the enlightened absence of suffering — we all implicitly crave.

Give them a few more generations to come to the same cynicism that pervades the West, after their Gods of antiquity have all been replaced by the market and secular humanism, just as He has been in the West for some time since Nietzsche lamented his demise in the 1800s.

Man does not subsist on bread alone, as the Bible verse goes.

The thread concludes on a hopeful, positive note – one that the subject of this discourse, millennials and zoomers, would do well to embrace:

“Gen Z is the generation of nihilism. Zoomer’s [sic] are incapable of doing something rather than nothing. They are like Zombies, too dead to live and too alive to die. Don’t abide by their standards. Pursue greatness, live passionately, and do so unapologetically.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TDB

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The following text was presented by Anthony Tujan at the Peace for Life Conference on Wars in the Era of Empire and the Imperative for Just Peace and Solidarity, March 7-9, 2023

 ***

Peace is not simply the absence of war. A call for world peace has to take account of the causes of un-peace – these four major contradictions in world of humanity that create violence against the people and the planet. Thus, rather than the usual scoping of developments around the world, allow me to frame my discussion on the major contradictions facing humanity today, plus the contradiction between humanity and the planet.  Such broad and comprehensive discussion will still end, as it should, with the discussion on imperialism and the Wars of the Empire being the theme of this conference. 

The four major contradictions are:

a. among the monopoly bourgeoisie – big capitalists and corporations in the developed world versus the oppressed and exploited workers;

b. imperialism with its puppets versus the oppressed and exploited workers and peoples of the semicolonies,

c. interimperialist competition and conflict, and

d. imperialism versus nations and governments asserting independence and seeking socialism. 

Add to this the contradiction between humanity and the planet which is being expectedly instrumentalized by imperialism –  for which the masses bear the hardships from climate change, environmental degradation and pandemics.

Interimperialist conflict seems most concerning to the public and may seem to be the principal contradiction today with the ongoing war in Ukraine and the threat of war in the US-China conflict. The looming threat of an international war is principally created by the tools of media and the warmongering and militarism by the states affected by the Ukraine war. In the context of and despite the economic and climate crisis, international war becomes the most concerning to the status quo under the throes of neo-conservatism and reaction.

The masses of the toilers are immediately concerned with their day to day survival. Their suffering and misery are brought about by their exploitation as workers in the industrialized countries who face hunger from wage erosion, unemployment, loss of benefits and social protection and diminishing social services.  

For the countries in the imperialist periphery, the masses of workers, peasants, urban semiproletariat and petty traders and employees face worse misery from starvation wages, hand-to-mouth existence as forever unemployed seeking a living in the informal sector. Openly fascist or latent fascist ‘libertarian’ states violently repress the masses who have learned to protest against all forms of oppression from the state who oppress and exploit them and the corporations who take over their resources and exploit their labor. 

The fourth major contradiction refers to the severe oppression and exploitation by imperialist powers on the semicolonial countries who all suffer from the efforts of each imperialist country to carve out its sphere of influence to extract more superprofits. This has resulted in the emergence of some progressive and combative governments who lead the efforts of countries in the periphery to counter monopoly capitalist economic, political, military, diplomatic, and socio-cultural domination, oppression and exploitation. Examples of these are Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Iran.

Empire – more vicious as the ageing wolf

The Pentagon has long ago recognized that the US is in its postprimacy decline of its hegemonic rule. More than seventy years since the emergence of the US as the main hegemonic power, or the Empire as it has become commonly called. Twenty years of it was as the sole hegemon since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 but this came to a sudden stop in 2008 in the most severe economic crisis since World War II.  

The crisis has lingered to the present and with it the decline of the Empire. This is evidenced principally by its economic standing as its industry and services stagnate and become less competitive, becoming dependent to subcontracting to China and the rest of the Far East but advance to modern industry and technology. But the US holds fast to its remaining power in the military industrial complex, its military global infrastructure and its rentier control of global finance starting with and created by the dollar peg in global financial transactions. 

Image source

Trump launched a trade war against China to shore its political economic defenses but Biden is hard up in revving up US industrial growth and competitiveness to stop its hegemonic decline. The political economic response lies in redefining battle lines in trade and finance and using unilateral (and UN) economic and other sanctions against perceived erring governments and economies. In this sense Taiwan and South Korea are keystones as economic powerhouses and bastions of US semicolonial power.  They are being used to encircle China and regain US political economic and military might.

There are many reasons and considerations why the US cannot simply launch a war of aggression -foremost among them being the deep economic crisis it has been suffering from for the past fifteen years.

It can attack specific small semicolonies like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, but not Russia nor China. Not even Iran and North Korea whom it has openly identified as the two tips of an ‘axis of evil’. Not even Cuba and Venezuela which it has been itching to invade.

Neoconservatives dream of a general or an international war and want to use  NATO and other alliances, but the existence of nuclear military capability by its avowed enemies leaves the threat of a US nuclear umbrella stalemated. 

Thus the US goads its semicolonies into war or better yet, goads its main enemies into war as its carries out a comprehensive strategy of constriction such as in the case of Russia, Iran and China.

The US alliances with the western imperialists like UK, Germany, France and others in the EU and in the NATO in security matters have been pursuing a policy of dismemberment of the former Soviet Union, turning its republics into semicolonies contrary to the agreement to respect the neutrality of these countries under the Minsk Treaty of 2013.

The objective of this war is to realize the debilitation of Russia under Putin’s rule at the expense of the lives of the Ukrainian and Russian masses. It creates the conditions to create more sanctions aided with covert operations such as the bombing of the Nordstream pipeline to hasten the US control of exports of gas and oil supplies for Europe.  The escalation of the war through munitions aid and build up, plus the creation of mercenary forces on both sides does not bode well for both Russia and the Ukrainian people while NATO powers sit pretty while directing their war effort.

The western modern imperialist alliance – NATO and G7 – will not agree to an armistice until they themselves suffer the economic and political consequences of their proxy war or when Putin admits defeat. They may control intergovernmental institutions and processes like the UN, they face sufficient international clamor to end the war from their side.

At its zenith at the turn of the twenty-first century, the Empire tried out a reproachment policy to its erstwhile enemies Russia and China but this soon turned sour – when Putin began asserting against the western imperialist alliance’s free-for-all rape of the former republics; and when the US realized that China was fast building up its economic power to challenge US financial and economic hegemony as Japan took too long in its economic recovery.  From the depression in 2008 to 2013 major political economic shifts saw the US lose it primacy leading to the emergence of a multipolar world with two new imperialist powers independent of the erstwhile unchallenged Empire and its imperialist alliance.

Russia and China have achieved a level of monopoly capitalist power as imperialists each on their own right but remain hobbled by unevenness in their industrial development, economic system and military capability. 

China has achieved a level of diplomatic power as head of the Group of 77 + China as a result of its economic assistance to carve out a sphere of influence in Africa and Asia, while using trade and investments in developing political economic relations with the rest of the world. 

Russia has used the historic ties held by the former Soviet Union where revisionism and social-imperialism held sway to establish semicolonial relations with many countries including those who consider themselves socialist. Many of these countries have been targeted by the Empire for subversion, sanctions and invasion even but have been able to assert their independence against the Empire as they depend mainly on Russia and China for support.

The creation of an alternative bloc was attempted in the BRICS conferences. These five demographic/geographic powerhouses (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are historically regional powers on their own right, are nominally independent to the Western imperialist alliance and can become a global economic and political power bloc of its own.  But the Empire moved soon enough in coopting them by creating the G20, besides individually drawing in India, South Africa and Brazil into alliances depending on the nature of the government in power.

For example, India under the communalist conservative BJP government of Modi treads a path of neutrality as an historical ally of the Soviet Union but allies itself with the US against China. It has accepted a US invitation to be part of the QUAD as an economic alliance but balked at being part of an Indopacific security alliance. 

The US is forced to create separately the AUKUS security alliance to coordinate imperialist military operations against the ‘axis of evil’ comprising Iran, China and DPRK including the Pacific seaboard of Russia.  The dependent and semicolonial countries are then drawn into this alliance for war – South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia as well as Japan.

Flashpoints for military build up and intervention include the Senkaku islands, the East China Sea, the Taiwan strait, South China Sea (Spratly and Paracels), and the India-China border. The US is keen to goad DPRK to start the war because it cannot goad Chinese to a senseless war. As it is, the Empire has been subverting China by funding separatists in HongKong, Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet and looking for chinks in China’s armor to invade if should China consider military action beyond its internationally recognized borders. 

Image: SOUTH CHINA SEA. The Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) transits the South China Sea. Reagan is part of Task Force 70/Carrier Strike Group 5, conducting underway operations in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Rawad Madanat)

Thus the West Philippine Sea is an important corridor for US aggression which provides concern and worry to Vietnam and the Philippines.  The US wants the Philippines to be its proxy and excuse under the US-RP Mutual Defense Pact to attack China.  But the Philippines cannot fight two wars – domestic and international – and so the US dumps all-out support that the AFP needs to smash the CPP/NPA before the Philippines can be a proxy for attacking China.  Vietnam faces the similar dilemma because of historical animosities with China though the latter tries to balance its policy of neutrality between US and China.

Equally important is Northeast Asia and the Korean peninsula where the Empire lost its offensive to Korea and China in the Korean War 1952.  The armistice is a stalemate to the US war efforts just as the existence of Taiwan as a renegade province of China can be considered a stalemate to the full liberation of Peoples China.  The subregion is an economic linchpin of monopoly capital to which the US is heavily invested. The Empire cannot allow the existence of DPRK and Siberia under Russia. But the real target of the Empire, as it has always been, is of course China.

The Orient is now the economic center of the world and can become the center of an inter-imperialist war.

Overall Russia and China act defensively not because they are socialist or have survivals of socialism in their state and system but simply because the Empire is on a warpath.  And the US needs war to survive, the US war machine needs war to fuel its military industrial complex.  Furthermore, it cannot accept a new imperialist power to carve new spheres of influence – there are no countries left for Russia and China as they are concerned, and the US-western imperialist alliance needs to amass more superprofits to power its recovery.

The call for a revival of the non-aligned movement among dependent countries and semicolonies of imperialism is not necessarily appropriate since what we face is not a cold war between two hegemonic powers.  There is no division of the world between two camps of imperialists gearing for a third world war. 

What exists is a dying Empire that is seeking wars but is not ready to send its troops to occupy other countries by themselves, note the recent example of Afghanistan. The US propaganda/media machine is hell bent on portraying Russia as a fascist invader as it also tries to portray China as a totalitarian country from which its people need to be saved.  It wants a global inter-imperialist war for profit from as long as the war is not fought in the American heartland, not unlike  World War II.

If international conflagration spreads, there are still many levers that exist in international relations and diplomacy that prevent the internationalization of war until these intergovernmental instruments become useless. The multilateral nuclear umbrella is an actual deterrent, unless an irrational process will initiate nuclear war and the end of humanity as we know it.   

The international domination, oppression and exploitation by imperialism, which is best exemplified by the Empire with its warmongering and military build up, unilateral sanctions, and military aggression leading to all-out invasion, and more even directed by the Empire at private citizens, is grossly scandalous to the peoples of the world, except for the philistines and neoconservatives especially in the imperialist heartlands.      

There is a broad opposition from countries who see the senselessness of the Empire war machine, and the chicanery of the US and other NATO governments over its takeover of the former Soviet republics leading to the escalation of hostilities and the Ukraine war. This opposition needs to link up with the broad public opposition to the war.

On the other hand, we must remember that while international politics, such as alliances and actions may be important, but war is fought within national borders, thus national politics is principal and even fundamental. But national politics must be critically linked to international political action.

Especially for the peoples of the global South, it is urgent to end fascism, call for democracy and economic emancipation, and fight for national liberation from the clutches of imperialism, its TNCs, and its control of the WB/IMF/WTO. Everyone should pay attention to the contradictions in their respective countries, understand how domestic issues play into international conflicts driven by imperialism, and address the struggles of the people in a comprehensive internationalist understanding. Fight narrow patriotism which is reactionary and driven by the bourgeoisie.

The imperialist propaganda for an international war should be met with a clear understanding of the rule of the Empire, that in the Philippines it is a US-BBM terrorist regime to be defeated.  In the Orient the Empire is the main enemy as the peoples in these countries also oppose the imperialist subaltern states of Australia and Japan and the puppet states of South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand etc. 

There is time to prepare, organize the masses in the unions, the workers associations, the peasant associations, the youth and students, the middle forces like church people, and the petty traders and employees to address their economic demands, link them to the issues of democracy and fascism, and fight foreign interventions and imperialist wars.

For the broad public, we should promote a faith-based ethical just popular propaganda to counter warmongering and war fascist propaganda to counter US-BBM propaganda against China, red-baiting, terrorist labelling against preconceived enemies of the status quo – the so-called ‘free worlds’. We cannot allow the Empire and its puppet states to terrorize us to submission.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Urgent Threats to Peace for Humanity in the 21st Century
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

More than five centuries after it was formulated in a series of papal decrees, the Vatican issued a formal announcement on March 30 repudiating the Euro-supremacist “Doctrine of Discovery.” In essence, the “doctrine” said that all lands not occupied by “Christians” passed into the hands of the European conquerors as soon as they were “discovered,” and their inhabitants enslaved.

Composed of decrees issued between 1452 and 1497, it served as the quasi-legal justification for the expropriation of entire continents in the name of spreading the Catholic faith. The repudiation by the Pope is the culmination of decades of struggle by Indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada and around the world demanding its withdrawal.

But while the Pope has now renounced it, the U.S. Supreme Court has not. The high court continues to treat the “doctrine” as an integral basis of U.S. law, particularly in regard to the rights — or lack thereof — of Native peoples.

Most notable in recent times was a 2005 decision authored by the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg which invoked the “Doctrine of Discovery” in her majority ruling against the Oneida Indian Nation. The Oneidas were seeking to recover lands and rights in central New York State guaranteed to them under the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua treaty with the U.S., signed by George Washington, then president.

The Oneidas, one of the six nations of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy were awarded 300,000 acres “in perpetuity” by the treaty. By the 20th century, nearly all of that land had been taken over. In the 1970s, the Oneidas began buying small parcels on what had been their reservation land, including in the small city of Sherill, New York. They objected to the demand by the city that they pay property taxes on the basis that they were a sovereign nation. While the Oneidas won in lower federal courts, the Supreme Court ruled against them 8-1, with Ginsburg authoring the decision:

“Under the Doctrine of Discovery, title to the land occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign – first the discovering European nation and later the original states and the United States . . .

“Given the longstanding non-Indian character of the area and its inhabitants, the regulatory authority constantly exercised by New York State and its counties and towns, and the Oneidas’ long delay in seeking judicial relief against parties other than the United States, we hold that the tribe cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue.”

In 2020, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote upheld the right of Native nations to reservations that would have included nearly half of Oklahoma. While this was a victory for a coalition of Native nations, right-wing justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion upholding the government’s power to deny the right of self-determination to Indian peoples.

“Once a reservation is established, it retains that status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise,” wrote Gorsuch. “Only Congress can alter the terms of an Indian treaty by diminishing a reservation, and its intent to do so must be clear and plain.”

How did a loathsome “doctrine” authored in feudal times come to have what liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices alike consider a legitimate basis in U.S. law?

It was the Supreme Court itself that incorporated the “doctrine” into U.S. law, which became foundational in dealing with Native nations, in a key 1823 case, Johnson v. McIntosh.

The decision by Chief Justice John Marshall, declared that, in keeping with the “Doctrine of Discovery,” Native people had only the “right to occupancy” of land and not the right to title or ownership. Only the federal government, Marshall ruled, could own and sell Native lands and that “the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands”

Following the Vatican’s repudiation, the struggle will intensify for the U.S. government to do the same.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Liberation News.

A Most Perfect Genocide

April 5th, 2023 by Dr. Emanuel Garcia

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

So here I am, sitting in an ornately tooled leather chair, cask strength Scotch at my elbow, and a Cuban cigar on my lips.  I puff and watch the rings of smoke rise towards the high ceiling and turn towards my comrades, and offer them my plan.

Yes, we have all been alarmed and disgusted by the seething creep of humanity’s dregs – so many people, such poor tastes, the piercings and tattoos and terrible music, their fecundity. We all know something must be done.  This vast wide world should be our playground, with its verdant hills, snow-clad slopes, inviting waters – not a crowded asylum for the unwashed and unimaginative, for those who have no creative flair when it comes to the uses of power.

We know that for a while the many, in their illusions, have cherished their so-called individuality and autonomy. They have traveled far more widely than should have been their wont, and much less expensively than ever. The notions of justice and opportunity, equality and their unalienable rights … they never realized that these were a mere transient mirage. Perhaps we gave them a bit too much scope?

Nonetheless it’s time to rein them in, to show them who is who.

Our plan has long been in the making. We know how they think, how they lust, how they react, how they behave, we know how fearful they are at heart, and how gullible, how naive. We know how divisive they can be when goaded. We know how they take the bait.

And we’ve perfected the spectacle, have we not? The grand show, the shockful riveting event that mesmerizes and induces awe: a lone gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas School Books Depository in Dallas, journeys to the moon,  uncannily but expertly commandeered jetliners crashing into the Twin Towers that crumble at the speed of gravity …

But this, this must be our masterpiece, our perfect crime.

Although the Nazis achieved a great deal in the business of mechanical murder, their approach would never do. No, the world is far too large, and, furthermore, we like – we cherish – cleaner hands.

So we release a pathogen in an exotic faraway place. It’s not a particularly harmful one, this pathogen, though it can cause a certain amount of distress and suffering and even, in those who are not so healthy to begin with, death. 

Well, actually, we release this pathogen in a number of places, but to begin with, the narrative must be focussed. Wuhan, China. An inveterately repressive government and its henchmen who show the world how a plague can be combated, how dangerous it is, what measures must be taken. A model for the world at large!

People, globally, are imprisoned, confined, economies are broken, the threat and fear of death has become everything, and everyone accepts the sacrifices to be made. It’s for their health, is it not?

Certainly a few inordinately questioning doctors and the like will raise their doubts, will wonder why a ‘race for a cure’ was never on – but these are underlings, we’ll make sure to keep them in line, with all their queries about our science and our proposed solution, which is the jab.  And if they make a peep about informed consent, or treatment, we will turn the tables: how dare they endanger the public? How can they be fit to practice with such views? The organizing bodies that dole out their licenses will well know what to do.

When the inoculations are ready, the masses will be so fearful that even pregnant women who daren’t drink a drop of coffee while carrying will welcome an untested gene-altering immune-system decimating jab.

However, like people, all jabs will not be equal: some will only show their harm over time, after many years, while others will be far more immediately devastating. Different batches, different lots: a stroke of brilliance

We call them vaccines, in keeping with the accepted warmth with which childhood vaccinations have been received for many years, even though these new ‘vaccines’ will work far differently. In fact, they really won’t protect a person from acquiring the illness, nor prevent a person from transmitting it.

No matter. Definitions may be redefined! Sudden or gradual, their deleterious effects will not be challenged.

We know full well how complex a subject is causality in medicine. Who’s to say why one has a stroke, a heart attack? So many factors to consider, so hard to prove a case against a single one … How much fun we’ll have, what mirth, watching the investigators ferret for a cause!

The masses will be grateful for our concern, for the harsh benevolence of their governments, their medical authorities, their beloved trusted media.

And over time they drop, they sicken, singly and in multitudes, over years.

It won’t be the cleanest of slates, but more a winnowing, a prudent cut.

And then?

We’ll have to keep an eye on the insurgents, on the refuseniks, on the demonstrably unjabbed, lest their concerns catch on among the dwindled multitude. There won’t be many, will there? And they’ll be easily identified.

Meanwhile we dream. Our wealth has tripled. We merge our mechanistic view of life with our machines. We then become, I think, forever. Those others who survive, won’t they be grateful then to serve?

A warm murmur of agreement rumbles through the club, glasses are clinked, more cigars are clipped, juveniles are ready at our beck and call.

‘What shall we call it, gentlemen?’ I ask.

It takes a while … we quibble long into the night and day with ‘reset’, ‘cleansing’, ‘renaissance’ and even the distasteful ‘genocide’. But whatever term we use we are agreed: it is most perfect.

Isn’t it?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Most Perfect Genocide

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new massive $2.6 billion weapons package for Ukraine that includes HIMARS ammunition, missiles for air defense systems, artillery rounds, and other equipment.

The package includes $500 million in the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows President Biden to ship weapons to Ukraine directly from Pentagon stockpiles. The other $2.1 billion will go toward purchasing new equipment for Kyiv that could take months or years to deliver, a program known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI).

The funds for the new weapons are still being drawn from the $45 billion Ukraine aid bill Congress passed in December. So far, the US has authorized about $113 billion to spend on the war.

According to the Pentagon, the Drawdown Authority package includes to following:

  • Additional munitions for Patriot air defense systems
  • Additional ammunition for HIMARS
  • 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds
  • 120mm mortar rounds
  • 120mm and 105mm tank ammunition
  • 25mm ammunition
  • Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
  • Approximately 400 grenade launchers and 200,000 rounds of ammunition
  • 11 tactical vehicles to recover equipment
  • 61 heavy fuel tankers
  • 10 trucks and 10 trailers to transport heavy equipment
  • Testing and diagnostic equipment to support vehicle maintenance and repair
  • Spare parts and other field equipment

The equipment that will be purchased under USAI includes:

  • Additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS)
  • Nine counter-Unmanned Aerial System 30mm gun trucks
  • 10 mobile c-UAS laser-guided rocket systems
  • Three air surveillance radars
  • 30mm and 23mm anti-aircraft ammunition
  • 130mm and 122mm artillery rounds
  • 122mm GRAD rockets
  • Rocket launchers and ammunition
  • 120mm and 81mm mortar systems
  • 120mm, 81mm, and 60mm mortar rounds
  • 120mm tank ammunition
  • Javelin anti-armor systems
  • Anti-armor rockets
  • Precision aerial munitions
  • Approximately 3,600 small arms and more than 23,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition
  • Seven tactical vehicles to recover equipment
  • Eight heavy fuel tankers and 105 fuel trailers
  • Armored bridging systems
  • Four logistics support vehicles
  • Trucks and ten trailers to transport heavy equipment
  • Secure communications equipment
  • SATCOM terminals and services
  • Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment

The new package comes as the US is hoping Ukraine will carry out a counteroffensive to regain more territory, but comments from Ukrainian officials have cast doubt on Kyiv’s capability to launch an assault. It’s also unclear if US and other Western support is sustainable as Ukraine has been using massive amounts of artillery ammunition in its battle defending the Donbas city of Bakhmut.

Last month, a Pentagon official told The New York Times that upcoming ammunition shipments were part of a “last ditch effort” to help Ukraine on the battlefield as Ukrainian forces are using artillery rounds at an unsustainable rate. According to a Pentagon fact sheet released Tuesday, the US has pledged over 1.5 million 155mm artillery rounds for Kyiv.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On the floor of Germany’s parliament, Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen called for the c. 38,000 US soldiers in her country to leave, and to take their nuclear weapons with them. She lamented that Washington “doesn’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”.

A member of parliament from Germany’s Left Party has called for the thousands of US soldiers and nuclear weapons in her country to leave.

“After 78 years, it is now time for US soldiers to go home. All other allies left Germany a long time ago”, said Die Linke MP Sevim Dağdelen on the floor of Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag.

“The US nuclear weapons must go”, she added, in a March 31 parliamentary event on the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.

As of 2022, the United States had 38,500 troops in Germany, in dozens of bases and other military installations.

Dağdelen urged for “breaking with the existing relationship of extreme subservience by Germany on matters of US foreign policy, one that is marked by war, breaches of international law, and support of coups”.

“The US administration gives the impression that they don’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”, she said. “Yet fewer and fewer countries around the world are prepared to accept this. And that is good news”.

“The US military bases behave like extraterritorial areas in which the [German] constitution does not apply”, Dağdelen said.

“On German soil, assistance is provided in US wars, lethal drone strikes, and torture flights, in breach of international law”.

“And the US hosts conferences at Ramstein Air Base in Germany as if the Occupation Statue was still in force”.

Dağdelen noted that “there once was a time when the Bundestag had more courage”, recalling that, in 2010, the German parliament voted overwhelmingly to withdraw US nuclear weapons. But she lamented that that resolution was not implemented.

“Now, Germany’s federal government allows itself to be pushed directly into the line of fire by the USA, with supplies of Leopard battle tanks”, she continued, referencing the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

“Now the federal government is refusing to support an international investigative commission into the terror attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines”, Dağdelen added. “I say, terror attacks among friends simply cannot be tolerated”.

She called for Berlin to defend its “democratic sovereignty”, asking, “Why is the federal government refusing, even after 20 years, to condemn the US war of aggression in Iraq as a violation of international law?”

She also addressed Germany’s foreign minister:

“Why are you, Ms. [Annalena] Baerbock, not lobbying for the release of Julian Assange, who faces 175 years in prison in the USA for making US war crimes public? Why did you not offer asylum to the dissident Edward Snowden?”

Dağdelen did thank the United States for its support in the battle against the Nazi regime, but she noted that “the main burden in the fight against German fascism was shouldered by the Soviet Union”, which lost more than 26 million people in World War II, compared to 400,000 North Americans.

In an interview with Geopolitical Economy Report in February, Dağdelen condemned the conflict in Ukraine as a NATO proxy war against Russia, lamenting that EU member states have been acting as US “vassals” and sacrificing their own economic interests on behalf of US corporations.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: German Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen calls for US soldiers and nuclear weapons to leave, in the Bundestag on March 31, 2023 (Source: GER)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a standoff of thousands of Orthodox believers against the regime at the revered Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Porphyry called Zelensky’s crackdown ‘a faithful repetition of the Soviet persecution of the Church.’

The United Nations has sounded an alarm against the Volodymyr Zelensky government for targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) with unjustified discrimination, and Orthodox prelates around the world have strongly concurred.

The UOC which was, until May of last year, subordinate to the Patriarchate of Moscow, is not to be confused with the newer, nationalist Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) which was formally constituted in December 2018 and January 2019.

Upon the initiation of Russia’s “special military operation” into Ukraine on February 24 of last year, despite their spiritual association with the invaders, Primate of the UOC, Metropolitan Onufriy, voiced “special love and support” for the Ukrainian armed forces, and called on Russian President Putin “to immediately stop the fratricidal war” (all translations from Google).

Later in May, in a protest against Russia’s invasion, a council of the UOC formally declared its “full independence” from the Patriarchate of Moscow, while in those same months, hundreds of UOC priests signed an open letter calling for Moscow’s Patriarch Kirill to face a religious tribunal over his support for the invasion.

Yet, as LifeSiteNews covered in December, due to its former links to the Patriarchate of Moscow, churches, monasteries, and convents of the UOC have been subject to military raids by the Security Service of Ukraine, also known as the SBU. Reports indicated that by December 5, the SBU had searched 350 buildings of the UOC and investigated the loyalties of 850 individuals.

Now, a March 24 report from the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has confirmed the “SBU conducted searches (some of which it referred to as ‘security measures’) in several monasteries, offices, education facilities and other property of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in Kyiv, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi, Dnipropetrovsk, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy, Volyn, Kherson, Ternopil, Poltava and Zakarpattia regions.”

“SBU officers questioned several [UOC] clergymen with the use of a polygraph” resulting in “three notices of suspicion” issued to UOC clergy including two which violate “the equality of citizens based on race, nationality, religious belief, disability or other grounds,” and the third with multiple charges including “denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.”

In addition, the SBU’s “security measures” have relegated at least two suspects to “round-the-clock house arrest.”

“OHCHR is concerned that the State’s activities targeting the UOC could be discriminatory. OHCHR also recalls the need to ensure that all those facing criminal charges enjoy the full spectrum of applicable fair trial rights,” the report reads.

The OHCHR also addresses draft laws registered in Ukraine’s parliament which ban “the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the operations of religious organizations that are organizationally or canonically linked to it and prohibits them from renting state or private property in Ukraine.” These proposals also seek to ban “the use of the term ‘Orthodox’ in names of religious organizations not related to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.”

In response to the report, Oleh Nikolenko, spokesman of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated, “Ukraine is a democratic state, in which freedom of religion is guaranteed. At the same time, freedom is not the same as the right to be engaged in activities that undermine national security.”

“We call on OHCHR to refrain from unbalanced political assessments and base its reports on facts,” he said.

Understanding the historical difference between the UOC and OCU

The bitter schism between the UOC and OCU have their origins in the ethnic and political divisions between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.

Since 1686, the Patriarch of Moscow had recognized authority to ordain the metropolitan archbishop of Kiev. However, two nationalistic Orthodox Churches in Ukraine came into existence in the twentieth century in response to the 1917 dissolution of the Russian Empire, and the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. Both of these churches were unrecognized by other Eastern Orthodox Churches and considered “schismatic” while simultaneously competing with the Russian Orthodox UOC.

According to reports, in 2014 the OCU churches provided support for the U.S.-facilitated color revolution and coup d’état of the democratically elected President in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, who was perceived as an ally of Russia. In response, the Russian Federation accepted the rejoining of Crimea to its centuries-old motherland, when the peninsula held a lopsided referendum and celebrated the historical event.

As tensions and violence between the government in Kiev and Russian-speaking regions in the east of the country were ongoing in 2018, the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople issued a type of recognition to the previously unrecognized churches in Ukraine, causing a broader schism between itself and the Patriarchate of Moscow who went on to forbid the participation of UOC clergy and laity in the worship and sacraments of OCU churches.

In a March 28, 2023 statement denouncing the Zelensky regime’s “pressures, violence and persecutions” of the UOC, Primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Porphyry, stated that the UOC is “the only canonical and legal Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” being “recognized by all Orthodox Churches in the world” while the OCU, “recognized by only four,” is a mere “non-canonical schismatic structure” which “can become a Church only through repentance and canonical procedure, never by the stroke of someone’s pen.”

UOC provides material support for Ukrainian army, yet govt ‘chose to attack the church’

In a similar statement of support for the UOC, Archbishop Michael of Prague lamented that the “Ukrainian authorities are going to crucify the Church of Christ” in their nation and yet “all this happens despite the fact that the UOC has publicly distanced itself from the Moscow Patriarchate, offers prayers for the victory of the Ukrainian army and supports the soldiers materially.”

Articles on the UOC website appear to document significant amounts of material charity provided to varieties of entities including Ukrainian armed forces engaging in conflict with the Russian army. A March 28 report with ample photographs demonstrates how copious food products, medicines and medical devices have been provided by UOC clergy and faithful to military personnel, internally displaced persons and regional hospitals.

Another article and video published the next day, show the Kyiv Diocese of the UOC providing humanitarian aid to three units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Bakhmut region.

Despite all of this, the UOC as a whole is suspected of collaborating with the Russian military, based on the convictions of a small number.

Archbishop Iona, the head of the youth department at the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra (Cave Monastery), explained to Politico, “Only a few priests have indeed collaborated. It is not right to apply collective guilt to a church. There were also collaborators among SBU and other organs. But the government chose to attack the church.” He added that collaborators are active in every sphere, including government security forces.

“The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not a ‘warring party,’ but a living and active Church of God,” added Patriarch Porphyry. “Wars, just and unjust, are fought by states, not churches… The Church is always for peace.”

‘Priests of OCU’ participate in successful violent takeover of UOC church, then pray at the altar

With the Zelensky regime involved in SBU raids against the UOC, and advancing legislation to ban the church, preventing it from renting property in Ukraine or using the word “Orthodox,” they and the OCU are also methodically moving to dispossess these Orthodox Christians of operating in state-owned ecclesial buildings or other church properties as well.

An article on the UOC’s website from Tuesday displays video footage of a raid upon the UOC cathedral church in the Ivano-Frankivsk Diocese. The video and report testify that while UOC faithful prayed, a crowd of around 200 appeared issuing threatening chants. Raiders from the OCU “broke into the shrine” used tear gas on priests and the faithful, “opened the central door and pushed the parishioners down the stairs.”

Immediately following this violent capture of the church, dispossessing their fellow Christians, individuals the article identifies as “priests of the OCU,” went in and “prayed at the altar.”

According to the report, “the police did not intervene.”

Thousands of faithful in standoff with Zelensky to prevent ousting of UOC from the revered Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra

However, despite the violence of this dispossession, the most serious case involves the Zelensky regime’s move to oust over 200 UOC monks along with several hundred other professors and students of the 11th-century Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (Monastery of the Caves) which is broadly revered as the center of Eastern Slavic Christianity, giving its name to the city in which it is located, Kyiv.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the communists turned the holy site into a state-owned museum which was transferred to the Ukrainian government after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Around that time partial jurisdiction was returned to the UOC including a lease with the government owners to use the main churches in 1988. Another agreement was made in 2013 for the free use of religious buildings and additional state-owned property which was apparently intended to be perpetual as it had no end date.

At the end of December, the government terminated the UOC’s ability to worship in the “Upper Lavra” which includes the Holy Dormition Cathedral and another minor church. The government then allowed the nationalist OCU to worship in those spaces on several occasions.

And then, earlier this month, Zelensky issued a termination of the 2013 agreement and ordered the entire UOC community to fully evacuate the premises by March 29 including the caves themselves, the monks’ cells, their theological seminary and academy in the “Lower Lavra.”

The stated reason for the evacuations came about when a special government commission identified numerous violations of the free lease agreement by the UOC.

In response, the church is arguing the termination remains illegal and has filed a lawsuit seeking redress in the matter. Furthermore, the monks have committed to defying the order and remaining in their monastery home as long as it is physically possible.

Ukraine’s Culture Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko, who issued the evacuation order, said the government would not use force against the monks if they “missed the deadline,” according to Politico, and they were free to stay so long as they “transfer their allegiance” to the OCU.

As a result, there is currently a standoff at the Lavra involving thousands of faithful who have arrived to prevent the state from expelling the monks. As reported by OrthoChristianity, many are spending the night in the Lavra, waking to attend 6:30 a.m. Mass, and then returning to the outdoors to guard the monastery once again.

The outlet also reported on Thursday that the UOC faithful successfully prevented a state commission who arrived to “inspect” the properties from entering the churches out of a suspicion that they would seal the doors. Members of the commission responded stating that if this situation continues, they will be forced to utilize law enforcement.

Patriarch: Zelensky’s discrimination ‘a faithful repetition of the Soviet persecution of the Church’

In the meantime, the UOC has received significant levels of support from Orthodox prelates around the world.

“We demand an end to the systematic persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the rulers of Kiev,” said Archbishop Atallah Hanna from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Such rulers “implement Western agendas hostile to the Orthodox Church, its values, its message and its presence.”

This persecution equates to “persecution of the entire Church, as there are threats to evict bishops, fathers, and monks from the Lavra monasteries in Kiev, which are the ancient historical monasteries associated with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” he said.

“We do not recognize the legitimacy of any entity created in Ukraine to be a substitute for the legitimate Orthodox Church, and we call on the Christian world and the entire civilized world to work to stop this systematic persecution,” the Archbishop emphasized.

Patriarch Porphyry described Zelensky’s planned expulsion of the UOC bishops, monks, professors and students from the Lavra as “a faithful repetition of the Soviet persecution of the Church.” He continued by characterizing these policies as a “state terror against the Church, as well as the grossest violation of its basic rights, religious freedom and freedom of conscience in general.”

Back in the U.S., responding to the situation at the Kiev Caves Lavra, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, Metropolitan Tikhon, wrote in a Tuesday statement, “[we] decry restrictions on the religious freedom of any group in Ukraine and especially denounce any generalized religious persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy.”

“We once again assure Metropolitan Onufriy, his clergy, and the Ukrainian faithful, who are beset by troubles on all sides, that the Orthodox Church in America stands ready to support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, both with our prayers and by any other means at our disposal,” he concluded.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Thousands of members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church gather at the Holy Dormition-Kiev Caves Lavra as Zelensky’s regime gears up to seize the highly revered church (Source: Українська Православна Церква / YouTube via LSN)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It is tragic and deeply distressing that twenty years after the US launched its disastrous invasion of Iraq that the ignorance, lies and cruelty of that war have never been acknowledged.

The neocons in the Bush administration believed that our enemies had attacked on 9/11 because they perceived us as weak. Postulating that a quick and decisive victory would demonstrate US strength and resolve, the neocons thought the war would ensure US hegemony for decades to come.

I had served on a think-tank sponsored task force with many leading proponents of this worldview and was astounded by their hubris born of ignorance. They did not know, or consider it important to know, Iraq. They were guided by a one-size-fits-all Manichean ideology: forces of good and evil in combat across the globe; a clash between them inevitable; and in that confrontation good ultimately prevailing. Those who issued cautions were demeaned as weak and lacking resolve.

These “experts” took to the airwaves preying on a still shell-shocked public that knew even less about Iraq or the broader Middle East. In testimonies before Congress and on television the war’s proponents embellished their good versus evil portrait and deliberately misinformed the Congress and public about the impending war.

The “big lie” about Iraq wasn’t about weapons of mass destruction, but rather a preposterous deceit about the war’s costs and terms of engagement. Leading administration spokespersons testified that: the war would be over in a few weeks; US forces would be greeted as liberators; it would cost no more than $1 or $2 billion; and in the end a new democracy in Iraq would be a “beacon for the new Middle East”.

Journalists and commentators echoed these fact-free claims making it the dominant narrative. Most politicians cowered, and because the overwhelming majority of the public couldn’t find Iraq on a map (according to a survey conducted days before the invasion was to begin), they went along.

During the months leading up to the start of the war, my wife and I were in North Carolina where I was teaching at Davidson College. At one point, I flew back to Washington to debate a resolution I had submitted to the Democratic National Committee urging the party to oppose sending our young people into a war without knowing its costs, terms of engagement, and consequences, in a country whose history and culture we did not know. The party leaders allowed me to present it but wouldn’t permit a vote.

At the time, I was hosting a weekly live television call-in programme on Abu Dhabi TV and Direct TV in the US. ADTV arranged two live satellite shows connecting students at Davidson with students at Baghdad University. It opened my students eyes to Iraqi history, culture, and sensitivities. After the programme one of the Davidson students told me that it was so hard to be speaking with the Iraqis knowing that we were going to bombing them.

Two decades later we have largely forgotten the lies and no one has been held accountable.

President Barack Obama released the Bush era torture memos, commissioned to provide a “legal” justification for and define allowable methods that could be used to torture prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, raising hopes for accountability for war crimes. The memos were horrifyingly graphic in describing permissible torture practices. But after releasing the memos, Obama announced that “we wouldn’t look backwards.”

And so here we are, two decades after the war with no accountability for the lies that left thousands of young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. The same neocon hawks, still considered experts, are now on the airwaves peddling their Manichean nonsense about other conflicts and enemies. And the American public remains uninformed not only about Iraq and what we did there, but also about the entire Middle East and its history and culture.

We continue to operate blindly in a world that’s increasingly wary of our role precisely because of the lack of accountability and understanding of history. The truth is that accountability would not make us weaker. It would make us smart, stronger and more respected.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

Featured image: Abu Ghraib

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Last week, the Economist dedicated its cover and leading article to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s worldview. The timing was perfect: Xi had just completed a controversial three-day visit to Russia, where the two countries signed important agreements expanding their cooperation. Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin both issued hubristic and highly confident statements about the future.

Putin invited Russia’s main partners in Latin America, Africa and Asia to use the yuan for foreign trade settlements. Xi said:

“There are changes that haven’t happened in 100 years. When we are together, we drive these changes,” Xi told Putin in his departing words. 

The first is a further boost to de-dollarisation in the Global South; as for the second, the changes Xi is referencing are surely the perceived decline of the US and of western liberalism. The Economist article perfectly illustrates what is wrong with western thinking about foreign policy, and the dangerous groupthink that could bring western democracies to the brink. 

After months of spin by western governments and media about alleged tensions between China and Russia over the Ukraine war, Xi’s visit to Russia came as a badly concealed shock. Wishful thinking rarely turns into reality, and yet, no reappraisal of the western narrative was triggered.

Predictably, the Economist emphasised that Xi’s visit coincided with the arrest warrant for Putin issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But the article noted that the Chinese leader was “untroubled by trivial inconsistencies”. 

Considering what is happening in Ukraine, the ICC’s decision was a necessary act. Unfortunately, the Economist did not provide the necessary broader context for its comment. Neither Russia, nor China, nor even the US, are signatories to the ICC’s Rome Statute. When the ICC launched an investigation against the US for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, the US administration threatened the court’s staff and revoked their visas.

The Economist article also noted that Xi believes in “the inexorable decline of the American-led world order, with its professed concern for rules and human rights”. But what the Chinese leader believes or doesn’t believe is irrelevant; it is a matter as complex and esoteric as Kremlinology was during the Cold War. What is relevant, instead, is the story that the Economist appears to have missed. 

The American-led world order is in decline because its professed concern for rules and human rights is tarnished by double standards. Countries in the Global South are incessantly conveying this message to the US and its allies, to no avail.

Reshaping the world order?

The Economist also attributes to China a ruthless and well-played hand in Ukraine; that is, to ensure Moscow’s subordination to Beijing. To believe this implies that Putin is stupid, or naive, to say the least. While the Russian president can be accused of many things – ruthlessness, cynicism, unscrupulousness – stupidity is a stretch too far. 

The Economist does not appear to have contemplated the notion that the growing Russian-Chinese cooperation is fuelled not by Putin’s alleged naivety, but by US policies that are putting both countries in a corner – practically throwing one into the other’s arms. 

Russia’s deplorable invasion of Ukraine is the latest step in an escalating dispute between Moscow and Nato, mainly centred on the latter’s eastward expansion in Europe. US-China tensions largely stem from Washington’s de facto reneging on its “One China” policy vis-a-vis Taiwan, and from its inability to see the global standing of the US threatened by Beijing’s economic and technological successes.

China is a victim of its own success; the US is a victim of the self-harming policies it has adopted in recent decades.

The Economist notes that Xi “wants to reshape the post-1945 world order”. This assertion struggles with facts and reality. China has thrived in the US-led post-1945 world order. Since 1979, this order has allowed 800 million Chinese to be brought out of poverty; in the same period, the country has become not only the world’s factory, but its second-largest economy.

In early 2017, as the US began nurturing second thoughts about its own rules-based world order, the leader who went to Davos to defend it was none other than Xi. Why should China reshape a system that has served it so well?

According to the Economist, Xi’s use of the word “multilateralism” has become “code for a world that ditches universal values and is run by balancing great-power interests”.

Sometimes it is worth wondering which world the Economist has been watching in recent decades. Both before and after the Cold War, super, great and ordinary powers have been ignoring or twisting so-called universal values, as required by their vested interests and power plays. 

There are hundreds of examples where universal values have been trampled by realpolitik. Universal rights are encoded in the UN Charter and conventions. There is an inherent problem with regards to respecting them, but there are also increasingly conflicting visions about who should have the last word in ascertaining the violations of such rights – and above all, how such rules should be enforced.

Many countries around the world, a lot of them not autocratic, believe western democracies have often weaponised human rights for selfish political purposes.

In a widely touted rules-based world order, to make such a system work, the rules should apply to all – primarily to those countries that drafted, and pretend to enforce, them. In such a context, the US and its allies have largely failed.

Susceptible to outrage

The Economist article reserves its most astonishing discovery for the end of the article, noting that “the real point of Mr Xi’s foreign policy is to make the world safer for the Chinese Communist Party”. No effort is made to explain why the Chinese leadership should behave differently than all other world governments.

China is blamed for not believing “in democracy, human rights or constraining great powers”. This is fair. Western democracies, however, do not appear more healthy. Low turnouts at the ballot boxes in recent years are warning signals. French President Emmanuel Macron, confronted this month with huge protests against his policies, was re-elected last year by a low turnout. Of 48 millions eligible French voters, only 18 million voters elected him.

These same democracies have selectively protected human rights, and as for constraining great powers, there is a lot of work to do with regards to the US.

The Economist blames China for always backing ruling elites, and it considers such an approach susceptible to outrage from ordinary people around the world. Yet, as the story went to press, the real outraged ordinary people were mainly visible in the streets of Paris and Tel Aviv, not to mention the wave of strikes affecting the UK.

In its last sentences, the Economist admits that western democracies aim in the long run “to rebut the charge that global rules serve only Western interests”. For the record, this is not a charge, but a sad reality. The sooner the Economist and its like-minded peers get it, the better.

Ultimately, the article criticises China for its alleged main belief: “that real democracy entails economic development, but does not depend on political liberty”. This is a crucial point. China’s two millennia of hard historical lessons probably brought its leadership to such unacceptable conclusions. After all, ruling the largest population on earth must never have been easy. 

The hope is that this approach may soon change. Nevertheless, to count on western pressure to make it happen implies a crass misreading of the tea leaves related to the Chinese establishment. 

Western democracies should move on to real reform, rather than merely pretending to support it. They could start by putting aside lectures and bombastic claims of moral superiority; likewise, their focus on civil rights should not continue to come at the expense of social rights.

As the last couple of weeks have shown, the outrage of ordinary people does not know political boundaries.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East peace process coordinator special envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, Italy’s ambassador to Iraq.

Featured image: With President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping. Photo: Sergei Karpukhin, TASS

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

In order to remove any doubt that Lula is deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense and wasn’t just misled into doing so, leading Russian officials wanted to make sure that he and his team knew the Kremlin’s position on their proxy war with NATO in Ukraine. This explains their invitation for the Brazilian leader’s chief foreign policy advisor to visit Moscow, during which time President Putin unexpectedly met with him as proof of the importance that his country attaches to assessing Lula’s intentions.

Amorim’s Previously Unreported Meeting

Former Brazilian Foreign Minister and incumbent chief presidential foreign policy advisor Celso Amorim told CNN Brasil about his previously unreported trip to Moscow late last month, which he visited prior to dropping by Paris as part of President Lula’s efforts to mediate the Ukrainian Conflict. He disclosed that his hour-long meeting with President Putin wasn’t foreseen, but that he took the opportunity to discuss mutual economic interests and then hear the Russian leader’s defense of his country’s special operation.

CNN Brasil’s Report

Here’s what Amorim subsequently shared with CNN about their meeting:

“To say that the doors are open [for a peace negotiation] would be an exaggeration, but to say that they are completely closed is not true either.

There is no magic solution [to stop the conflict]. But there will come a time when, on one side or the other, a realization will emerge that the cost of war — not just the political cost, but the human and economic cost — will be greater than the cost of the necessary concessions for peace.

My feeling is that this moment has not yet arrived, but it could come sooner than you think. And then the existence of a group of ‘neutral’ countries — this is where quotation marks are needed — can help…there was a desire (by Putin) to leave some margin (to Russia’s goals) so that, in a future situation, there could be some kind of negotiation.

Sometimes, on the western side, we feel a certain fatigue of some forces [with the war]. There in Russia, this is less noticeable. In Moscow, there is no feeling of a country at war.”

Their meeting will now be analyzed in order to assess its overall importance.

A Secret Sojourn With Positive Intentions

For starters, readers should be aware that Lula’s grand strategy that was detailed here citing official sources is politically unfriendly towards Russia, while Moscow’s new foreign policy concept towards Latin America that was analyzed here promotes de-ideologized pragmatic cooperation. It’s therefore Brazil’s prerogative whether or not it and Russia expand their mutually beneficial economic ties in spite of their diverging worldviews since Lula has thus far prioritized his ideology over these interests.

His dispatch of Amorim to Moscow within this context suggests that influential elements within the Workers’ Party have convinced him to consider moderating his liberalglobalist zeal in foreign affairs in order to avoid needlessly complicating relations with fellow BRICS partner Russia. For this reason, it can be concluded that the trip was undertaken with positive intentions, especially considering that it comes before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s planned visit to Brazil this month.

The Economic-Political Dimensions of Their Meeting

Both sides have an interest in agreeing to something tangible that can be announced during their upcoming press conference in order to make it worth that top diplomat’s time to have traveled halfway across the world, thus explaining the official reason why Amorim went to Moscow when he did. While there, he also planned to discuss what Brazil still officially considers to be the Ukrainian Conflict despite it indisputably having transformed into a NATO-Russian proxy war over the past year.

It was already explained here why it makes perfect sense that Russia doesn’t support Lula’s G20-like peace proposal, while this piece that was published here after Brazil voted in support of an anti-Russian UNGA Resolution illustrates how far apart its envisaged settlement is from China’s. With this in mind, there was never any credible chance that Moscow would seriously consider fully withdrawing from all the territory that Kiev claims as its own like Brazil demanded it do in the document that it voted for.

Clarifying Lula’s Geostrategic Intentions

For precisely that reason, however, leading Russian officials had an interest in sharing their views about this conflict with Amorim. Their motivation was to ensure that Brazil can’t claim ignorance of Moscow’s position as justification for voting against it at the UNGA the next time that a pertinent resolution is tabled. As proven here and here citing official sources, Lula already publicly explained why he politically aligned with the US against Russia in this conflict, which prompted suspicions from the Kremlin.

In order to remove any doubt that he’s deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense as explained in the previously hyperlinked analysis near the introduction and wasn’t just misled into doing so, they wanted to make sure that Lula and his team knew Russia’s position. So important was it to do so ahead of Russia’s forthcoming engagement with Latin America as shaped by its new foreign policy concept that President Putin took an hour out of his very busy schedule to meet with Amorim.

Amorim’s Meeting Wasn’t All That Special

This guaranteed that the ruling party’s propagandists can’t spin any of Brazil’s future votes against Russia as being due to ignorance of its policy, with there now being no ambiguity about its grand strategic intentions in that scenario. Amorim’s unexpected meeting with President Putin was therefore meant to assess Brazil’s aforesaid intentions as well as possibly discuss the chances of Lula deporting a suspected spy back to Russia instead of extraditing him to the US to face charges.

It’s beyond the scope of this analysis to detail that drama in the present piece, but intrepid readers can learn more about it here. Before summarizing the importance of their meeting, observers should be made aware that while it was a privilege for Amorim to have an audience with President Putin, this is actually something that the Russian leader already earlier granted to India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Chinese foreign policy chief Wang Yi.

President Putin Likely Wouldn’t Meet With Vieira

As such, it shouldn’t be interpreted as an exclusive privilege extended to that Brazilian representative, but as privilege that President Putin extends to all the BRICS countries’ most influential policymakers. Moreover, it would have been politically uncomfortable for him to meet with Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira after that figure strongly implied late last month that President Putin would be arrested if he visited that country, hence why only Amorim could be dispatched to Moscow on Lula’s behalf.  

Having clarified the optics of their meeting so as to dispel the disinformation being pushed about it by some of the ruling party’s propagandists on social media, the reader should thus now have a better understanding of why Lula’s chief foreign policy advisor visited the Russian capital and not anyone else. His meeting with President Putin was indeed immensely important because of the latest New Cold War context within which it was held.

Russia’s Disappointment With Lula’s Worldview

Despite the high hopes in Russia that Lula would break with Bolsonaro’s precedent by abstaining from anti-Russian UNGA resolutions instead of voting for them (with the exception of the latter sitting out on the one about removing Russia from the Human Rights Council), he turned out to be a disappointment. Not only did he continue this trend, but he also became the first BRICS leader to personally condemn Russia in his joint statement with Biden from early February, which raised suspicions of his intentions.

It was therefore of premier importance for the Kremlin to discern whether he’s deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense considering everything that it could entail for the future of Russian-Brazilian relations or was misled into doing so due to his ideological alignment with the US’ Democrats. This explains why President Putin took an hour out of his very busy schedule to meet with Amorim, during which time they might have also discussed the latest spy scandal that was earlier touched upon.

Concluding Thoughts

Lavrov’s upcoming trip to Brazil will reveal whether they successfully agreed on anything of tangible economic significance or if Lula’s ideology remains a stumbling block to expanding mutually beneficial cooperation. Regardless of the outcome, his geostrategic intentions will be completely clarified in the eyes of Russian policymakers the next time that there’s another hostile resolution tabled at the UNGA. Considering this context, Amorim’s meeting with President Putin was a pivotal moment in bilateral ties.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Celso Amorin (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 pl)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Meeting Between Lula’s Chief Foreign Policy Advisor & President Putin Was Very Important
  • Tags: , , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

 

The trend of changes in the Middle East is frequent, and if we want to be acute, we should talk every day, or at least once a month, because of the changes themselves. There is absolutely no sanction that has not been introduced to Iran. Tehran is developing all conventional weapons for the defense of Iran except weapons for mass destruction, because its very existence is against all the principles on which the Islamic Republic is based and against the religious and political convictions of all Iranians.

Military-technical cooperation with Russia dates back many years and has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine – as they accuse us … The agreement between Tehran and Riyadh, mediated by China, is not a change in itself, but a great opportunity for significant changes. “The child” of the “multipolarists” will be born in six, eight, nine months, and it is up to us to make it happen with as few costs as possible. 

These are only parts of the answers from the interview of His Excellency Rashid Hasanpour, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Belgrade, to “Sepat”.

The diplomat from Tehran was open to talk to the Serbian public as much as a diplomat can be and did not avoid any questions.

Sepat (S): Your country is not getting off the headlines of the world’s mainstream media?

Amb. Rashid Hasanpur (ARH): The Islamic Republic of Iran is the country that creates the most news in the world, and regionally. It can be understood and commented on differently for each country because the events in Iran have one meaning for the USA, another for Serbia, and a third for a third country. The views of the US and its allies on the events in Iran are negative. Because, since the very foundation of the Islamic Republic, it has been presented as a danger to the interests of the US and its allies in our region. Simply put, with the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the previous order was disrupted, given that Tehran’s business and every other policy is a rejection of any desire for hegemony, and also independence in decision-making regarding international issues. So the natural reaction to such a goal of a state can be different, harsh and even aggressive. Iran has always been in the spotlight.

S: Is only the Islamic Revolution in Iran the reason for such intolerance of the collective West?

ARH: Iran is not only thinking about its independence, but also about the independence of the entire region. If you look at the news about any happenings in our country, you have a wave of negative Western propaganda. And that’s why every event in Iran is subject to negative zooming and negative propaganda. This is because Western interests are threatened by the independent policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Let’s consider Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. Efforts are being made to magnify this issue and to give a military dimension to the legal and legitimate economic and necessary efforts of our country. But the only fact and truth is that, based on Iranian doctrine and principles, the only thing we want is to have a peaceful benefit from that energy, which is persistently denied to us.  Every time, Western media point to the alleged military component of our program.

S: Protests on the streets of Iranian cities are not taken off the television?

Image: Iranian protestors on the Keshavrz Boulvard (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

ARH: Unfairly, in every country where there is free political will, it is natural for protest movements to arise in those areas, and in the Islamic Republic, protests occasionally arise and the “Right to protest” is recognized in our Constitution. But, on the condition that it does not go beyond the scope of protests and that they do not turn into attempts at a violent change of government. Unfortunately, some countries are trying to ride on the “waves of those protests” and turn them into a rebellion and an attempt to overthrow the system.

S: How do you rate the protests, justified or unjustified?

ARH: Even the Islamic Republic of Iran has its shortcomings. We never claimed to be perfect. But there is no country in the world that will tolerate rebellion and change of government by the “street”. All the propaganda instruments of the West have conspired to divert Iranians from the path of pure protest against injustice. By their interference, they change the essence of the protest. This does not mean that they are very concerned about the violation of the rights of those who protest, but their only intention is to abuse the situation in order to benefit their interests. Or, to create problems for Iran, that is, to divert the country from the path it has chosen. They always seem to have miscalculated so far.

S: Along with Cuba, Iran is the country that the so-called international community has been under sanctions for the longest time?

ARH: The history of sanctions against Iran is such that we can say that there are absolutely no political or military sanctions that have not been imposed on us.

S: Despite everything, Iran managed to develop in all areas, from science to culture, especially film?

ARH: Actually, it worries the big powers. When we talk about forces, it does not mean that everyone is equally concerned. On the contrary, China and Russia welcome Iran’s achievements. You yourself know what is the root of all tensions in our region, and that is Israel’s non-cooperation with the UN and Security Council Resolutions. Israel does not recognize the decisions of the United Nations, and the Palestinians were forcibly occupied, expelled, and scattered all over the world. Now when a country wants to prevent the oppression of those people, that country must be punished.

S: What is the average Iranian proud of?

ARH: We are equally proud of our history and our present, as well as our future, because it is not enough to be proud only of the past. That civilization must remain alive and continue life. You have noticed very well that, regardless of the huge obstacles and paralyzing sanctions, we managed to develop in all areas, and in some to reach the maximum.

S: What are those areas?

ARH: Science, defense industry, education, healthcare. Let’s say, in nano-technological research, we are among the top ten countries in the world. Also, when it comes to the field of defense industry. If someone thought they could attack us before, they certainly don’t think so now!

By the way, at one time we extended our hands to everyone in order to buy military equipment, but now the opposite is the case.

S: Are you now talking about the development of hypersonic weapons?

ARH: Except for the development of weapons of mass destruction, we have no restrictions on the development of other military technologies for defense. Any weapon that has a defensive purpose is welcome. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, Iran is not developing them, because their very existence is against all the principles on which the Islamic Republic is based and against the religious and political beliefs of all Iranians.

S: And weaknesses?

ARH: We have to admit that we failed to develop as we intended in all areas. We are lagging behind in some areas, above all in the economy. If sanctions were imposed on the Americans, as they are on us, I’m sure they would have failed a long time ago.

S: Iranian politicians despite the so-called sanctions are more frequent guests in metropolises around the world?

ARH: Very few countries do not want cooperation with our country. The Islamic Republic of Iran wants cooperation and cooperation with other countries in accordance with bilateral interests. Iran is not a country to ignore.

Wang Yi, China’s top diplomat, stands between Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and Saudi Arabia’s minister of state and national security adviser, Musaad bin Mohammed Al Aiban, on Friday in Beijing. (Photo: Chinese Foreign Ministry)

S: The impression is that your President Raisi is a dear guest everywhere today, and he was especially surprised by the agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. China is said to have mediated for about six years?

ARH: You must know that the success of a country does not depend on one person. It is the result of the power and strength of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have turned Iran into one of the main actors and powers in our region. The Yemen issue will not be resolved without Iran. The same applies to Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq. We are now in a position where foreigners, whether they like it or not, have to cooperate with us. This has been Iran’s position since the founding of the Islamic Republic: our region must be its own, independent, and the countries of the region must decide their own destiny. We are against the interference and hegemony of any foreign power in our region.

S: The Iran-Saudi agreement is therefore the architecture of future peace in the Middle East?

ARH: This is a chance for something like that. Therefore, the Agreement is not a change in itself, but an opportunity for significant changes because Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two main actors in the Persian Gulf. The fact is that we have to cooperate and it is inevitable!

S: When is the re-establishment of diplomatic relations expected?

ARH: A few days ago, the two ministers talked by phone and agreed that in the coming weeks the expert delegations would meet
agree on the renewal of the existing relations. In this development there is a “main variable factor” and that is the role of China. I can freely say that as much as Iran and Saudi Arabia have an interest in establishing more harmonious relations in the region, so does China.

S: We are talking about 500 billion dollars of Chinese investments in the Region. Sudan and Syria included?

ARH: It seems to me that one of the aspects of this agreement is ending the war in Yemen. Because among the issues we had with Saudi Arabia, there are also regional issues. That’s why I said: It’s a chance for change. You have the forces that put the pistons under the wheels, and some “players” in the region are not enthusiastic. The two countries are aware that if they need to strengthen bilateral agreements, than they have to solve regional issues. The consequences of the agreement between our two countries should be “good” for Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Iraq. Therefore, it has to create opportunities for peace and stabilization of our countries.

S: Specific relations between Russia and Iran have been established. Iran and Russia saved the integrity of Syria?

ARH: Thank you for noticing and knowing that Iran was the one who, along with Russia, saved Syria. Victory always has many fathers and mothers and defeat is always an orphan. The Americans say that they have defeated ISIS, as well as the EU countries. But it is also true that Iran and Russia defeated ISIS. Because of common positions with Russia on some topics (but not all), Moscow and Tehran have developed strong bilateral relations. Now they are accusing us of supplying drones to Russia. We have always cooperated with Russia in the defense sphere. Cooperation between the two countries was not made because of the war in Ukraine. THOSE have become the points of Western policy through which they want to attribute Iran and inflame Iranophobia even more.

S: General Kasim Suleimani is a legend of your region. Iranians particularly appreciate him?

ARH: General Suleimani was a representative of one country, one power. He represented the strength of the Islamic Republic and that is why he is popular. Had it not been for the activities of the forces under his command, not only would ISIS occupied Syria, but maybe Iraq and some other countries would also “fall”. The general was a man who thought well, who knew the region and the instruments of the forces at his disposal. And he had great charisma in command. He managed to rid the region of extremism and that is one side of the coin that the American presence in the region has faded, but not completely. America is still in our fields.

S: What are the relations with Iraq? In Iraq, two-thirds of the population are Shiites and a third are Sunnis?

ARH: For various reasons, we have to have good relations. These are religious, cultural and religious reasons. A large number of Muslim leaders are buried there and the two nations are so intertwined that you cannot separate them. This is observed in all spheres of life. The security of Iraq has a direct impact on the security of Iran. And we cannot be indifferent.

S: Are you saying that ISIS has been defeated?

ARH: What is important is that they no longer have organized force and strength. Unfortunately, that ideology still exists and that is why ISIS has now been transferred to Afghanistan.

S: Syria is the country that suffered the most. How stable is there now?

Image: The SDF besieging al-Baghuz Fawqani, 12 February 2019 (Licensed under the Public Domain)

ARH: The stability of Syria is still fragile. A part of this land is allegedly claimed by Turkey. One part is under US control. Israel bombards it every day, and a small part of the territory is held by the opposition. It cannot be said that this country has the necessary stability. Establishing full stability requires time. Bashar Al Aasad is making good moves. He recently visited the Russian Federation and he was in the United Arab Emirates. HE brought Syria back to the Arab world and the Arab world accepted him. You can see it on the horizon!

S: The Kurds in the Middle East do not have a state. Is there room for the Kurds in China’s plan?

ARH: The Kurds are distributed in four countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria.

Often, almost continuously, they are the subject of political games and political players in the region. If you talk to the “Iranian” Kurds, they are not asking for the disintegration of Iran because they consider themselves Iranians, but they are asking for their specific rights, which is logical. In Iraq, fortunately, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, they have a better position. The president of the country is always from the ranks of the Kurds, and their demands have been met in Iraq. There are problems in Syria and Turkey. We cannot speak of a united Kurdish community in the region. Unfortunately, they also have problems between themselves.

S: The consequences of the war in Ukraine are also visible in the de-dollarization and strengthening of other regional organizations BRICS, SCO, BRI, OPEC and Iran is a mandatory part of the equation in each of them?

ARH: There are things I can authoritatively say now. As a result of the strengthening of regional organizations and states in all parts of the world, the influence of the USA is fading. The United States can no longer command. They remain in the game, but that unilateralism no longer works. It doesn’t work. The US must cede some of the world’s governance to others. It’s not a US choice, it’s something that was imposed on them. We are witnessing the strengthening of China. Now China has reached the level of entering political-security issues at the world level. China, which was a political dwarf, is becoming a political giant. One of the proofs for these claims is the Chinese mediation between our country and Saudi Arabia, then the Peace Plan for the end of the war in Ukraine in 12 points… You have noticed well, BRICS and other organizations are developing the world into true multipolarity.

S: There is talk about the new money “Brixcoin” “Newscoin”, the currency of future international trade which would basically have a 40 percent gold base?

ARH: Iran is absolutely committed to that idea. Iran has always been a supporter and pioneer of this idea of trade in nominal currencies. If you remember, it used to be the dollar and then the Euro, and now the share of the American currency in world trade has dropped from 80 percent to around 50 percent. There is no doubt that the world is in a phase of change. It gives us hints about the formation of a new order. In fact, the world is still waiting for a new multipolar order.

S: Are there big meetings of the SCO, BRICS, BRI in the summer of 2023?

ARH: Yes. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS can be a turning point and change the course of history. China plays the biggest role. That’s One Belt One Road, the Initiative for World Security, and you can already hear the thunder. The sleeping dragon wakes up and is ready to fly.

S: How do you personally assess the development of the new situation in the Middle East?

ARH: I am personally optimistic about the events in the region, but I am not overly optimistic, because there are a huge number of challenges we are facing. Changes in the economic-political sense can be such that they cause great costs. They must be approached with caution. That “child” will be born in seven, eight, nine months, and that “child” must be born with the least expense. The new economic future requires independent countries to cooperate with each other and to form such a strong front of changes that they are sustainable. I absolutely do not mean any block division here. If these countries unite in international organizations, they have enough capacity to cooperate, and then we can hope that the changes will pass with the least financial and other costs. It will be a transaction after which countries will have many more choices where they will be able to achieve a multitude of smaller goals, there will be less pressure for domination and, on the contrary, there will be greater security, there will be more peace and more “human rights” which, ironically, everyone claims are “protectors”

S: 24 years ago they attacked Serbia to separate Kosovo and Metohija?

ARH: One of the fundamental beliefs of Iran has always been to adhere to internationally recognized principles and charters, and especially opposition to the use of force to solve problems. We see Kosovo in that framework. This is precisely why we never thought of recognizing Kosovo’s independence. From the first day, we condemned the aggression against FRY. At the same time, we welcome any attempt for the two sides to reach an agreement that will satisfy them. Any agreement that both sides recognize, we will support. Our position has always been firm and stable. Fortunately, Serbia also supports the same principles in the international framework and that is why it did not recognize Crimea, although it has excellent relations with Russia, but it did not impose sanctions on Russia either. Those are things that can work side by side.

S: The last thing the west blames Iran for is the poisoning of children. What did the investigation show?

ARH: Investigation is in progress. What is most important, the leaders of Iran have condemned it and classified it in the category of mass crime, which is a crime of the highest rank whose organizers and culprits must be punished to the maximum. Some information says that there are also roots from abroad, such as the fact that it happened within our borders. It is the duty of our leaders to solve it.

S: Exactly how many children were at risk?

ARH: About 30-40 thousand. Fortunately, no one lost their lives. They all got well.

S: Is it biological-chemical warfare?

ARH: That kind of warfare is easy. Damage can be done by anyone who has access to substances.

S: When is the expected meeting between the leaders of our two countries?

ARH: That question is on the agenda, but it cannot be said exactly. We hope and expect that the visit of President Vučić will be realized soon and it will be a historic visit that will raise our relations to the highest possible level. Serbia has always opposed sanctions against Iran and has not supported any sanctions against our country. You are the only European country that has not done so, and for Iran it is very significant. We have excellent dynamics for the development of relations, and this gives us hope that our relations will be long-term and stable.

Direction of Tehran-Belgrade Relations

S: How is Serbia-Iran bilateral relations?

ARH: As far as bilateral relations are concerned, I am satisfied. Although, perhaps a large number of our capacities and potentials have not been realized. What is important to me is the direction we have chosen, and it is a good one. The leaders of the two countries are determined to develop their relations. There is a common political will in both countries. We have common political and cultural views, and our people have similar thoughts. And it is such a strong and powerful atmosphere that it largely limits the space for those who are against it.

S: What about the economy?

ARH: Economic exchange increased. In 2020, it was only 20 million dollars, in 2021 already 50 million, and in 2022 over 60 million dollars. We are not satisfied, because it can be much better. The roasting is excellent.

Deviation from Extremism

S: The impression is that Saudi Arabia has made a deviation from Wahhabism and extremism? This country was blamed by Iran for being the center of anti-Iranian propaganda?

ARH: It is true. In the collection of issues in the Agreement, that problem was also resolved. Let me remind you that a few years ago, during the time of President Hatami, we signed the Security Agreement with Riyadh, and this new agreement includes two more valid agreements, the most important of which is the security agreement. There it is decisively emphasized that the two countries will not interfere in each other’s internal affairs, it implies the recognition of territorial integrity… And it is true. Saudi Arabia is moving away from radical attitudes.. Because that radicalism is becoming dangerous and a burden on themselves.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Big Powers are Worried”. Iran’s Military Technologies for Defense
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It’s quite obvious that NATO has always been an auxiliary extension of the United States. This has been the case since the unfortunate inception of the belligerent alliance 74 years ago. Thus, NATO’s crawling aggression should always be observed from the perspective of US expansionism, as the bellicose thalassocracy keeps moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the borders of its geopolitical adversaries. This has been the case in the (First) Cold War and it’s no different nowadays when the US is pushing one European country after another into a broader anti-Russian coalition that now includes the entire European Union. Washington DC is attempting to do the same by constituting a near carbon copy of NATO in the Pacific in a virtually identical step, only aimed against China.

US State Secretary Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg attended the admission ceremony with Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto. The Office of the President of Finland said in a statement:

“Finland has today become a member of the defense alliance NATO. The era of military non-alignment in our history has come to an end. A new era begins. Each country maximizes its own security. So does Finland. At the same time, NATO membership strengthens our international position and room for maneuver. As a partner, we have long actively participated in NATO activities. In the future, Finland will make a contribution to NATO’s collective deterrence and defense.”

The formal admission of Finland is the latest move in the process of “globalizing” NATO. The buzzword in this particular case is “formal”, not “(NATO) admission” and the reason is quite simple. Finland was never truly neutral, not even during the (First) Cold War and particularly not since it entered the EU. It has always been packed with US/NATO intelligence assets, although this has escalated significantly in the last several decades. Since then, the country has essentially become a NATO member in all but name. Yesterday, this was merely formalized. Although NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg dubbed it “a historic event”, this was just PR and optics aimed to “coincide” with NATO’s 74th anniversary. As for Sweden, it will probably have to wait another year, since publicity is everything for NATO.

Although Stoltenberg told reporters on Monday he was hopeful that Sweden would be joining in the following months, this is highly unlikely if Stockholm keeps meddling in Ankara’s internal affairs. Still, he insisted that Finland’s NATO membership “will be good for [its] security, for Nordic security, and for NATO as a whole.” How exactly is this “good for Finland’s security” is yet to be explained by either Brussels or Helsinki. Russia and Finland share a very long border (over 1300 km), meaning the move has nearly tripled the line of direct contact between NATO and Russia, as the combined border between them has previously been approximately 700 km. Now being well over 2000 km long, the border could be a major source of tensions.

Considering that Moscow previously never saw Finland as a potential threat, its membership in NATO, a hostile and extremely aggressive military alliance that openly declared and targeted Russia as its primary enemy, Helsinki has unilaterally changed this, prompting Moscow to completely revamp its strategic posturing towards Helsinki. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko stated that “[Russia] will strengthen [its] military potential in the western and northwestern direction” and that “[Moscow] will take additional steps to reliably ensure Russia’s military security in the event that the forces and resources of other NATO members are deployed in Finland”.

During a briefing at the Kremlin, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov dubbed the move “an aggravation of the situation” and reiterated Grushko’s warning that Russia will be forced to take countermeasures to maintain its security. “The Kremlin believes that this is another aggravation of the situation. The expansion of NATO is an infringement on our security and Russia’s national interests,” he stated. However, Peskov did acknowledge that the situation certainly wasn’t as bad as with the Kiev regime, which the West has long tried to turn into a springboard for active aggression against Russia.

“The situation with Finland, of course, is radically different from the situation with Ukraine, because, firstly, Finland has never had anti-Russian rhetoric, and we have had no disputes with Finland. With Ukraine, the situation is the opposite and potentially much more dangerous,” Peskov added.

Still, from a military standpoint, the situation can hardly be considered optimistic. Finland directly broke from its neutrality when it decided to acquire F-35 fighter jets from the US in late 2021. The Pentagon has direct access to everything the F-35’s sensors can detect, meaning that Finland would be sharing key military data with the US regardless of whether it was a NATO member or not. On the other hand, being a member also means that it’s more likely to see the deployment of US offensive weapons in close proximity to St. Petersburg, Russia’s second most important city.

In this regard, Stoltenberg was right to say that the admission of Finland is truly historic, but only in the sense that Helsinki is essentially repeating the same mistake as over 80 years ago when it joined the Axis led by Nazi Germany. Now when it’s among “old friends” once again, maybe Finland should dust off the history books and pay very close attention to how this ended the last time.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The “Psychological War” Behind Ukrainian Frontlines

April 5th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In all situations of armed conflict, something that runs parallel to the fighting on the frontlines is the psychological clash, with both sides trying to exhibit force and intimidate the enemy to give up fighting. This constant attempt to morally defeat the opponent and end the “will to fight” is already beginning to be observed by some western analysts, who are writing reports on the psychological moves on the Ukrainian front. However, the pro-Western perspective of these analysts prevents them from assessing the scenario accurately.

In a recent article for The Sunday Times, Mark Galeotti, a professor and author of more than 20 books on Russia, commented on some possible actions by Russia and Ukraine in the context of psychological warfare. According to the author, Russia would be trying to show power through its international partnerships. He mentions the case of Belarus, with which Moscow negotiated an agreement to allocate nuclear weapons in the near future, improving the defense capacity of both countries. For Galeotti, the measure would have the sole objective of intimidating the West, in addition to the Belarusian government itself  which would be somehow coerced into accepting Russian actions, not indicating the real strength of relations between the two states.

The same author also makes some comments regarding Russian-Chinese cooperation. According to him, Moscow would be in a “circle” imposed by Beijing, where the possibilities of acting would be limited to the current sphere of the conflict, not admitting in any case the possibility of nuclear escalation. The expert seems to believe in some sort of limitation in the Russian-Chinese partnership, within which the Russian side would supposedly be at a disadvantage, having to accept conditions imposed by the Chinese to garner international support. In this sense, he does not believe that Putin can actually authorize the use of nuclear weapons, given the “Chinese limitations” which is why Russia would supposedly be acting only in the scope of psychological deterrence by sending weapons to Minsk.

Then, Galeotti also mentions some of the reasons why the Russian government would be avoiding promoting more open and symmetrical escalations. He exposes that in the same way that the use of nuclear weapons would generate a strong international reaction and “isolation” for Russia, options such as the allocation of more mobilized troops and the beginning of more incisive attacks would generate internal reaction in Russia, with the decrease of the government’s popularity and the emergence of anti-war protests. So, facing the impasse and the multiplicity of “side effects”, the Russians would be for now just limiting themselves to the psychological strategy, without making clear their next steps. However, the author does not mention any empirical evidence to corroborate his thesis, as expected.

Galeotti also mentions the Ukrainian side’s mental game. He finds it suspicious that Kiev has made it clear several times that it plans to attack Melitopol. According to the analyst, there are two possible conclusions: either the objective would be to distract the Russians and make them focus on the defense of Melitopol while they become vulnerable in other areas of the frontlines; or in fact there would be a “double bluff”, trying to induce the Russians to assume this strategy – in this scenario Moscow forces would not improve their positions in Melitopol, making it an easier target for Kiev. Galeotti is not successful in explaining which of the two scenarios is more likely, being only concerned at emphasizing that there is some kind of psychological scheme involved.

These assumptions are important, but they can become mere unsubstantiated guesswork if the analyses are not concluded in a coherent way. In fact, in any conflict, strategists try to distract the enemy with different possibilities of action, making difficult the task of choosing which possibility to bet on. But that does not explain all the actions of a state on the battlefield even more so when the conflict involves forces with such different combat conditions.

Certainly, Russia tries to confuse its opponents to achieve military advantages, but this is not the case with regard to the Putin government’s delay in making incisive decisions on the battlefield. Moscow has been very clear in its actions since the start of the special military operation, always warning in advance about the possibility of escalation and avoiding as much as possible to implement measures that could make the conflict even worse. There is therefore no evidence that Galeotti is right in supposing that Russian “indecision” is due to an attempt to confuse the enemy, avoid internal reactions or diplomatic isolation.

Another mistake made by the author is to analyze assuming the Western point of view with regard to Russia. For example, the allegation that Moscow is playing psychological warfare with the West by allocating nuclear weapons in Belarus is baseless, since this was also a sovereign decision of the Belarusian government itself, which plans to defend its people and territory in the face of foreign threats and provocations. Furthermore, assumptions about a Russian diplomatic dependence on China are similarly weak. There is no “circle” imposed by Beijing on Moscow – both countries are cooperating in a broad and unlimited way to achieve common goals, since they share the same geopolitical enemies.

On the other hand, for Ukrainians, the psychological issue is exaggerated by the author – as well as by other pro-Western experts. Indeed, Kiev is not just distracting Moscow when it bluffs about Melitopol, Crimea and other matters. Kiev is simply trying to gain time in order to gather strength and then plan any reaction. For now, no efficient action seems feasible for the Ukrainian side. The so-called “spring counteroffensive” has already been discredited even among Ukrainian and Western generals. It is certain that there will be some move, but nothing indicates a relevant progress.

Indeed, in order to understand the psychological level of the conflict, it is necessary to take into account who the real sides are. It is not a war between Moscow and Kiev, but between the collective West and Russia. In its psychological games, the Russian side is interested in dissuading the West, not in confusing the virtually defeated Ukrainian army. In contrast, Kiev’s proxy government resorts to psychological games, even with support from the mainstream media, because this is its only chance to continue fighting for Western interests.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The following table. from the Gun Violence Archive confirms a significant increase of reported cases of deaths and injuries during the three year period of the Covid Crisis (2020-2022)

Guns Violence Deaths (wilful malicious accidental) as defined in the Table Below have increased from 15,509 in 1919 to 20,200 in 2022, an increase of 30.2%. 

Children killed or injured has increased by 43.0% (1919-2022)

Teens aged 12 to 17 killed or injured has increased by 64.8%. (1919-2022)

Did the Fear Campaign, which commenced at the outset of the Covid pandemic in late January 2020 play a role?

The March 2020 Lockdown confined people in their homes, paralyzed economic activity and triggered poverty and despair.

The data below requires careful analysis as to the causes of this dramatic hike in Gun deaths and injuries.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 5, 2023

***

 

Gun violence  and crime incidents are collected/validated from 7,500 sources daily –

Incident Reports and their source data are found at the gunviolencearchive.org website.

Number of Deaths in 2023

 

Children Killed or Injured in 2023

Teens Killed or Injured in 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All numbers are subject to change or incidents recategorized as new evidence is established and verified.

Notes (based on the first table)

  1. Number of source verified deaths and injuries
  2. Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified
  3. Calculation based on CDC Suicide Data
  4. Actual total of all non-suicide deaths plus daily calculated suicide deaths

Featured image: The foundation of the United States is embedded in gun violence. (Photo: Joe Loong)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

WXYZ news report on the home defense can be found at this link.

WDIV news report on the home defense below.

Taura Brown, a dialysis patient fighting eviction from the Tiny Homes on the west side of Detroit, has been a target of the Cass Community Social Services (CCSS) non-profit agency which claims that it is providing shelter for homeless people in the city.

However, a writ of eviction was issued by a 36th District Court Judge Shawn Jacque demanding Brown leave the home within ten days.

On Sunday April 2, approximately 50 housing activists held a rally outside the home pledging to defend Brown from the eminent eviction. Just two days later, on April 4, a dumpster was placed across the street during the early morning hours.

Soon enough dozens of housing and community activists from several organizations arrived at the home to carry out their defense. Just prior to the placing of a dumpster on Monterey street, Brown reported that a shot was fired into her home at 5:30am. This author witnessed a bullet hole over the rear door of the house.

After 10:00am, the Wayne County Bailiff accompanied by several aides arrived at the front of the house and announced that they were carrying out a court ordered eviction. The Bailiff told the activists guarding the front and rear doors of the home that they would be arrested if they did not move and allow them to enter the house.

A group of activists locked arms and were able to repel the initial attempts to enter the premises. Apparently, the police were called by the Bailiff and numerous patrol cars arrived on the scene. 

Another attempt was made to remove the activists from the front door of the tiny home. Clashes ensued where people on both sides were knocked to the ground amid intense scuffles and angry verbal exchanges.

Within a matter of minutes, an officer identifying himself as a commander, ordered the police and the Bailiff to withdraw from the front of the home. Police began to pull back their forces while the Bailiff was seen on his cell phone calling for additional aides to be deployed at the house.

Several other men summoned by the Bailiff arrived over the next 30 minutes. Some of the assistants to the Bailiff wore scarves to cover their faces. Then another attempt was made to break through the front door which was again halted by the home defenders.

At this time the Bailiffs and his aides moved to the rear of the home and made yet another attempt to break down the back door. Punches were thrown at the activists while both the home defenders and people working for the Bailiff fell to the ground. One activist was pinned down by two of the evictors as he yelled that he could not breathe. After a brief period, he was rescued by other home defenders and provided with first aid.

The uniformed police at the back of the tiny home only monitored the situation and remained reluctant to intervene. When any officer attempted to halt the fighting, they were called off by their superiors.

Home Entered and Trashed by the Bailiff

Eventually the back door was flung open, and the evictors entered the home. They began carrying out the belongings of Brown which remained in the house.

The Bailiff and their assistants then attempted to carry the belongings in the home to throw into the dumpster parked across the street. Activists threw tires on the porch and lawn to halt the efforts of the evictors. There was a battle of the tires as the evictors and activists threw the tires away at the front entrance.

One of the vehicles driven by an assistant to the Bailiff had tires placed underneath to prevent them from driving off. Another parked vehicle blocked the same truck from leaving. Within a short period of time, a tow truck appeared on the scene to remove the vehicle blocking the truck belonging to one of the evictors.

Another standoff ensued as activists blocked for several minutes the attempted connecting of the vehicle to the tow truck. Eventually home defenders were forcibly removed by the Bailiff’s assistants as the truck attempted to pull away from the location. The truck driven by one of the evictors was then able to leave the scene. Tires were also placed under the dumpster which could not be carried away from the Brown home.

The Bailiff and his aides then left the area of the eviction. Police cars soon left the area as well. No one was arrested by the numerous police officers standing guard in front of the Brown home and the surrounding blocks.

Evictions Escalate in Detroit Despite Official Rhetoric of Renewal and Development

Although the administration of corporate Mayor Mike Duggan claims through their public relations mechanism and a supplicant media that Detroit is the center for urban revitalization, the reality is quite different. The municipality remains the most impoverished of any other city with a population over 600,000.

The Tiny Homes project run by CCSS has failed to create an environment that is beneficial for those living under economic duress. Evictions overall in Detroit are increasing due to the scarcity of quality housing and the rapid increase in the price for rents. Very few mortgages are being written for longtime Detroit residents who are 77% African American.

Duggan is often shown over the corporate media announcing new “affordable housing” developments. However, what is considered “affordable housing” is based upon the median income for the entire metropolitan Detroit area and not the city itself.

According to a press release issued by Brown and her supporters within the Detroit Eviction Defense organization (DED):
“Detroit resident Taura Brown has been fighting state violence at the hands of non-profit landlord, Rev. Faith Fowler, of CCSS for over two years. The non-profit maintains a $7 million operating budget, which apparently is not enough for Fowler as she threatens to evict a dialysis patient speaking up against the mismanagement. Despite many legal attacks, Ms. Brown has stuck to her truth, that homeownership for all Tiny Homes residents after 7 years, as advertised and promised in its rent-to-own program.”

The home defense at the Tiny Homes is not taking place within a social vacuum. As the housing crisis in Detroit and around the United States worsens, there will be more clashes which could easily lead to violence, serious injuries and deaths.

The priorities of the corporate-oriented administration in Detroit are indicative of the trends within urban areas around the country. As the economic crisis deepens, the unjust character of municipal governance will be further exposed through legal actions, mass demonstrations and rebellions.

Just one week prior to the eviction of Brown, the City Council voted to award $800 million in tax breaks to two white billionaires, Chris Illitch and Stephen Ross, ostensibly to build additional commercial buildings and apartments. These so-called development projects are becoming more obsolete with the drastically declining demand for office space and the financial defaults of large-scale real estate owners.

With the tightening of credit, corporations will become even more reliant upon the tax expropriations of working people and the impoverished. It will be up to the community organizations and their allies to intensify their struggles to reverse the processes of gentrification and forced removals from the urban areas across the U.S.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Detroit Activists Battle Bailiffs in Defense of the Tiny Home of Taura Brown
  • Tags:

What Trump’s Indictment Means

April 5th, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

President Donald Trump is being arraigned on the basis of sealed charges.  It is unclear why the charges are sealed.  Imagine arresting someone on the basis of charges kept from the person.  It happens in America as it did in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Perhaps the charges are kept secret so that the media can defame Trump by reporting that his arrest is “related to his alleged involvement in a hush money payment and subsequent cover-up involving a purported affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels,” as Sputnik International reported this morning.  Note that Sputnik is a Russian news service and not part of the US media’s campaign against President Trump. But as the charges are sealed, Sputnik only has the US presstitutes’ account of the indictment.  The account is totally false.

Trump is not arrested for paying extortion money to a porn star, who saw her opportunity for extortion when Trump was announced as a presidential candidate.  No affair has been proven.  It is ordinary for people being extorted pay up in order to avoid controversy that presstitutes would turn into fact.

The basic charge against Trump is an orchestration.  A Democrat New York prosecutor, rumored to be a protege of Trump-hating George Soros, one of America’s worst enemies, claims that Trump committed a misdemeanor, not a felony, by reporting the payment as a legal expense billed to his company instead of reporting it as a campaign contribution.  This is merely the prosecutor’s opinion, an opinion successfully fed to a grand jury.  It is well known that grand juries are putty in a prosecutor’s hands.    

In law this would be a misdemeanor handled with a fine.  But the prosecutor also assumes that the payment was intentionally misreported in order to mask a campaign contribution as a corporate expenditure. This assumption by the prosecutor is what turns the charge into a federal felony.

In other words, it is all supposition of the prosecutor.  The question I can’t answer is how can a state prosecutor try a person for a federal crime?

The Democrats have gotten away with “Russiagate,” false impeachments, “Insurrection gate,” “documents gate,” covering up Hillary Clinton’s felonies, suppressing and censoring the damning information on Hunter Biden’s laptop, stolen elections, and a large variety of other violations of law and due process.  They know the presstitutes will continue to support their 7-year old attack on Donald Trump.

Republicans are not fighters.  Their control of the House of Representatives is a limited power.  Moreover, the Republican Establishment wants rid of Trump as much as do the Democrats.  Trump is the choice of ordinary men and women who are powerless.  

South American leaders have responded by pointing out that the arrest of a former president means that the US is now in the same category as Banana Republics where each successor president arrests his predecessor.  

The arrest of Trump has the single purpose of establishing for all time that the American Elite who rule will not tolerate a President who represents the people and not themselves.  This, and only this, is what the indictment of Donald Trump is about.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

Turning Tides: The US Congress and Julian Assange

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, April 04, 2023

The latest move by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) promises to be something more.  Tlaib has urged that fellow members put aside their differences and append their signatures in a letter to Attorney-General Merrick Garland urging him to drop the charges.  “I know that many of us have very strong feelings about Mr Assange, but what we think of him and his actions is really beside the point here.”

Bridge of Peace and Prosperity Proposed From the Arab World to Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, April 05, 2023

Syria is on the brink of recovery as Saudi Arabia plans to invite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Arab League summit in Riyadh on May 19. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan will travel to Damascus soon to hand Assad a formal invitation to attend the summit, in what will be the most significant development in the Arab rapprochement with Assad.

Japan Ignoring Price Cap, Paying 16% More for Russian Oil

By Drago Bosnic, April 05, 2023

On April 3, the Wall Street Journal reported that Japan, one of the most prominent US vassal states, is now buying Russian oil at prices significantly above the illegal US/EU cap, effectively breaking the sanctions imposed by the political West. According to the report, Japan also got Washington DC to agree to the exception, claiming that the move was aimed at maintaining the energy security of Japan.

Executive Order 12333: “Prohibition on Assassination”: What Do the Iranian People Think? U.S. Government Ordered Assassination of General Qassem Soleimani

By J. Michael Springmann, April 04, 2023

No Assassinations, Period.  When Gerald R. Ford, James E. Carter, Jr., and Ronald W. Reagan were presidents of the United States of America, they issued Executive Orders prohibiting U.S. government employees from engaging in assassination.

Executive Order Lays Foundation for Lab-Created Foods

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 04, 2023

September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”

The Banking Crisis Gets Worse! $1.7 Trillion in Unrealized Losses Loom as U.S. Banks Rapidly Bleed Deposits

By Michael Snyder, April 04, 2023

If our banking system can’t find a way to turn things around, our entire economy will soon be in a world of hurt.  When banks get into trouble, they start getting really tight with their money. That means fewer mortgages, fewer commercial real estate loans, fewer auto loans and fewer credit cards being issued.

What Is a Soft Power?

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, April 04, 2023

French Emperor Napoleon I, was convinced that only two powers existed in the world: the sword and the mind. Sword can prevail over the mind in a short time but in the long run, he believed that the mind would beat the sword.

The Rise of Inequality and Cronyism in Western Nations

By Shane Quinn, April 04, 2023

Over the past 4 decades, there has been a major increase regarding wage inequality and unequal property ownership occurring mainly in the Western countries. This relates to the neoliberal era launched by US president Ronald Reagan (1981–89) and his ally in London, prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–90).

“Fake News” Stories Curated by the Deep State: Government Spin Doctors Control the News Cycle

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, April 04, 2023

In the midst of the government and corporate media’s carefully curated apoplexy over fake news, you won’t hear much about the government’s own role in producing, planting and peddling propaganda-driven fake news—often with the help of the corporate news media—because that’s not how the game works.

Passover: Time to Bring Freedom, Equality to Israel’s Palestinians

By Gershon Baskin, April 04, 2023

Not all Israelis are Jewish by birth or conviction. Twenty-one percent of us are Palestinian Arabs, most of whom are Muslims by faith and conviction, and others are Christians and Druze. The thread of Israeli identity that should bind Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis barely exists and the little that did exist has been torn by the lack of equality, racism, hatred, fear and incitement.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Turning Tides: The US Congress and Julian Assange

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Syria is on the brink of recovery as Saudi Arabia plans to invite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Arab League summit in Riyadh on May 19. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan will travel to Damascus soon to hand Assad a formal invitation to attend the summit, in what will be the most significant development in the Arab rapprochement with Assad.

Riyadh and Damascus are in talks to reopen embassies in both countries, in a culmination of diplomatic meetings, statements and policy shifts demonstrating new and independent positions on Syria.

The people of Aleppo say that they went to bed one night, and they woke up under occupation of armed fighters supported by the US Obama administration, Turkey and Qatar. 

In December 2016 the city was liberated from Al Qaeda and their affiliates, and they have been trying to recuperate, but with US-EU sanctions opposing their reconstruction plans, the recovery has been slow going.

The people of Aleppo have hoped that as quickly as their lives were turned upside down by outside forces, the turning point of recovery and prosperity would be just as quick. Syria stands today on the threshold of a recovery which may hold peace and prosperity in the near future for 21 million inhabitants.

Saudi-China-Iran

The restoration of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran last month heralded the beginning of a new era in the Middle East. 

In the aftermath of the massive 7.8 magnitude earthquake on February 6 in Syria and Turkey, the Arab world came out in force with humanitarian aid to both countries.  The US, following their Syrian policy, refused any aid to be distributed to Aleppo and Latakia, two of the hardest hit areas in Syria, instead insisting to focus aid deliveries strictly to Idlib, under the occupation of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

Egypt

On April 1, Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry met in Cairo in advanced talks to restore full diplomatic relations.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could meet soon after the Muslim holy month of Ramadan ends in late April.

Mekdad and Shoukry discussed restoring Syrian unity and sovereignty over their entire territory, earthquake recovery, and an end to foreign interference in Syria.

Shoukry visited Syria and Turkey in February to show Cairo’s solidarity with the earthquake-stricken nations, in a move that signaled a thaw in relations with both countries. 

Sisi of Egypt has aligned Cairo’s foreign policy with that of Riyadh.  In the 2015 Qatar diplomatic crisis, Cairo’s positions were consistent with those of Riyadh.

Egypt and Syria both suffered under the Obama project to create a new Middle East through regime change.  The US rigged election of Mohamed Morsi resulted in a five-year prison sentence for American citizen Lila Jaafar, the director of the Cairo office of National Institute of Democracy.

Egypt suffered almost a year of murders and tortures under the Muslim Brotherhood backed Morsi regime before the people revolted and took back their country under Sisi. Turkey and the US have supported the Muslim Brotherhood which was used by the US in the Arab Spring.  Turkey has recently been moving away from the Muslim Brotherhood as the presidential election draws close, but Qatar is the last remaining holdout, as yet unwilling to be independent of US dictates.

UAE

An Emirati ship containing more than 2,000 tons of aid has docked at Latakia, Syria, loaded with food supplies, medical equipment and winter clothing. 

The UAE’s Operation Gallant Knight 2 mission is a humanitarian operation to support people affected by the earthquake in Syria and neighboring Turkey. The Emirates previously sent 1,000 tons of aid to Syria in March, and Saudi Arabia sent aid as well.

Assad and the First Lady recently visited the UAE where they were warmly greeted. The UAE and Bahrain had previously reopened their embassies in Damascus, while Oman had never left.

Turkey

The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic, headed by Dr. Ayman Sousan, Assistant Foreign and Expatriates Minister, have arrived in Moscow to participate in the quadripartite meeting of the assistant foreign ministers of Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey from April 3-4.

The meetings will focus on ending the Turkish military occupation in Syria, combating terrorism, and the ending of foreign meddling in Syria.

Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a visit to Turkey on April 6-7 and discuss Syrian issues.

Turkish President Tayyip Recip Erdogan faces his last election next month, and the voters will be evaluating his role in the Syrian crisis which brought over 3 million refugees flooding into Turkey.

US-Kurds- ISIS prisons

“We don’t intend to normalize,” said Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary of State, while in London.

Leaf has visited in Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, and Tunisia recently, but has no plans to visit Damascus. 

The Canadians are among the many foreign nationals in Syrian camps run by Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria.  The US are military partners with the Kurds while about 900 US soldiers occupy the main oil wells in Syria, and prevent the Syrian people access to their own energy resources.

19 Canadian women and 13 children are expected to fly from Syria to Canada after an agreement was reached with Canada for repatriation. The prison camps are a dangerous breeding ground for terrorism, and are unsafe for humans.  Almost no food, water and cholera runs rampant in the squalid camps well visited by foreign journalists. The US backed Kurds are in charge, but have either a lack of funding, or the corruption among the US military partners has led to the unlivable situation. 

Many western democracies sent their young men and women to fight as terrorists in Syria. US, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany and Belgium are among the top countries who have prisoners in the Kurdish prison camps in northeast Syria. Eventually, the US will have to leave Syria, and the Kurds will have to repair their relationship with Damascus. At that point, the foreign terrorists, their wives and children, will have to be dealt with.

Offshore Gas

Just prior to the 2011 conflict, a massive offshore gas field was discovered in Syria.  This has not yet been exploited because of the conflict.  With the proceeds of the gas field, hospitals and schools can be constructed. Even after 12 years of conflict, Syria still offers free medical care and education.

In 2011, most of the Arab leaders were following orders directed from the Oval Office. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan were all firmly in step with the Obama Administration, and the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change.

Times have changed, and one of the biggest changes in the Middle East is the direction of Saudi Arabia under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Sultan (MbS).  The young leader of the most powerful country in the region has a Vision 2030, which has made significant changes, including a reversal of the former relationship between Riyadh and Washington. MbS does not take orders from Biden, he makes decisions based on the national interests of Saudi Arabia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On April 3, the Wall Street Journal reported that Japan, one of the most prominent US vassal states, is now buying Russian oil at prices significantly above the illegal US/EU cap, effectively breaking the sanctions imposed by the political West. According to the report, Japan also got Washington DC to agree to the exception, claiming that the move was aimed at maintaining the energy security of Japan.

The concession outlines just how dependent Tokyo is on Russia for fossil fuels. WSJ claims that (Western) analysts think this contributed to “a lot of hesitancy” in Tokyo to back the Kiev regime more decisively. It also exposes the political West, which realized that the price cap was essentially meaningless and was put together hastily in a way it doesn’t actually have any negative impact on Russian energy exports, serving as a symbolic attempt to maintain the illusion of the power of Western sanctions.

However, the ongoing energy costs surge means that unless the illegal price cap is lifted, the political West is very close to “shooting itself in the foot”. In fact, unlike most European/Western countries that are claiming to have reduced their reliance on Russian energy, Japan has actually increased its import of Russian natural gas in 2022. Apparently, Tokyo is also the only G-7 member that is yet to supply lethal weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta, while Prime Minister Fumio Kishida was the last G-7 leader to visit Kiev after the start of the SMO (special military operation). The move was widely seen as a futile attempt to mirror the much more consequential meeting between Vladimir  Putin and Xi Jinping. Luckily for Japan, the Kishidа government still hasn’t changed its stance on transferring so-called “lethal aid” to the Kiev regime.

This is crucial for the country’s economy, as in the first two months of 2023 alone, Japan bought approximately 750,000 barrels of Russian oil for a total of ¥6.9 billion (Japanese yen), according to official trade statistics. At the current exchange rate, that is close to $52 million or just under $70 a barrel, which is over 16% higher than the fantasy price cap the political West’s leaders were boasting about and how it “limited Russia’s revenues”. And while Tokyo rejects the notion that it’s so dependent on Russia for its energy security, the fact that it asked its US overlords for a price cap exemption is a testament to that. However, the mainstream propaganda machine is still adamant that Japan is an “avid supporter of Ukrainian democracy and freedom”.

Still, this is no more than empty rhetoric, as the oil purchases authorized by Washington DC are a significant break from the declared “red lines” on the illegal Russian energy price cap, which currently stands at $60 per barrel for Russian crude oil. Last year, Japan was granted an exception to the cap by September 30 for oil purchased from the Sakhalin-2 project in Russia’s Far East. An official of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said that Tokyo wanted to ensure access to Sakhalin-2’s main product, natural gas, which is liquefied and then shipped to Japan. “We have done this with an eye toward having a stable supply of energy for Japan,” the official said. Tokyo has also been a major contributor to the project which was originally aimed at Japan’s energy security.

The unnamed official stated that a small quantity of crude oil is also being extracted alongside natural gas at Sakhalin-2 and needs to be sold to ensure LNG (liquefied natural gas) production continues. “The price is decided by negotiations between the two parties,” he said. Russia accounts for approximately 10% of Tokyo’s LNG imports, most of it from Sakhalin-2, while Japanese imports of natural gas in 2022 were 4.6% greater than in 2021. Tokyo seems to be trying to avoid Germany’s fate, as Berlin, which relied on Moscow for 55% of its natural-gas imports in previous years, has been completely cut off from Russian natural gas through self-imposed embargoes and US terrorist attacks on both Nord Stream pipelines.

As Germany has replaced its reliance on much cheaper Russian gas with US LNG shipments, which are significantly more expensive, this is taking a toll on the already struggling German economy. Many US experts and policymakers are upset that Japan is refusing to do the same. “It’s not as if Japan can’t manage without this. They can. They simply don’t want to,” James Brown, a professor at Temple University’s Japan campus claims. Brown wants Tokyo to withdraw from the Sakhalin projects to show “they’re really serious about supporting Ukraine”. However, Tokyo is extremely reluctant to exit a project in which it has invested substantial resources and that has been ensuring its energy security since the 1990s.

However, what the US political establishment is afraid of is that others will soon follow Japan’s example. Once the Russian Urals surges past $60 per barrel, others will be affected by potential sanctions, meaning that Washington DC and Brussels will need to do some explaining on how and why Japan is allowed to buy Russian oil while being unaffected by the price cap, but they can’t. As a result, the affected countries will not only start distancing themselves from the West politically, but also economically and financially, as paying $70 or even $80 per barrel for Russian crude is a very tempting alternative to the more expensive Saudi or Norwegian oil.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Let us recall  his “Beyond Vietnam” speech delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” 

2022-2023:  Today the Voice of MLK prevails. That statement describes what we’re living today.

We are at the crossroads of the most serious economic and social crisis in World history.

The Legacy of Martin Luther King lives. He describes the true nature of “crimes against humanity”

“To save the soul of America.” 

His commitment is to the grassroots of humanity Worldwide, in an act of solidarity.

M.Ch. April 4, 2023

***

 

“A time comes when silence is betrayal.” 

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King
4 April 1967

Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud:

Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King?

Why are you joining the voices of dissent?

Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say.

Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask?

And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church — the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate — leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.

Martin Luther King leads  demonstration on March 28, 1968, Memphis.

Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

The Importance of Vietnam

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision.

There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America.

A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings.

Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.

So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.

We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked — and rightly so — what about Vietnam?

They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath–
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission — a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for “the brotherhood of man.”

This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men — for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative?

Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the “Vietcong” or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Strange Liberators

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not “ready” for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.

Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators — our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change — especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy — and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us — not their fellow Vietnamese –the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go — primarily women and children and the aged.

They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one “Vietcong”-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them — mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform?

What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village.

We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only non-Communist revolutionary political force — the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon.

We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?

Now there is little left to build on — save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.

Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front — that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the south?

What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of “aggression from the north” as if there were nothing more essential to the war?

How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket name?

What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part?

They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them — the only party in real touch with the peasants.

They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the north, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust.

To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again.

When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.

This Madness Must Cease

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam.

I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:

“Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government.

Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary.

Protesting The War

Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation.

They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution.

During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military “advisors” in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala.

It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said,

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken — the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.

On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway.

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: “This is not just.”

It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: “This is not just.”

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: “This way of settling differences is not just.”

This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

The People Are Important

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born.

The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before.

“The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.”

We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries.

This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated.

Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.

With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain.”

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men.

This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept — so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force — has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:

Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate.

History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says :

“Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.”

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late.

Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The “tide in the affairs of men” does not remain at the flood; it ebbs.

We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect.

“The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on…” We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world — a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin.

Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter — but beautiful — struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets?

Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah,
Off’ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet ’tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

No Assassinations, Period.  When Gerald R. Ford, James E. Carter, Jr., and Ronald W. Reagan were presidents of the United States of America, they issued Executive Orders prohibiting U.S. government employees from engaging in assassination.

Gerald R. Ford:  Executive Order 11905—Section (g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

James E.  Carter, Jr.:  Executive Order 12036—Section 2-305. Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Ronald W. Reagan:  Executive Order 12333—Section 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

These Executive Orders are still in force.

Executive orders are similar to statutes. They are the law of the land, and a violation can mean civil sanctions or criminal penalties…

…Executive orders have the same effect as laws created through the legislative process, but they go through a simpler process that often bypasses the legislative branch.

(Source:  Rebecca Pirius, NOLO.COM)

But.  On January 3, 2020, Qassem Soleimani, a general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was assassinated at the Baghdad airport by an American drone, on order of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States and carried out through General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and unknown others.  These were employees of the American government.  Besides murder, this was an act of war against the Republic of Iraq.

While none of the previously listed Executive Orders prohibiting assassination have penalties listed for violation of those commands, it is reasonable to assume that the consequences for the Common Law crime of murder would apply.  I.e., death or life imprisonment.  Since Trump, Milley, and the unknown others have not been adjudged insane or lacking in mental capacity, they have no safe harbor from capital punishment or being jailed forever.

Who Condemned This Action As Unlawful?

Only one person, Agnes Callemard, UN Special Rapporteur for Extra-Judicial Killings.  According to BBC News, July 9, 2020, she said:  “the US had not provided sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to life to justify the attack.”

Continuing, the BBC noted “Her report says the US had provided no evidence that showed Soleimani specifically was planning an imminent attack against US interests, particularly in Iraq, for which immediate action was necessary and would have been justified. Major General Soleimani was in charge of Iran military strategy, and actions, in Syria and Iraq. But absent an actual imminent threat to life, the course of action taken by the US was unlawful.”  Moreover, “The drone strike therefore constituted an “arbitrary killing” for which the US is responsible under international human rights law, according to the report.”

Donald Trump’s response?  Mr. Trump said he ordered the strike “to stop a war” between the U.S. and Iran.  In his violation of existing Executive Orders on assassination, he nearly started one.

The State Department’s reaction?  “It takes a special kind of intellectual dishonesty to issue a report condemning the United States for acting in self-defense while whitewashing General Soleimani’s notorious past as one of the world’s deadliest terrorists,” State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said on Wednesday.  “This tendentious and tedious report undermines human rights by giving a pass to terrorists and it proves once again why America was right to leave” the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, she added.”

The Congressional reaction?  Typical huffing and puffing without results.

NBC News reported:

Democrats on Sunday [January 5, 2020] demanded answers about the killing of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an imminent threat.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC’s “This Week” that he worried that President Donald Trump’s decision “will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East.” He called for Congress to “assert” its authority and prevent Trump from “either bumbling or impulsively getting us into a major war.”

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was “imminent” were simply not enough.

“I think we learned the hard way…in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes manipulate and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals,” he said.

“That’s what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD,” or weapons of mass destruction, he said. “I’m saying that they have an obligation to present the evidence.”

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that until the administration provides answers on “how this decision was reached…then this move is questionable, to say the least.”

“I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game,” he said. “Lives are at stake right now.”

However, more to the point, Benjamin B. Ferencz (aged 99), and chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials [1946-1949], wrote the New York Times, saying “The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had ‘taken out’ (which really means ‘murdered’) an important military leader of a country with which we were not at war.  As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.”

Iran’s Reaction?

On January 2, 2022, Al Jazeera noted “Iran has called on the United Nations to take formal action against the United States for the assassination of its top general two years ago…In a letter to the UN General Assembly published late on Saturday, the legal department of Iran’s presidential office called for “all legal initiatives in its power, including issuing a resolution” to condemn the US government and discourage similar moves in the future.  The letter said US governments have, for years, displayed an “excessive unilateralism” in their actions that has granted them the power to violate international laws and agreements.”

After the Islamic Republic launched a flurry of rockets against U.S. positions in Iran, following Soleimani’s murder, the Middle East Eye wrote on January 15, 2020, “Tehran is reserving its potential next move for US allies in the region, such as the UAE and Israel…. Iran’s retaliation thus far has achieved two primary purposes: firstly, to show that if Soleimani’s elimination aimed to deter Tehran, it failed; and secondly, to comfort a public distressed by the loss of its “national hero”.   It would be ideal if the story ended here. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the Iranian response is truly concluded. It may unfold for years through asymmetric, hybrid warfare targeting US troops in the Middle East, as outlined by one of Tehran’s most important partners, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

But What Do the Iranian People Think? 

They were, by turns, outraged and saddened.  CNN commented January 8, 2020, “The final burial had originally been set for Tuesday [January 7], but the ceremony was delayed due to the massive crowds. Tens of thousands of people poured onto the streets in Kerman on [that day]…Large crowds gathered around Soleimani’s coffin, kneeling before it and laying flowers on top. Many clasped their hands together in prayer and bowed before the casket, openly weeping.”  As the Iranian press reported, January 3, 2023, “From Baghdad to Kerman, the birthplace of General Soleimani, tens of thousands of people participated in ceremonies for the commemoration of the third anniversary of the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, the late commander of the IRGC Quds Force.”  On that same day, PressTV addedPeople gathered in the southeastern city of Kerman, General Soleimani’s hometown, to pay tribute to the iconic commander.  Similar ceremonies were also held in the Iranian capital, Tehran, and other cities, including Esfahan, Yazd, Birjand, Rasht, Shahr-e Kord and Arak.”

Crowds At Soleimani Funeral

When I journeyed to Kerman, I visited both Soleimani’s former house and his grave in the Martyrs’ Cemetery there. There was an enormous number of people honoring him and grieving over both him and others who died resisting American wars in the region.  In fact, according to General Soleimani’s wishes, his home is much enlarged and functions as a shrine to him and also as a religious center.

Soleimani Grave (in white) at Keman Martyrs Cemetery. Photo: J. Michael Springmann

Crowd Around Soleimani’s Grave. Photo: J. Mchael Springmann

Afghan Women Mourning Their Dead at the Martyrs Cemetery (Photo: J. Michael Springmann)

General Soleimani’s Much-Enlarged House in Kerman (Photo: J. Michael Springmann)

And the Threats Go On

The current White House occupant, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is unalterably opposed to Iran and spends far too much time raving about his plans to fight the Islamic Republic.

According to NBC News, March 25, 2023, “President Joe Biden warned Iran on Friday [March 24] that attacks on American troops would be met with retribution after militias launched a series of rocket and drone attacks against [occupation?] coalition bases in Syria… Having tried [?] and so far failed to revive a landmark 2015 nuclear deal abandoned by Trump, the Biden administration has been tightening economic pressure on Iran and has sent a signal that military force remains an option if all other means fail to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”

Al-Monitor remarked March 23,2023 that US Army Gen. Mark Milley [who helped murder Soleimani] told members of Congress on Tuesday that the US should target the Quds Force “harshly” in order to deter future rocket and drone attacks by Iran-backed militias on US troops in Syria and Iraq.

Here’s the “enemy” Biden and Milley are really fighting:

Comment:  For the past three years, America’s puling professional politicians, mostly of the Democrat variety, as well as the presstitutes of the U.S. “news” media have pilloried Donald J. Trump.  They did not do this because he, with malice aforethought, murdered Qassem Soleimani, but, rather, failed to yield up his past tax returns.  Additionally, he was, without any proof, “guilty” of encouraging a demonstration that caused minor damage to the U.S. Capitol Building. This so-called “insurrection” enabled a Capitol policeman to kill, with impunity, a protester questioning the 2020 general election results.  Other “crimes” of which Trump is supposedly culpable are his attacks on prosecutors investigating various alleged illegal activities, including paying off a woman he had had sex with.

The silence of all and sundry about his accountability for the greatest crime of all, the murder of an innocent man, is more than astonishing.

It is proof that the United States is not a democratic republic based on law.  Rather, it is a country centered on identity politics, regional hatreds, and attacks on anyone who supports the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.  It is governed not by officials elected by the people but, rather, by politicians subservient to parochial interests and big business.  Moreover, it is a country that cannot provide basic human necessities:  good jobs, decent housing, proper nutrition, and universal health care.  It is even unable to end the 75-year-old perpetual war against the rest of the world that now threatens America’s total destruction.

Astonishingly enough, the U.S. government doesn’t attack these problems but spends its time looking for ways to attack Iran and the Iranian people. Quo vadimus?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In January 2022, when yields on US 10-year Treasury bonds were still roughly 1% and those on German Bunds were -0.5%, I warned that inflation would be bad for both stocks and bonds. Higher inflation would lead to higher bond yields, which in turn would hurt stocks as the discount factor for dividends rose. But, at the same time, higher yields on “safe” bonds would imply a fall in their price, too, owing to the inverse relationship between yields and bond prices.

This basic principle – known as “duration risk” – seems to have been lost on many bankers, fixed-income investors, and bank regulators.

As rising inflation in 2022 led to higher bond yields, ten-year Treasuries lost more value (-20%) than the S&P 500 (-15%), and anyone with long-duration fixed-income assets denominated in dollars or euros was left holding the bag.

The consequences for these investors have been severe. By the end of 2022, US banks’ unrealized losses on securities had reached US$620 billion, about 28% of their total capital (US$2.2 trillion).

Making matters worse, higher interest rates have reduced the market value of banks’ other assets as well. If you make a ten-year bank loan when long-term interest rates are 1%, and those rates then rise to 3.5%, the true value of that loan (what someone else in the market would pay you for it) will fall.

Accounting for this implies that US banks’ unrealized losses actually amount to US$1.75 trillion, or 80% of their capital.

The “unrealized” nature of these losses is merely an artifact of the current regulatory regime, which allows banks to value securities and loans at their face value rather than at their true market value. In fact, judging by the quality of their capital, most US banks are technically near insolvency, and hundreds are already fully insolvent.

To be sure, rising inflation reduces the true value of banks’ liabilities (deposits) by increasing their “deposit franchise”, an asset that is not on their balance sheet. Since banks still pay near 0% on most of their deposits, even though overnight rates have risen to 4% or more, this asset’s value rises when interest rates are higher. Indeed, some estimates suggest that rising interest rates have increased US banks’ total deposit franchise value by about US$1.75 trillion.

But this asset exists only if deposits remain with banks as rates rise, and we now know from Silicon Valley Bank and the experience of other US regional banks that such stickiness is far from assured. If depositors flee, the deposit franchise evaporates, and the unrealized losses on securities become realized as banks sell them to meet withdrawal demands. Bankruptcy then becomes unavoidable.

Moreover, the “deposit-franchise” argument assumes that most depositors are dumb and will keep their money in accounts bearing near 0% interest when they could be earning 4% or more in totally safe money-market funds that invest in short-term treasuries. But, again, we now know that depositors are not so complacent. The current, apparently persistent flight of uninsured – and even insured – deposits is probably being driven as much by depositors’ pursuit of higher returns as by their concerns about the safety of their deposits.

In short, after being a non-factor for the last 15 years – ever since policy and short-term interest rates fell to near-zero following the 2008 global financial crisis – the interest-rate sensitivity of deposits has returned to the fore. Banks assumed a highly foreseeable duration risk because they wanted to fatten their net-interest margins. They seized on the fact that while capital charges on government-bond and mortgage-backed securities were zero, the losses on such assets did not have to be marked to market. To add insult to injury, regulators did not even subject banks to stress tests to see how they would fare in a scenario of sharply rising interest rates

Now that this house of cards is collapsing, the credit crunch caused by today’s banking stress will create a harder landing for the real economy, owing to the key role that regional banks play in financing small and medium-size enterprises and households.

Central banks therefore face not just a dilemma but a trilemma. Owing to recent negative aggregate supply shocks – such as the pandemic and the war in Ukraine – achieving price stability through interest rate hikes was bound to raise the risk of a hard landing (a recession and higher unemployment). But, as I have been arguing for over a year, this vexing trade-off also features the additional risk of severe financial instability.

Borrowers are facing rising rates – and thus much higher capital costs – on new borrowing and on existing liabilities that have matured and need to be rolled over. But the increase in long-term rates is also leading to massive losses for creditors holding long-duration assets. As a result, the economy is falling into a “debt trap,” with high public deficits and debt causing “fiscal dominance” over monetary policy, and high private debts causing “financial dominance” over monetary and regulatory authorities.

As I have long warned, central banks confronting this trilemma will likely wimp out (by curtailing monetary-policy normalization) to avoid a self-reinforcing economic and financial meltdown, and the stage will be set for a de-anchoring of inflation expectations over time. Central banks must not delude themselves into thinking they can still achieve both price and financial stability through some kind of separation principle (raising rates to fight inflation while also using liquidity support to maintain financial stability). In a debt trap, higher policy rates will fuel systemic debt crises that liquidity support will be insufficient to resolve.

Central banks also must not assume that the coming credit crunch will kill inflation by reining in aggregate demand. After all, the negative aggregate supply shocks are persisting, and labour markets remain too tight. A severe recession is the only thing that can temper price and wage inflation, but it will make the debt crisis more severe, and that in turn will feed back into an even deeper economic downturn. Since liquidity support cannot prevent this systemic doom loop, everyone should be preparing for the coming stagflationary debt crisis.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Nouriel Roubini is a professor emeritus of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, the chief economist at Atlas Capital Team, CEO of Roubini Macro Associates and co-founder of TheBoomBust.com.

Featured image is from MarketWatch

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Coming Doom Loop: Near Insolvency of US banks. The Economy is Falling into a “Debt Trap”

Executive Order Lays Foundation for Lab-Created Foods

April 4th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.” This executive order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government. Similar legislation has been introduced in the U.K.

In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report. According to this plan, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods

Rather than investing taxpayer dollars in regenerative agriculture, which is what could really solve our problems, government is instead backing a whole new industry of fake foods, from lab-grown meats to large-scale insect production

Two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have now received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S.

Meanwhile, a Food Hazards Identification report by the British Food standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are “considerable gaps in knowledge” when it comes to cell-based meat production, and many potential hazards

*

September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”1

This executive order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government. As noted in this order, biotechnology will also be used to “improve” food security, sustainability, and agricultural innovation in the U.S.:

“The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources.”

Support of Bioengineered Fake Food Is Now White House Policy

In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report.2 According to this plan, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods.

In the featured video above, I discuss this rapidly advancing trend, and the true geopolitical incentives behind it, because the U.S. is not alone in moving in this direction. A similar plan is detailed in the U.K.’s Genetic Technology and Precision Breeding Act of 2023.3 Specific goals highlighted in Biden’s “Bold Goals” report include:4

  • Increasing agricultural productivity by 28% in the next decade
  • Reducing food waste by 50% by 2030
  • Reducing methane emissions from agriculture by 30% by 2030 by:

1. Capturing biogases from manure management systems

2. Reducing methane emissions from ruminant livestock

3. Reducing methane emissions from food waste in landfills

As reported by Food Dive:5

“While advocates and some companies have been working to reduce methane emissions from food, cut down on food waste, increase capacity for producing alternative proteins and use bioengineering to make healthier and hardier crops and animals, goals like these have never before come from the White House …

The federal government is providing more evidence that it intends to do more than just talk about big goals. A day before the report came out, FDA gave its second tacit approval to a company using biotechnology to grow meat from cells in bioreactors.

While neither … is creating meat for consumers yet, this action shows that the federal government is moving toward making cultivated meat a reality.”

Government Supports a Failed Strategy

Among the many problems with this plan is the fact that taxpayers will now be paying for government’s funding of private corporations involved in the fake food industry. The end result is predictable. What we’ll have is a repeat of what happened with farm subsidies.

Rather than subsidizing the most nutritious foods, government farm subsidies go almost exclusively to large monoculture farms growing genetically engineered corn, soy and other basic ingredients used in processed foods. As a result, the processed food industry has grown on our dime while public health has deteriorated.

The same thing will happen here. Instead of investing in regenerative agriculture, which is what could really solve our problems, government is backing a whole new industry of fake foods, from lab-grown meats to large-scale insect production.

Cultivated Meats Get Green-Light

At present, two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S. The first, Upside Foods (previously Memphis Meats), received FDA approval for its cell-based lab-grown chicken in November 2022.6 According to the FDA’s November 14, 2022, memo:7

“We have no questions at this time about UPSIDE’s conclusion that foods comprised of or containing cultured chicken cell material resulting from the production process … are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods.”

Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of Upside Foods, called the approval “a watershed moment in the history of food” and a “major step toward a new era in meat production.” The company has a 53,000-square-foot facility in the San Francisco Bay Area capable of producing 400,000 pounds of fake meat per year.

In March 2023, Eat Just — which has been selling its lab-grown chicken in Singapore since 2020 — also received FDA approval. The company is currently building a commercial-scale facility in the U.S. that will house 10 250,000-liter bioreactors.8 Vítor Espírito Santo, senior director of Eat Just’s cellular agriculture division, told Food Dive:9

“The Singapore approval was a big, big deal. But it’s undeniable that the U.S., the FDA approval, is something that we were looking forward [to] for many years, and I think it’s a big game changer for the industry.

We have two countries now. Hopefully now this keeps happening in more and more jurisdictions, and cultivated meat can become a reality worldwide.”

Safety Data Is Sorely Lacking

While the U.S. government is moving full speed ahead with approvals for lab-grown meats, a Food Hazards Identification report10 by the British Food standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are “considerable gaps in knowledge” when it comes to cell-based meat production. As reported by Food Safety News March 24, 2023:11

“The purpose of the report was to identify hazards in the cultivated meat production process to help inform the FSA risk assessment process for authorization. It was also important that products do not pose any microbiological or chemical concerns. The research was based on a review of scientific literature in 2020.

There was little or no data on the final analytical composition of products, key toxicology data, nutrition profiles, product stability, allergy risk, and any recorded adverse effects when consumed by animals or humans …

The FSA report found there are several stages of development for producing cultured meat and at each one, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives, and supplements are used. The contamination risk of each input needs to be assessed, as any undesirable components that remain in the final product need to be at an acceptable exposure level or be food-grade and safe.”

Examples of Potential Hazards

Potential problem areas identified by the FSA include:12,13

As noted in the report:14

“There are many stages of development for producing cultured meat … from taking a cell line from a small vial or biopsy and increasing the culture volume stepwise in stages (proliferation), until a commercial sized bioreactor can be seeded, to differentiating the cells to final desired cell type.

Then [they are] maturing them, usually on a scaffold, to increase the protein content, and then detaching/grinding the cells with/from their scaffold to produce a final product that can be used to make meat like cells. At each stage, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives and supplements are used to ensure a successful culture.”

Contamination can occur at any of these steps. Each additive also poses potential risks, both known and unknown, as various byproducts are created in the process. In the video above, I review some of the many potential dangers associated with fake meats.

Considering the multistep processing cultivated meats undergo, it’s simply not possible for it to be as safe as conventional meat, where the primary contamination risks are limited to slaughter, processing, packaging, distribution and storage. With fake meats, hazardous contamination can occur at any point during manufacturing, in addition to these conventional “weak points.”

Fake Meat Is Ultraprocessed Greenwashed Junk Food

Synthetic meat is the epitome of ultraprocessed food,15 and it seems naïve to think it won’t have health effects similar to other ultraprocessed junk foods. Obesity,16 Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and depression are but a few examples of conditions known to be promoted and exacerbated by a processed food diet.17,18,19,20,21

Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death. Ultraprocessed foods are also completely counterproductive to environmentally “green” and sustainable goals.

For example, ultraprocessed foods already account for 17% to 39% of total diet-related energy use, 36% to 45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss and up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions.22 So, how is expanding the manufacturing and consumption of even more ultraprocessed foods going to lower greenhouse gas emissions? As noted in a September 2022 Journal of Cleaner Production paper:23

“Ultraprocessed foods are fundamentally unsustainable products; they have been associated with poor health and social outcomes and require finite environmental resources for their production … are responsible for significant diet-related energy, [and] greenhouse gas emissions.”

And, for all the lip service paid to “equity,” increasing consumption of processed foods will actually worsen economic inequalities, as it redirects money away from small farmers and independent homesteaders to transnational corporations that rely on underpaid workers.

Be Part of the Solution

Ultimately, the answer to food safety and food security lies not in a biotech-centered food system that is controlled from the top down, but rather in a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.

Strategies that can get us there were covered in the Children’s Health Defense’s March 4, 2023, Attack on Food symposium (video above). Food Sovereignty was primarily covered in Session 3, which begins at three hours and 45 minutes.

For example, Dr. John Day and Beverly Johannson shared tips on how to grow your own food and preserve the food you grow. Other helpful strategies include buying food from local farmers and farmers markets, and creating independent food hubs that cut out the middlemen.

The final session of the symposium dealt with larger societal solutions to fight back against the war on food. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie highlighted core vulnerabilities in the U.S. food supply, which fell apart during the pandemic when farmers had to euthanize animals because they couldn’t get them processed.

Four meatpackers control 85% of the meat that’s processed in the U.S. One of them is owned by China, one by Brazil and the other two are multinational corporations. Food prices are going up while farmers are going broke. In 2017, Massie introduced the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act,24 but the bill hasn’t moved since its introduction in the House.

The PRIME Act would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards, because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they’re banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.

“If a farmer wants to sell pork, beef or lamb to a consumer, as long as that consumer and that farmer and that processor are all in the same state, they’re not crossing state lines, they keep the federal government out of that transaction,” he said.

Massey has also introduced legislation to protect access to raw milk (HR 4835, the Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 202125).26 The bill was introduced at the end of July 2021, as an amendment to the 2018 Farm bill. Contact your representatives and urge them to support these bills.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes

1 White House Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology September 12, 2022

2, 4 Bold Goals for US Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing March 2023

3 Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023

5 Food Dive March 23, 2023

6 Food Dive November 16, 2022

7 FDA Memo November 14, 2022

8, 9 Food Dive March 21, 2023

10, 12 Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022

11, 13 Food Safety News March 24, 2023

14 Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022, Page 8

15 Friends of the Earth, From Lab to Fork, June 2018 (PDF)

16 Cell Metabolism, 2019; doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008

17 JAMA Internal Medicine February 11, 2019;179(4):490-498

18 BMJ February 14, 2018; 360

19 JAMA 2017;317(9):912-924

20 BMJ, 2019;365:I1451

21 BMJ, 2019;365:l1949

22, 23 Journal of Cleaner Production September 25, 2022; 368: 133155

24 HR 2657 PRIME Act

25 HR4835 Interstate Milk Freedom Act 2021

26 Thomas Massie Press Release July 30, 2021

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Philippines Announces Locations of Four New US Bases

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Did the U.S. Air Force suffer a nuclear weapons accident at an airbase in Europe a few years back?  [Update: After USAFE and LANL initially declined to comment on the picture, a Pentagon spokesperson later clarified that the image is not of an actual nuclear weapons accident but of a training exercise, as cautioned in the second paragraph below. The spokesperson declined to comment on the main conclusion of this article, however, that the image appears to be from inside an aircraft shelter at Volkel Air Base.]

A photo in a Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) student briefing from 2022 shows four people inspecting what appears to be a damaged B61 nuclear bomb. The document does not identify where the photo was taken or when, but it appears to be from inside a Protective Aircraft Shelter (PAS) at Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands.

It must be emphasized up front that there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation).

If the image is indeed from a nuclear weapons accident, it would constitute the first publicly known case of a recent nuclear weapons accident at an airbase in Europe.

Most people would describe a nuclear bomb getting bent as an accident, but U.S. Air Force terminology would likely categorize it as a Bent Spear incident, which is defined as “evident damage to a nuclear weapon or nuclear component that requires major rework, replacement, or examination or re-certification by the Department of Energy.” The U.S. Air Force reserves “accident” for events that involve the destruction or loss of a weapon.

It is not a secret that the U.S. Air Force deploys nuclear weapons in Europe, but it is a secret where they are deployed. Volkel Air Base has stored B61s for decades. I and others have provided ample documentation for this and two former Dutch prime ministers and a defense minister in 2013 even acknowledged the presence of the weapons. Volkel Air Base is one of six air bases in Europe where the U.S. Air Force currently deploys an estimated 100 B61 nuclear bombs in total.

The United States is modernizing its air-delivered nuclear arsenal including in Europe and Volkel and the other air bases in Europe are scheduled to receive the new B61-12 nuclear bomb in the near future.

Image Description

What does the image itself show? It appears to show a damaged B61 nuclear bomb shape strapped to a four-wheel trolly. The rear of the bomb curves significantly to the left and one of four tail fins is missing. There is also pink tape covering possible damage to the rear of the tail. The image first (to my knowledge) appeared in a Los Alamos National Laboratory student briefing published last year that among other topics described the mission of the Accident Response Group (ARG) to provide “world-wide support to the Department of Defense (DoD) in resolving incidents and accidents involving nuclear weapons or components in DoD custody at the time of the event.”

The personnel in the image also tell a story. The two individuals on the floor who appear to be inspecting the exterior damage on the weapon have shoulder pads with the letters EOD, indicating they probably are Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel. According to the U.S. Air Force, “EOD members apply classified techniques and special procedures to lessen or totally remove the hazards created by the presence of unexploded ordnance. This includes conventional military ordnance, criminal and terrorist homemade items, and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”

The person to the left overseeing the operation appears to be holding a folder with red dotted color markings that are similar to color patterns seen on classified documents that have been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (see image to the right). The civilian to the right is possibly from one of the nuclear weapons laboratories. Los Alamos and Sandia both produced components to the B61 bomb.

What caused the damage to the B61 shape is unknown, but it appears to have been a significant force. It could potentially have been hit by a vehicle or bent out of shape by the weapons elevator of the underground storage vault.

Photo Geolocation

There is nothing in the photo itself or the document in which it was published that identify the location, the weapon, when it happened, or what happened. I have searched for the photo in search engines but nothing comes up. However, other photos taken inside Protective Aircraft Shelters (PASs) at Volkel Air Base show features that appear to match those seen in the accident photo.

One of those photos is from April 2022 (the same month the Los Alamos briefing was published), when Dutch princess Catharina-Amalia visited Volkel Air Base and was taken on a flight in one of the F-16s. The Dutch Air Force commander highlighted the visit in a tweet that includes several photos, including one from inside an aircraft shelter. The photo shows the princess with Dutch air force officials including what appear to be the head of the Dutch air force and the commander of the nuclear-tasked 312th squadron at Volkel, an F-16 fighter-bomber, and part of the lid of an underground Weapons Storage System (WS3) vault built to store B61 nuclear bombs (see image below).

The 312th Squadron is part of the Dutch Air Force’s 1st Wing and is equipped with F-16 fighter-bombers with U.S.-supplied hardware and software that make them capable of delivering B61 nuclear bombs that the U.S. Air Force stores in vaults built underneath 11 of the shelters at the base. Dutch pilots receive training to deliver the weapons and the unit is inspected and certified by U.S. and NATO agencies to ensure that they have the skills to employ the bombs if necessary. In peacetime, the bombs are controlled by personnel from the U.S. Air Force’s 703rd Munition Support Squadron (MUNSS) at the base. If the U.S. military recommended using the weapons – and the U.S. president agreed and authorized use, the U.K. Prime Minister agreed as well, and NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) approved – then the weapon would be loaded onto a Dutch F-16 and the strike carried out by a Dutch pilot. Such an operation was rehearsed by the Steadfast Noon exercise in October last year.

One of these pilots (presumably), the commander of the 312th squadron, appeared in a Dutch Air Force video published in February on the one-year anniversary of the (second) Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the video, the commander climbs into the F-16 and puts on his helmet. At first a visor cover can be seen showing an orange-yellow mushroom cloud illustrating a nuclear explosion. However, when the video cuts and the commander turns to face the camera, the nuclear mushroom cloud cover is gone, presumably to avoid sending the wrong message to Russia (see below). The nuclear mushroom visor cover was also seen during the NATO Steadfast Noon exercise at Volkel AB in 2011.

These pictures and videos show features that indicate the B61 nuclear bomb accident picture is from Volkel Air Base. Unlike aircraft shelters at other nuclear bases in Europe, the Dutch shelters have ceilings made up of three flat surfaces: the two sides and the top. The surfaces include unique light fixtures and meet the side walls with unique pipes and grids. Moreover, the shelter wall has a gray structure outline that is very similar to one seen in the video. These different matching features are highlighted in the image below.

Nuclear Accident Management

Nuclear weapon designs such as the B61 are required to be “one-point safe,” which means the weapon must have a probability of less than one in one million of producing a nuclear yield if the chemical high explosives detonate from a single point. But if the weapon is not intact, such as during maintenance work inside a truck inside an aircraft shelter, a U.S. Air Force safety review discovered in 1997 – nearly three decades after the one-point safety requirement was established – that “nuclear detonation may occur” during a lightning storm. Improved lightning protection was quickly installed.

Management of accidents and incidents involving U.S. nuclear weapons at foreign bases is carried out in accordance with national and bilateral arrangements. The United States has held that the 1954 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) relating to the stationing of U.S. armed forces in the Netherlands was sufficient for regulating , but the Dutch government has been pressing for greater consultation in the Netherlands United States Operational Group (NUSOG), a special bilateral a coordinating body established to develop and manage U.S. nuclear weapons accident response plans, procedures, training, and exercises. Disclosure of a dispute in 2008-2009 once more confirmed the presence of nuclear weapons in the Netherlands.

Although nuclear detonation from an accident is unlikely, detonation of the chemical high explosives in the weapon would likely scatter plutonium and other radioactive materials. An accident inside a vault or shelter potentially would have local effect, while pollution from the crash of a C-17A cargo aircraft carrying several weapons could be a lot more extensive. A picture published by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2020 indicates that a single C-17A can carry at least 30 B61 nuclear bombs (see image below). That means that all the 10-15 B61 bombs estimated to be stored at Volkel Air Base could be moved in just one flight.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from FAS

Covering (Up) Antiwar Protest in US Media

April 4th, 2023 by Dave Lindorff

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In the early morning of March 20, 2003, US Navy bombers on aircraft carriers and Tomahawk missile-launching vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, along with Air Force B-52s in Britain and B-2s in Diego Garcia, struck Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in a “Shock and Awe” blitzkrieg to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and occupy that oil-rich country.

Twenty years on, the US news media, as is their habit with America’s wars, published stories looking back at that war and its history (FAIR.org, 3/22/23), most of them treading lightly around the rank illegality of the US attack, a war crime that was not approved by the UN Security Council, and was not a response to any imminent Iraqi threat to the US, as required by the UN Charter.

Oddly, none of those national media organizations’ editors saw as relevant or remotely newsworthy a groundbreaking protest rally and march outside the White House of at least 2,500–3,000 people on Saturday, March 18, 2023, called by a coalition of over 200 peace and anti-militarism organizations to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

The Washington Post, like the rest of the national news media, failed to mention or even run a photo of the rally in Lafayette Park. It didn’t even cover the peaceful and spirited march from the front of the White House along Pennsylvania and New York avenues to the K Street Washington Post building to deliver several black coffins as a local story—despite the paper’s having a reporter whose beat is actually described by Post as being to “to cover protests and general assignments for the metro desk.” An email request to this reporter, Ellie Silverman, asking why this local protest in DC went unreported did not get a response.

National press a no-show

The rally, organized by the ANSWER Coalition and sponsors such as Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Black Alliance for Peace and Radical Elders, drew “several thousand” antiwar, anti-military protesters, according to ANSWER Coalition national director Brian Becker. He said the demonstration’s endorsers were calling for peace negotiations and an end to US arms for Ukraine, major cuts in the US military budget, an end to the US policy of endless wars, and freedom for Julian Assange and Indigenous prisoner Leonard Peltier.

Becker said that the coalition had a media team that spent two weeks on phones and computers, reaching out to national and local media organizations, including in the seven or eight other cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, that held rallies on the same day. “Not a single member of the national press even showed up,” he said.

Two local Washington TV stations (CBS and ABC affiliates) did do brief stories on the rally and march, but Google and Nexis searches turned up not a single major mainstream national news report on the event, though it was the second, and significantly larger, antiwar demonstration in Washington in just four weeks, and the first by specifically left-wing peace and antiwar organizations. (The first rally, on February 19, called “Rage Against the War Machine,” organized primarily by libertarians and some left-wing opponents of the US proxy war with Russia, did get a mention in the conservative Washington Times (2/19/23) and promotion a day before the event by right-wing Fox News host Tucker Carlson (2/17/22).

“We talked to reporters and gave them details about our planning events during the two weeks before the march—the kinds of things that journalists years back used to like to attend to hear what the activists were saying and thinking, but nobody showed up from the media at those sessions,” says Becker. “I guess those who make the decisions about assignments and coverage didn’t want this event covered.”

Shift from the ’60s

FAIR founder Jeff Cohen noted a shift from the way peace demonstrations were covered in the 1960s. “Even a few hundred antiwar protesters at a local anti-Vietnam War march would get local news coverage,” he recalled:

We weren’t ignored, but every participant complained about the quality of the coverage that so often focused on the length of men’s hair, length of women’s skirts, usage of four-letter words, etc. and not substantive critique of war or US foreign policy. National protests in DC got significant national coverage, but not friendly coverage.

Cohen contrasted this with antiwar protests in recent decades, which have frequently been snubbed by media. “I think the ignoring of local and even national antiwar marches kicked in during the mid- and late 1980s around movements opposing US intervention in Central America,” he said.

Noam Chomsky (who knows from personal experience the sensation of being virtually blacklisted by corporate media) was a speaker at the March 18 event. Asked to explain this latest blackout of antiwar sentiment and opposition to military aid to Ukraine, he responded, “Par for the course.” He added, “Media rarely stray far from the basic framework imposed by systems of power, as FAIR has been effectively documenting for many years.”

Filling the hole

Fortunately, alternative media, which have proliferated online, are filling in the hole in protest coverage, though of course readers and viewers have to seek out those sources of information. There was a news report on the march in Fightback News (3/23/23), for example, and commentary on the World Socialist Web Site (3/21/23) and Black Agenda Report (2/22/23).

Foreign coverage of the March 18 antiwar event in the US was substantial, which should embarrass editors at US news organizations. Some foreign coverage, considering that it appeared in state-owned or partially state-owned media, were surprisingly professional. Read, for example, the report by Xinhua (3/19/23), China’s government-owned news service, or one in Al Myadeen (3/18/23), the Lebanese satellite news service, which reportedly favors Syria and Hezbollah.

It’s rather disturbing to find such foreign news outfits, not just covering news that is being hidden from Americans by their own vaunted and supposedly “free” press, but doing it more straightforwardly than US corporate media often do when they actually report on protests against US government policy.

Efforts to get either the Washington Post or New York Times to explain their airbrushing out the March 18 antiwar protest in Washington were unsuccessful. (Both publications have eliminated their news ombud offices, citing “budget issues.”)

Fortunately Patrick Pexton, the last ombud at the Washington Post, who now teaches journalism at Johns Hopkins University, and writes on media, foreign and defense policy, and politics and society, offered this emailed observation about the March 18 demonstration blackout:

I confess that I am surprised no major national news organization covered it. I know that some people look down their noses at Code Pink and ANSWER Coalition, and journalists generally are supportive of the Ukraine War, but the demonstrators have a legitimate point of view, and my general personal rule is that anytime you get 1,000 people to turn out to protest something, you should at the very least do a local story about it. I don’t know what the Post rules are today.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from FAIR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

If our banking system can’t find a way to turn things around, our entire economy will soon be in a world of hurt.  When banks get into trouble, they start getting really tight with their money. That means fewer mortgages, fewer commercial real estate loans, fewer auto loans and fewer credit cards being issued. So it should greatly concern all of us that U.S. banks are bleeding deposits at an absolutely staggering pace right now. During the week ending March 15th, 98.4 billion dollars was pulled out of U.S. banks.  That was really bad, but we just learned that things got even worse the next week.  During the week ending March 22nd, 126 billion dollars was pulled out of U.S. banks…

Depositors drained another $126 billion from U.S. banks during the week ending March 22, according to new Federal Reserve data. This time the outflow came from the nation’s largest institutions.

But this banking crisis did not begin in March as many have been led to believe.

Over the past year, well over a trillion dollars has been pulled out of U.S. banks, and this has created a tremendous amount of financial stress

The challenge the deposit outflows create for all banks is that if they raise rates on their deposits to keep customers, that could make them less profitable. But if they lose too many customers, as Silicon Valley Bank did, they give up critical funding and may have to sell assets at a loss to cover withdrawals.

Silicon Valley Bank customers withdrew $42 billion in one day, leaving the bank with a negative cash balance of $958 million.

When lots of depositors start pulling their money out, banks can be forced to sell assets in order to have enough cash.

Unfortunately, U.S. banks are sitting on a giant mountain of unrealized losses right now.

Previously, it was being reported that U.S. banks are facing unrealized losses of 620 billion dollars on the bonds that they are holding due to rapidly rising interest rates, but now we are being told that it is actually 780 billion dollars.

And when you throw in unrealized losses on their loan portfolios, the unrealized losses that our banks are facing come to a grand total of somewhere around 1.7 trillion dollars

A study released on March 13th took a deeper look at the unrealized losses banks were likely holding. The study found that actual losses to banks’ security holdings were $780 billion, not $620 billion as estimated by the FDIC.

But the authors went deeper, rightly noting, “Loans, like securities, also lose value when interest rates go up.”

They found that total unrealized losses as of December 2022 were $1.7 trillion. In a chilling warning, the authors noted that “the losses from the interest rate increase are comparable to the total equity in the entire banking system.” We’re not out of this banking crisis. In fact, it may be just the beginning.

Ouch.

The Federal Reserve was warned not to raise interest rates so quickly.

But they did, and now they have broken our entire banking system.

In fact, Nouriel Roubini is warning that “most U.S. banks are technically near insolvency” at this stage…

Roubini also points out that the rise in interest rates has led to a decrease in the market value of banks’ other assets, and when accounting for these factors, U.S. banks’ unrealized losses actually amount to $1.75 trillion, or 80% of their capital.

According to Roubini, the “unrealized” nature of these losses stems from the current regulatory regime, which allows banks to value securities and loans at their face value rather than their true market value.

He asserts that most U.S. banks are technically near insolvency

We are in far more trouble than most people realize.

The truth is that we are not just heading into a “recession”.

What we are potentially facing is a meltdown of the entire system, and it is going to take quite a while for this crisis to fully play out.

But even now, symptoms are starting to erupt all around us.

For example, McDonald’s just decided to close all of their U.S. offices while they decide which of their employees still get to work for them…

McDonald’s is closing its U.S. offices for a few days this week as the company prepares to inform employees about layoffs as part of a broader restructuring, according to a report.

The Chicago-based burger chain said in an internal email that U.S. corporate employees and some staff abroad should work from home while the company notifies people of their job status virtually, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

Like so many other big companies are doing these days, McDonald’s is going to be laying off people by email.

What a horrible thing to do.

Of course when people get laid off they can respond very emotionally, and confrontations between management and those that have been fired can get pretty intense.

So informing people that they are terminated when they are out of the office is a way to avoid messy situations.  But I still think that it is a really heartless thing to do.

There is so little loyalty in the corporate world today.  You can pour your heart and soul into a company for decades, and then one day some numbers cruncher comes along and suddenly decides that you have become expendable.

We have seen so many layoffs in recent months, and many more are on the way.

And at this point a whopping 72 percent of all Americans believe that the economy is getting worse…

A new survey shows that 83% of American adults view current economic conditions as “only fair” or “poor,” reported Gallup. In addition, 72% think economic conditions are getting “worse.”

Unfortunately, what most people don’t realize is that what we have been through so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

All of the bubbles have started to burst, and our entire system is beginning to tremble violently.

So I would encourage you to hold on tight, because we have got a very bumpy ride ahead of us.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. 

It is finally here! Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

Featured image is from TECB

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A petition calling for Ukraine to possess nuclear weapons has once again appeared on the website of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although it appeared on Zelensky’s website, it is still not known who is behind the petition and whether it even has widespread support among ordinary Ukrainian people – the first indications are that it does not.

The text of the petition states that “Ukraine does not necessarily have nuclear weapons, but since the signatories (of the earlier agreement on the non-nuclear status of Ukraine) directly violate the agreements, Ukraine has the right to regain nuclear status and obtain the status of a nuclear state.”

“Deploy US nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory or turn Ukraine into a state with its own nuclear weapons,” the initiative’s author proposes.

The initiative was published on March 27 and has three months to collect 25,000 signatures to receive official review from Zelensky’s office. After several days it has only garnered over 1,000 signatories, an incredibly low number for a country of about 40 million people.

The petition, which any Ukrainian citizen can make online, is another attempt by Kiev to put psychological pressure on Russia. It is likely that the petition was not made by an ordinary citizen, but rather by the Kiev regime itself.

Zelensky has continually begged the West for an endless supply of weapons. The Ukrainian president himself declared that he wanted nuclear weapons, which is why the petition is likely from someone within his circles. The task of this petition is to show how the Ukrainian people allegedly want nuclear weapons to be deployed in Ukraine, something which has so far failed.

At the same time though, Washington fears nuclear proliferation. The US is afraid to entrust such weapons to the Kiev regime, which behaves irresponsibly even though it is under the control of Washington and Brussels. If Kiev gets its hands on nuclear weapons, it is not excluded that it will try to provoke a nuclear conflict, and for all of Washington’s aggression and provocation, it is afraid of such a scenario. However, Zelensky and his advisors like to play dangerous games.

The deployment of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses a great risk to Washington. Nuclear weapons are not the same as light strategic weapons, which is why the Americans are only thinking about supplying Kiev with Himars missiles and the Patriot air defence system. If Zelensky attains nuclear weapons, it could lead to World War 3, which is why the West will not agree to such a scenario.

It is recalled that in 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, renouncing the stockpile of nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for other countries ensuring its security. With the Budapest Memorandum on Security Guarantees, Ukraine joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The agreement was signed on December 5, 1994 by representatives of the USA, Russia, Britain, and Ukraine. However, in February 2022, Zelensky announced that he would start negotiations to review the memorandum.

Zelensky will explore this avenue and will try to use the petition as a legitimising factor, but it does raise the question on why he ignores calls for him to resign or cease hostilities. In fact, when such petitions are put on the president’s website, they often disappear.

For her part, Izumi Nakamitsu, UN high representative for disarmament affairs, said on March 31: “The risk of a nuclear weapon being used is currently higher than at any time since the depths of the Cold War. The war in Ukraine represents the most acute example of that risk.”

Nakamitsu added that the lack of dialogue and the erosion of the disarmament and arms control agreements combined with dangerous rhetoric and veiled threats could potentially lead to nuclear escalation, but she does not directly call out Ukraine for its petition and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said a day after the petition was published that his country could host intercontinental nuclear missiles. Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia clarified that Moscow would not transfer nuclear weapons to Belarus but “operational tactical missile complexes” which will be under Russian control and not in violation of any international obligations.

Nebenzia also highlighted that Washington destroyed key arms control agreements and denounced American tactical nuclear weapons deployed in other NATO countries, which is a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In short, Ukraine is unlikely to be permitted to attain nuclear weapons, and Russia will not strike first with its arsenal. None-the-less, it will not stop the Kiev regime from using cheap tricks to try and acquire them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Le Campagne Militari Us/Nato Dal 1991 Ad Oggi

April 4th, 2023 by Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti

Tutti gli articoli di Global Research possono essere letti in 51 lingue attivando il pulsante Traduci sito web sotto il nome dell’autore.

Per ricevere la newsletter quotidiana di Global Research (articoli selezionati), fare clic qui.

Fare clic sul pulsante di condivisione qui sopra per inviare via e-mail/fornire questo articolo ad amici e colleghi. Seguiteci su Instagram e Twitter e iscrivetevi al nostro canale Telegram. Sentitevi liberi di ripubblicare e condividere gli articoli di Global Research.

***

Prima di affrontare il racconto delle campagne militari, che hanno infestato gli ultimi trent’anni fino ad oggi, è necessario ricordare tre fatti all’origine di queste guerre.

Nel 1944 settantaquattro gerarchi nazisti, consci della fine della Germania ma decisi a salvare l’ideale nazista dalla catastrofe, fondano l’organizzazione O.D.SS.A. Il loro intento è di emigrare, e in qualsiasi stato in cui si stabilissero impegnarsi in società, amministrazioni, partiti a qualsiasi livello e filtrare il pensiero nazista. Molti di loro furono assorbiti nei servizi US per la loro esperienza dell’Unione Sovietica e inseriti nei dipartimenti delle varie Agenzie. La loro visione ha indubbiamente influenzato trasversalmente la politica statunitense.

Nel 1977 un gruppo di intellettuali liberal, i futuri neo conservatori, fra i quali personaggi che avrebbero fatto parte in seguito del governo di Bush jr come Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld e Jeb Bush o Francis Fukuyama, concepiscono un progetto che condivide molti tratti ideologici con O.D.SS.A:

“La storia del XX secolo avrebbe dovuto insegnarci che è importante plasmare le circostanze prima che le crisi emergano e affrontare le minacce prima che diventino tragiche. La storia di questo secolo avrebbe dovuto insegnarci ad abbracciare la causa di una leadership americana…. stabilire una presenza strategica militare in tutto il mondo attraverso una rivoluzione tecnologica in ambito militare, scoraggiare l’emergere di qualsiasi super potenza competitiva, lanciare attacchi preventivi contro qualsiasi potere che minacci gli interessi americani”.

Queste sono le linee del PNAC (Project for a New American Century). I fondatori del progetto si riveleranno in seguito legati al petrolio e alle industrie d’armi, quindi al Complesso Industriale-Militare che, con la fine della Presidenza del Gen. Eisenhower, aveva assunto un potere tale da influire sulla politica del governo e del presidente in carica.

L’ex leader sovietico Mikhail Gorbaciov e il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Ronald Reagan firmano un importante trattato per il controllo delle armi nucleari nel 1987. (Foto: Ufficio fotografico della Casa Bianca/Amministrazione nazionale degli archivi e dei registri)

L’ultima data chiave è l’8 dicembre 1987 quando il Presidente Ronald Reagan e il Presidente URSS Michail Gorbachev firmano il Trattato INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – Trattato sulle forze nucleari a medio raggio). Si apre una fase importante, un periodo nuovo, la fine della guerra fredda e l’apertura della Cortina di ferro. Gorbachev viene rassicurato: la NATO non arriverà mai alle frontiere russe, e viene insignito del Nobel per la Pace. Il mondo tira un sospiro di sollievo ma è solo una lunga pausa illusoria.

Gli Stati Uniti sono la sola potenza mondiale e intendono sfruttare la situazione e realizzare il progetto per il loro secolo nuovo.

Infatti si preparano ad attaccare l’Iraq indipendente, troppo ricco in petrolio e con una popolazione evoluta. (Nel 1989 il valore del dinaro rispetto al dollaro era di 1IQD a 1. 365 $.)

Il 5 novembre 1990 il Congresso americano, approva la legge 101-513 sugli stanziamenti per le Operazioni estere nella quale non solo si prevedono i costi dell’attacco all’Iraq, ma anche la fine della Jugoslavia. Una sezione della legge prevede il taglio entro sei mesi, di qualsiasi aiuto, credito, prestito dagli USA alla Jugoslavia. Inoltre si impongono elezioni libere e separate in ciascuna delle sei Repubbliche costitutive, e sia le procedure che i risultati delle elezioni avrebbero dovuto ottenere l’approvazione del Dipartimento di Stato: solo dopo questi adempimenti il sostegno economico avrebbe potuto essere reintrodotto, ma non più nei confronti del governo centrale, bensì solo delle singole repubbliche, e solo se governate da forze “democratiche“… Prestiti sono concessi ai partiti nazionalisti.

Il 26 dicembre 1991 l’URSS si scioglie, il Patto di Varsavia si era sciolto il 1° luglio dello stesso anno. A questo punto il Patto Atlantico non aveva ragione d’essere, però in una riunione a Roma nel novembre precedente veniva variato il suo Concetto Strategico, e la NATO inizia a trasformarsi in quello che è ora: non più una forza difensiva ma offensiva secondo il progetto del Secolo americano.

Nel corso del 1991 gli Stati Uniti attaccano in forze l’Iraq appoggiati da 35 paesi, alcuni membri della NATO, altri esterni. La guerra si ferma prima di arrivare a Baghdad. Il risultato è tragico per l’Iraq che subisce enormi perdite umane, una pesante retrocessione industriale e sociale oltre a susseguenti tragiche sanzioni. Per la prima volta si parla delle conseguenze dell’uso di proiettili all’Uranio impoverito sui soldati.

In quello stesso anno iniziano le manovre per la dissoluzione della Jugoslavia. La ragione si può trovare nella volontà di togliere all’URSS qualsiasi sponda amica, un percorso che continuerà in seguito verso la Russia.

La Jugoslavia è stata una guerra fondante dove sono state fatte le prove generali per le prossime guerre e dove viene messa in pratica una serie di strategie che definisco il PROTOCOLLO.

Queste sono le direttive:

  • Stati e Governi indipendenti e recalcitranti alle direttive statunitensi sono perseguibili e vanno piegati.
  • Organizzazione di primavere colorate per creare rivolte fra civili allo scopo di mettere in difficoltà il governo.
  • Dure sanzioni alla nazione nel mirino.
  • La demonizzazione dell’antagonista è stabilita attraverso i media con pesanti campagne denigratorie, in particolare centrate sul leader.
  • Partiti di estrema destra e personaggi di tendenze naziste o estremisti vengono contattati perché influenzino o prendano il controllo dei governi.
  • Gruppi estremisti ricevono armi e insegnamenti.
  • Vengono inviati agenti della CIA forniti di molto contante per convincere politici, giornalisti o personaggi di spicco perché sostengano la narrativa imposta.
  • Impiego di sanguinose messe in scena per incolpare l’antagonista e giustificare l’intervento della NATO.
  • Impiego di agenzie occidentali di mercenari e gruppi di estremisti nazisti o jihadisti.
  • Sabotaggio di qualsiasi tentativo di dialogo fra le parti, fintanto che il piano di sfruttamento della guerra non sia completato.

Come da protocollo, nel 1990, agenti dei servizi iniziano a contattare gruppi estremisti musulmani in Bosnia e Ustascia in Croazia.

Seguono le elezioni in ogni singola repubblica evitando un referendum federale, e la Germania a Natale 1991, e il Vaticano nel gennaio 1992 e poi i paesi europei riconoscono le Repubbliche di Croazia e Slovenia. Per la Bosnia è più complicato, perché è stato riconosciuto il risultato del referendum a cui non avevano partecipato il 35% della popolazione: i serbi.

La guerra civile scoppia nel marzo 1992. A questo punto vengono inviati i caschi blu dell’ONU come forza di interposizione.

La guerra avrebbe potuto fermarsi nell’agosto dello stesso anno, quando a Lisbona Jose Cutilliero propone un accordo accettato dai rappresentanti delle tre etnie Radovan Karadzic, Franjo Tudsman e Aljia Izetbegovic, ma quest’ultimo è richiamato a Sarajevo e, dopo aver parlato con l’ambasciatore Warren, rifiuta il piano di pace.

Un documento congressuale del 1997 prodotto dal Comitato del Partito Repubblicano statunitense rivela: “l’Amministrazione US con il suggerimento del National Security Council di Clinton diretto da Anthony Lake ha aiutato a trasformare la Bosnia in una base islamica militante” portando al reclutamento di migliaia di Mujahidin dal mondo islamico. Questa politica è stata approvata direttamente dal Presidente Clinton nell’aprile 1994 su pressione del Direttore della CIA Anthony Lake e dell’Ambasciatore Peter Galbraith.

Il presidente autorizza l’arrivo, con l’aiuto della CIA di aiuti da parte dell’Iran a Sarajevo, solo che con armi e medicinali arrivano anche i servizi segreti iraniani che influenzeranno enormemente la politica di Izetbegović. (articolo di Michael Chossudovsky pubblicato da Global Research nel 2002 e nuovamente nel 2015 e 2019)

Secondo documenti del Los Angeles Times, questa politica è stata replicata in Kosovo.

Vorrei ricordare la granata sulla fila del pane (1992) e le due bombe sul mercato di Markalé (1994 e 1995) a Sarajevo. Quando il rifiuto di organizzare una Commissione di inchiesta per stabilire la responsabilità dell’eccidio, attribuito subito ai serbi, autorizza la NATO a bombardare a tappeto per un mese la Republika Srpska. (Mitterand, l’Anno dell’Addio di Laure Adler- David Owen, Odissea BalcanicaBosnia Tragedy, International Action Centre).

La guerra sarebbe continuata per altri 3 anni fino all’accordo di Dayton, stilato da avvocati US, un trattato che le potenze occidentali tentano disperatamente di annullare oggi, scontrandosi con l’opposizione della Republika Srpska e dei Croati della Herzegovina.

La Republika Srpska di Krajina (confine, frontiera come l’Ucraina), composta da tre regioni ai piedi della Croazia, vengono “purificate” di ogni presenza serba nel 1995 dall’ esercito croato supportato dall’agenzia di contractor MPRI, un ramo della holding E-Communications, con la benedizione del Pentagono durante le Operazione Flash e Storm (1maggio e 4 agosto 1995) Un destino simile a quello che avrebbe potuto essere quello del Donbas.

Il progetto è sempre più evidente: togliere alla Russia passo per passo qualsiasi possibile alleato e circondarla con la NATO. Malgrado la promessa del Segretario di Stato James Baker del governo di Bush senior, di non avanzare la NATO verso Est.

Dopo quattro anni di relativa tranquillità, nel 1999 il Pentagono decide di piegare la Jugoslavia formata da Serbia e Montenegro sostenendo i presunti diritti degli albanesi del Kosovo Metohija, antica regione serba.

Come da protocollo, viene messo in scena un eccidio di civili alla Fossa di Racak in Kosovo per avere la scusa di riunire le parti al Castello di Rambouillet in Francia e imporre ai serbi un accordo simile all’occupazione. Al rifiuto dei serbi, il 24 marzo 1999 iniziano i bombardamenti di US/ NATO. Truppe NATO erano già da un paio di mesi in Macedonia in attesa di intervenire. I bombardamenti durarono 75 giorni, alla fine la NATO occuperà il Kosovo ma non la Jugoslavia grazie alla mediazione russa.

Nell’ottobre del 2000 in Serbia ha luogo una rivoluzione colorata che metterà fine al governo di Milosevic. Un misterioso gruppo di studenti OTPOR, oggi CANVAS, hanno orchestrato le dimostrazioni. Questo raggruppamento sarà un’arma segreta e verrà impiegato con successo in altri stati europei.

I russi avevano lasciato dopo 10 anni l’Afghanistan nel 1989. Un mese dopo la caduta delle torri di New York nel settembre 2001 il governo Bush jr. e i suoi ministri neocons decidono di attaccare l’Afghanistan colpevole, secondo loro, di aver progettato la tragedia. Gli US abbandoneranno il paese esattamente 20 anni dopo tra l’agosto e il settembre 2021.

Immagine: Tenet a sinistra con Powell e l’ambasciatore delle Nazioni Unite John Negroponte al Consiglio di Sicurezza, 5 febbraio 2003. (Wikimedia)

Nel 2003 è di nuovo la volta dell’Iraq, la scusa per l’attacco è la presenza di armi chimiche che il Gen. Colin Powell mostra all’Assemblea dell’ONU. Si tratta di una menzogna, Ma l’Iraq viene invaso e balcanizzato.

Nei 10 anni di tregua dall’attacco precedente, per aiutare la popolazione viene concesso l’accordo Oil for Food, il guadagno derivato dal petrolio sarebbe stato trasformato in cibo e beni di prima necessità. Saddam Hussein chiede che il pagamento avvenga in euro, non in dollari, depositati presso la Banque de Paris in Francia. La decisione gli è probabilmente valsa l’impiccagione.

US/NATO lasciano una scia di orrori e crimini che WikiLeaks ha testimoniato. In seguito gli Stati Uniti interverranno ancora nel 2014 per colpire possibili basi di Da’esh.

La Libia era indipendente con un alto livello di crescita. Il Colonnello Gheddafi, suo leader, non intendeva condividere il petrolio con le società occidentali, anzi intendeva impiegare i depositi in dollari per battere una moneta pan africana che avrebbe infastidito il dollaro e il franco Cfa (la moneta francese imposta alle 14 ex colonie).

Il vertice dell’Unione Africana il 31 gennaio 2011 avvia la creazione del Fondo Monetario africano. Sarebbe dovuto avvenire entro l’anno. Il progetto era di creare tre organismi finanziari: il Fondo Monetario africano con sede in Camerun, la Banca Centrale in Nigeria, la Banca di Investimenti a Tripoli. Lo scopo di questi organismi era di creare un mercato comune africano.

La Segretaria di Stato del governo Obama, Hilary Clinton, in accordo con il presidente francese Sarkozy (lo scambio di messaggi fra i due, pubblicati da WikiLeaks, lo provano) decidono il bombardamento del paese.

Iniziano con la scoperta di una fossa comune di 5000 corpi, prova dell’iniquità del Leader e il 19 marzo 2011 attaccano il paese. Nel frattempo tutti i depositi della Libia, pari a 150 miliardi di dollari sono sequestrati dalle banche occidentali, buona parte di questa somma evapora misteriosamente. Gheddafi viene barbaramente trucidato. Il paese è nel caos, la popolazione impoverita, gli introiti del petrolio sono incassati da gruppi di potere e multinazionali. I lavoratori africani perseguitati e ricattati sono vittime di trafficanti umani. Il paese è in mano alle tribù e alle milizie islamiche senza controllo, e diviso fra il governo di Tripoli, protetto dagli occidentali, e quello di Misurata.

E’ la volta della Siria. Scoppia la guerra civile in Siria il 15 marzo 2011, grazie all’intervento sotterraneo degli organizzatori delle primavere arabe.

In un documento ufficiale US risulta che i paesi occidentali, la Turchia e gli Stati del Golfo sostengono l’opposizione per instaurare un principato Salafita in un paese eminentemente sunnita.

Nel dicembre 2012, la Segretaria di Stato Hilary Clinton in un documento segreto (case n° F.204-20439 doc. n°5794498) parla di una relazione strategica fra Siria e Iran e suggerisce il rovesciamento di Bashar al Assad per favorire Israele come unica potenza nucleare nell’area.

Nel 2013 il presidente Obama autorizza un’operazione segreta Timber Sycamore, finanziata da Ryad, tramite la CIA allo scopo di armare, addestrare e infiltrare presunti ribelli in Siria, questa notizia sarà pubblicata dal New York Times il 24 gennaio 2016. Ovviamente non poteva mancare una messa in scena per intervenire ufficialmente. Assad viene accusato di aver impiegato armi chimiche su alcuni villaggi ignorando che la consegna di suddette armi era avvenuta a Gioia Tauro con la nave danese Ark Futura il 2 luglio 2013 grazie alla mediazione russa.

Nel settembre 2014 Gli US attaccano con l’aviazione e missili da crociera bombardando venti siti. Nel 1915 la Russia con un’ora di preavviso agli Stati Uniti, lancia i primi attacchi nella provincia di Homs, aiutando il presidente Bashar al-Assad a mantenere il controllo della Siria Occidentale.

L’intervento russo ha imposto un altro ritmo agli attacchi US/NATO. Attualmente la Russia sta portando avanti una mediazione fra Iran, Turchia e Siria. Il 19 luglio 2022 a Teheran hanno adottato una dichiarazione sul rispetto dell’integrità del territorio siriano e di prevenire qualsiasi azione che intenda violare la Risoluzione 2254 del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU.

Un ulteriore incontro a Mosca delle tre parti nel dicembre 2022 ha confermato la necessità di stabilizzare la Repubblica Araba nella regione.

Arriviamo all’Ucraina. Mentre la NATO si estende fino alle frontiere russe, la Russia più volte richiede la neutralità dell’Ucraina senza ottenere risposta. Gli Stati Uniti si concentrano sull’Ucraina. I gruppi nazisti Azov vengono finanziati e addestrati, e una rivoluzione colorata è organizzata dai soliti professionisti. Conosciamo la crudeltà dei gruppi Azov a Odessa e l’intervento di cecchini mercenari dalle repubbliche turcofone espressamente inviati per tirare su folla e polizia a Piazza Maidan.

Dopo i fatti di Piazza Maidan nel febbraio 2014, le zone russofone del Donbas si separano e subiscono continui bombardamenti da parte di Kiev.

Nel 2019 la Rand Corporation (Think Tank del Pentagono) suggerisce di rendere l’Ucraina terreno di una guerra permanente per consumare le forze e le finanze della Russia.

Nel 2022 Kiev schiera 150 mila uomini davanti al Donbas e accelera i bombardamenti. A questo punto, la Russia interviene. La Svezia e la Finlandia abbandonano lo stato di neutralità e chiedono di entrare nella NATO.

Una campagna mediatica martellante crea il nemico mostro: Vladimir Putin e la Russia.

La situazione prende risvolti sempre più gravi. L’invio di armi da parte di tutti i membri della NATO in pratica trasforma questi paesi in belligeranti in una guerra non dichiarata, mentre gli US sono registi di un’operazione che coinvolge l’Europa in una possibile Terza Guerra Mondiale proxy.

Se viene confermato l’invio di missili a lunga gittata a Kiev, è possibile che la Russia apra un nuovo fronte dalla Bielorussia.

E’ anche probabile che la NATO possa aprire un nuovo fronte anche nei Balcani per ottenere la chiusura del Turk Stream, l’ultimo pipeline dalla Russia rimasto che rifornisce una serie di paesi fino all’Ungheria e l’Austria.

 La Serbia è volutamente sotto pressione tramite il Kosovo, e US/EU chiedono al governo serbo di aderire alle sanzioni contro la Russia minacciando di bloccare i visti per l’Europa. La Russia non può perdere i Balcani e ha affermato la sua volontà di reagire.

Cosa ci aspetta ancora?

Un fronte a Taiwan con la Cina, in particolare se il progetto di battere una moneta nuova con i BRICS (Brasile, Russia, India, Cina e Sudafrica), a cui recentemente hanno chiesto di aderire anche Iran, Turchia e Algeria, si realizzasse.

Per concludere, le forze US/NATO hanno sdoganato la corruzione come arma di guerra, e ovunque sono intervenute per instaurare la democrazia hanno lasciato instabilità e miseria.

*

Nota per i lettori: Cliccate sul pulsante di condivisione qui sopra. Seguiteci su Instagram e Twitter e iscrivetevi al nostro canale Telegram. Sentitevi liberi di ripubblicare e condividere ampiamente gli articoli di Global Research.

L’immagine in primo piano è tratta da Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Le Campagne Militari Us/Nato Dal 1991 Ad Oggi

The RESTRICT Act Restricts More Than TikTok

April 4th, 2023 by Rep. Ron Paul

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Supporters of expanding the federal police state have found a new boogeyman to scare the people into surrendering their liberty: TikTok. TikTok is a social media platform that allows users to upload their own videos. It is used by tens of millions of Americans and is one of the most popular websites in the world.

TikTok’s popularity and the fact that is owned by a Beijing-based company — ByteDance — has led to the spread of a claim that the site is controlled by the Chinese government. Thus the claim the Chinese government is using TikTok to collect data on US citizens.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner introduced last month the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act). The bill is being marketed as a way to protect Americans from foreign governments that use social media to spy on Americans.

The RESTRICT Act makes no mention of TikTok or ByteDance. The Chinese government is mentioned only once in the bill, when it is designated as a “foreign adversary” along with five other governments. What the bill does do is give the Secretary of Commerce power to “identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property” that the Secretary of Commerce determines “poses an undue or unacceptable risk” in a laundry list of areas. Among those areas are “coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States.” So the US could shut down an American social media company based on the Secretary of Commerce’s determination that a website, while not actually doing anything to weaken America, poses an unacceptable risk that it will?

The TikTok controversy has taken attention away from the disturbing Twitter Files, a release of communication between Twitter employees and governmental agencies. The communication shows how much government “influenced” big tech companies’ decisions regarding suppressing stories and deplatforming users. If the RESTRICT Act becomes the RESTRICT law, any site that refuses to cooperate with future efforts by the US government to suppress certain stories and individuals on social media could find itself accused of working to advance the “strategic objectives of a foreign adversary.”

Those who doubt this should consider how people who question US foreign policy are smeared as Russian agents. The RESTRICT Act’s potential victims are sites like Rumble. Rumble is a censorship-free alternative to YouTube. Rumble’s commitment to free speech is so strong that it chose to block access to its site in France instead of complying with a new French law banning Russia Today and other Russian news sources from French social media.

Like the PATRIOT Act, the RESTRICT Act plays on people’s fears to make them silent while Congress takes away more of their liberty. This bill is a blatant violation of the First Amendment that the Founders intended to protect our right to engage in political speech and share political information and opinions with others. We should stop Congress from violating our right to discuss and share ideas on TikTok and elsewhere that challenge the political class.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The 2024 presidential campaign technically began months ago with the first announced candidates. Yet April 4 will be “Super Tuesday” for America’s first carceral presidential campaign, with the arrest and arraignment of Donald Trump. With the exception of the socialist (and incarcerated) Eugene Debs in 1920, we have not faced the prospect of a president who could be elected with both a term of office and a term of imprisonment.

The New York indictment of Trump has been widely criticized as politically motivated and legally flawed. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg boasted during his 2021 campaign about being best suited to go after Trump, and he is making good on his boast with a highly dubious bootstrapped legal theory.

The New York indictment will face considerable challenges. Those challenges will likely take some time to resolve, and if this case follows the customary schedule of criminal matters, it still may be pending when Americans go to the polls to select the next president in 2024.

In addition, a Georgia grand jury reportedly has finished its work on other charges against Trump. Weeks ago, Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of that special grand jury, gave a series of bizarre giggling interviews about nailing Trump. It is a mystery, given Kohrs’ apparent confirmation of pending charges, why Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has held back on an indictment.

Although stronger than the Manhattan case, the Georgia case has its own problems but could make it to trial because those problems are largely fact questions generally left to jurors. But it too would likely be pending by Election Day 2024.

The most serious threat among the potential cases is being developed by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith. His investigation of Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot is unlikely to result in charges and, if it did, is unlikely to survive challenges on First Amendment grounds. His investigation of the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents controversy presents a far more established — and, frankly, easier — route for prosecution. From its earliest filings, the Justice Department maintained there is evidence of obstruction and false statements — claims that it could use to distinguish any prosecution from the unlawful possession of classified material by President Joe Biden or former Vice President Mike Pence.

Smith is under a tight schedule if he wants to charge Trump, though. Since the Justice Department (incorrectly in my view) maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted, Smith would have to charge and, ideally, try Trump before Election Day. Indeed, the Justice Department strives to avoid any major legal steps that might impact voting near to an election — a period that could stretch back to the late summer of 2024.

What this means is that Trump could face as many as three sets of criminal charges in three different jurisdictions as he campaigns for the presidency. He would likely seek accommodations from courts to delay any trial during the campaign.

Whether or not Trump can delay a trial, much of 2024 will be focused on carceral rather than political issues. Trump has long claimed that Democrats are weaponizing the criminal justice system against him and other Republicans. Bragg has given him the case positive for proving that allegation, especially since Bragg ran for office on his ability to find a criminal charge against Trump.

The question is what happens if any of these efforts succeed.

previously raised the prospect of an actual indictment in converting the election into a debate for presidential self-pardons. Article II of the Constitution states that a president may “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon, and presidents have abused the pardon power to protect political allies and even family members.

Numerous legal analysts have argued those constitutional provisions “make no sense if the president could pardon himself.” Yet it seems highly doubtful that courts would agree. Despite the massive gravitational pull of Trump on the legal analysis of many pundits, there is nothing in the Constitution to exclude presidents alone from pardon eligibility. The Supreme Court stated in Schick v. Reed that “the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and … its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself.”

While a newly elected Trump could only pardon himself for the federal crimes, it is the federal case that likely represents the greatest threat to him. Moreover, the two state cases would add to Trump’s narrative of facing ‘political prosecutions’ from a ‘weaponized’ legal system on every level. Trump often campaigns on just such a primal level. He knows that a man chased by a dog can spark public outcry — but a man chased by a pack of dogs can spark public outrage.

It is not simply the election that could take a carceral turn, however.

What would happen if Trump were elected but convicted in either state case? Such a trial would likely occur after the election. Even if courts extended a trial until after the 2024 election, it would be difficult to delay it for four years.

The last time a president faced the threat of a criminal trial was in 1872, when Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage in Washington.

I have long maintained that a sitting president can be indicted and tried. Almost 25 years ago, I wrote an academic work, “‘From Pillar to Post’: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents,” that challenged immunity theories protecting presidents. I do not believe the indictment of a president or former president is a national tragedy. To the contrary, it is the ultimate affirmation that no one is above the law.

However, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t get weird if Trump loses in court but wins in the election.

If Trump were convicted in a state proceeding, it would not bar him from running — or serving — as president. A state judge could grant probation or an alternative sentence to avoid imprisonment. Moreover, appeals on the issue of incarceration could take years to address a state order conflicting with the performance of a federal function. Once that time was exhausted, a court could order any incarceration to be delayed until after the end of the presidential term, since Trump could not be elected a third time.

We may have to face one of these scenarios. The question is whether voters may not only accept this prospect but some might even invite it. Regardless of how it works out, this election is about to take a carceral turn.

Elections often raise the politics of crime — but in this election, it may be hard to separate the politics from the crime.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Donald Trump hasn’t surrendered to authorities yet. But his lawyers are already fighting — with themselves.

Days after the former president’s indictment at the hands of Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg, some of Trump’s lawyers are taking aim at Joe Tacopina, his co-lead defense attorney in the Bragg case. 

A source familiar with the matter and another person close to Trump tell Rolling Stone that a number of Trump’s other current lawyers have privately described Tacopina as “dumb” and a “loudmouth.” 

Tacopina is no stranger to made-for-tabloid drama: He has a lengthy track record of repping high-profile clients, such as Meek Mill and baseball legend Alex Rodriguez, as well as securing hard-to-land wins. But he’s also had some equally high-profile flameouts, including an acrimonious parting with his ex-client, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik.

In recent days, as a Trump attorney, Tacopina has also become a more and more familiar face on cable television — and not always to the ex-president’s benefit. During a recent appearance on Ari Melber’s The Beat, for example, Tacopina tried to grab a piece of paper held by the MSNBC host during the heated exchange. Tacopina also defended Trump’s denial of paying off porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an alleged affair, albeit in a somewhat unique way: Insisting that the denial wasn’t a lie as it wasn’t made under oath. 

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore via Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Team Blasts His Lawyer as ‘Dumb’ ‘Loudmouth’
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“All crises have involved debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale in relation to the underlying means of payment.” John K. Galbraith (1908-2006), Canadian-born American economist, (in ‘A Short History of Financial Euphoria’ 1994).

“History shows that once an enormous debt has been incurred by a nation, there are only two ways to solve it: one is simply declare bankruptcy, the other is to inflate the currency and thus destroy the wealth of ordinary citizens.” Adam Smith (1723-1790), Scottish economist, father of modern economics, (in ‘The Wealth of Nations’, 1776).

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”  Milton Friedman (1912-2006), (in ‘The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory’, 1970).

***

Some six years from now will be the 100th anniversary of the 1929 stock market crash, marking the onset of the Great Depression (1929-1939).

These were crucial events in the United States and in many other countries. In the U.S., in particular, it heralded a period of nationalism, protectionism and sweeping banking regulations.

The 1929 crash occurred after a period called the “Roaring Twenties“, which followed World War I (1914-1918) and the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919. It was a period of general economic prosperity, with many economic innovations and industries (automobile, electricity, telephone, radio, films etc.), being propelled by low interest rates and ongoing speculation.

What turned the stock market crash into a severe economic downturn was the failure of many banks and the credit crunch that followed.

Many American banks had followed the risky banking practice of lending large portions of their deposits for stock market speculation, and they did not survive the crash. Altogether, during the 1930 decade, it is estimated that as many as 9,000 U.S. banks failed, creating an important contraction of the money supply.

Even though the Federal Reserve central bank had been established in 1913, it was somewhat clumsy in designing and in implementing monetary policy. For instance, it did not widely use open market purchases to inject badly needed monetary liquidity in the economy, as money supply was contracting. Instead, in order to meet the requirements of the international Gold standard system of the time, the Fed kept raising its discount rate to prevent an exodus of money and gold from the United States, thus contributing to creating a deflation.

The financial crisis really became an international one when the large Austrian bank Creditanstalt failed, on May 11, 1931. This was a bank that had debts with many other banks. Its failure impacted negatively other international banks, and it contributed to making the financial crisis a truly international one.

All this is to say that a cascade of bank failures is a very dangerous phenomenon in a market economy. That is why there is an obvious need to prevent unduly risky investments by banks, through appropriate public regulation, to protect the public interest.

Why can deposit-financed commercial banks fall victim to a run on the bank?

The answer to the above question lies in the ‘fractional reserve banking‘ system under which banks operate. Essentially, commercial banks borrow short-term funds from depositors and invest most of that money in profitable longer-term loans. For security and liquidity, they are required to maintain a mandatory minimum percentage of their deposits as cash reserves, the so-called fractional reserve, to be available for the withdrawal of deposits. The rest is considered capital to be loaned and invested in loans and in securities.

However, if confidence in a bank comes into question, especially if its loans or investments have lost value for any reason, (as indicated in the section of ‘unrealized losses’ in its books), people could fear for the safety of their deposits, and they may attempt to withdraw their savings during a panicky run on the bank. Such a panic or a crisis of confidence is bound to deplete a bank’s meager reserves, and the lending institution may then face a liquidity crisis, and not be able to reimburse all depositors.

Without outside intervention, this could force a bank to close its doors and declare bankruptcy. If many banks find themselves in the same precarious illiquid situation, the entire banking system could enter into a systemic banking crisis, through a widespread contagion or domino effect.

Two major legislative attempts to regulate and two attempts to deregulate banks in the U.S.

The onslaught of the 1929 Stock market crash and the unfolding of the Great Depression, which translated into 15 million Americans losing their jobs and half of the country’s banks failing by 1933, made the adoption of banking reforms a necessity.

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) signed into law the famous Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which forced a clear separation between commercial banks, which rely on deposits from the public, and investment banks, which borrow money by issuing shares or bonds. And, because commercial banks have a fiduciary mandate to protect depositors’ money, they also had to follow strict guidelines for their lending in order to avoid making too risky investments, which could jeopardize their solvency.

Moreover, in order to prevent financial panics and destabilizing runs on the bank, the Banking Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), whose purpose was to restore trust in the American banking system. It guaranteed that small depositors would not lose their money if a bank becomes insolvent. On the other hand, insured banks had to follow strict rules of investing.

Even though the Glass-Steagall Act was slightly amended over time, its main features remained the foundation of the stability of the U.S. banking system for some sixty-six years, that is to say until 1999.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Billey Act to deregulate the American banking system

American banks had often lobbied Congress and the U.S. government to relax the rules of investing contained in the Glass-Steagall Act. In November 1999, then Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Billley Act (GLBA) into effect, after Congress had voted overwhelmingly in its favor, with a vote of 90-8 in the Senate and by a vote of 362-57 in the House.

That law repealed important sections of the Glass-Steagall Act. Its main feature was to remove the legal barriers that prevented financial institutions from merging commercial banking, investment banking and insurance services in a single holding entity. The purpose was to permit a consolidation of the American banking industry and create large financial conglomerates deemed to be financially more stable.

Some congressmen and many economists argued that the new law was a step backward in the wrong direction, because it could make banks too large to be managed, and because it could make it easier for them to increase the level of risk-taking in their investments. The end result would be to render such large financial conglomerates “too big to fail“. This, in turn, would imply that the government would have no other choice but to bail them out with public money, in case of insolvencies.

The Dobb-Frank Act of 2010 vs. the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018

In 2007-2008, the Subprime Mortgage Crisis broke out in the United States, with three large investment banks failing (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers). This time, the culprit was largely unregulated derivative financial products, such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which lost a lot of their value when the housing bubble burst and widespread mortgage defaults ensued.

The failure of those large investment banks played a central role in the 2008-2009 global recession, dubbed the ‘Great Recession‘.

A partial rollback of banking regulations in 2018

After the economic debacle of 2008-2009, the Barack Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress came to the conclusion that new banking standards were required if future financial crises were to be avoided. And, President Barak Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act on July 21, 2010.

That law was designed to prevent the excessive risk-taking behavior that had led to the 2007-2008 financial crisis and cost hundreds of billions of dollars in public bailouts of failed financial institutions. With that objective in mind, the 2010 law intended to eliminate the classification of banks deemed ‘too big to fail’, by submitting medium size banks to the same stringent regulatory supervision as very large banks.

However, a well-known politico-banking scenario again came into play.

Some bankers began complaining that the new investment rules to prevent excessive risk taking were too strict. Their main demand was that the threshold for the new regulations to apply, i.e. to banks with assets worth $50 billion and above, should be raised to $250 billion and above. In simpler terms, the demands were that the new stricter banking regulations should apply only to very large banks, the so-called ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks, and not to medium-sized banks with assets and liabilities below $250 billion.

The Republican-dominated U.S. Congress acquiesced to the demands formulated by the banking lobby. —On March 14, 2018, the Senate passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, exempting hundreds of U.S. banks that the Dodd-Frank Act’s banking regulations had placed in the category of banks having between $50 billion and $250 billion of assets.

The new 2018 regulatory law also weakened the so-called Volcker Rule, which prohibits banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading and forbids banking entities from investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds. —Thereafter, on May 24, 2018, President Donald Trump signed the partial repeal of the 2010 Dobb-Frank law.

The onset of a new banking crisis in March 2023

During the fatidic weekend of March 10-12, 2023, three American banks, whose total financial assets were below the $250 billion asset threshold, failed and required immediate intervention by regulators to prevent a wider contagion.

They were the Silicon Valley Bank ($212 billion assets), with significant exposure to the technology sector, the Signature Bank ($110 billion assets) and the smaller Silvergate Bank ($11 billion assets), the last two banks catering partly to cryptocurrencies users and to cryptocurrency-related firms.

The March 19, 2023 shotgun merger of the large Credit Suisse bank with the larger Swiss UBS bank is also indicative that large international banks can be fragile and may require an intervention on the part of regulators.

The U.S. Fed’s role in creating monetary conditions leading to banking and financial crises

In the aftermath of the 2006-2009 financial and economic turmoil, the U.S. Fed and other large central banks in Europe embarked upon a nonconventional and risky monetary policy of massive money creation, with the so-called policy of quantitative easing (QE), and of artificially pushing interest rates way down, even to negative nominal interest rates, in some instances.

A clear indication of how the U.S. Federal Reserve central bank has been pumping liquidity into the monetary system can be seen in how fast its balance sheet, part of the monetary base of the economy, increased. It stood at roughly 0.9 trillion U.S. dollars, in 2007, but grew to 8.34 trillion U.S. dollars, as of March 8, 2023, an enlargement of more than 900 per cent.

This has had the consequence of the Fed bringing down nominal interest rates close to zero, just as other central banks in Europe and in Japan have also done.

However, a sure result of keeping interest rates artificially ultra low, for too long, is to create financial bubbles, in the bond market, in the stock market and in the real estate market. Lo and behold, in recent years, these markets have reached price levels that are way above their historical average.

This may have pleased some investors and some traders, but it may also have painted the central bank into a corner, if inflation gets out of hand and the central bank has to raise interest rates to fight it.

For reference: in the mid-summer of 2021, it was obvious that inflation in the U.S. was much above the targeted rate of 2 percent and was rising, but the Fed continued nevertheless its quantitative easing policy of purchasing $140 billion of bonds and mortgage-backed securities, each month.

The Fed’s view at the time was that inflation was a ‘transitory’ phenomenon, not expected to last. Therefore, the Fed kept pushing liquidity into the U.S. economy until March of 2022, when it was obliged to reverse course as inflation was getting up steam. —By then, indeed, the inflation rate was already at 8.5 percent.

The fact of the matter is, when central banks raise interest rates after they have kept them ultra low for too long, it becomes very tricky for them to fight inflation without placing their banking sector in jeopardy.

That is because a sustained rise in interest rates causes the prices of bonds and of other securities already issued to fall, along with the price of real estate and of stock prices. Banks that are saddled with so-called ‘unrealized losses’, at such a critical time, may find themselves in financial difficulty, when they cannot afford to raise rates on their deposits, or appeal to outside help.

Conclusions

First, we may contrast public regulation of new drugs and public regulation of new financial products.

When it comes to the health of people, and when pharmaceutical companies propose new drugs or medications, such new medical products must be submitted, tested and approved by a public federal agency. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), founded in 1906, is responsible for regulating and approving new drugs and medications, before they can be distributed and sold.

However, when it comes to the health of the economy, it is much easier for the banking industry to invent risky new financial products and sell them to the public. Indeed, there is no statutory testing of the viability of such new financial products before their distribution. It’s only after the fact—when it is discovered that they have been toxic for the financial system and the overall economy—that their use is curtailed and may be more strictly regulated.

Maybe the banking industry should be treated more as a public utility infrastructure, essential for the good functioning of the economy, in order to prevent market economies from following a disruptive boom and bust cycle, each 15-20 years.

Second, the recurrent periods of financial and economic instability could be a consequence of the dual mandate given to central banks. Indeed, besides serving as lender of last resort, in times of liquidity crises, a central bank’s important role is to supervise the fiduciary money creating process, in order to prevent both inflation and deflation.

However, in 1978, the U.S. Congress adopted the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, which gave the Federal Reserve central bank an explicit “dual mandate”.

Indeed, not only must the Fed manage and supervise the banking system and the money supply, in order to avoid inflation or deflation, but it must also “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates.”

At times, such a dual mandate may enter into contradiction and make monetary policy most difficult to implement. This may also explain the kind of yoyo monetary policy that the Fed has adopted recently, pushing interest rates way down and pushing them way up, when inflation becomes a threat.

Economic growth and employment creation in the long run are primarily a government responsibility through its fiscal, industrial and other economic policies, even though monetary policy may influence economic activity and employment in the short-run.

Especially in times of inflation, a central bank with a dual mandate may find itself in a conundrum. That is because to control inflation, it must slowdown the rate of increase of the money supply and raise interest rates, thus slowing down economic growth and employment.

However, we may point out that the European Central Bank (ECB) does not have an explicit dual mandate. It has only one primary objective and that is price stability, subject to which it may pursue secondary objectives. Similarly for the Bank of Canada, whose primary mandate is to maintain low and stable inflation, while supporting “maximum sustainable employment”.

Finally, in general, let us keep in mind that the more private bankers are shielded from their errors and mistakes by generous public bailouts, the more they will be tempted to invent esoteric and risky debt instruments, and the more the economy will be subjected to destabilizing financial crises.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from MarketWatch

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Right after President Xi’s trip to Moscow, former US Ambassador Michael McFaul claimed that Russia had been turned into a Chinese “vassal”, India’s liberal-globalist intelligentsia imagined that Russia can no longer be relied upon, and Asia Times hinted at impending Chinese expansionism in Russia’s Far East, yet not a single one of these information warfare narratives is true.

Everyone who follows foreign affairs is familiar with Western propaganda warning about Russia’s supposedly “dangerous dependence” on China, which reached a fever pitch following President Xi’s trip to Moscow to solidify the Russo-Sino Entente. Former US Ambassador Michael McFaul claimed that it turned Russia into a Chinese “vassal”, India’s liberalglobalist intelligentsia imagined that Russia can no longer be relied upon, and Asia Times hinted at impending Chinese expansionism in Russia’s Far East.

None of the preceding information warfare narratives is true, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov just reaffirmed in a clever riposte during his latest interview with the “Argumenty i Fakti” newspaper on Tuesday when sharing the following insight:

“At the peak of Russian energy supplies to Europe not a single Western analyst was trying to scare Russia about its dependence on the EU. Just the other way round, the US warned Europe against hydrocarbon supplies from our country in a bid to replace them with its own shale oil and gas. Now that we are re-orienting our exports to Asia, they suddenly decided to take care of us and give us a ‘friendly’ reminder about potential dependence on China. Thanks for the advice, but we will use our own judgment and rely solely on national interests and our reliable Chinese friends who are tested by time and real-life actions.”

Everything that he said is true, though it’ll predictably be denied by dishonest observers whose agenda is to drive a wedge in those two multipolar Great Powers’ incipient Entente. It’s indeed the case that the only warnings pushed by those propagandists at the time related to the EU’s “dependence” on Russia.

As the past year proves, however, Moscow never weaponized its energy exports to that bloc despite its unfriendly policies in the context of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. Some might argue in hindsight that the Kremlin should have done so in order to punish the EU, but the fact remains that its policymakers never had any such intentions otherwise this would have obviously happened already. Quite clearly, all those prior Western warnings were nothing but pure propaganda.

So too will it turn out to be the same with respect to their newfound warnings about Russia’s supposedly “dangerous dependence” on China. There’s no credible scenario wherein the People’s Republic would weaponize its growing purchases of those resources to manipulate Moscow since any movement in this direction would bring an immediate end to their mutually beneficial Entente. That would in turn enable the US-led West’s Golden Billion to divide-and-rule them indefinitely.

Moreover, it’s the epitome of hypocrisy for the West to warn about this unrealistic sequence of events considering the EU’s own growing “dependence” on China that President Putin wryly referenced late last month. He said that “dependence of the European economy on China … is growing much faster than that of Russia…trade volume between China and the ‘united Europe’ is increasing at a very high rate…They [the EU] should rather look after themselves.”

Nobody should interpret his words as hinting at any credible chance of China weaponizing its trade ties with the EU since the only point that he was trying to make was that it’s insincere for the bloc warn that China will manipulate its trade ties with Russia when theirs are much more susceptible to that scenario. These objectively existing and easily verifiable observations shared by the Russian President and his Foreign Minister totally debunk false fears about their country’s “dangerous dependence” on China.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The legal case brought by a whistleblower from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial has been dismissed by a judge.

Brook Jackson, who worked for Pfizer contractor Ventavia Research Group, didn’t prove violations of the False Claims Act, U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale ruled on March 31.

Jackson sued Ventavia, Pfizer, and another organization involved in the vaccine trial in 2021, alleging that trial violations she uncovered meant that the government was defrauded when it paid for doses of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Internal records show Ventavia officials acknowledging that patients were unblinded, adverse events weren’t recorded, and vaccine doses were kept unlocked in “disorganized” rooms.

Under the False Claims Act, the government or a party suing on the government’s behalf—Jackson in this case—can recover money for false claims made by parties to secure payment for the government. Parties are liable if they knowingly present a false claim for payment or intentionally use a false record or statement material to make a false claim.

While Jackson presented evidence that violations occurred, the government’s prototype agreement with Pfizer only conditioned payment on delivery of a vaccine that had been authorized or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Truncale ruled. The payment section states that “the Government will have no right to withhold payment in respect of any delivered doses, unless the FDA has withdrawn approval or authorization of the vaccine.” The FDA, which Jackson alerted to the violations, hasn’t withdrawn approval or authorization.

“In sum, Ms. Jackson has failed to plead that the Government conditioned payment on Defendants’ certification of compliance with regulatory provisions or clinical trial protocol,” Truncale said in the new ruling.

While Jackson argued that the false record portion of the False Claims Act (FCA) was violated because of the trial violations, the defendants said false records and statements alone didn’t create liability without a false claim seeking payment from the government.

“The upshot is that there is no liability under the FCA for making or using a false record or statement where the claimant is entitled to the payment,” Truncale said. “Pfizer was entitled to its claims for payment. Therefore, Ms. Jackson has not stated a claim for false record liability.”

The judge quoted a different ruling, which found that the False Claims Act was enacted by Congress “to vindicate fraud on the federal government, not second guess decisions made by those empowered through the democratic process to shape public policy.”

“When the government, at appropriate levels, repeatedly concludes that it has not been defrauded, it is not forgiving a found fraud—rather, it is concluding that there was no fraud at all,” the ruling reads.

Attorneys for Pfizer offered that argument during a recent hearing in the case.

“So if the FDA gets it wrong, they just get it wrong, and we live with it?” Truncale asked.

Pfizer attorney Carlton Wessel said, “Exactly.”

“The Government has been aware of Ms. Jackson’s allegations for several years, has granted Emergency Authorization multiple times, and to this day continues to authorize and provide Pfizer’s vaccine at no cost,” the judge said in the new ruling.

He acknowledged the evidence that Jackson offered but said her complaint didn’t “identify any safety risk that was hidden from the FDA in the data from the Ventavia sites, any symptomatic participants who Ventavia did not properly test for COVID-19 infection, or any COVID-19 infections in vaccinated participants that Ventavia falsely reported to have occurred in the placebo group.”

Retaliation Claim

Jackson was hired in September 2020. She reported problems with the trial to Ventavia management shortly after starting at the company. Dissatisfied with the response, she went to the FDA on Sept. 25, 2020. Ventavia fired Jackson that same day.

The False Claims Act protects whistleblowers from harassment, retaliation, and threats. The person must be engaged in protected activity, defined in a previous ruling as “motivated by a concern regarding fraud against the government.” The employer must also know the person was engaged in protected activity, and the punitive action or actions must be because of the activity.

Jackson’s activity doesn’t meet the standard because she hasn’t alleged that she was concerned about potential fraud against the government, according to Truncale.

“Rather, she alleges that she complained about participant safety and regulatory, protocol, and HIPAA violations,” he said, referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. “But that is not protected activity under the FCA’s retaliation provision—internal complaints about patient safety, or protocol and regulatory violations, are not the same thing as complaining about defrauding the Government.”

Even if Jackson was engaged in protected activity, the judge said Jackson didn’t show that Ventavia knew she was involved in such activity.

Truncale dismissed the False Claims Act claims with prejudice, which means they can’t be brought again. The retaliation claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Reaction

Pfizer, Ventavia, and the third defendant, ICON, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer representing Jackson, said an appeal is forthcoming.

“The dismissal of Pfizer’s case is a despicable & heinous betrayal of justice, a slap in the face to vaccine injured and whistleblowers, a blatant example of corruption, incompetence and cowardice, a declaration that the powerful are above the law,” Jackson said in a statement.

“I will never back down, no matter what it costs.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Brook Jackson speaks outside the courthouse in Beaumont, Texas, on March 1, 2023. (Darlene McCormick Sanchez/The Epoch Times)

What Is a Soft Power?

April 4th, 2023 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Understanding soft power in politics and diplomacy 

French Emperor Napoleon I, was convinced that only two powers existed in the world: the sword and the mind.

Sword can prevail over the mind in a short time but in the long run, he believed that the mind would beat the sword.

As the mind is mightier than the sword is why the concept of soft power attracts very much attention across the world becoming more and more important for diplomacy and international relations. Power, in general, is a part of the relationship among and between the actors – in global politics and international relations mainly between the states. Both power in general and soft power, in particular, have to be understood in the context of connectedness. The roles of knowledge and education are of special significance in the process of making power while cultural promotion and public diplomacy are crucial means for both increasing and applying soft power in certain areas.

The phenomenon of power, in general, is one of the most researched and discussed among all phenomena in politics, international relations, and world affairs while the concept of soft power is in contemporary post-Cold War diplomacy probably mostly accepted method among policy-makers in dealing with other political actors.

After the Cold War, power in world politics and international relations is distributed in three dimensions. On the top, military power is still largely unipolar and the USA is likely to remain supreme for some time. However, on the mid-level, economic power is multipolar with the USA, China, the European Union, and Japan as the major players, and others gaining in importance (India, Brazil, South Africa). On the bottom level is the realm of transnational relations that cross borders outside of government control including non-state actors. On this level, power is widely diffused.

The term soft power was invented by the American international relations analyst, Joseph S. Nye[i] in debating the question of possible declination of the US power and diplomatic influence in the late 1980s during the last years of the Cold War. Soft power refers to the capability of an actor, usually but not necessarily a state, to influence what others do through persuasion. Soft power, according to its coiner Nye, is the ability of the actor to get what it wants by using the method of attraction rather than power, coercion, or payments. This attraction is resulting from the arises of the attractiveness of the culture of the country or other actors, as well as political ideals, and politics. In principle, when policies of one actor are evaluated as legitimate by others then the actor’s soft power is enhanced. In other words, the authentic notion of the term soft power was an instrument or method of persuasion or the ability to change the (political) behavior or direction of others for the sake to get desired results by attraction and co-optation as opposed to power and coercion.

Soft power is a power based on culture, ideology, and/or general reputation and it is used in world politics to set the global agenda and shape the preferences of others. Unlike hard power, soft power consists of cultural and reputational factors that produce prestige, and it is more effective and durable than hard power for the reason of an actor’s preferences are seen as attractive, acceptable, and above all legitimate. Soft power attracts or co-opts people and it does not coerce them. It influences people by a method of appealing to them but not forcing them to comply. Therefore, the concept of soft power covers certain attributes which are including culture, values, ideas, etc., and collectively representing different, but, in principle, not necessarily lesser, forms of influence if compared to hard power (for instance, a role of the Roman Catholic Church and pope in the process of destruction of the communist system in East-Central Europe). Hard power, in essence, implies more direct and forceful measures which are in majority of cases involving the threat or use of armed force or economic sanctions/coercion (for instance, NATO’s aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999). Soft power is, nevertheless, neither “sticks nor carrots” but a third way of achieving certain aims of different nature. Anyway, soft power is going beyond simple influence that can rest on hard power threats, both diplomatic or military, as well as financial payments. The usual method used within the framework of soft power is the involvement of persuasion and encouragement which are allegedly or really rooted in shared norms, values, moral authority, and beliefs. Shortly, to exercise soft power relies on persuasion (ability to convince by argument), and on the ability to attract.[ii]

The concept of soft power is as well as founded on the viewpoint that language or discourse is one of the crucial sources of power for the very reason that it imposes specific interpretations and meanings upon political life. However, in turn, those who are controlling the so-called “meaning of events” and institutions in world politics and international relations are able to influence others to think as they are thinking but ignoring at the same time alternative interpretations. Therefore and consequently, soft power is used or misused for the purpose of subjugation of certain individuals or the group of people by others who, in fact, manipulate them.

The 2010 index of soft power ranks France, the GB, the USA, Germany, and Switzerland as the five states with the greatest soft power.[iii] Small states often use smart power strategies like Norway with some 5 million inhabitants enhanced its attractiveness, for instance, with legitimizing policies in peacemaking and development assistance that enhance its soft power. On the opposite side, for instance, there is China, a rising economic, financial, political, and military power, has decided to invest in soft power resources for the reason to make its hard power look less threatening to its neighbors.

Soft power and structural power

As a matter of fact, from the time when the concept of soft power was created, it very quickly became accepted and further elaborated by many statesmen, politicians, and political scientists being thoroughly embedded in the discussions upon the methods used in diplomacy in international relations.[iv] The concept of soft power during the last 30 years but especially after 9/11 was given a high level of attention and being applied deeply by US diplomacy but recently it went beyond the US diplomatic measures as other great powers like Russia and China are using soft power in foreign relations as well as to accomplish their geopolitical and economic aims.[v]

Nevertheless, in all practical combinations of usage, soft power is strongly related to structural power – the power to fix the “rules of the game” in politics and structure the choices of other actors.[vi] Such kind of power can fluctuate from reputational and cultural factors (for instance, English language as contemporary lingua franca) to possession of education, expertise, and particular knowledge, which allow some powerful leaders to impose rules and make others follow those “rules of the game”. Structural power was used even in the 19th century like by Great Britain when London exercised a system of free trade and expanded and upheld international law. A similar case was done after WWII by the US when Washington enjoyed unique structural power that allowed it to construct and maintain the Bretton-Woods system of international and transnational[vii] economic institutions of, for instance, the World Bank, the IMF, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.[viii] 

Short historical background of soft power

Soft power is a worm of cultural power in the broadest sense of the meaning and as such existed historically long before it was formally created as a concept within the framework of international relations after the Cold War. There are many historical examples of used soft power by some European and later other great powers in global politics and foreign affairs. For instance, Spain in the 17th century as a center of the diffusion of European culture and civilization succeeded to create influential cultural attractions in Europe, for example, in the court life in Paris. The elite strata in France totally accepted Spanish fashion in general. The Decembrist in Russia in 1825 have been influenced by the French Enlightenment particularly of Voltaire and Rousseau which became generated into an uprising to challenge the absolute rule of the Russian tsars (emperors). These examples as many others illustrate the use of soft power in the process of spreading the ideas or ideologies and influencing others by them.

Religious philosophy is as well as a type of cultural condition with its soft power influences. For instance, the traditional philosophy of Confucianism is putting special stresses on the importance of governance by kindness, generosity, and virtue in both foreign policy and inner administration. Confucianism played a crucial role in the formation of the concept of the so-called “Asian values” in the opposition to liberal Western values. The concept refers to the East Asian view of human rights being associated with several East and South-East Asian countries and nations, including Malaysia, Singapore, and China. Many of the regional political leaders and other public figures claim that individualistic human rights associated with the liberal Western culture and its individualistic, self-seeking values are culturally alien to their nations and countries.

Nevertheless, the best examples of successful anti-individualist societies are in Asia that is true especially in Japan, China, Taiwan, both Koreas, and Singapore. In fact, many of “Asian values” are associated with Confucianism, as a philosophy that is alternative to the idea of individualism supported by the liberal Western political philosophy and societies. Individualism as a belief in the supreme importance of the individual over any social group or collective body cannot be accepted in East and South-East Asia as those countries has different cultures, cultural values, and historical development based focally on the concept of the “Asian values”. Those values are stressing the importance of the community or the collective in general, but not of the individual. These cultural characteristics are embodied in the socio-political values of harmony, consensus, unity, and community. The human rights regimes are seen by society as legitimate only when they reflect the community’s collective values. Consequently, national human rights regimes must necessarily “fit” local cultural and social values. According to Francis Fukuyama, Confucianism is both hierarchical and non-egalitarian and characteristic of the community-oriented Asian cultures.

In general, the example of the conflict between the liberal Western values and “Asian values” reflects the importance of soft use of power in the art of the state, international relations, and foreign policy and was, for instance, a key factor in assuring the effectiveness of the Chinese hierarchical international system in the world order regarding East Asian countries. In contemporary terminology, such a way of governance is an example of soft power methodology. From the general point of view concerning Western/Oriental relations, this liberal Western/East Asian conflict of values using the confessional-cultural values as soft power is a good example of how one’s identity can be more or less determined by one’s relationship with the other or others through cultural relations. Therefore, soft power in some cases can be seen as well as another form of cultural hegemony but in some cases, the use of soft power is, in fact, motivated by the particular aim for political dominance. That is the case, for example, in contemporary international relations when liberal Western countries, especially the USA, are using soft power assuming that there are universal (Western) norms and values which have to be valid and must be applied in the rest of the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] Joseph S. Nye (b. 1937) is an American academic and foreign policy analyst. He was together with Robert Keohane one of the leading theorists of the so-called phenomenon of the “complex interdependence”. The phenomenon was important as offered an alternative position to the traditional belief by the realists in the anarchical relations between the actors (states) in international relations. He was requiring that the US administrations after the Cold War redefine the American national interest to be compatible with new global processes like turbo-globalization and the information revolution (the Internet). He simply recognized that after 1990, there are new conditions of global interdependence placing greater stress on multilateral cooperation. He is especially associated with the concept of soft power in politics and diplomacy or the ability to attract and persuade. This term was coined exactly by him and his book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004) is still one of the most influential in the studies of international relations after the Cold War.

[ii] In one word, soft power is “the ability to influence other actors by persuading them to follow or agree to norms and aspirations that produce the desired behaviour” [Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 214].

[iii] Jonathan McClory, The New Persuaders: An International Ranking of Soft Power, London: Institute for Government, 2010, 5.

[iv] Diplomacy is both a negotiation procedure and communication between states seeking to resolve problems and conflicts without using war measures. Diplomacy is an instrument of foreign policy.

[v] It has to be noted that the general tendency of George Bush Junior administration towards unilateralism and in particular its policy of the War on Terror tremendously damaged the policy of soft power of the USA, especially in the Islamic states.

[vi] In other words, structural power is the ability to shape the frameworks within which global actors relate to one another and, consequently, affecting which kind of order has to be accepted in global politics.

[vii] Transnational: A configuration applicable to events, people, groups, or organizations that takes little or no account of national government or state’s borders. Nevertheless, the meaning of transnational is different from the meanings of international and/or multinational.

[viii] Bretton Woods is a New Hampshire (USA) resort in which 44 states signed a common agreement in 1944 with the purpose to establish a post-WWII international monetary and payments system. Therefore, in the literature, the term Bretton Woods system is referring to the institutions and their functioning which have been established in 1944 in Bretton Woods, in fact, as the post-WWII mechanism of the US’ structural power. The process started as the US-British wartime cooperation. The US dollar was functioning as a focal currency within the system, with dollar outflows eclipsing the resources of the IMF in financing international trade and payments. As a direct consequence of such practice, the US’ Treasury and Federal Reserve became mainly responsible and visibly dominant in the Bretton Woods system through their discretionary manipulation of the dollar, thus side-stepping the prescribed role of the IMF. However, in the course of time, the US dollar became overvalued as partly the US failed to adjust to intensified trade competition and to keep inflation in check. Consequently, confidence in the exchange rate parities declined. On another side, it was growing off-shore capital markets (for instance, Asian tigers) which exerted hard pressure on the system of exchange rate and international payments. The US administration failed in its commitment to convert dollars to gold at a fixed rate. The USA unilaterally negated the system in August 1971. Attempts to reform and revive the system failed and finally, it officially came to an end in 1976.

All images in this article are from the author

Turning Tides: The US Congress and Julian Assange

April 4th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.” — I.F. Stone

The US Congress and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, have what can only be regarded as a testy relationship.  Its various members have advocated and condoned his farcical prosecution, demanded his lifelong incarceration, even assassination, taking issue with his appetite for publishing unsavoury, classified details about the US imperium.  He who gives the game away on cant will be punished.

One shrill voice, touching on delirium, was Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, former Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman.  His response to the Cablegate release was more than a touch unhinged.  “WikiLeaks’ deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on the national security of the United States, as well as that of dozens of other countries.”

Lieberman thought the disclosure of such State Department treasure “an outrageous, reckless and despicable action that will undermine the ability of our government and our partners to keep our people safe and to work together to defend our vital interests.  Let there be no doubt: the individuals responsible are going to have blood on their hands.”

On December 1, 2010, Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) was also forthright before fellow House Representatives in arguing that both WikiLeaks and its founder “should be facing criminal charges; and his Web site, which he uses to aid and abet our terrorist enemies, should be shut down to defend our national security.”  Showing an astonishing latitude of muddled understanding, Miller urged the Obama administration to treat “WikiLeaks for what it is – a terrorist organization, whose continued operation threatens our security.”

The previous day, Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks bleated in the House that Assange had “provided a wealth of aid and comfort to groups that are at war with the United States of America.”  It was simply not possible for Franks to envisage that Assange might have engaged in an exercise of transparency.  “The reality is that his desire to promote himself has outweighed his concern for scores and perhaps hundreds of innocent lives that he has endangered with his reckless publicity in this kind of stunt in the guise of some greater cause.”

That libel, despite mountainous evidence to the contrary, much of it submitted during the trial proceedings at the Old Bailey in London, persists in the abominably drafted and dangerous Department of Justice indictment against Assange.

In time, the Russian canard filtered through the woolly-headed lawmakers, turning them into apoplectic seekers of revenge.  “Whatever Julian Assange’s intentions were for WikiLeaks,” opined Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, “what he’s become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to weaken the West and undermine American security.”  To that end, he hoped that the “British courts will quickly transfer him to US custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves.”  Such is the call of the angry tribe on The Hill.

At times, the odd voice of defence has surfaced.  The problematic Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California called Assange “a very honourable man”.  He is also alleged to have been President Donald Trump’s envoy in attempting to broker a failed pardon deal with Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy.

In January 2021, former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii urged Trump, in his last days, to “pardon Julian Assange as one of his final acts before leaving the White House.  The prosecution against the Australian was “a direct threat to a free press & freedom of speech for every American.”  In her response to Assange’s eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequent arrest, Gabbard had this to say: “I think what is happening here is … some form of retaliation coming from the government, saying, ‘Hey, this is what happens when you release information that we don’t want you to release.’”

To target Assange was to get on “such a dangerous and slippery slope, not only for journalists, not only for those in the media, but also for every American that our government can and has the power to kind of lay down the hammer to say, ‘Be careful, be quiet and fall into line, otherwise we have the means to come after you.’”

The latest move by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) promises to be something more.  Tlaib has urged that fellow members put aside their differences and append their signatures in a letter to Attorney-General Merrick Garland urging him to drop the charges.  “I know that many of us have very strong feelings about Mr Assange, but what we think of him and his actions is really beside the point here.”  The instrument being used in prosecuting Assange was “the notoriously undemocratic Espionage Act”, one that “seriously undermines freedom of the press and the First Amendment.”

Tlaib acknowledged the views of press freedom, civil liberty and human rights groups, all warning “that the charges against Mr Assange pose a grave and unprecedented threat to everyday, constitutionally protected journalistic activity, and that a conviction would represent a landmark setback for the First Amendment.”

The letter also pays lip service to US self-interest: pardon the prisoner to burnish the reputation.  The prosecution of Assange’s journalism had greatly undermined “the United States’ moral standing on the world stage, and effectively granting cover to authoritarian governments who can (and do) point to Assange’s prosecution to reject evidence-based criticisms of their human rights records and as a precedent that justifies the criminalization of reporting on their activities.”

Not even the long-winded nature of the words diminishes the fundamental wisdom and aim of the letter.  To date, signatures have been collected from Democratic Reps. Jamaal Bowman, Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush.  A spokesperson for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has stated that she will sign before the closure of the letter.  While it’s a start, it cannot come too soon for the ailing publisher and Belmarsh Prison’s most famous political prisoner.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Lawyers for Assange

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Over the past 4 decades, there has been a major increase regarding wage inequality and unequal property ownership occurring mainly in the Western countries. This relates to the neoliberal era launched by US president Ronald Reagan (1981–89) and his ally in London, prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–90). 

Neoliberalism has in effect meant large-scale exploitation by Western elites of the general public. There had long been income inequality in the US, but during the last 40 years it has grown wider there than in any other country. For example in 2013, the chief executives of 350 US companies earned on average $11.7 million that year, while the annual wage of the typical American worker was $35,293. (1) 

The average income of corporate executives was almost 800 times higher than American workers on the minimum wage, $7.25 an hour. The situation was not much better in Britain. Record-breaking levels of inequality occurred in Britain during the 1980s under prime minister Thatcher, especially from 1985, which was her most telling legacy. 

These events were not restricted to the US and Britain, but spread to countries across the West and even further afield. After World War II, investment from America and the industrial European nations was shifted to exploit Asian and Latin American states, as the Western powers sought cheaper production in the form of labour and rich natural resources. Washington supported the fascist-style regimes in Spain (Franco) and Portugal (Salazar), and collaborated with Nazi officers like Reinhard Gehlen, Walter Rauff and Otto Skorzeny, in the Cold War stand-off with Soviet Russia. 

Skorzeny, an SS lieutenant-colonel, insisted that the American authorities had helped him to escape from prison on 27 July 1948 in Darmstadt, western Germany (2). Five years before, Skorzeny had played a leading role in freeing Mussolini from a mountain-top Italian prison, at the Hotel Campo Imperatore, less than 70 miles from Rome. Skorzeny became a personal favourite of Hitler, one of his most trusted soldiers. 

As late as 29 March 1945, Hitler was singling out Skorzeny for praise; during their final meeting on the previous date mentioned, Hitler spotted Skorzeny in the corridor of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin and warmly shook his hand, thanking him profusely for his wartime actions. The journalist Martin A. Lee wrote that after the war, “The CIA was particularly interested in his [Skorzeny’s] services”. British officials reported that Skorzeny was “working for U.S. intelligence” which involved “building a sabotage organization”. (3) 

From the late 1980s, the export of Western investment was directed towards central and eastern European states. There the multinational corporations installed their plants and factories, employed workers on low wages, and began to export to the markets of the countries of their origins, be it America or England. The outsourcing of labour and displacement of manufacturing had repercussions for the labour market, and contributed to the rise in inequality. 

These developments eroded the morale of the ordinary worker, along with the trade unions and leftist parties who were supposed to represent the workers’ interests. One of the weaknesses of the left has been its splintering into different categories (socialist, social democrat, Marxist-Leninist, etc.), and how the leftist groups have a tendency to squabble among themselves. 

Because of changes in society, attacks by its adversaries and political infighting, the parties of the left in Europe and elsewhere have mostly fragmented or disappeared. There is not a great deal to distinguish between what remains. In 2009 Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm admitted in an interview, “there is no longer a left as there once was”. (4) 

On 12 November 1999 president Bill Clinton, an enthusiastic supporter of liberalism and neoliberal policies, signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The objective of this legislation was to reduce government control over industry and banking, through enacting wide-scale deregulation, which would increase the strength of private enterprises in the market. 

By passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, president Clinton allowed the Glass-Steagall Act (The Banking Act) to be repealed. The Glass-Steagall Act had been approved by the US Congress in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression, in order to prevent the banking offences that contributed to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Alan Greenspan, who from 1987 to 2006 was chairman of the Federal Reserve (America’s central banking system) believed the Glass-Steagall Act was “obsolete and outdated”. Clinton it seems agreed with him. 

One of America’s largest energy firms, Enron, held great influence in Washington from the end of the 1980s onward. At one time or another, over 250 members of the US Congress were receiving financial donations from Enron, and George W. Bush was the biggest recipient of Enron contributions (5). Bush received various funding from Enron, during his campaign to be the governor of Texas in the mid-1990s, and in his bid to become the US president a few years later. 

Bush was a close friend of Kenneth Lay, the Enron chairman and founder. Lay was indicted by an American grand jury for fraud in July 2004, with Enron having filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 because of deliberate financial mismanagement. At the time it was the largest bankruptcy in America’s history. 

Among Enron’s stockholders was Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense; Bush’s top adviser, Karl Rove; Linda Fisher, a Bush administration official; Peter Fisher, the Treasury Undersecretary; and Robert Zoellick, a future Deputy Secretary of State under Bush (6). Zoellick held a number of posts, from 1989 to 1993, in the presidential cabinet of Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush. 

The administration of the younger Bush (2001–09) was influenced by Wall Street money. Bush continued where his predecessor Clinton had left off, by expanding the deregulation to sectors of the US economy. The risk-taking and speculative actions of real estate brokers, assisted by the deregulation, increased between 2002 and 2007. There was no proper inhibition or control over the flow of cash. Super banks were created which took trillions of dollars of loans from each other on a regular basis, and also from central banks. 

The explosion of the financial bubble was not unexpected, and it finally began to burst in the first half of 2007. In July the same year, European banks recorded losses on contracts relating to subprime mortgages (7). The default on the mortgages signalled a meltdown, affecting loans to companies, credit cards, and other transactions. The Wall Street banks and financial institutions were in serious trouble by 2008. 

President Bush resorted to bailing them out with US taxpayer money, to the bitterness of much of the population. Bush dispensed with billions of dollars of taxpayer income, on some occasions without letting the Congress know of what he was doing (8). The Federal Reserve, headquartered in Washington, did not inform the American people as to who the beneficiaries were of the bailout. Nor did the bankers reveal how much cash they received. 

Already in 2007 Lloyd Blankfein, chairman of one of America’s biggest banks (Goldman Sachs), reportedly received a bonus that year of nearly $68 million as the crisis was deepening (9). Blankfein possessed shares worth over half a billion dollars. The financial collapse of 2007–08 undermined the order of the liberal West. It affected the sovereign debts of EU and NATO countries, which served to damage the confidence placed in the US. 

America’s position as the global superpower has been declining since its military attack against Iraq (10), the 20th anniversary of which has just passed. The failure to discover weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which had always been a dubious allegation, along with the complete destabilisation of Iraq and the surrounding Middle East, caused permanent damage to Washington’s reputation. 

Looking back 20 years later, the failed invasion of Iraq may well have proved a turning point in US affairs, marking the watershed between the years of happy prosperity for Washington which preceded 2003, to the later years of mounting uncertainty and trouble. The inability to subdue Iraq resulted in an erosion of US power in the Middle East, which continues to the present, borne out by the improvement in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the latter traditionally a key American ally. These occurrences can only be viewed with alarm in Washington. 

Recently, through attempts to maintain its hegemony and stall the decline, we witness dangerous and rather desperate acts by the Americans; such as sending aerial vehicles and vessels across the seas that flow beside Russia and China, who are nuclear powers and possess large militaries. Regarding the attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which occurred 6 months ago, the motive and available evidence points to the Americans having firm involvement in the sabotage of the pipelines – most probably with at least tacit support from fervently anti-Russian NATO states like Britain. 

Motive alone is very suggestive. When a criminal act is perpetrated, a good police detective will usually look for motive, as in who stands to benefit from the crime. In this case the leading Western powers, for their own political reasons, undoubtedly desired the sabotaging of Nord Stream. President Joe Biden said just over a year ago that the Americans would stop Nord Stream “one way or another”. (11) 

The manipulation of Washington has increased over the past few decades. In 1971 there were 171 lobby groups in America, professional lobbyists who try to influence the US government and politicians. A decade later, in 1981 the number of lobby groups in America had risen to 2,500. By 2007 there were 14,816 lobbyists in the country, and the number has remained quite stable through to today. (12) 

There has never been real transparency with the US lobbying industry, who the lobbyists and clients are, how much money is involved and what it is used for. In 2013, it became known that about $3.2 million of lobbyist cash was used to bribe US congressmen (13). The lobbyists concentrated in Washington craft legislation with the money they give to politicians, and so the US can hardly be called a democracy. 

The system relating to election campaigning in the US, by its nature, makes politicians favourable to the banks and multinational firms. This evolution of the American system became more acute with the collapse of communism 3 decades ago, a development which strengthened the myth about “American exceptionalism”. (14)

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Geopolitica.RU.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes 

1 “CEOs at big U.S. companies paid 331 times average worker”, Inter Press Service, 16 April 2014

2 Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens (Routledge; 1st edition, 12 October 1999) p. 43 

3 Ibid. 

4 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st edition, 4 February 2019) p. 28 

5 Ibid., p. 31 

6 “15 Bush officials owned Enron stock”, Irish Examiner, 12 January 2002

7 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 32 

8 Ibid. 

9 “Goldman’s Blankfein collects $68 million bonus”, CNN, 21 December 2007

10 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 35 

11 “Ukraine War: Will ‘Nordic-Bomb’ hurt America’s stakes & reputation in Europe as it battles Russia?” Eurasian Times, 17 February 2023

12 “Number of registered active lobbyists in the United States from 2000 to 2022”, Statista, 25 January 2023

13 Bandeira, The World Disorder, p. 36 

14 Ibid., p. 34

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

For at least a generation or more, America’s international policies have increasingly been governed by our Ministry of Propaganda, and the bill may finally be starting to come due.

Last Wednesday the Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia was joining China’s Shanghai Cooperative Organization, a decision that came just a few weeks after the announcement that it had reestablished diplomatic relations with arch-enemy Iran following negotiations held in Beijing under Chinese auspices. For three generations, the oil rich kingdom had been America’s most important Arab ally, and the lead sentence of the Journal article emphasized that this dramatic development reflected our waning influence in the Middle East.

That same day, Brazil declared that it was abandoning the use of dollars in its transactions with China, its largest trading partner, following an earlier statement that its president planned to meet with China’s leader in support of that country’s efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, a diplomatic initiative strongly opposed by our own government. Geopolitical dominoes seem to rapidly falling, taking down American influence with them.

Given our country’s horrendous budget and trade deficits, America’s continued standard of living is heavily dependent upon the international use of the dollar, especially for oil sales, so these are extremely threatening developments. For decades, we have freely exchanged our government script for goods and commodities from around the world, and if that becomes much more difficult, our global situation may grow dire. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the threatened collapse of the British pound marked the end of Britain’s influence on the global stage, and America may be rapidly approaching its own “Suez moment.”

Despite our enormous efforts and the shrill support of the global Western media, few countries other than our own subservient vassals have been willing to follow our lead and impose sanctions on Russia, further evidence of our greatly diminished international clout.

Since the 1980s I have regarded the tectonic shift of geopolitical power to China as an almost inevitable consequence of that country’s development, and more than a decade ago I had described those powerful trends, already long visible.

But the facts have now become blatantly obvious. Jacques Sapir serves as director of studies at the EHESS, one of France’s leading academic institutions, and a few months ago he published a short article setting forth the striking economic statistics, an analysis that has received less attention than it deserves.

He explained that according to nominal exchange rates Russia had a small economy, just half as large as that of France and roughly the same as Spain’s, so it had seemed very vulnerable to the unprecedented wave of Western sanctions imposed after the outbreak of the Ukraine war. But Russia survived almost unscathed, and instead it was the West that suffered critical energy shortages, a severe bout of inflation, and other serious economic stresses, suggesting that those comparisons were merely illusory.

By contrast, according to the far more realistic Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) metric, Russia’s economy was actually far larger, being comparable to that of Germany. But even that measure seriously underestimated the true balance of international power.

Among Western economies, services comprise a large, sometimes overwhelming fraction of total economic activity, and those statistics are far more subject to manipulation. Some economists have argued that drug-dealing, prostitution, and other criminal activity should be included in that total, which would therefore boost the supposed measure of our national prosperity.

By contrast, during periods of sharp international conflict, the productive sectors of GDP—industry, mining, agriculture, and construction—probably constitute a far better measure of relative economic power, and Russia is much stronger in that category. So although Russia’s nominal GDP is merely half that of France, its real productive economy is more than twice as large, representing nearly a five-fold shift in relative economic power. This helps explain why Russia so easily surmounted the Western sanctions that had been expected to cripple it.

When Sapir extends this same analysis to other countries, the results are even more remarkable. Although our disingenuous mainstream media invariably describes China as having the world’s second largest economy, it actually surpassed America in real terms several years ago as anyone can confirm by consulting the CIA’s World Factbook. But while a substantial 44% of China’s fully modern economy consists of services, America’s service sector—advertising, retail sales, education, personal services, diversity consulting—amounts to nearly 80% of our total, reducing our productive output to merely a small residual fraction.

One of Sapir’s tables demonstrated that as far back as 2019, China’s real productive economy was already three times larger than America’s.

Indeed, by 2017 China’s real productive sector exceeded the combined total for America, the European Union, and Japan.

American boosters often take comfort in our supposed advantages in technology and innovation, but although our past lead had been enormous, this seems less true today or in the future. Sapir provided a chart showing the tremendous growth in Chinese patent applications over the last forty years, which have increased from almost nothing to more than 60% of the world total by 2018, nearly five times America’s share.

There is some empirical evidence that these official statistics have real-world impact. American companies created and once entirely dominated the social media and smartphone ecosystem that is so important to global consumers, and for years their position seemed unassailable. But according to a recent WSJ article, four of the five most popular smartphone apps in the U.S. are now Chinese, with Facebook ranked fifth. The main response of our bipartisan political class has been to threaten a ban on TikTok, wildly popular among our own youth, much like the nomenklatura of the decaying Soviet Union had once desperately tried to ban Western blue jeans and rock music.

This rapid rise of China in technology and economic competitiveness is hardly surprising. As physicist Steve Hsu pointed out in 2008, according to international psychometric data, America’s population probably contains some 10,000 individuals having an IQ of 160 or higher, while the total for China is around 300,000, a figure thirty times larger.

China’s greatest strategic vulnerability had been its dependence upon imported energy and raw materials to feed its massive industrial base, and during an international confrontation America could potentially have used its control of the seas to interdict such vital supplies. But Russia possesses the world’s greatest treasure-chest of such resources, and our unremitting hostility has now driven that country into a tight embrace of its Chinese neighbor, as recently emphasized by the Moscow Summit of their two national leaders.

Thus, our own actions have forged a strong China-Russia alliance that seems likely to displace America from its dominant global position. Such an outcome would be an event of historic proportions, comparable in magnitude to the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago.

Harvard’s Graham Allison was the founding dean of the Kennedy School of Government, assuming that post while I was still in high school, and his influential 2017 bestseller Destined for War coined the phrase “the Thucydides Trap” for what he feared might be an almost inevitable conflict between a rising China and a globally dominant America. But our irrational hostility toward Russia has now transformed the geopolitical landscape, and last week he took to the pages of Foreign Policy to argue that the China-Russia alliance now probably outweighed our own:

His closing paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

An elementary proposition in international relations 101 states: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” By confronting both China and Russia simultaneously, the United States has helped create what former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called an “alliance of the aggrieved.” This has allowed Xi to reverse Washington’s successful “trilateral diplomacy” of the 1970s that widened the gap between China and the United States’ primary enemy, the Soviet Union, in ways that contributed significantly to the U.S. victory in the Cold War. Today, China and Russia are, in Xi’s words, closer than allies.

Since Xi and Putin are not just the current presidents of their two nations but leaders whose tenures effectively have no expiration dates, the United States will have to understand that it is confronting the most consequential undeclared alliance in the world.

According to Allison, we are currently witnessing the end of the unchallenged American global dominance that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago. Therefore, it was quite fitting that he quoted the views of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-born political scientist who had been a major architect of our successful strategy during the victorious later stages of that Cold War conflict.

A longtime academic scholar of the “Realist” school at both Harvard and Columbia universities, Brzezinski had been the primary organizer of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 and in 1976 was named National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, gradually gaining ascendancy for his harder-line views against his rival, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. He strongly supported Eastern European dissident activity, notably including the powerful Solidarity movement in his own native Poland, and he also orchestrated heavy military assistance to the Muslim rebels in Soviet-controlled Afghanistan. Both those efforts probably played a significant role in fatally weakening the USSR.

Indeed, although Brzezinski was himself a Democrat of strong social democratic leanings, his foreign policy positions were so greatly admired by Republican conservatives that there were even later claims that Ronald Reagan had asked him to stay on in that same role after Carter’s 1980 defeat.

By the mid-1980s, Brzezinski had become convinced that Soviet Communism was in terminal decline and in 1989 he published The Grand Failure, bearing the prophetic subtitle “The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century.” The work appeared in print nearly a year before the Fall of the Berlin Wall marked the end of an epoch.

The collapse of the Iron Curtain reunited the severed halves of Europe two generations after their separation, and this was followed two years later by the shocking collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union itself. Moscow soon lost control over territories it had ruled for centuries, with most of the boundaries of the Russian successor state rolled back to what they had been prior to the reign of Peter the Great in 1682.

The sudden disappearance of the USSR totally transformed the geopolitical landscape, leaving America as the world’s sole superpower, having unchallenged dominance over the entire globe, a situation unique in world history.

Brzezinski considered the consequences of that global upheaval and in 1997 published The Grand Chessboard, a short but influential book summarizing our unprecedented international position and outlining geostrategic policies to buttress our new dominance on the Eurasian world continent, the region that constituted the “grand chessboard” of his title.

Over the years, I’ve frequently seen accusations that Brzezinski was advocating a strategy for permanent American global hegemony, but I think such critics were confusing his ideas with the crude triumphalism espoused by the Neocons, who followed an entirely different ideological path. I finally read his book several years ago and encountered a very thoughtful and moderate analysis of the dangers and opportunities America faced on the Eurasian landmass, with the author repeatedly emphasizing that our worldwide dominance was merely a temporary condition, impossible to permanently maintain.

America was his country and he certainly proposed alliances and other measures to strengthen and extend our global position, but he sought to do so in a reasonable and restrained manner, avoiding provocative or precipitous actions and properly accommodating the legitimate geopolitical interests of other major powers such as China, Russia, Japan, and the larger European states.

His book had appeared near the absolute high-water mark of American prestige and influence and in the aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks a few years later, Brzezinski became a strong public critic of the Bush Administration’s Neocon-influenced plans for an Iraq War, a disastrous mistake that wrecked the stability of the Middle East, squandered our national credibility, and cost us many trillions of dollars. Since the mid-1970s his closest ally and collaborator had been his former military aide Bill Odom, who as a three-star general later ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan during the mid-1980s, and the two of them later urged an immediate strategic rapprochement with Iran and withdrawal from Iraq.

The dramatic geopolitical shifts we are now experiencing recently prompted me to reread Brzezinski’s short 1997 book and doing so fully confirmed my recollections. Early on, he set forth the key reasons for America’s global dominance, expecting that most of them would persist for at least a generation and possibly longer:

In brief, America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily, it has an unmatched global reach; economically, it remains the main locomotive of global growth, even if challenged in some respects by Japan and Germany (neither of which enjoys the other attributes of global might); technologically, it retains the overall lead in the cutting-edge areas of innovation; and culturally, despite some crassness, it enjoys an appeal that is unrivaled, especially among the world’s youth—all of which gives the United States a political clout that no other state comes close to matching. It is the combination of all four that makes America the only comprehensive global superpower.

Although the Polish-born author surely retained some deep personal hostility toward his homeland’s traditional Russian adversary and his book was written close to the nadir of Russia’s national decline, only traces of such animosity were visible, and he fully considered the possibility that a revived Russia would successfully integrate itself into an enlarged Europe, the “common European home” once espoused by Mikhail Gorbachev. He expressed some concern about instability in the Islamic world, but our disastrous post-9/11 Middle Eastern wars would have seemed acts of unimaginable recklessness and folly.

The penultimate and longest chapter of his Eurasia analysis was entitled “The Far Eastern Anchor” and he described that region as experiencing “an economic success without parallel in human development.” He noted that during their takeoff stage of industrialization, Britain and America had each required roughly a half-century to double their output, while both China and South Korea had achieved that same result in merely a single decade. Brzezinski felt confident that barring unfortunate circumstances, China would surely grow into a leading global economic power, and believed that our own country should seek to incorporate it into the world system we had constructed, while properly recognizing that “China’s history has been one of national greatness.”

But although Brzezinski’s appraisal of China’s prospects was highly favorable, his 1997 analysis was actually quite cautious in its projections. He doubted that the country’s remarkable economic growth rates would continue for another couple of decades, something that would require “an unusually felicitous combination of effective national leadership” and numerous other favorable conditions, arguing that such a “prolonged combination of all of these positive factors was problematic.”

Instead, he leaned towards a more conventional prognosis that by about 2017, China might have a total GDP considerably larger than that of Japan, thereby establishing it as “a global power, roughly on a par with the United States and Europe.” But the reality was that by that year China’s real GDP was more than four times larger than that of Japan, and its real industrial production was greater than that of America and the European Union combined.

Thus, China’s economic weight in today’s world vastly exceeds Brzezinski’s 1997 assumptions and that difference magnifies the importance of his strategic warnings, which our political leadership has utterly disregarded. Throughout his book, he repeatedly emphasized that the greatest danger America faced would be if we needlessly antagonized major Eurasian nations, which might then unite against us:

Finally, some possible contingencies involving future political alignments should also be briefly noted…the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power…Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an “antihegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances…Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.

However, a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.

Given recent events, his prophetic warnings were completely disregarded. Instead, our national political leadership chose to exactly invert his suggestions, and they did so despite China having grown much stronger than he had envisioned.

Brzezinski himself recognized some of these important developments, and the year before his death in 2017, he updated his analysis to proclaim that the era of American dominance was already drawing to a close and we should recognize that reality.

  • Toward a Global Realignment
    As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski • The American Interest • April 17, 2016 • 2,500 Words

Instead of heeding his concerns and adjusting their policies accordingly, our government has doubled-down on its crude strategy of attempting to maintain an impossible American global hegemony, a policy that seems likely to end in national disaster.

Our leaders have apparently decided to play a game of “Fool’s Mate” on the grand Eurasian chessboard.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.”—Former New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg

Let’s talk about fake news stories, shall we?

There’s the garden variety fake news that is not really “news” so much as it is titillating, tabloid-worthy material peddled by anyone with a Twitter account, a Facebook page and an active imagination. These stories run the gamut from the ridiculous and the obviously click-baity to the satirical and politically manipulative.

Anyone with an ounce of sense and access to the Internet should be able to ferret out the truth and lies in these stories with some basic research. That these stories flourish is largely owing to the general gullibility, laziness and media illiteracy of the general public, which through its learned compliance rarely questions, challenges or confronts.

Then there’s the more devious kind of news stories circulated by one of the biggest propagators of fake news: the U.S. government.

In the midst of the government and corporate media’s carefully curated apoplexy over fake news, you won’t hear much about the government’s own role in producing, planting and peddling propaganda-driven fake news—often with the help of the corporate news media—because that’s not how the game works.

Why?

Because the powers-that-be don’t want us skeptical of the government’s message or its corporate accomplices in the mainstream media. They don’t want us to be more discerning when it comes to what information we digest online. They just want us to be leery of independent or alternative news sources while trusting them—and their corporate colleagues—to vet the news for us.

Indeed, in recent years, Facebook and Google have conveniently appointed themselves the arbiters of truth on the internet in order to screen out what is blatantly false, spam or click-baity.

Not only does this establish a dangerous precedent for all-out censorship by corporate entities known for colluding with the government but it’s also a slick sleight-of-hand maneuver that diverts attention from what we should really be talking about: the fact that the government has grown dangerously out-of-control, all the while the so-called mainstream news media, which is supposed to act as a bulwark against government propaganda, has instead become the mouthpiece of the world’s largest corporation—the U.S. government.

As veteran journalist Carl Bernstein, who along with Bob Woodward blew the lid off the Watergate scandal, reported in his expansive 1977 Rolling Stone piece, “The CIA and the Media”:

“More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency… There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services… Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters… In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”

Bernstein is referring to Operation Mockingbird, a CIA campaign started in the 1950s to plant intelligence reports among reporters at more than 25 major newspapers and wire agencies, who would then regurgitate them for a public oblivious to the fact that they were being fed government propaganda.

In some instances, as Bernstein shows, members of the media also served as extensions of the surveillance state, with reporters actually carrying out assignments for the CIA.

Executives with CBS, the New York Times and Time magazine also worked closely with the CIA to vet the news. Bernstein writes: “Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York HeraldTribune.”

In fact, in August 1964, the nation’s leading newspapers—including the Washington Post and New York Times—echoed Lyndon Johnson’s claim that North Vietnam had launched a second round of attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. No such attacks had taken place, and yet the damage was done. As Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon report for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.”

Fast forward to the early post-9/11 years when, despite a lack of any credible data supporting the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the mainstream media jumped on the bandwagon to sound the war drums against Iraq. As Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian put it, “our government … used its immense bully pulpit to steamroll the watchdogs… Many were gulled by access to administration insiders, or susceptible to the drumbeat of the government’s coordinated rhetoric.”

John Walcott, Washington bureau chief for Knight-Ridder, one of the only news agencies to challenge the government’s rationale for invading Iraq, suggests that the reason for the media’s easy acceptance is that “too many journalists, including some very famous ones, have surrendered their independence in order to become part of the ruling class. Journalism is, as the motto goes, speaking truth to power, not wielding it.”

If it was happening then, you can bet it’s still happening today, only it’s been reclassified, renamed and hidden behind layers of government secrecy, obfuscation and spin.

In its article, “How the American government is trying to control what you think,” the Washington Post points out “Government agencies historically have made a habit of crossing the blurry line between informing the public and propagandizing.”

Thus, whether you’re talking about the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the government’s invasion of Iraq based upon absolute fabrications, the Russo-Ukrainian War, or the government’s ongoing war on terror, privacy and whistleblowers, it’s being driven by propaganda churned out by one corporate machine (the corporate-controlled government) and fed to the American people by way of yet another corporate machine (the corporate-controlled media).

“For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it,” writes investigative journalist Nick Davies. “The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news.”

But wait.

If the mass media—aka the mainstream media or the corporate or establishment media—is merely repeating what is being fed to it, who are the masterminds within the government responsible for this propaganda?

Davies explains:

The Pentagon has now designated “information operations” as its fifth “core competency” alongside land, sea, air and special forces. Since October 2006, every brigade, division and corps in the US military has had its own “psyop” element producing output for local media. This military activity is linked to the State Department’s campaign of “public diplomacy” which includes funding radio stations and news websites.

This use of propaganda disguised as journalism is what journalist John Pilger refers to as “invisible government… the true ruling power of our country.”

Clearly, we no longer have a Fourth Estate.

Not when the “news” we receive is routinely manufactured, manipulated and made-to-order by government agents.

Not when six corporations control 90% of the media in America.

Not when, as Davies laments, “news organizations which might otherwise have exposed the truth were themselves part of the abuse, and so they kept silent, indulging in a comic parody of misreporting, hiding the emerging scandal from their readers like a Victorian nanny covering the children’s eyes from an accident in the street.”

And not, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, when media outlets have become propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.

After all, as Glenn Greenwald points out, “The term propaganda rings melodramatic and exaggerated, but a press that—whether from fear, careerism, or conviction—uncritically recites false government claims and reports them as fact, or treats elected officials with a reverence reserved for royalty, cannot be accurately described as engaged in any other function.”

So where does that leave us?

What should—or can—we do?

I’ll close with John Pilger’s words of warning and advice:

Real information, subversive information, remains the most potent power of all — and I believe that we must not fall into the trap of believing that the media speaks for the public. That wasn’t true in Stalinist Czechoslovakia and it isn’t true of the United States. In all the years I’ve been a journalist, I’ve never known public consciousness to have risen as fast as it’s rising today…yet this growing critical public awareness is all the more remarkable when you consider the sheer scale of indoctrination, the mythology of a superior way of life, and the current manufactured state of fear.

[The public] need[s] truth, and journalists ought to be agents of truth, not the courtiers of power. I believe a fifth estate is possible, the product of a people’s movement, that monitors, deconstructs, and counters the corporate media. In every university, in every media college, in every news room, teachers of journalism, journalists themselves need to ask themselves about the part they now play in the bloodshed in the name of a bogus objectivity. Such a movement within the media could herald a perestroika of a kind that we have never known. This is all possible. Silences can be broken… In the United States wonderfully free rebellious spirits populate the web… The best reporting … appears on the web … and citizen reporters.

The challenge for the rest of us is to lift this subjugated knowledge from out of the underground and take it to ordinary people. We need to make haste. Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Activist Post

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Let’s face our national crisis head-on. Israel is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Our diversity spreads across religions and religious beliefs from atheists to ultra-Orthodox haredim, where there is also great diversity, ethnicity, language, culture, socioeconomic strata and more. From this diversity it has never been more difficult to create a sense of peoplehood and unity among Israelis – groups of people who together as a nation defines themselves and their citizens.

Being Israeli is perhaps the single common thread between all of us in this country, not including the occupied territories. Among Israeli Jews, the common thread is very weak, if not completely torn by the deep conflicts between those who see themselves first and foremost as Israelis and those who see themselves first and foremost as Jews.

Not all Israelis are Jewish by birth or conviction. Twenty-one percent of us are Palestinian Arabs, most of whom are Muslims by faith and conviction, and others are Christians and Druze. The thread of Israeli identity that should bind Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis barely exists and the little that did exist has been torn by the lack of equality, racism, hatred, fear and incitement.

The Jewish nation-state law was the knife that fatally cut the thread of a common identity in this country. Since then (2018) it has only gotten worse.

Iran is not Israel’s primary existential threat. Untamed nationalism is the primary existential threat that faces us. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. I am referring to chauvinism, which is nationalism on steroids. Chauvinism is a perversion of nationalism and it is in no way patriotism. Israeli chauvinism promotes the idea that inclusion and diversity represent weakness and that the only way to succeed and survive is through blind allegiance to the supremacy of one race or people over all others. Nothing should be less Israeli.

Embracing our diversity should be the source of our national and civic strength. We, the people of Israel, should mean all the people of Israel with all of the wonderful inspiring diversity. I have always imagined an Israel where we celebrate the diversity of our society and not fear and hate it. But we have become a society that incites against those who are different from us and against those who don’t agree with us.

What does Israel need to become a shining example of a society embracing diversity?

IN ORDER for Israel to become a shining example of a society that embraces diversity, we must enshrine within our laws the most basic principles of freedom: Freedom of religion and from religion, freedom of expression, freedom from the tyranny of government and of the majority, freedom for minorities, freedom of the press, freedom to organize politically and freedom to demonstrate. We must all be equal before the law and in the practice of all in our society.

There should not even be a sense that there are those who are privileged and those who are discriminated against. We must remove all forms of discrimination from our laws and our practices. We must insist that our government representatives work for the benefit and equality of all of our citizens. We must insist on ourselves that we recognize the common basis of our existence here in this country is our citizenship and that should come before those elements of our identities that divide us. 

We need to embrace common decency and reject those who incite against any segment of our population. Israel can only survive and prosper if we become a society of acceptance and celebration of our diversity. That is what enriches us as a county and inspires excellence, achievement and initiative. The sum of our parts are so much greater than their individual value. We must refuse to tolerate racism and incitement against others from our politicians, the media and the loud voices on social media. Those who incite should be ostracized and condemned.

Lastly, whatever the outcome of future relations between the two peoples striving for a territorial expression of their identity in this land, we must reject the idea that one people can rule over the other. Military law and control that removes any form of freedom and liberation to the millions of Palestinians living between the river and the sea cannot be accepted from a country striving for its own legitimation amongst the community of nations.

We must seek equality among all Israelis and we must accept the principle that both peoples living here have the same right to the same rights. If we accept these principles, we will find the ability to live in peace among the citizens of Israel and between Israel and all of our neighbors.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Jerusalem Post.

The writer is a political and social entrepreneur who has dedicated his life to Israel and to peace between Israel and its neighbors. He is now directing The Holy Land Bond and is the Middle East Director for ICO – International Communities Organization.

Featured image is from PressTV

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Passover: Time to Bring Freedom, Equality to Israel’s Palestinians
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Colorado – 17 year old boy needs Lung transplant after COVID-19 Vaccination

Click here or the image above to view the video

A 17 year old boy Lonnie Pesterfield from Colorado had a COVID-19 vaccine in February 2022. In October 2022, he had a routine surgery to remove two impacted wisdom teeth. Within weeks he was taken to ER, and declared septic while coughing up blood. (click here)

He went into septic shock, and was placed on a ventilator. He was then diagnosed with a rare ANCA+ Vasculitis and is now in need of a lung transplant. The vasculitis caused severe damage to his lungs, destroyed his spleen, and caused mild to moderate damage to his kidneys and liver. (click here)

“It is one in a million that someone his age would have this autoimmune disease.”

His lung function has dropped to 13%.

Dr.Peter McCullough recently wrote a substack on ANCA+ Vasculitis and renal failure after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination (click here)

Dayton, Ohio – 18 year old High school athlete Ebonie Sherwood who collapsed on March 7, 2023 has received a heart transplant 

I recently reported on high school kids who are having heart attacks during sports and I wrote about 18 year old Ohio High school athlete Ebonie Sherwood who had a heart attack during track practice on March 7, 2023 (click here).

I have just learned that she has now received a heart transplant, only two weeks after collapsing at track practice, because her heart was “not healing on its own”. (click here)

Source: (click here)

Denver, Colorado high school football star Markus Martinez suffered a major heart attack and now needs a heart transplant

Image Source: (click here)

Markus Martinez, former Columbine High School football star, now a senior at Bear Creek High School, suffered a major heart attack November 17, 2022 and needs a heart transplant.

Shelly Segura, Markus’ mother, said his heart is only functioning at 12% to 15%, which means he needs a new heart as soon as possible. (click here)

“His heart is just unfortunately too sick right now,” Segura said.

Evanston, Illinois – 19 year old student Simone Scott had heart failure after Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, had a heart transplant, then died on June 11, 2021

Simone Scott, a 19 year old journalism student, received her first dose of ModernaCOVID-19 mRNA vaccine on April 3, 2021, and her second dose on May 1, 2021. She started feeling ill almost right away and two weeks later was unable to walk. (click here)

Doctors told her mother that Simone suffered heart failure due to myocarditis and needed immediate surgery. Simone was placed on an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine the next day. It essentially acts as a heart outside the body, pumping and oxygenating blood so the real heart can rest. Simone was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital and had a heart transplant on May 23, 2021 (3 weeks after her 2nd Moderna dose).

Doctors said the new heart worked well. But Simone’s lungs endured a lot of damage from both the medications and breathing machines and she died on June 11, 2021.

South Korea – a healthy 14-year old girl had myocarditis after Pfizer, is now awaiting a heart transplant

Other COVID-19 vaccine injury horror stories 

54 year old Dutch-Canadian man has severe myocarditis post Pfizer COVID-19 booster and now needs heart transplant

54 year old Alex van Kooten was healthy and active. After taking a Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA booster, he is suffering from a case of myocarditis so severe, he now needs a heart transplant. (click here)

Before heart failure changed his life forever, Alex van Kooten was an otherwise extremely healthy and fit 52-year-old who frequently enjoyed sports and leisure activities, such as skiing, bicycle racing, and kite surfing

“we moved to Aruba to enjoy the weather, and then COVID hit, and needless to say that we were kind of stuck…after two years of not seeing the children, the only option we had to see the children was to get vaccinated in order to get back into Canada

He got his 1st Pfizer dose in March 2021 and only had a sore arm. He got his 2nd dose in May 2021 and started developing heart palpitations and shortness of breath. Doctors told him what he was experiencing was psychological and stress related.

In March 2022, he took a booster shot. “days after taking the booster shot he becameunable to lie down “without gasping for air and was barely able to walk 20 feet.”

He ended up in the ICU and now needs a heart transplant.

50 year old Rita Sexton was diagnosed with very rare Giant Cell myocarditis post COVID-19 vaccine, now needs heart transplant 

Cincinnati man Mitch Graham was also diagnosed with Giant Cell myocarditis post COVID-19 vaccine, now needs heart transplant 

South Korea – published case of Giant Cell Myocarditis following AstraZeneca and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination, requiring heart transplant

A 48 year old female patient had a heart transplant for acute fulminant myocarditis following vaccination with AstraZeneca and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines. Organ autopsy revealed giant cell myocarditis, possibly related to the vaccines. (click here)

She had AstraZeneca vaccine first, then 77 days later she had Pfizer vaccine and four days later developed symptoms which led to very rapid heart failure requiring a heart transplant.

My Take…

Any doctor who claimed that post Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myocarditis was rare and mild, should be stripped of their medical license and never allowed to practice medicine again.

According to NIH – National Library of Medicine, mortality rate of myocarditis is up to 20% at 1 year and 50% at 5 years. (click here)

According to the Myocarditis Foundation, myocarditis accounts for up to 45% of heart transplants in the US today.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Teenagers Need Heart or Lung Transplant After Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination.

Xi-Putin Summit: Strategy Meeting for the Coming East-West War?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, April 03, 2023

The Xi-Putin Summit (March 22-24) was a strategic summit of two “non-western” super powers. The outcome of the summit will have far-reaching implications for the future of mankind. What the two leaders decided upon will be a strategic factor in the choice between a unipolar world and  a multipolar world.

Tyranny Is Unleashed: The Death of Free Speech, Truth, and the Rule of Law

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 03, 2023

A Delaware Superior Court Judge, Eric M. Davis, has ruled for Dominion election machines that Fox News reporting of evidence of election fraud in the last presidential election is false. In other words, on his own authority Davis has negated the evidence.  Having disposed of the evidence by edict, he has given a go-ahead to Dominion’s law suit against Fox News for defamation. 

Putin-Xi Geopolitical Game-changing Summit at the Kremlin

By Pepe Escobar, April 03, 2023

How sharp was good ol’ Lenin, prime modernist, when he mused, “there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen”. This global nomad now addressing you has enjoyed the privilege of spending four astonishing weeks in Moscow at the heart of an historical crossroads – culminating with the Putin-Xi geopolitical game-changing summit at the Kremlin.

Will Zelensky Take Back Crimea?

By Rick Sterling, April 03, 2023

Seventeen months ago the US State Department officially declared the US will “NEVER” recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Three months ago Ukrainian President Zelensky vowed to “take back” Crimea.  Is this possible?

Putin’s Enormous Blunder

By Eric Zuesse, April 03, 2023

Putin’s biggest-ever blunder has been his failure to have offered to Finland a guarantee of peaceful relations, and of favored-nation status on trade (including on energy-prices of oil and gas, which, prior to the 2022 U.S.-imposed sanctions against Russia, European countries had, for decades, been buying at lower prices from Russia than from any other country, even without any favored-nation status), if Finland will not join NATO.

Together We Are Strong. If We Citizens Unite, We Can Punch a Hole in the World

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, April 03, 2023

It is my concern to work together with all constructive “forces” for the benefit of fellow human beings, because we citizens can change the world through this. After all, we owe the next generation a future worth living.

Yugoslavia 1999: For the Sake of the Future. NATO Crime Against Peace and Humanity

By Živadin Jovanović, April 03, 2023

There has been almost a quarter of a century since NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). During the aggression, some 4,000 of our fellow citizens were killed and twice as many injured. Three quarters of casualties were civilians, among them sadly a large number of children, from Milica Rakić, a toddler from Batajnica, to Sanja Milenković Serbia’s high school champion in mathematics from Varvarin.

The Tragic U.S. Choice to Prioritize War Over Peacemaking

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, April 03, 2023

In a brilliant Op-Ed published in the New York Times, the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi explained how China, with help from Iraq, was able to mediate and resolve the deeply-rooted conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, whereas the United States was in no position to do so after siding with the Saudi kingdom against Iran for decades.

No Fake “Unification” for Korea

By Emanuel Pastreich, April 03, 2023

I learned early on that the debate on North Korea is controlled by a handful of experts on North Korea who are jealous of their territory; they do not welcome outsiders, or amateurs, into their discussions—whether in Washington D.C. or in Seoul.

Putin’s Nuclear Red Line. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, April 03, 2023

Moscow points out that the United States has placed its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, in six NATO countries: Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, and Greece (they are not currently in Greece, but there is a depot ready to receive them).

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Xi-Putin Summit: Strategy Meeting for the Coming East-West War?

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Here’s a revealing video from Jerusalem, at one of the massive demonstrations that are shaking Israel’s far-right wing government. Note the sea of Israeli flags in the background, characteristic of the weeks of protest so far. And then watch what happens when some brave soul unfurls a Palestinian flag, perhaps to test Israel’s “democracy.” His attackers look like a combination of security officials and possibly other bystanders. This is yet another sign of Israeli apartheid.

It is a mistake to dismiss the nationwide protests in Israel as insignificant. In the mainstream U.S. press, Netanyahu is getting by far the most negative coverage that I can recall any Israeli government ever receiving in my (long) lifetime. But the U.S. media, so far, is (unsurprisingly) missing one key element of the story: the shockingly different ways that the Israeli police and military treat Jewish and Palestinian protests.

A brief New York Times snippet today (by Raja Abdulrahim) does note that Israel’s Palestinian citizens “have largely stayed on the sidelines” in the current protest wave. But the brief mini-article asserts that the Palestinian lack of interest is because “the demonstrations have ignored issues important to them, such as ending the occupation of the West Bank.”

This is undoubtedly true, but incomplete. You have to turn to Odeh Bisharat, a Palestinian who writes a regular column in the Israeli daily Haaretz, for more. Bisharat explains how he joined a pro-democracy vigil (of both Jews and Palestinians) in his town of Yafia. A pointed question from a young Palestinian passer-by prompted Bisharat to analyze how Israel’s authorities react differently depending on who is protesting.

Here is his comparison. He noted that last Thursday, overwhelmingly Jewish protesters staged a nationwide day of paralysis, blocking roads and preventing ministers from speaking at conferences:

By the end of this stormy day, 108 protesters had been arrested, of whom 100 were released that same day and the remainder the next day.

Bisharat then recalled nationwide protests back in May 2021, which were predominately carried out by Palestinian citizens of Israel. That time,

. . . 3660 Arabs were arrested and 350 were indicted. The sentences were monstrous — months and sometimes even many years in jail. Even those lucky enough not to be charged sat in jail for weeks and sometimes months before they were released.

Peter Beinart made a similar point in a tweet. Anshel Pfeffer, a prominent Jewish Israeli journalist, said he was thankful that “there has been no bloodshed in any of the pro-democracy protests.” Beinart responded:

Do you think that fact that there’s been no state violence against the protesters has anything to do with the fact that it’s Jews protesting and not Palestinians?”

At least the New York Times did mention Palestinians, even in passing. The latest Washington Post coverage has no mention of Palestinian citizens of Israel at all, even though they constitute a fifth of the population inside Israel’s 1967 borders. And National Public Radio’s report this morning was characteristically inept.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: SCREENSHOT OF VIDEO SHOWING PROTESTERS AND SECURITY FORCES WRESTLING A PALESTINIAN FLAG OUT OF ANOTHER PROTESTER’S HANDS DURING AN ANTI-NETANYAHU PROTEST IN ISRAEL. (IMAGE: TWITTER/@FADIAMUN)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Guardian, Washington Post and Der Spiegel have today published “bombshell” revelations about Russian cyber warfare based on leaked documents, but have produced only one single, rather innocuous leaked document between them (in the Washington Post), with zero links to any.

Where are these documents and what do they actually say? Der Spiegel tells us:

This is all chronicled in 1,000 secret documents that include 5,299 pages full of project plans, instructions and internal emails from Vulkan from the years 2016 to 2021. Despite being all in Russian and extremely technical in nature, they provide unique insight into the depths of Russian cyberwarfare plans.

OK. So where are they?

Ten different media houses have cooperated on the leaks, and the articles have been produced by large teams of journalists in each individual publication.

The Guardian article is by Luke Harding, Stilyana Simeonova, Manisha Ganguly and Dan Sabbagh. The Washington Post Article is by Craig Timberg, Ellen Nakashima, Hannes Munzinga and Hakan Tanriverdi. The Der Spiegel article is by 22 named journalists!

So that is 30 named journalists, with each publication deploying a large team to produce its own article.

And yet if you read through those three articles, you cannot help but note they are (ahem) remarkably similar.

From Der Spiegel:

“These documents suggest that Russia sees attacks on civilian critical infrastructure and social media manipulation as one-and-the-same mission, which is essentially an attack on the enemy’s will to fight,” says John Hultquist, a leading expert on Russian cyberwarfare and vice president of intelligence analysis at Mandiant, an IT security company.

From the Washington Post:

“These documents suggest that Russia sees attacks on civilian critical infrastructure and social media manipulation as one and the same mission, which is essentially an attack on the enemy’s will to fight,” said John Hultquist, the vice president for intelligence analysis at the cybersecurity firm Mandiant

From the Guardian:

John Hultquist, the vice-president of intelligence analysis at the cybersecurity firm Mandiant, which reviewed selections of the material at the request of the consortium, said: “These documents suggest that Russia sees attacks on civilian critical infrastructure and social media manipulation as one and the same mission, which is essentially an attack on the enemy’s will to fight.”

Note that it is not just the central Hultquist quote which is the same. In each case the teams of thirty journalists have very slightly altered a copy-and-pasted entire paragraph.

In fact the remarkable sameness of all three articles, with the same quotes and sources and same ideas, makes plain to anybody reading that all these articles are taken from a single source document. The question is who produced that central document? I assume it is one of the “five security services”, which all of the articles say were consulted.

Revealingly all three articles include the comprehensively debunked claim that Russia hacked the Clinton or DNC emails. They all include it despite the fact that none of the three articles makes the slightest attempt to connect this allegation to any of the leaked Vulkan documents, or to provide any evidence for it at all.

The casual reader is led to the conclusion that in some way the Vulkan leak proves the Clinton hack – despite the fact that no evidence is adduced and in fact, on close reading, none of the articles actually makes any claim that there is any reference at all to the Clinton hack in the Vulkan documents, or any other kind of evidence in them supporting the claim.

That all three teams of journalists independently decided to throw in a debunked claim, unrelated to any of the leaked material they are supposedly discussing, is not very probable. Again, they are plainly working from a central source that highlights the Clinton nonsense.

The Washington Post does actually deign to give us a facsimile of one page of one of the leaked emails, which does indeed appear to reference cyberwarfare capabilities to control or disable vital infrastructure.

But the problem is they are showing us page 4 of a document, devoid of context. Why no link to the whole document? We can see it is about research into these capabilities, but presumably the whole document might reveal something about the purpose of such research – for example, is it offensive or to develop defence against such attacks?

I am always suspicious of leaks where the actual documents are kept hidden, and we only know what we are told by – in this case – a propaganda operation which, even on the surface of it, involves western security services, US government funded “cyber security firms”, and Microsoft and Google.

When Wikileaks releases documents, they actually release the whole documents so that you can look at them and make up your own mind on what they really say or mean. Such as, for example, the Vault 7 release on CIA Hacking Tools.

My favourite Vault 7 revelation was that the CIA hackers leave behind fake “fingerprints”, including commands in Cyrillic script, to create a false trail that the Russians did it. Again you can see the actual documents on Wikileaks.

I have no reason to doubt that Russia employs techniques of cyber warfare. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that Russia does so any more than Western security services.

In fact there is some indication in this Vulkan information that Russian cyber warfare capability is less advanced than Western. With absolutely zero self-awareness of the implications of what they are saying, Luke Harding and his team at the Guardian tell us that:

One document shows engineers recommending Russia add to its own capabilities by using hacking tools stolen in 2016 from the US National Security Agency and posted online.

It is, of course, only bad when the Russians do it.

The fact there is virtually no cross-referencing to the Snowden or Vault 7 leaks in any of the publications, shows this up for the coordinated security service propaganda exercise that it is.

But there are numerous examples given of various hacks alleged to be committed by Russian security services, with no links whatsoever to any document in the Vulkan leaks, and in fact no evidence given of any kind, except for multiple references to allegations by US authorities.

The Washington Post article has the best claim to maintain some kind of reasonable journalistic standard. It includes these important phrases, admissions notably absent from the Guardian’s Luke Harding led piece:

These officials and experts could not find definitive evidence that the systems have been deployed by Russia or been used in specific cyberattacks

The documents do not, however, include verified target lists, malicious software code or evidence linking the projects to known cyberattacks.

Still, they offer insights into the aims of a Russian state that — like other major powers, including the United States — is eager to grow and systematize its ability to conduct cyberattacks with greater speed, scale and efficiency.

The last quote is of course the key point, and the Washington Post does deserve some kudos at least for acknowledging it, which is more than you can say for the Guardian or Der Spiegel. Even the Washington Post, having acknowledged the point, in no way allows it to affect the tone or tenor of its report.

But in truth there is no reason to doubt that the Russian state is developing cyberwarfare capabilities, and there is no reason to doubt that commercial companies including Vulkan are involved in some of the sub-contracted work.

But exactly the same thing is true of the United States, the United Kingdom, or any major Western nation. Tens of billions are being poured into cyberwarfare, and the resources deployed on it by NATO states vastly outnumber the resources available to Russia.

Which puts in perspective this large exercise in anti-Russian propaganda. Here are some key facts about it for you:

Taking the Guardian, Washington Post and Der Spiegel articles together:

  • Less than 2% of the articles consist of direct quotes from the alleged leaked documents
  • Less than 10% of the articles consist of alleged description of the contents of the documents
  • Over 15% of the articles consist of comment by western security services and cyber warfare industry
  • Over 40% of the articles consist of descriptions of alleged Russian hacking activity, zero of which is referenced in the acutal Vulkan leaks

We get to see one page of an alleged 5,000 leaked, plus a couple of maps and graphics.

It took 30 MSM journalists to produce this gross propaganda. I could have done it alone for them in a night, working up three slightly different articles from what the security services have fed them, directly and indirectly.

I can see the attraction of being a “journalist” shill for power, it has been very easy money for the mucky thirty.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Guardian Design/Sputnik/AFP/Getty Images/Facebook/Telegram

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Not for the first time, the state of Israel finds itself caught up in a ferocious domestic battle over amendments to the country’s legal fundamentals. This time, however, the national controversy caused by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul plan has revealed major cracks in the country’s social and security structures.

The societal fractures are indeed in part due to the fact that Israel’s top political brass no longer seem to share a common vision on the state and its direction. This critical vulnerability has burst to the fore during weeks of domestic infighting. A rudderless and divided state, after all, can no longer expect to efficiently operate its ‘deterrence capacity’ and ‘national security’ priorities.

The first major fracture

Back in July 2018, the Israeli Knesset approved what is known as the “Jewish State Law,” which determined that only Jewish citizens have the right to self-determination in the country. The law was approved after months of deliberation in a 62-55 vote, with two abstentions.

The law was adopted on the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel – a country that to this day remains without a constitution – and stipulated that “Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people” and that the right to self-determination is guaranteed “only for the Jewish people.”

Provisions to the Jewish State Law were removed at the eleventh hour due to objections from the country’s president and attorney general. These called for the establishment of Jews-only communities and called on the judiciary to abide by religious Jewish law when there was no relevant civil legal precedent. The offending provisions were instead replaced with more ambiguous wording, such as “the state considers the development of Jewish settlement a national value and will work to encourage and support its establishment.”

The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the legislation in a statement, saying: “The adoption of this racist and discriminatory law dropped forever all claims to the democracy of the occupying state, being the only democratic state in the Middle East [West Asia], and placed Israel at the top of the dark states.”

A slippery slope to Israel’s disintegration

Today, five years after the Jewish State Law was approved, Israel finds itself mired in turmoil over Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul which aims to limit the judiciary’s powers by empowering the Knesset and prime minister to approve laws and name judges. The far-right government coalition defends the overhaul, saying it seeks to “restore balance” between the executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

But the opposition, and a large portion of the Israeli populace, reject this overhaul plan, describing it as a “judicial coup” and “the end of democracy” in Israel. The Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) issued similar warnings, saying that “the amendment weakens the capabilities of the judiciary and concentrates power in the hands of the coalition that controls the legislative branch.”

Now, Israeli political forces are taking the battle over “judicial reforms” into unchartered territory. As a solution to the country’s rigid polarization, Israeli newspaper The Marker has called for dividing Israel into three cantons: One for the Jewish religious movement, another for the leftists, and a third for the Palestinians.

Hijacking the law

The overhaul plan includes four items that the opposition says will eventually lead to the concentration of judicial power in the hands of the executive branch, which already controls the legislative power by virtue of its parliamentary majority.

The amendments in question are: limiting the judicial review of laws approved by the Knesset, allowing the executive branch to appoint judges, abolishing the override clause that allows the High Court of Justice to block executive orders, and converting legal advisors in ministries into political appointees.

While Israel has no official constitution, the nation is governed by a group of ‘Basic Laws’ that regulate the division of powers, human rights, and civil rights. When the Knesset approves legislation that contradicts a Basic Law, the High Court of Justice can step in to rule on its legality.

Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition defends the proposed judicial reforms as “an attempt to restore the right balance between [the executive, legislative, and judicial powers] and to strengthen democracy.”

“The balance between powers has been violated in the past two decades, and more rapidly over the past few years. This is an extraordinary phenomenon that has no equal in the world,” the prime minister postulated on 8 January.

A few days earlier, after announcing the reform plan, Israeli Minister of Justice Yariv Levin declared: “Many sectors of the public look at the judicial system and do not find their voices heard. This is not democracy.”

“The bill aims to restrict the ability of the High Court of Justice to annul laws and government decisions,” added Levin, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, and stressed that he aims to “pass [the reforms] to enable the Knesset to re-legislate laws unless all High Court of Justice judges unanimously decide to drop them.”

The Israeli opposition, led by former prime minister Yair Lapid, believes the overhaul plan will finish off what is left of Israel’s democracy. “When [Netanyahu] completes his authoritarian coup, Israel will cease to be a democracy. The weak will have nowhere to go,” Lapid said in January, according to Hebrew newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

Former Israeli defense minister and Knesset member Benny Gantz said that the reforms “must meet the needs of the state, not our needs as politicians,” stressing that Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul scheme does the exact opposite.

The IDI, which is affiliated with Tel Aviv University, said in a recent study that “supporters of the [overhaul plan] justify that these are necessary to rein in the unaccountable judiciary.” While “opponents of the changes fear removing the only effective oversight over the executive branch in Israel will endanger civil liberties, economic prosperity, and Israel’s international standing.”

Undermining Israel’s security state

As the political rift grows in Israel, the discussion has turned to the effects this will have on the state’s security apparatus, and in particular on the army’s reserves, which make up around 70 percent of the army’s ranks.

The depth of the security crisis was made evident over recent weeks as recently-ousted Defense Minister Yoav Gallant butted heads with Netanyahu.

As Gallant prepared to hold a televised press conference last week calling on the government to halt its overhaul plan, Netanyahu was forced to step in and have a one-on-one conversation with his war chief in his Jerusalem office.

“At the request of the prime minister and in light of his planned speech this evening, the defense minister is postponing his statement,” Gallant’s office said in a statement. Gallant said that during his brief chat with Netanyahu, he explained “the impact of legislative processes on the army and the defense establishment.”

Gallant reportedly threatened to resign in fear of the crisis’ military ramifications: Security officials have raised concerns that army ranks could be depleted by resignations and mass desertion.

On 26 March, Gallant was finally relieved of his duties by Netanyahu over his continued opposition to the prime minister’s legislative offensive.

The decision was met with mass protests. Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, while crowds gathered outside Netanyahu’s house in Jerusalem and broke through the security cordon from one side.

Washington has now expressed “grave concern” about the situation in Israel and the inability of its political leaders to reach a settlement.

But Gallant was not the only Israeli security head to warn Netanyahu about the impending disaster. Army Chief of Staff Herzi Halevy issued similar warnings over the past few weeks, telling Netanyahu he was concerned about widespread insubordination that “could harm the [army’s] operational capacity.”

Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar also warned Netanyahu that Israel was headed toward a very dangerous place and presented the prime minister with a “very bleak” picture of his plan’s consequences. Channel 12 quoted Bar as saying, “The combination of security threats and the social situation in the context of the Judicial Reform Law is taking Israel to a dangerous place.”

Former senior security official Amos Yadlin recently penned an article for the same network, in which he called Netanyahu “the father of the failure of 2023,” and cautioned that while Tel Aviv and the political system focus on the interior issues, “we must look at what is happening along our external borders.”

Yadlin went on to warn of a “perfect storm” that could severely shake Israel’s “national security pillars:”

“The Israeli army is shaky and torn from the inside, and there is disunity and mistrust in our relations with our most important ally, the United States. Israeli deterrence is at an all-time low, the economy is deteriorating and heading for a sharp decline, social unity has been replaced by a deep rift, and the sense of destiny and shared destiny have been dealt a heavy blow.”

Yadlin believes that Netanyahu and his cabinet have “lost touch” with reality and now “live in social networks,” ignoring the growing threat of Israel’s enemies, chief among them Iran.

He also warned of the risk of Hezbollah moving from “inciting speeches to direct activity from Lebanon against Israel,” highlighting the group’s missile and ground capabilities and how the cracks forming inside Israel could prove beneficial to the Lebanese resistance group.

The conflagration ahead

In addition, says Yadlin, the period of Ramadan, Easter, and spring holidays could see several Palestinian fronts ignite at the same time, “in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the mixed cities in Israel and the northern front.”

In the face of these multi-pronged threats, Yadlin accused Israel’s government of weakening its national army by creating an unprecedented crisis of confidence among reservists and enlisted troops. “Those who believe that the crisis will not extend to the regular army are mistaken: the cracks are already visible, Efficiency levels are weak, and deterrence is weak.”

With the crisis rapidly escalating into dangerous territory, Hebrew media on 27 March announced that Netanyahu was preparing to announce a freeze of his overhaul plan.

Despite internal strife among coalition members – with some senior officials threatening to resign if the prime minister presses pause on the reforms – the freeze was announced on Monday evening, delaying the overhaul plan until the next Knesset session in May.

Netanyahu’s refusal to scrap his divisive plan has devolved into mass strikes within the public and private sectors, school shutdowns, the closing of Haifa port, the grounding of flights at Ben Gurion airport, further large-scale street protests, and now, calls for counterprotests from far-right groups that back the coalition’s plans.

As tens of thousands rallied against the judicial reforms outside Israel’s Knesset, “religious Zionist” rabbis called on the government to move forward with its plans, according to Israel’s Army Radio.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, the government’s most visible right-wing extremist, also rallied his radical supporters to take to the streets, saying on Monday: “Today we will stop our silence.”

Meanwhile, Yadlin warned, “The Israel we knew will not return.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Cradle

The U.N. Is Coming for Your Water

April 4th, 2023 by Cheryl K. Chumley

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United Nations is holding its first-in-five-decades conference on water in New York, a gathering that some say could be a “Paris moment” — meaning, the global body could soon do for water what it’s sought to do, via treaty, for climate. Meaning, the United Nations is coming for control of the world’s water sources.

A Paris-like global agreement on water? Make way for the regulatory nightmares.

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: The Vinuela reservoir is seen with a low water level due to a lack of rain in la Vinuela, southern Spain, Feb. 22, 2022. Declining agricultural yields in Europe, and the battle for diminishing water resources, especially in the southern part of the continent, are key risks as global temperatures continue to rise. These conclusions are part of a new United Nations report that will help countries decide how to prevent the planet from warming further. (AP Photo/Carlos Gil) ** FILE **