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).
***
A mass vaccination site in Colorado was shut down and 600 people with appointments turned away after 11 people experienced reactions, but state officials say side effects were “consistent with what’s expected.”
More than 600 people with appointments were turned away from a mass vaccination site in Commerce City, Colorado, after several vaccine recipients suffered adverse reactions to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) one-shot COVID vaccine.
Centura Health, which helped run the community vaccination center at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, said in a statement posted to Twitter that 11 patients who received the vaccine experienced adverse reactions. Two people were transferred to the hospital after medical staff determined they required additional observation. Centura officials did not specify what reactions were observed or their severity.
“Following the administration of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and during onsite observation, we saw a limited number of adverse reactions to the vaccine,” Centura Health officials said. “We followed our protocols and in an abundance of caution, made the decision — in partnership with the state — to pause operations for the remainder of the day.”
The 640 patients who were turned away were automatically rescheduled for another vaccine clinic on Sunday, April 11, Centura Health said. The site will administer Pfizer doses, which were previously scheduled for use for Sunday’s appointments at the Dick’s Sporting Goods site.
In a separate statement, state officials said there is no reason for others who were vaccinated at the site on Wednesday to be concerned.
Scott Bookman, COVID-19 Incident Commander, said he knows it can be alarming to hear about people getting transported to the hospital, but wanted to reassure Coloradans that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) closely monitors authorized vaccines and the side effects were consistent with what can be expected.
Between March 2 and March 26, VAERS data showed 518 reports of anaphylactic reactions to J&J’s COVID vaccine, which is distributed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary. There were also seven cases of Bell’s Palsy reported during the same period.
J&J’s vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb 27. As The Defender reported, days later J&J revealed plans to test its one-shot vaccine on infants, including newborns, pregnant women and the immunocompromised. The expanded clinical trials were laid out in the company’s application for emergency use approval and in briefing materials provided to the FDA and discussed briefly during the meeting.
The J&J vaccine also contains a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, citric acid monohydrate, trisodium citrate dihydrate, ethanol, 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HBCD), polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid — cultured in the PER.C6® aborted fetal cell line.
On Wednesday, EU Regulators confirmed a ‘possible link’ between AstraZeneca and blood clots resulting in suspension of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in younger populations in many European countries and guidance in the UK that the vaccine not be used in people under 30.
The European Medicines Agency said Wednesday during a press conference that it is also looking carefully at the J&J vaccine, as three cases of blood clots associated with low platelets, similar to the cases reported after AstraZeneca vaccines, have been reported, as well as one instance of thrombosis in a clinical trial.
Although the FDA identified no safety concerns with J&J’s COVID vaccine, The Defender reported in October 2020 that the company temporarily paused phase 3 clinical trials of its COVID vaccine after one participant experienced an “unexplained illness” believed to be connected to the experimental vaccine.
At the Oct. 30, 2020, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, J&J’s Dr. Jerald Sadoff was pressed by no fewer than six committee members to reveal the illness. He refused, citing confidentiality.
The FDA found J&J’s COVID vaccine to be only 67% effective in preventing moderate to severe symptoms at least 14 days after vaccination, and 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe symptoms at least 28 days after vaccination. This is the first vaccine J&J has produced.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
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)
***
Is there “competition” between Big Pharma giants?
An IBT report (see below), points to governmental vaccine guidelines in France and Germany which consist de facto in “dumping” AstraZeneka in favour of Pfizer and Moderna.
According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), there is “a possible link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and the rare cases of blood clots in people who had received the shot”.
In Germany, health authorities have “instructed people below the age of 60 who got the AstraZeneca shot to opt for a different vaccine as the booster dose.”
Health authorities in France have adopted similar measures in favour of Pfizer and Moderna.
Does this mean that the Pfizer and Moderna Inc vaccines are “safe” in comparison to those of Astrazeneka?
While AstraZenaka has been the object of suspension, the vaccine related deaths and injuries are significantly larger in regards to the Pfizer vaccine. Over 100,000 injuries and 64% of the deaths (relating to the Pfizer vaccine) (See data below).
How is it that AstraZeneka has been the object of restrictions by 18 European governments, while no limitations have been considered with regard to Pfizer and Moderna Inc? The deaths and injuries related to the Pfizer vaccine do not make the headlines.
Are these Big Pharma vaccine companies competing with one another?
Is the EMA in conflict of interest?
According to EMA’s executive director Emer Cooke: “The risk of mortality from COVID is much greater than the risk of mortality from these rare side effects.”
Below is the Eudra Vigilance data on vaccine deaths and injuries for the period December 27, 2020 to March 13, 2021 pertaining respectively to AstraZeneka, Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna Inc.
The deaths and injuries associated with the Pfizer vaccine are significantly larger:
2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries
Moreover, the number of deaths recorded in relation to the Moderna vaccine is more than double that of AstraZeneca:
Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222(CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/AstraZeneca: 451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) fromModerna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021
EudraVigilance states with regard to the data:
“Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine.”
“Robust conclusions” were not taken by the EMA in regards to the deaths and injuries resulting from the Pfizer-BionTech and Moderna Inc mRNA vaccines.
See excerpts of the IBT report below.
Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, April 9, 2021
*****
AstraZeneca Woes: France to Give Pfizer or Moderna Vaccines as Second Dose, Says Report
by Jacob J.
International Business Times
April 9, 2021
Amid uncertainty over the use of AstraZeneca vaccine in many regions including Europe, the top health body in France said people who got the first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine should receive a messenger-RNA vaccine as the second dose.
The Haute Autorite de la Sante (HAS), which is tasked with deciding how vaccines can be rolled out in France, was considering this option, Reuters reported.
Earlier this week, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said found a possible link between AstraZeneca vaccine and the rare cases of blood clots in people who had received the shot.
Citing sources the agency reported that HAS is going ahead with the use of two mRNA vaccines — Pfizer-BioNTech and from Moderna — for those aged below 55.
Meanwhile, Germany had also instructed that people below the age of 60 who got the AstraZeneca shot must opt for a different vaccine as the booster dose.
This is an interesting development as the procedure to give a different vaccine as the second dose was not tested during any human trials so far.
Reuters cited an expert saying that all these vaccines are complementary as all of them target the same “spike” protein of the coronavirus.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
The United States remains the world’s biggest exporter of major arms, and countries across the Middle East are importing weapons at record highs, a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) has found.
The Trends in International Arms Transfers report, released in late March, found that while global arms sales levelled off during the 2016-2020 period, imports by the Middle East and North Africa grew by 25 percent.
According to Sipri, around 47 percent of US arms exports between 2016-2020 went to the Middle East – an increase of 28 percent from the previous five years.
These increases included US arms exports to Israel rising by 335 percent, Qatar by 208 percent and Saudi Arabia by 175 percent.
The report concluded that not only was the US the largest exporter of major arms, a position it has held since the end of the cold war, but its global share of arms exports also increased from 32 to 37 percent over the last five years.
In contrast, Russian arms exports decreased by 22 percent over the last five years, increasing the gap between two of the world’s largest exporters of arms.
Sipri, based in Sweden, publishes arms transfer data in five-year instalments, “to give a more stable measure of trends given the significant year-on-year fluctuations in international transfers”.
In its new report, countries that saw the largest percentage shift in imports include Qatar (+361 percent), Egypt (+136 percent) and Saudi Arabia (+61 percent) – as compared to the previous five years. Others, like Algeria, saw imports increase by 64 percent, whereas Morocco and the UAE saw a decrease in imports by 60 percent and 37 percent respectively.
Even then, the UAE remained the world’s ninth-largest importer of arms, a majority of which is secured from the US, France and Russia.
Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan
Parts of the Middle East have remained interminably unstable for decades and arms and subsidies from the US and other Global North countries have been used by a variety of authoritarian governments and armed groups in the region.
During the 43-month Saudi-imposed blockade on Qatar that began in 2017, US major arms exports to both sides increased substantially, elevating tensions in the regions further.
“The increases in arms imports by several states in the Middle East occurred against the backdrop of tense relations between several states in the Gulf region and in the eastern Mediterranean,” Alexandra Kuimova, a researcher at Sipri, told Middle East Eye.
“Many states in the region seek to play a major role in the Middle East and use arms as a key tool in the pursuit of this aim,” Kuimova said.
Between 2016-2020, the US supplied major arms to 96 states, far more than any other country.
Saudi Arabia, the report found, accounted for 24 percent of all US arms sales.
Kuimova said there were particularly large increases in US arms exports to several states over the past five years.
“In 2016–20, total arms exports by the USA were 85 percent higher than those of Russia -the second-largest exporter – compared with 24 percent higher in 2011–15.”
According to Sipri, 65 states around the world exported major arms over the past five years, with the five largest suppliers – the US, Russia, France, Germany and China – making up 76 percent of all arms exports.
Countries in North America and Europe accounted for 86 percent of all arms exports.
Exports from France increased by 44 percent, with a majority of these weapons being imported by India, Egypt and Qatar.
Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director of Project South, described the findings as “deplorable”.
“The US government, specifically, is willing to close its eyes on the atrocities committed by governments if they are reliable importers of US-made war-making machines.
“Instead of supporting peace, the Global North continues the colonial tradition of war-making. This also explains the lack of concrete action on the systematic human rights abuses of countries such as Saudi [Arabia] and Egypt,” Shahshahani said.
Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan
Sipri’s latest report also found that leading arms-producing and military service companies were still overwhelmingly from the Global North, particularly the United States, where the top five companies were based.
For the first time, Edge, the UAE state-owned arms company, entered Sipri’s list of top 25 arms-producing companies, having accounted for 1.3 percent of global arms sales.
Edge supplies weaponry to the UAE armed forces and develops drones, unmanned vehicles, smart weapons, and electric warfare equipment.
“Edge is a good illustration of how the combination of high national demand for military products and services with a desire to become less dependent on foreign suppliers is driving the growth of arms companies in the Middle East,” Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher with the Sipri arms and military expenditure programme, said.
In February, Edge’s CEO Faisal al-Bannai said it would produce parts for F-35 fighter jets if Washington agreed to sell US warplanes to the UAE following the Biden’s administration’s decision to review deals made both to the UAE and Saudi Arabia during the latter days of Donald Trump’s presidency.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the review included deals made on precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and F-35 fighter jets to the UAE.
Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan
Saudi Arabia remains largest market for arms
Over the past five years, Saudi Arabia made up 11 percent of the major arms import market, and according to Sipri’s data, is the biggest importer of US, UK and Canadian arms.
In early February, in his first foreign policy address as president, Biden said the US would no longer support the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Two months later, activists and lawmakers are still asking for clarity as to what the new policy would entail.
“This is the third administration actively fuelling this war. Despite recent promises – and there have been positive developments – the war is still going and the bombs are still dropping with US support, even if that support looks a little different,” Shireen al-Adeimi, an assistant professor at Michigan State University, said in late March during an online discussion with the anti-war movement, Win Without War.
“How can the US talk about peace in Yemen while it is still engaged in the bombing of civilians, the starving of civilians?” Adeimi said.
A study released in late March by the Yemen Data Project found that the Saudi-led coalition conducted around 22,766 air raids in Yemen and up to 65,982 individual air strikes over the past six years.
The report says that an estimated 30 percent of the strikes hit non-military sites, including schools, residential areas and hospitals.
Meanwhile, India remains second on the list of biggest importers of major arms on the planet, despite having reduced imports from Russia and increasing domestic manufacturing. India has also become Israel’s largest importer of Israeli arms, as the relationship between the two countries deepens.
“Avoiding risks of over-dependence on a single arms exporter (Russia), India has been pursuing a policy of diversifying its arms suppliers by signing a number of arms deals with various arms suppliers including Israel, France and the USA,” Kuimova said.
Israeli arms exports represented three percent of the global flows and were 59 percent higher than the previous five years, the report said.
Sipri said while there have been suggestions that the Covid-19 pandemic had led to a fall in arms transfers in 2020, it found that several states “actually had higher levels of arms deliveries in 2020 than in some other years in the period 2011–19.”
“For example, US arms exports in 2020 were higher than they were in three years in 2011–19 and French arms exports in 2020 were higher than in five years in the same period,” the group said.
Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
US Europe Command has raised its posture to the highest level, “potential imminent threat”, as USAF surveillance flights have tracked Russia’s border over the past 48 hours.
The current flare of tensions sparked on March 26, when four Ukrainian military servicemen were killed by a landmine while inspecting minefields near the village of Shumy. Kiev and their partners the US and NATO used the deaths to blame the forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic, who denied any attacks.
Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesman, said the Kremlin was worried the Ukrainian side might create the risk for a civil war if they initiated provocation in southeastern Ukraine. Peskov added that Russia would take “additional measures” if NATO were to use provocation.
The US forces are now on high alert in Europe and blaming “Russian aggression” in the area. An official from NATO said to Reuters that Russia was undermining efforts to reduce tensions in eastern Ukraine.
Rebels seized parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk region in April 2014, and the Kremlin says Russian “volunteers” have been assisting the rebels.
Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, said during Friday’s briefing,
“I would like to warn the Kiev regime and the hotheads that are serving it or manipulating it against further de-escalation and attempts to implement a forceful scenario in Donbass.”
Zakharova said that Ukrainian officials regularly accuse Russia, while not adhering to, and implementing the agreements reached previously on settlement in eastern Ukraine.
“At the same time, Kiev is trying to convince everyone that Moscow is allegedly a conflict side and that it allegedly has some obligations within the Minsk Package of Measures,” Zakharova added.
The Minsk Agreements outline the conflict sides in Donbass as Kiev, Donetsk, and Lugansk. However, Kiev attempts to place blame on Moscow.
Zakharova said,
“The unwillingness of Ukrainian negotiators to recognize this fact and their refusal to find agreements with Donbass is the reason that hinders the establishment of long-lasting peace in the region.”
US President Joe Biden spoke by phone with Mr. Zelensky in Kiev on Friday. The White House said in a statement that the call “affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea.”
The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project bypasses Ukraine. When completed it will connect Russia’s Ust-Lug and Germany’s Greifswald with natural gas. The construction of the pipeline from the coast of Russia through the Baltic Sea was expected to be completed before the end of 2019 and will be 1,220 km long.
Ukraine stands to lose approximately $3 billion annually in gas transit fees because of the bypass.
The US is pressuring European allies, and private companies, involved in the pipeline to stop their involvement in Nord Stream 2, and the US is planning broader sanctions against the Russian project within the month.
The Rose Revolution was a US-instigated ‘regime change’ project in Georgia in November 2003, which culminated in the ousting of President Eduard Shevardnadze. At the same time, it served as a proxy attack on Russia, which had been close to Georgia.
Demonstrators led by Mikheil Saakashvili, who was funded by George Soros, stormed the Parliament session with red roses in hand.
US support for the Shevardnadze government declined from 2000 to 2003, with pressure coming from George Soros, Richard Miles, the US ambassador to Georgia, and allies of the Bush administration, including a visit from James Baker, the former U.S. Secretary of State.
The US and allied organizations gave financial assistance to NGOs and opposition parties within Georgia. This tactic was classical US State Department procedure to bring about ‘regime change’, or other manipulations in foreign countries.
The 2014 Ukrainian revolution from November 2013 to February 2014 culminated in the ousting of the elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who had been close to Russia, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.
US Senator John McCain came in December 2013 to rally protesters,
“We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently, and the destiny you seek lies in Europe.”
The Obama administration backed ‘regime change’ in Ukraine, and Vice President Joe Biden was handed the Ukrainian file to manage.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrovarrived in China on March 22 and met with the Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The two discussed recent developments with the US and urged the US to rethink the damage it has caused to international peace.
Lavrov and Yi urged the US to stop its global bullying tactics, and interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and to stop forming alliances with other nations to manipulate and provoke confrontations. The two urged all countries to follow the UN Charter to boost peaceful international relations.
Chinese spokesperson Hua Chunying said,
“China and Russia, standing shoulder to shoulder with close cooperation and firm opposition to hegemony and bullying, have been a pillar of world peace and stability.”
Lavrov called for promoting other international currencies that can replace the US dollar and gradually move away from the Western-controlled international payment system so that the risks posed by US or Western sanctions against Russia and China can be reduced, and several Russian banks have joined the China International Payment System to facilitate bilateral trade settlements.
The four dead Ukrainian servicemen may be used to stop Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The men who died while inspecting minefields may be used as a tool to blame Russia for Ukrainian inaction on the Minsk Agreements, and to prevent the important Russian pipeline from completion. The US-NATO war machine has worked in collusion before in Serbia, Libya, and Syria. Biden’s bullying and manipulations in Ukraine and Russia may prove to be the first test of his administration on the world stage.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
For a time after Joe Biden took office not quite three months ago, among the questions raised was how the new administration would address the Syria question.
I do not think we will have to wonder about this much longer. It is early days yet, but one now detects the Biden’s administration’s Syria policy in faint outline. From what one can make out, it is bleak, it is vicious, it is unconscionably cruel to the Syrian people.
And it may prove yet worse than anything the Trump administration came up with, the Bible-banging Mike Pompeo in the lead as secretary of state.
Will Biden’s national security people drop the covert coup operation Barack Obama set it in motion nine years ago, its failure long evident? Or will they reinvigorate American support for savage jihadists in the name of “regime changing” the secular government in Damascus? What about the American troops still operating illegally on Syrian soil? What about the oilfields the Trump administration took to “protecting” from the nation that owns them? What about the brazen theft of crude from those fields?
And what, of course, about the murderous sanctions that various executive orders have escalated on numerous occasions since the Bush II administration imposed the first of them 17 long years ago?
Queues all over Syria for bread and fuel after the US and NATO looted Syria’s oil and burned its wheat.
The US is a sadistic regime that thrives on the misery of nations. Syria was once a self-sufficient country. Before America decided Syria needs “democracy and freedom”. pic.twitter.com/GFJcURInO5
What will Biden and his people do, in short, about the godawful mess the U.S. has made of the Syrian Arab Republic since it bastardized legitimate demonstrations against the Assad government in early 2012 (at the latest) by perverting them with Sunni extremists and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of weapons?
These were the questions. Answers now begin to arrive.
February Bombing
The first suggestion of things to come came in late February, when U.S. warplanes bombed sites inside Syria’s border with Iraq said to have been used by militias backed by Iran. This action coincided roughly with talks in Washington with senior Israeli intelligence and military officials, convened to determine whether and how the administration would re-enter the accord governing Iran’s nuclear programs. Those talks merely confirmed what was already evident: The Biden administration will make no move in Iran’s direction without Israel’s approval. Ditto in the Syrian case.
As a long record shows, Israel wants to destabilize Syria as long as it is not governed by a pliant Western client; it continues to bomb Syrian targets, including Damascus, on a regular basis. With these realities in view, we can confidently surmise that the Biden administration does not actually have a Syria policy, just as it does not actually have an Iran policy. Apartheid Israel has a Syria policy it dictates to the professedly Zionist Biden administration.
“When I think of the suffering of the Syrian people, including Syrian children, I think of my own two children,” Antony Blinken tweeted last week. “How could we not take action to help them? Our common humanity demands it. Shame on us if we don’t.”
When I think of the suffering of the Syrian people, including Syrian children, I think of my own two children. How could we not take action to help them? Our common humanity demands it. Shame on us if we don't. pic.twitter.com/IcOECZPUwt
One already grows accustomed to our new secretary of state’s wildly disconnected remarks on social media and elsewhere. This guy has a troubled relationship with reality, we must begin to conclude. As The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal replied to this morbid hypocrisy, “If you treated your children like you treat the Syrian people you would be jailed for child abuse.”
Would you starve your two children and deprive them of medicine with sanctions, and steal their belongings at gunpoint?
If you treated your children like you treat the Syrian people you would be jailed for child abuse. https://t.co/8AgmBIxTnc
But let us set aside the preposterous assertion that, while starving Syrians of bread, fuel, medicines and reconstruction funding other nations would otherwise provide, Blinken thinks of suffering Syrians as he does his children. As boilerplate propaganda this offensive stuff may seem trivial and worthy of no note. But in this case we are left with a question worth posing.
Why ‘Common Humanity’ Now?
Why would Blinken broadcast these things on social media at this moment? Why would he summon “our common humanity” when there is no shred of evidence that he or anyone else among Biden’s national security crew gives a tinker’s damn about those human beings commonly known as Syrians?
I have two answers, of equal importance.
One, the Biden administration appears to be preparing Americans for a round of Washington’s morally bankrupt, grossly illegal campaign to bring down the government of a sovereign nation because it does not conform to America’s imperial diktat (and because, as noted, this will please the Israelis). Liberal and “progressive” consciences must be eased. And among others a state of slumber must be maintained.
Two, Blinken has in all likelihood begun the work of keeping Washington’s “coalition partners,” notably the French and British, in the Syrian subversion game by providing cover for the savagery that is to come. Reading straight from the Vietnam-era script, Blinken wants America’s “allies and partners” — a favorite phrase of his — to be confident that when they bomb Syrian children the world will understand it is in order to save them.
Never go to Tony if you are in search of an original thought.
Reading into these matters, text and subtext, we can begin to brace ourselves for what is probably on the way in Syria. The coup operation is again on. American troops will remain on the ground, almost certainly to increase in number over time. The U.S., in concert with the same fanatics it has to date bankrolled, trained and supplied, will continue to sequester Syria’s oilfields and the fertile wheat fields that ought to be feeding the population.
The hypocrisy to come will be yet greater than anything the Trump administration tried on — a forecast I offer confidently. Here comes the bankruptcy of the “responsibility to protect” at its very worst. This will be liberal righteousness with a genteel veneer worthy of your grandmother’s mahogany dining table.
PBS Report
Another piece of the puzzle arrived just before Easter (of all times), when PBS broadcast an interviewwith Abu Mohammad al–Jolani, the head of Hayat Tahir al–Shalam, HTS, the latest among the name-changing cutthroats our mainstream press still refers to as Syria’s “moderate opposition.” Martin Smith’s exchange with Jolani is a piece of a full-dress documentary on Jolani that Frontline plans to air in the not-distant future. Herein lies a tale.
Alert readers will recall that Jolani was once an Islamic State commander who went on to found Jabhat al–Nusra, the worst of the worst among al–Qaeda’s shape-shifting affiliates operating in Syria. The State Department declared Jolani a “specially designated global terrorist” in 2013. This designation still stands.
Jolani now runs what he calls a “salvation government” in Idlib, the remaining retreat of Islamist extremists in northwestern Syria. Yes, he remains an Islamist theocrat determined to impose Sharia law on secular Syria. But (the big “but”) is that he is committed to fighting Assad and so shares “common interests with the United States and the West,” as PBS delicately puts it.
Human rights NGOs have implicated Jolani and HTS — videos, witness testimonies, interviews with victims — in numerous cases of torture, violence, sexual abuse, arbitrary arrests, disappearances and the rest of the inexcusable stuff these groups get up to. Jolani denies it all in his encounter with Smith: “There is no torture, I completely reject this,” he says on camera.
To be fair to Smith and Frontline, they have covered themselves carefully by laying out the record of Jolani’s and HTS’s crimes against innocent Syrians. But Smith also wants us to know of Jolani’s emergence “as a leading Islamist militant” — note the “Islamist” remains — “and his efforts, despite his history with al–Qaeda and allegations of human rights abuses, to position himself as an influential force in Syria’s future.”
As if to certify this judgment, PBS cites the noted remark recently of James Jeffrey, the self-confessed liar who served as President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Syria, to the effect that HTS is “‘an asset’ to America’s strategy in Idlib.”
What are we looking at here? There are two ways to consider this question.
One, PBS’s generous reporting on Jolani’s past is at bottom part of a rehabilitation job. It is once again a case of text and subtext. Read the PBS report accompanying the video of Smith’s interview. The list of HTS’s sins is a lengthy apologia, the intent of which appears to be to preclude the criticisms sure to arise along with Jolani’s emergence as “an influential force in Syria’s future.”
My conclusion: Syria may shortly get its version of Juan Guaidó and Alexey Navlany, the two Dummköpfe Washington has ridiculously elevated to some status of saintly democrats in Venezuela and the Russian Federation respectively. My verb is “may” because the Jolani project could prove so preposterous as to fail before it gets airborne.
Two, we watch the redeployment of a tried-and-disastrous strategy Zbigniew Brzezinski sold to President Jimmy Carter in late 1979. Paranoiacally anti–Soviet, Carter’s national security adviser persuaded the peanut farmer from Plains the best way to snooker the Soviets in Afghanistan was to finance and arm its adversaries. Osama bin Laden, al–Qaeda — indeed, the fundamentalist freak show that has unfolded in Syria for nearly a decade: Need one say more about the consequences of Zbig’s idiocy?
One would think the policy cliques in Washington would learn something once in a while, but no. They cannot learn because they cannot quite get to thinking.
This column concerns early signs of another foreign policy disaster that may be impending. Should these signs prove out, we will watch as an empire already on its back foot makes another desperate attempt to defend its fading hegemony. Let us, once again, bitterly hope for failure.
America could knock over whoever it wished long ago, and it could send men to the moon. No longer does it seem able to do either.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.
The pro-government press in Ukraine has announced that President Volodymyr Zelensky is to go to the Donbass conflict zone tomorrow, April 8. That means that within hours he will arrive in what is at the moment the world’s most dangerous hot spot.
Joe Biden had announced it in his electoral program: “While President Trump has abandoned allies and partners, and abdicated American leadership, as president I will immediately take steps to renew the alliances of the United States.
According to a report from Bloomberg, the Biden administration is wrapping up its review of alleged Russian actions and could announce measures against Moscow soon.
Biden’s presidency has been welcomed by Western media outlets as signifying a return to using diplomacy to peacefully resolve differences between nations. Yet in the 3 months since his inauguration President Biden has not dialled back from the anti-China rhetoric that was the hallmark of the Trump presidency.
In October 2011 and February 2012 the US-NATO alliance, with the support of the Gulf autocracies, tried to obtain UN Security Council resolutions, which in all probability would have served as a pretext for an invasion of Syria.
Australia continues to double down on its growing trade and political row with China. It is costing the Australian economy significantly, and backing it into a strategic corner only greater belligerence toward China and subordination to US regional ambitions will remain as options.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in court on Monday in his trial on corruption, bribery and breach of trust charges, a senior member of his Likud Party said a majority of members of the new Knesset would be vote for him to become president.
African Americans, people of Latin American descent and proletarian people in general make up the overwhelming majority of those held behind bars. These inmates are forced to work for slave wages producing goods and services for the capitalist and imperialist system.
The European Medicines Agency did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect.
The SPARS Pandemic – 2025 to 2028 – A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. This 89 page-paper has supposedly been written in 2017, preceding by 2 years the by now infamous Event 201 that took place in NYC on 18 October 2019.
Ken Moll, a Chicago-based personal injury attorney, has dozens of lawsuits pending against the former Monsanto Co., all alleging the company’s Roundup weed killers cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and he is now preparing several of those cases for trial.
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).
***
In October 2011 and February 2012 the US-NATO alliance, with the support of the Gulf autocracies, tried to obtain UN Security Council resolutions, which in all probability would have served as a pretext for an invasion of Syria.
These efforts replicated the underhand game that America, Britain and France had played in securing a resolution regarding Libya, on 17 March 2011, which they immediately violated in bombing that country. By the autumn of 2011, the Russians and Chinese knew that US-NATO was attempting the same deception again, in their desire to topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Moscow and Beijing therefore vetoed the resolutions.
Not discouraged by these setbacks, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lobbied heavily in 2012 for a military intervention against Syria. Clinton said she had the backing of former CIA director Leon Panetta, and felt the Americans should have been “more willing to confront Assad”; she insisted “I still believe we should’ve done a no-fly zone”, the green light for a US-NATO invasion as was the case in Libya.
Clinton said she wanted to “move aggressively” on Syria and drew up a plan to do so, but it was never implemented (1). She had previously backed the US-led invasions of Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011).
In their attitude towards Syria, Washington and NATO were adopting a similar stance to terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda, which from the beginning was supporting the drive to oust Assad. On 27 July 2011, the new Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined his solidarity with the jihadists. Zawahiri called for Assad to go, and expressed regret that he could not be in Syria himself. “I would have been amongst you and with you” he said, but continued that “there are enough and more Mujahideen and garrisoned ones” already in Syria. He described Assad as “America’s partner in the war on Islam”. (2)
Zawahiri forgot that the Syrian president had opposed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Assad was, in fact, the first Arab leader other than Saddam Hussein to condemn the attack. Less than 10 days into the invasion Assad predicted, “The United States and Britain will not be able to control all of Iraq. There will be much tougher resistance”. He said of the Anglo-American forces “we hope they do not succeed” in Iraq “and we doubt that they will – there will be Arab popular resistance and this has begun”. (3)
The revolts that started in Syria, during the spring of 2011, would have lasted only a couple of months but for outside intervention that radicalised it (4). Syria did not have to endure the ensuing years of warfare, yet the foreign powers – notably the imperial trio of America, Britain and France – had sustained it with the assistance of their allies from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, not to mention the jihadist groups. The opening protests in March 2011 were not against Assad to begin with, but had been directed towards inadequacies at provincial level.
Neil Quilliam, a scholar who specialises in the Middle East, said of the unrest in Syria which began in the southern town of Daraa: “The rebellion as it started was very localized. It was much more to do with local grievances against local security chiefs – it was about corruption at the local level” (5). The discontent was erroneously depicted in the West as directed at Assad’s administration. It was then exploited by the US-NATO powers to attempt regime change in Syria for geopolitical purposes.
Israel’s military intelligence website, DEBKAfile, reported that since 2011 special forces from the British SAS and MI6 were training anti-government combatants in Syria itself. Other UK personnel from the Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), units of the British Armed Forces, had also been training insurgents in Syria from 2011. Moreover, that same year French foreign agents of the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), and the Special Operations Command, were encouraging unrest against Assad. (6)
As 2011 advanced, the anti-Assad revolts were infiltrated by growing numbers of Al Qaeda members. On 12 February 2012, in an eight minute video Zawahiri urged jihadists in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to come to the aid of their “brothers in Syria” and to give them “money, opinion, as well as information”. Zawahiri said that the United States was insincere in demonstrating solidarity with them. (7)
Also in February 2012, Hillary Clinton admitted that Zawahiri “is supporting the opposition in Syria” and she intimated that the US was on the same side as him (8). Clinton promised that the Americans would continue to provide logistical help to the insurgents, so as to co-ordinate military affairs on the ground.
Zawahiri’s demand for jihad against Syria was supported by Al Qaeda’s number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi. He was a terrorist from Libya who had participated in the recent conflict against Muammar Gaddafi, alongside numerous other extremists. Al-Libi said in a video from 18 October 2011, “We call on our brothers in Iraq, Jordan and Turkey to go to help their brothers [in Syria]” (9). By late 2011, there were links between the jihadists who overthrew Gaddafi, and those attempting to inflict a similar fate on Assad.
With the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the UN resolutions, Washington was unable to launch a large-scale invasion of Syria, but the goal of the Barack Obama administration and its allies remained that of regime change. Through 2011 and beyond, the leaders of America (Obama), Britain (David Cameron), France (Nicolas Sarkozy) and Germany (Angela Merkel) separately called for Assad to leave, disingenuously raising concerns over the Syrian people’s plight.
Merkel for instance, who had approved of the US invasion of Iraq, stated on 18 August 2011 that Assad should “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people”. This allegation was repeated by other Western leaders, and likewise the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton. It was all nonsense of course.
Less than six months later the English correspondent Jonathan Steele, citing a reliable poll, noted that 55% of Syrians wanted Assad to remain as president. Steele observed how this inconvenient reality “was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go” (10). It did not quite match the fantasies spun by politicians and parroted by the press.
A great game was being played out on Syrian soil, obscured by the theatrical performances of diplomats at the UN. As envisaged, Assad’s fall would enhance US power in the Mediterranean and Middle East, while delivering a blow to Russian, Iranian and Chinese influence. The Kremlin would have to abandon its old naval base in Tartus, western Syria, pushing Russia out of the Mediterranean. Supply routes through which weaponry was delivered to Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon would also be cut off.
With a Western-friendly outfit in Syria, the ring could only have been closed tighter around Iran. There are vast quantities of oil and gas astride the Syrian coastline in the Levantine Basin, as the major powers are aware.
However, Syria was a more difficult and complex problem for the US-NATO partnership than the likes of Libya. In Syria the West was challenging the core interests of Russia, China and Iran, three countries with ample resources and powerful militaries.
Meanwhile, the jihadists were starting to wreak havoc. Germany’s intelligence agency BND informed the Bundestag (parliament) that, from late December 2011 until early July 2012, there were 90 terrorist attacks carried out in Syria by organisations tied to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups (11). The “moderates” were executing suicide and car bombings against Syrian government forces and civilians. One suicide raid on 18 July 2012 killed Assad’s brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, and the Syrian defence minister, General Dawoud Rajiha. The Free Syrian Army, supported by US-NATO and the Gulf dictatorships, claimed culpability for this terrorist attack. (12)
The jihad served only to harm and delegitimise the insurgents’ aims, and effectively that of the West. The Syrian public could see, just a year into the conflict, that considerable numbers of those trying to eliminate the Syrian Arab Republic were extremists. In a double whammy blow, the terrorism ensured that defections to the opposition almost came to a halt.
From now on, the majority of military personnel remained loyal to Assad. More terrorist assaults in early October 2012 killed 40 people, consisting of four car bombings which damaged the government district in Aleppo. This further undermined the insurgents. Al-Nusra Front, linked to Al Qaeda, took responsibility for these insane acts which served no purpose but to inflict bloodshed on innocent people. Suicide bombings grew in frequency.
When Japan’s generals unleashed kamikaze squadrons on the Allies from the autumn of 1944, they could at least claim desperation; Imperial Japan was fighting for its life. They never dreamed of using kamikaze pilots two years before, in 1942. By 1944, however, Tokyo’s forces were set firmly in retreat. The terrorists invading Syria had no such excuses, which shows how much more extreme the Islamic jihadists are than even Japan’s diehard military men.
The atrocities shocked Syria’s populace and bolstered sympathy for Assad. The Syrian president undoubtedly reacted to the terrorist rampages with an iron fist; his severe response may have been influenced too by the ongoing threat of a US-NATO invasion, as Western politicians continued to call for his resignation.
Israel’s head of military intelligence, Major General Aviv Kochavi, told the Israeli parliament in mid-July 2012 that “radical Islam” was establishing a foothold in Syria. Kochavi said, “We can see an ongoing flow of Al Qaeda and global jihad activists into Syria”. He was worried that “the Golan Heights could become an arena of activity against Israel” which was “as a result of growing jihad movement in Syria” (13). The Golan Heights, 40 miles south of Damascus, is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation since 1967. Kochavi believed that Assad “won’t survive the upheaval”.
The Western-supported Free Syrian Army in part consisted of mercenaries recruited from Libya, along with Al Qaeda, Wahhabi and Salafist extremists. As the Al Qaeda boss Zawahiri had demanded, the radicals poured into Syria from neighbouring Lebanon and NATO state Turkey, and were focused on prosecuting a sectarian war – through massacring Syria’s ethnic groups such as the Alawites, Christians, Shia and Druze; that is, those generally supportive of Assad whom the jihadists considered to be heretics.
The Syrian National Council (SNC), an anti-Assad coalition based in Istanbul, Turkey, was founded in August 2011. It had been organised by the secret services of the Western powers, and was supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued to substitute secularism with Islamism in Turkey, and he became centrally involved in fanning the flames of war in Syria. The Turks were acting as a US-NATO proxy force.
Erdogan allowed the Free Syrian Army to use Turkish bases in Antakya and Iskenderun, located in the far south of Turkey and beside the Syrian border. With Turkey’s assistance, NATO armaments were smuggled to the terrorists waging holy war on the Syrians. US intelligence agents were active in and around the southern Turkish city of Adana. (14)
Islamic jihadists arrived in Syria from distant European countries, such as Norway and Ireland; 100 of them alone entered Syria originating from Norway. Radical muslims of Uyghur ethnicity from Xinjiang province, north-western China, were fighting in Syria at the side of Al Qaeda from May 2012. The Uyghur militants belonged to the terrorist organisation, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), and also the East Turkistan Education and Solidarity Association, the latter group centred in Istanbul. Al-Libi, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, publicly championed the TIP’s terrorist campaign against China’s authorities in Xinjiang.
Altogether, jihadists from 14 African, Asian and European countries were estimated to be present in Syria from early in the conflict (15). They came from such states as Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. This was partly a consequence and spillover of the March 2011 US-NATO invasion of Libya. In early 2012, more than 10,000 Libyan mercenaries were trained in Jordan, bordering Syria to the south. The militants were each paid $1,000 a month courtesy of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in order to compel them to participate in the war on Syria. The Saudis were shipping weapons to the most extreme elements in Syria, something which Riyadh never denied.
In the first week of August 2012, Assadist special forces captured 200 insurgents in an Aleppo suburb in north-western Syria. Government soldiers subsequently found Saudi and Turkish officers commanding the mercenaries. During early October 2012, in another district of Aleppo (Bustan al-Qasr), Assad’s divisions repelled an attack and killed dozens of armed militia. They had entered Syria through Turkey and among them were four Turkish officers. Beside the American air base at Incirlik in southern Turkey, the jihadists received special training in modern weapons of war: anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers and US-made stinger missiles.
NATO aircraft, flying without insignia or coat of arms, were landing in Turkish military bases close to Iskenderun, near Syria’s border. They carried armaments from Gaddafi’s former arsenals, as well as taking Libyan mercenaries to join the Free Syrian Army. Instructors from the British special forces continued to co-operate with the insurgents. The CIA, and contingents from the US Special Operations Command, were dispensing with and operating telecommunications equipment, allowing the “rebels” to evade Syrian Army units (16). The CIA was furthermore flying drones over Syrian air space to gather intelligence.
In September 2012, almost 50 high-ranking agents from the US, Britain, France and Germany were active along the Syrian-Turkish frontier (17). The Germans, at the behest of their intelligence service BND, were operating a spy service boat ‘Oker (A 53)’ in the Mediterranean, not far from Syria’s western coastline. On board this vessel were 40 commandos specialising in intelligence operations, using electromagnetic and hydro-acoustic equipment. As Germany is a NATO member, these activities were most probably undertaken in agreement with Washington.
The Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) stationed two other intelligence ships in the Mediterranean, ‘Alster (A 50)’ and ‘Oste (A 52)’, collecting information on Syrian Army positions. The BND president Gerhard Schindler confirmed of Syria that Berlin wanted “a solid insight into the state of the country”. (18)
The German ships’ point of support was Incirlik Air Base, which contains 50 US nuclear bombs and hosts the Anglo-American air forces. The German vessels’ mission was to decipher Syria’s telecommunications signals, intercept messages from the Syrian government and chiefs of staff, and to uncover Assadist troop locations up to a radius of 370 miles off the coast, through satellite images. Germany had a permanent listening post in Adana, southern Turkey, whereby they could intercept all calls made in Syria’s capital Damascus (19). Merkel’s government inevitably denied accusations that the German Navy was spying in the Mediterranean; it is the type of activity that few countries claim responsibility for.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
1 The Week, “Hillary Clinton: I would have taken on Assad”, 7 April 2012
2 Joby Warrick, “Zawahiri asserts common cause with Syrians”, Washington Post, 27 July 2011
3 Jonathan Steele, “Assad predicts defeat for invasion force”, The Guardian, 28 March 2003
4 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 283
5 Sarah Burke, “How Syria’s ‘geeky’ president went from doctor to ‘dictator’”, NBC News, 30 October 2015
6 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 246
7 Martina Fuchs, “Al Qaeda leader backs Syrian revolt against Assad”, Reuters, 12 February 2012
8 Wyatt Andrews, “Clinton: Arming Syrian rebels could help Al Qaeda”, CBS News, 27 February 2012
9 Reuters, “Islamist website posts video of Al Qaeda figure”, 13 June 2012
10 Jonathan Steele, “Most Syrians back President Assad, but you’d never know from Western media”, The Guardian, 17 January 2012
11 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 269
12 Matt Brown, “Syrian ministers killed in Damascus bomb attack”, ABC News, 18 July 2012
13 Space Daily, “Assad moving troops from Golan to Damascus: Israel”, 17 July 2012
14 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 264
15 Ibid., p. 265
16 Philip Giraldi, “NATO vs. Syria”, The American Conservative, 19 December 2011
17 Hürriyet Daily News, “There are 50 senior agents in Turkey, ex-spy says”, 16 September 2012
18 Thorsten Jungholt, “The Kiel-Syria connection”, Die Welt, 20 August 2012
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).
***
Romaine “Chip” Fitzgerald was a member of the Black Panther Party (BPP) in Los Angeles, California during 1969 when he was arrested and prosecuted under the federal government’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) designed to liquidate the threat of revolutionary organizations in the United States.
Fitzgerald recently died in detention at the age of 71 after serving nearly 52 years in the prison-industrial-complex where he witnessed the phenomenal growth within the inmate population over a period of five decades.
The BPP became a central focus on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under former Director J. Edgar Hoover who had falsely declared the organization as the gravest threat to the national security of the U.S. Hoover had long been an advocate of racial segregation and anti-communism. He had vigorously spearheaded the investigations of communists and other radicals during the post-World War II period of the Cold War.
Prior to the late 1940s and 1950s, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer of the Justice Department had been a mentor of Hoover’s. Palmer, the successor to Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory who had prosecuted opponents of World War I through the Espionage Act of 1917, had after the first imperialist conflagration, led a witch hunt which resulted in the arrests, detentions and deportations of thousands of activists beginning in 1919.
Later Hoover would establish the FBI as a separate entity which sought to collect information, investigate and prosecute those considered enemies of the status-quo. The COINTELPRO project was officially initiated in 1956 directed against the Communist Party and its allied groups. Nonetheless, with the rise of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements after the mid-1950s through the early 1970s, the disproportionate focus of the FBI was aimed at the destruction of the African American liberation struggle.
With specific reference to Fitzgerald, he was accused of involvement in the shooting of a California Highway Patrolman (CHP) in September 1969 after a traffic stop. Fitzgerald and one officer were injured in the incident while he was able to escape. Later in October, Fitzgerald was arrested in a BPP office and was later tried for the wounding of the CHP officer along with the murder of a private security guard outside a department store.
Evidence against Fitzgerald was lacking during the trial. He had others testify in the trial that he was not at the location of the robbing and killing of the security guard. However, largely as a result of the political bias against the BPP, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty.
After 1972, when there was a supreme court decision which overturned capital punishment for four years, Fitzgerald was resentenced to two life terms in prison. He was repeatedly denied parole over the years yet in recent months due to his age and medical condition, was eligible for release.
Tragically enough Fitzgerald developed additional medical problems. He had suffered a stroke earlier and in recent months developed serious cardiovascular disease. His death came at a time when the plight of prisoners, particularly political detainees, has gotten considerable attention among social justice movements nationally and internationally.
According to a statement from Fitzgerald:
“The prison administrators and their advocates within the state want to create fear in the minds of the public in an effort to persuade the people to give state authorities carte blanche in the inhumane treatment of convicts and allow the prison administrators to operate without oversight and accountability.” (See this)
In an extended letter from him which reads like a poem, Fitzgerald contemplates his release from decades of imprisonment in the state of California. He says of his hopes in part that:
“I will welcome the warmth and laughter of my grandchildren. I look forward to their hugs and smiles. I will be the Grandpa present to soothe them through occasional scrapes after they show me their somersaults and expert bike riding maneuvers…. I will continue to appreciate the love and challenges of family. I imagine our dialogue will include our sense of community, our country, the world, our contributions and help to our neighborhoods and, of course, sharing my personal sorrows and hope. I will lead by example with spontaneous acts of love, compassion and kindness thereby demonstrating my belief in the transformation of others. I will enjoy volunteering in preschools and/or visiting the elderly in convalescent hospitals.”
Romaine “Chip” Fitzgerald Is Not Alone
There are many other political detainees, prisoners of war and those unjustly incarcerated for purposes of bureaucratic advancement and the enrichment of the capitalist system, who are suffering and dying daily. Mumia Abu-Jamal, falsely charged and convicted during the early 1980s for the shooting death of a white police officer in Philadelphia, is an award-winning journalist and author of several books. Jamal spent more than two decades on death row and was eventually taken off after a global campaign to save his life. Jamal was a youth member of the BPP beginning in 1969 and later became a professional broadcast journalist. He was a supporter of the revolutionary MOVE organization in the city and defended the group against attacks by the corporate media and the police.
Jamal was recently diagnosed with COVID 19. He has suffered from Hepatitis C, diabetes, and skin disorders. His eyesight is failing all the while he has been held in maximum security prison for a crime he did not commit. Although Jamal has been given the right to an appeal, another trial has not taken place. Thousands nationally and internationally are continuing to demand his immediate release.
Other prisoners include Leonard Peltier, a leading member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), was convicted in the shooting death of two FBI agents in 1975. After being illegally extradited from Canada, he was railroaded through the U.S. courts and sentenced to life in imprisonment. Peltier also suffers from chronic ailments after being forced to remain incarcerated for over 40 years.
Image on the right: Assata Shakur in detention in New Jersey prior to her liberation
Assata Shakur, a former member of the BPP in New York and a soldier within the Black Liberation Army (BLA), was framed in the murder of a New Jersey State Trooper in 1973. She was liberated from prison in November 1979 by a taskforce of BLA and Weather Underground members and eventually granted political asylum in Cuba after living underground for a number of years in the U.S.
The National Jericho Movement, founded in the late 1990s, has since this time period sought to bring attention to the fact that there are political prisoners in the U.S. The Movement was organized with the assistance of political prisoners such as Jail Muntaqim, a former BLA soldier who served nearly five decades in prison. He was released during 2020 and is working to bring about the release of other comrades. Muntaqim was threatened with reincarceration under the guise of filling out a voter registration card last year.
Prisons Are Integral to the Capitalist System of Exploitation and National Oppression
In the U.S. there are more than 2.3 million people incarcerated. The number of those within the criminal justice system has grown by 500% since the early 1970s at the time of the Attica Rebellion and other forms of prison resistance.
African Americans, people of Latin American descent and proletarian people in general make up the overwhelming majority of those held behind bars. These inmates are forced to work for slave wages producing goods and services for the capitalist and imperialist system. The exploitation of labor within the criminal justice structures represent another form of modern-day enslavement.
Moreover, the almost nonexistent state of healthcare within the prisons is endangering inmates, those working in the facilities along with their families and friends that visit the institutions. Although there has been the release of some inmates based upon compassion related to health concerns, far too many remain behind bars for nonviolent crimes which pose no threat to society.
The police and prisons grew out of the sordid history of the ruling class within the U.S. The continued existence of both institutions remains a threat to the struggle for total liberation and social emancipation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Black Panther Party member Romaine Chip Fitzgerald dies in prison March 2021 (All images in this article are from the author)
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).
***
Ukraine wants war with Russia due to a combination of domestic and international factors, but such a scenario would be disastrous for the Eastern European country and only serve the interests of some members of the political elite and their foreign patrons.
The whole world is watching with bated breath to see whether Ukraine and Russia will go to war over Donbass like many fear might be about to happen due to recent events. I asked earlier this week whether “Vaccines Are The Real Driving Force Behind The Latest Donbass Destabilization”, pointing out the grand strategic interest that the US has in provoking a crisis that would put unprecedented political pressure on the EU to not buy Russia’s Sputnik V like the bloc’s top members are reportedly considering at the moment, but there’s more to it than just that at the comparatively lower strategic levels.
Ukraine wants war with Russia due to a combination of domestic and international factors, including its ruling elite’s desire to distract from a slew of domestic crises. These include its efforts to stamp out the increasingly popular opposition through a series of witchhunts, attract emergency Western financial aid to facilitate their struggling economy’s recovery, and perhaps become important enough to the West that they can finally receive much-needed vaccines for their population that they’ve hitherto been denied for inexplicable reasons. Moreover, the powerful influence of ultra-nationalist (fascist) militias can’t be discounted either.
On the foreign front, the US certainly never tries of causing trouble for Russia however and wherever it can. In the present context, any “continuation war” in Donbass could in theory impose unexpected financial costs on the country, among other potential consequences like serving as a pretext for more sanctions against it. Broadly speaking, the US might also hope that it can manipulate the optics of the conflict that it’s arguably trying to provoke in order to pressure Germany to pull out of its agreement to finish the Nord Stream II pipeline, however far-fetched that outcome might be in reality.
The Ukrainian political elite and their foreign patrons would be the only possible beneficiaries of such a conflict should one be successfully sparked by the US but even they, however, might experience blowback in the event that the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their allied ultra-nationalist (fascist) militias are decisively beaten on the battlefield. Facing that probable scenario, Kiev might urgently request NATO support, though it’s unclear whether any would be forthcoming, and if so, to what extent and whether they’d have a mandate to directly fight Russian-friendly rebels and perhaps even Russia itself should it intervene to protect its border and citizens.
What’s thus far certain at this point is that Ukraine wants war. This is evidenced not only by the previous arguments above, but also by its chief negotiator on Donbass demanding that the venue of the Minsk talks be switched from Belarus to somewhere else like Poland despite the latter indisputably being a partisan player in this larger conflict. This signifies that Kiev isn’t interested in continuing to pursue a peaceful resolution to its off-and-on civil war, which was actually obvious to all objective observers for quite a while already since it was none other than the Ukrainian government itself which refused to fully implement the Minsk Accords.
The Russian-friendly rebels and the neighboring eponymous state that politically (and according to some questionable reports, militarily) supports them have long been calling on Kiev to grant Donbass the special status that the Ukrainian government previously agreed to as a result of the Minsk Accords. The US has consistently pushed its Ukrainian client not to implement the promised political reforms in order to retain the country’s status as a HybridWar ulcer on Russia’s border that could continue progressively eating away at its legitimate security interests and eventually be externally exacerbated at a strategic moment like the present.
The current timing of Ukraine’s latest US-backed anti-Donbass provocations is linked to the reportedly impending success of Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” with the EU, Nord Stream II’s near completion, Ukraine’s series of domestic crises, but also Biden’s rise to power. The President and his family reportedly have a history of corrupt dealings with Ukraine, which gives them vested interests to militarily support it beyond whatever any other US leader might have promised in such a situation. This in turn ratchets up the danger to Russia since Biden might do the unthinkable by deploying US combat troops to Eastern Ukraine in the worst-case scenario.
As can be seen, Ukraine wants war for its own self-interested reasons, but it wouldn’t have any realistic chance of provoking such had it not been for the US’ – and specifically, the Biden family’s – support for this. No one else, least of all Russia, wants another conflict to explode in Eastern Ukraine, but Moscow will defend its legitimate security interests related to its international border and the security of its citizens in Donbass should the situation go south really soon. Kiev is thus at risk of opening up a can of worms as a result of its feverish march towards war, and while the US and Russia might not clash, Ukraine might still collapse in the end.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
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.
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).
***
“At the end, what the 4th Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.” – Klaus Schwab, Founder and CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF)
The SPARS Pandemic – 2025 to 2028 – A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
This 89 page-paper has supposedly been written in 2017, preceding by 2 years the by now infamous Event 201 that took place in NYC on 18 October 2019.
Event 201 was also sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, with cosponsors of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Participants included such prominent UN agencies as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the IMF, UNICEF, the UN political body itself – and many more.
Event 201 consisted basically of a computer simulation of the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) virus that hit China from 2002 to 2004, but was more virulent in the simulation. The computer projection produced some 65 million deaths in 18 months, destroyed the world economy and plunged all 193 UN member countries into severe debt and social misery. Hence, the participation of the IMF, World Bank, regional development banks, as well as representatives of the FED. The rescuers.
The 2002 to 2004 SARS outbreak was relatively harmless. First cases of the outbreak were reported in Guangdong, China, on 16 November 2002. The epidemic was reported contained by WHO in May 2003 and concluded in 2004 with 8,096 confirmed cases and 774 deaths Worldwide. The epidemic spread over 29 countries most of them in East Asia with the vast majority in China. Indeed, all infected people outside of China could be traced to Chinese origins. Chinese scientists then strongly suspected that the SARS virus was directed specifically to the Chinese genome. In other words, a bio-war against China.
Just a few weeks after Event 201 on 18 October 2019, the first cases of the so-called SARS-CoV-2 were reported in Wuhan, China. Obviously, China was more than preoccupied, identified a virus very similar to the one of the 2002-2004 outbreak, suspecting again a China-targeted virus – biowarfare.
China took immediate and drastic measures to contain the outbreak, closing down first Wuhan, then the entire Hubei Province of 50 million people, and subsequently locked down other areas where the virus made appearance. Indeed, the Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus was directed again against the Chinese DNA. The few cases in the first weeks in January 2020 identified outside of China, were all traceable to people of Chinese origin.
Other countries, Italy, Iran, Spain, Central Europe, were later hit by other corona strains. SARS-COV-2. Then the WHO conveniently identified Covid-19 (as the disease triggered by SARS-2). COVID – may stand for Certificate of Vaccination ID, or simply Corona Virus ID.
Covid-19 was a well-orchestrated epidemic, first declared by WHO, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or PHEIC (30 January 2020) and a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Once declared a pandemic, no matter whether justified or not – the world, or those who think they call the shots on Mother Earth, had green light to lock down and destroy the world – socially, economically and morally.
Now, there is suddenly a new report, a new scenario emerging: The SPARS Pandemic. Why SPARS? – Because this fantasy story – purely hypothetical as the paper doesn’t fail to repeatedly point out – is based on a SARS-type virus outbreak in St. Paul Minnesota. Thus – Saint Paul Acute Respiratory Syndrome = SPARS. Of course, it doesn’t stay in St. Paul, but opportunely spreads all over the place – first heavily in the US, but then reaches out daringly around the world – as does SARS-CoV-2, alias Covid-19.
Is it a new fear campaign, based on human health, the threat of death, our vulnerability – the inward focus of people – playing on egocentricity – our personal well-being and will to live under all circumstances, and to live in comfort, and at all times wanting to maintain the status quo?
Pointedly, the document makes no reference at all to SARS-CoV-2, or to the “Covid-19 – Great Reset”. The 89-page paper was supposedly written some 2 years before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The playbook, that’s what it is, originates again from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and pretends to protect people from epidemics and disasters and build resilient communities through innovative scholarship, engagement, and research that strengthens the organizations, systems, policies, and programs essential to preventing and responding to public health crises.
In their own words,
“The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JHCHS) works to protect people from epidemics and disasters and build resilient communities through innovative scholarship, engagement, and research that strengthens the organizations, systems, policies, and programs essential to preventing and responding to public health crises. The Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is located in Baltimore, MD.”
No mention of Bill Gates, of the Rockefeller Foundation which actually created and funded both, the JHCHS and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.
No mention either of the 2010 Rockefeller Report, outlining in great detail, the various health / disease / fear and tyranny scenarios humanity has to endure during the 2020-2030 period, the most notorious of which is the so-called “lockstep scenario”, in which humanity around the globe is so deeply and desperately entrenched and locked down today.
And of course, no mention of the perfect match between the 2010 Rockefeller Report’s scenarios, the UN Agenda 2030 and – “Covid-19 – the Great Reset”, penned by Klaus Schwab, CEO of the WEF. Their consistent parallelism is all coincidence.
According to Alex Jones, this apparently in October 2017 written Johns Hopkins document, SPARS, details plans for Big Pharma global domination. He says, “this document is the holy grail. The key to defeating the globalist.” Its war-gaming different scenarios, making sure they are “armed” for different dynamically appearing situations. See this.
However, the Big Picture of these scenarios is going much further than the kingdom of the pharma-industry. Looking closer and thinking deeper, isn’t it strange that this paper – written allegedly in October 2017, some 3 years ago – emerges only now, when Covid-19, with its nefarious vaxx-coercion is in full swing, with many of its “scenarios”, depicted in a more or less similar form in the paper that envisions – purely hypothetically, as the introduction doesn’t fail to repeat numerous times – what will (or may) happen – hypothetically – from 2025 to 2028?
Is it possible that this SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 document was written much later? For example, well into the current SARS-CoV-2, alias covid-19 Plandemic, to detract the people’s attention from the much written and talked about Event 201, the PLAN that was then outlined for pretty precisely what is happening today – and may go on for another – well 10 years – if the goals and objectives of UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset, as well as of the 2010 Rockefeller Report are to be completed?
And what are those goals and objectives? They can be summarized into a set of three:
(i) Taking over total control of humanity, as in One World Order (OWO); by electromagnetic manipulation (that’s where 5G, later 6G come in); by digitizing everything, including all money; by converting humans into transhumans; they – Mr. Klaus Schwab, the co-author of the Great Reset, and his cabal, call it the 4th Industrial Revolution;
(ii) Shifting assets and resources from the middle and the bottom of society to the top few; and
(iii) Drastically reducing world population, via a eugenist depopulation agenda? Eventually, a small globalist elite – all those associated with managing and governing the OWO-tyranny – plus a relatively small world population of serfs – or what Aldous Huxley called the “Epsilon people” (the lowest cast working people) – in today’s world, “transhumans”, would survive. The serfs or Epsilon people, would all be electronically [digitally] controlled and manipulated, so they would not transgress into seeking their erstwhile “freedom” lost.
Could it be that the SPARS paper – which as mentioned above – does not refer to massive vaccination programs imposed on the world population – to deviate the attention from the final intention of the plandemic? Remember Bill Gates: “Only when 7 billion people have been vaccinated, will we go somewhat back to normal”. That’s what the master, or at least co-master, of this ordeal humanity is going through, predicts?
Look how the Preface to this paper introduces the scenes:
POSSIBLE FUTURE IN 2025: THE “ECHO CHAMBER”
UNBRIDLED GLOBAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION COUPLED WITH SOCIAL FRAGMENTATION AND SELF-AFFIRMING WORLDVIEWS
Scenario Purpose: The following narrative comprises a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future. Its purpose is to prompt users [meaning medical and scientific personnel, government officials, and, of course, the media], both individually and in discussion with others, to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circumstances in which communication around emergency MCM development, distribution, and uptake takes place.
While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions. At the same time, readers have a chance to consider what potential measures implemented in today’s environment might avert comparable communication dilemmas or classes of dilemmas in the future.
Generation Purpose: The timeframe for the scenario (the years 2025-2028) was selected first, and then major socioeconomic, demographic, technological, and environmental trends likely to have emerged by that period were identified. Specifically, two dominant trends likely to influence regulatory and public responses to future public health emergencies were selected: one, varying degrees of access to information technology; and two, varying levels of fragmentation among populations along social, political, religious, ideological, and cultural lines.
A scenario matrix was then constructed, illustrating four possible worlds shaped by these trends, with consideration given to both constant and unpredictable driving forces. Ultimately, a world comprised of isolated and highly fragmented communities with widespread access to information technology—dubbed “the echo-chamber”—was selected as the future in which the prospective scenario would take place.
From this point, scenario-specific storylines were then developed, drawing on subject matter expertise, historical accounts of past medical countermeasure crises, contemporary media reports, and scholarly literature in sociology, emergency preparedness, health education, and risk and crisis communication.
These sources were used to identify communication challenges likely to emerge in future public health emergencies. This prospective scenario is not intended to predict events to come; rather, it is meant to serve as a plausible narrative that illustrates a broad range of serious and frequently encountered challenges in the realm of risk and crisis communication.
Scenario Environment: In the year 2025, the world has become simultaneously more connected, yet more divided. Nearly universal access to wireless internet and new technology—including internet accessing technology (IAT): thin, flexible screens that can be temporarily attached to briefcases, backpacks, or clothing and used to stream content from the internet—has provided the means for readily sharing news and information.
However, many have chosen to self-restrict the sources they turn to for information, often electing to interact only with those with whom they agree. This trend has increasingly isolated cliques from one another, making communication across and between these groups more and more difficult. From a government standpoint, the current administration is led by President Randall Archer, who took office in January 2025. Archer served as Vice President under President Jaclyn Bennett (2020- 2024), [these are fictitious names] who did not seek a second term due to health concerns.
[…]
In regards to MCM communication more specifically, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other public health agencies, have increasingly adopted a diverse range of social media technologies, including long-existing platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter, as well as emerging platforms like ZapQ, a platform that enables users to aggregate and archive selected media content from other platforms and communicate with cloud-based social groups based on common interests and current events.
Federal and state public health organizations have also developed agency-specific applications and ramped up efforts to maintain and update agency websites. Challenging their technological grip, however, are the diversity of new information and media platforms and the speed with which the social media community evolves. Moreover, while technologically savvy and capable, these agencies still lag in terms of their “multilingual” skills, cultural competence, and ability to be present on all forms of social media. Additionally, these agencies face considerable budget constraints, which further complicate their efforts to expand their presence across the aforementioned platforms, increase social media literacy among their communication workforces, and improve public uptake of key messages.
Scenario Organization & Use: This scenario was designed to illustrate the public health risk communication challenges associated with distribution of emergency medical countermeasures during an infectious disease pandemic. The story is organized chronologically, and each chapter concludes with a treatment of key communication dilemmas and corresponding discussion questions.
Some questions are targeted towards challenges faced by risk communicators representing federal agencies, while others address issues more relevant to state and local risk communicators. As such, users may find it most helpful to run the scenario as a tabletop exercise.
*
This reads like the blueprint for a medical tyranny. The paper is meant for “health providers”, Government officials, and politicians, as well as and especially for the media, who are to keep the public-at-large in-check and brainwashed with the right narrative. The paper doesn’t miss the opportunity to bring elements of “dynamics” into each one of the scenarios. In other words, nothing may happen as planned, what to do then?
This paper is utterly confusing and disturbing. If it’s supposed to be secret and destined for those who are to control us, and has been written for a number of scenarios of a fictitious corona virus disease, SPARS, very similar to the one that has affected China in 2002-2004, and is affecting the world today, since the beginning of 2020, SARS-CoV-2, alias Covid-19 the disease – then why is the paper surfacing now? – In principle for everyone to see. But to see what? – To see that what we are living today is a later version of the SPARS fiction, namely the Event 201 fiction?
According to a satanic ritual – the masters behind such ceremonies must inform the public in advance of what their plans are, in order for them to succeed. Event 201, in theory, supersedes the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028. Unless, the three key objectives of the pandemic are not on track to be met by mid-decade 2020-2030, and need to be enhanced – by a “better organized” public relation and political manipulation strategy…. which has to be divulged to the public in advance.
In this case, this paper has hardly been written in October 2017, but is rather the “catch-up” work of now, mid-lockstep scenario – made public to introduce the next scenario which the 2010 Rockefeller Report calls “Clever Together” and describes as “A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues.”. This may be interpreted as the “smart” scenario – the rolling out of full digitization of everything, from personal records, to brainwave reading and mind control, to money – to merging the biological man with the digital man – the becoming of transhumans. See the 2010 Rockefeller Report here.
Back to the beginning. Klaus Schwab’s and his cronies’ dream – and humanity’s nightmare:
“At the end, what the 4th Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.”
This shall not happen. We can and must stop it NOW. Any complacency is a step closer to doomsday – to a digital and mental Armageddon – which we have the power to avoid, if we wake up and ascend to a consciousness of self-reliance and of integrity with nature and to the spiritual meaning of life in solidarity that flows from her, from Mother Earth.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
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).
***
A new survey by Drone Wars has begun the process of mapping the involvement of information technology corporations in military artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics programmes, an area of rapidly increasing focus for the military. ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age’, the recently published integrated review of security, defence, development, and foreign policy, highlighted the key roles that new military technologies will play in the government’s vision for the future of the armed forces and aspirations for the UK to become a “science superpower”.
Although the integrated review promised large amounts of public funding and support for research in these areas, co-operation from the technology sector will be essential in delivering ‘ready to use’ equipment and systems to the military. Senior military figures are aware that ‘Silicon Valley’ is taking the lead in the development of autonomous systems for both civil and military use’. Speaking at a NATO-organised conference aimed at fostering links between the armed forces and the private sector, General Sir Chris Deverell, the former Commander of Joint Forces Command explained:
“The days of the military leading scientific and technological research and development have gone. The private sector is innovating at a blistering pace and it is important that we can look at developing trends and determine how they can be applied to defence and security”
The Ministry of Defence is actively cultivating technology sector partners to work on its behalf through schemes like the Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA). However, views on co-operation with the military by those within the commercial technology sector are mixed. Over the past couple of years there are been regular reports of opposition by tech workers to their employer’s military contacts including those at Microsoft and Google.
A small study conducted recently in the US by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University suggests that artificial intelligence professionals hold differing views about working on Department of Defense (DOD)-funded AI projects. 39% of those surveyed reported being “neutral” with 38% perceiving it positively and 24% as a negative. Concerns about how DOD will use the technology and concerns about causing harm were the most common reasons not to work on DOD-funded AI projects. Respondents who felt positively about working on DOD-funded AI projects considered the ability to influence DOD’s work in this field to be an important benefit, and were more willing to work on DOD-funded AI projects with humanitarian applications, as opposed to battlefield or back-office applications.
The iWars survey takes an overview of the UK’s information technology and robotics sector, with the aim of identifying companies in the sector on which the government will have to rely if it is to achieve its goal of automating the armed forces. The results are published in the form of a spreadsheet outlining the specific areas of expertise of each company and an indication of its involvement to date in the development and sale of technology intended for security and military purposes.
The spreadsheet gives summary information for 70 companies in the UK tech sector and the extent of their involvement in the development of military technology. A further 100 companies based in the US, other NATO or allied countries from which the UK may wish to purchase services or equipment are also covered in the spreadsheet, but in less detail than UK-based companies. Although not comprehensive, the survey looks at a wide range of companies in the sector – ranging from long established military contractors through to newcomers which have taken clear ethical positions against the use of their products for military purposes. Companies based in nations which the UK military considers to be its rivals, such as China and Russia, have not been included.
The iWars Survey has allowed us to identify a number of trends within the information technology sector.
Military applications of robotics, autonomous systems, and artificial intelligence are of great interest to both traditional arms and weaponry manufacturing companies and companies in the information technology (IT) sector. Almost all military equipment contractors are to a certain extent involved in manufacturing automated and / or AI products, or upgrading their product lines to incorporate robotic and AI technology. In the case of the IT sector there is across-the board involvement ranging from long-established traditional giants in the IT sector such as IBM, the Big Five internet companies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), through medium-sized companies and on to small start-ups and specialist niche companies.
Among the large companies in the IT sector, most are willing to undertake military and national security work and have a number of national security projects in their portfolios, although these may only be a small portion of their overall revenue. For example, among the Big Five internet companies, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are co-contractors in the CIA’s Commercial Cloud Enterprise project. Google’s software was used in the US DOD’s controversial ‘Project Maven’ algorithmic warfare programme until staff concerns forced the company to withdraw from the programme, and Google is involved in various AI projects led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Microsoft has been awarded the US Department of Defense’s Joint Enterprise Defence Infrastructure cloud computing contract.
However, a few of the largest players (for example Apple) apparently have little interest in military or national security contracts. On the other hand, some newer but growing AI companies are unambiguous about wanting to use their products exclusively for military purposes – for example Palantir (which has picked up Google’s work on Project Maven) and Anduril in the USA, and Adarga in the UK.
As well as including businesses active in the artificial intelligence (AI), software development, and robotics sector, the spreadsheet lists businesses working on computer hardware development, military electronics and communications, and sensors. These are all important in the develop of military autonomous systems and there is often considerable overlap between these various elements in the business portfolio of larger companies.
Partnerships on military robotic systems and AI are common, both between arms companies and IT companies and within the IT sector. “We see these smaller companies who don’t have their own computational resources licensing them from those who do, whether it be Anduril with Google or Palantir with Amazon”, said Meredith Whittaker, a former Google AI researcher.
Many traditional defence companies have established their own AI / information technology subsidiary companies or operating divisions to undertake work in these fields (for example General Dynamics Information Technology, BAE Systems Applied Intelligence). There is often a ‘blurring’ of disciplines within companies, for example a company such as MBDA which manufactures guided missiles will develop sensors and software for target identification / fire control purposes as part of the overall missile system.
The military technology sector remains fairly fluid and there has been an ongoing trend of mergers and consolidations over many years among the larger players in the sector. For example, United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Corporation announced a merger in 2019 to form Raytheon Technologies and in the same year L3 Technologies and Harris Corporation merged to form L3Harris Technologies.
A number of the companies listed in the spreadsheet are playing an important enabling role in driving forward investment in this area, as well as shaping political opinion and government policy on artificial intelligence and robotics. Multinational consultancy companies such as Deloitte (represented on the Advisory Board of the All-Party Parliament Group on Artificial Intelligence) and Accenture (heavily involved in the UK government’s Alan Turing Institute for AI Research) are notable examples. However, smaller and more specialist companies are also involved, for example Rebellion Defence, which funds the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Technology and National Security.
Virtually all software development companies have an interest and involvement in cyber security, by virtue of having to safeguard their own products, and many provide cyber security products and services to the government and military sectors, particularly among smaller specialist cyber security companies.
How to use the iWars Survey spreadsheet
The iWars Survey spreadsheet gives an overview of the military – and broader – information technology sector as represented in the UK. Information is accurate as of February 2021.
The spreadsheet consists of three pages:
Entries for UK technology sector companies.
Entries for other ‘Western’ companies (mainly US based) who are important in the sector. This list does not include any Chinese or Russian companies, which are beyond the scope of the study.
A list of tags categorising various areas of activity for the various companies in the spreadsheet. Each company listed in pages 1 and 2 of the spreadsheet is categorised by up to three tags to broadly indicating its most important and relevant areas of business. In the case of larger companies, activities may cover a wider range of areas than is shown.
The lists in pages 1 and 2 of the spreadsheet are far from comprehensive, but include the main players in the technology sector with an interest to the UK Ministry of Defence and a representative selection across the broader sector. Companies listed were identified on the basis of reports in daily military sector news briefings and news stories on IT and computing in the broader media.
The first column on these pages is colour-coded to give a rough indication of the extent of involvement each company has in the military sector:
Red: Established presence representing a substantial element of business.
Amber: The company undertakes work in the sector but only to a limited extent.
Green: No known military involvement.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Joe Biden had announced it in his electoral program: “While President Trump has abandoned allies and partners, and abdicated American leadership, as president I will immediately take steps to renew the alliances of the United States, and ensure that America, one more time, lead the world “( il manifesto, 10 November 2020). He kept his promise. The aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower and his battle group, made up of 5 missile launchers, “attacked Islamic State positions in Syria and Iraq from the Eastern Mediterranean” since this “claimed responsibility for an attack on Palma in Mozambique”. The US Navy officially announced this on March 31, without explaining how ISIS, defeated in Syria and elsewhere especially following the Russian intervention, now reappears threateningly with suspicious punctuality.
After launching the attack from the Eastern Mediterranean – an area of the United States European Command naval forces, with its headquarters in Naples-Capodichino – the aircraft carrier Eisenhower crossed the newly reopened Suez Canal on April 2, entering the US Central Command area that includes the Persian Gulf. Here she joined tthe French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle that, at Washington’s request, assumed the command of the US Task Force 50 on March 31. It is not deployed against Isis but in reality, against Iran.
The fact that Washington asked Paris to lead a US naval force with its flagship falls within the policy of the Biden Presidency, which still maintains control of the command chain, as Task Force 50 depends on the US Central Command.
This is confirmed by the Warfighter exercise which, planned by the US Army, is being carried out from April 6 to April 15 2021 by US, French, and British divisions at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss in Texas, at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, and at Grafen-woehr in Germany. In this exercise, French and British brigades will operate within a US division, while US brigades will operate within French and British divisions, but always according to the US plan. The Warfighter integrates the large ongoing exercise Defender-Europe 21, which the US Army in Europe and Africa carries out until June together with European and African allies and partners, to demonstrate “the ability of the United States to be strategic partners in the Balkans and in the Black Sea, in the Caucasus, in Ukraine and Africa ».
The US Army V Corps, just reactivated at Fort Knox (Kentucky) participates in Defender-Europe 21, has established its command headquarters in Poznan (Poland), from where it commands operations against Russia. On March 31, at the request of the United States, Polish general Adam Joks was appointed US Army V Corps Deputy Commander. “It is the first time – reports the US Embassy in Warsaw – that a Polish general has entered the Military Command structure of the United States”. In other words, General Adam Joks continues to be part of the Polish army but, as deputy commander of the US V Corps, is now directly dependent on the command chain headed by the President of the United States.
The new security forces assistance brigades, special US Army units, that “organize, train, equip and advise foreign security forces” fall within the same policy. They are engaged “in support of a legitimate government authority” in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, currently in the Defender-Europe framework. They are an effective tool for launching de facto military operations under US command with the “assistance” cover. This explains why, after a relative respite, the Ukrainian chief of staff, Ruslan Khomchak, declared on April 1 that the Kiev army “is preparing for the offensive in Eastern Ukraine”, that is, against Donbas Russian population, also using «territorial defense forces» (such as the neo-Nazi Regiment Azov), and in this operation «the participation of NATO allies is envisaged».
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
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).
***
Ken Moll is girding for battle.
Moll, a Chicago-based personal injury attorney, has dozens of lawsuits pending against the former Monsanto Co., all alleging the company’s Roundup weed killers cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and he is now preparing several of those cases for trial.
Moll’s firm is one of a handful that have refused settlement offers made by Monsanto owner Bayer AG, deciding instead to take the fight over the safety of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide products back into courtrooms around the country.
Though Bayer has assured investors it is bringing closure to the costly Roundup litigation through settlement deals totaling more than $11 billion, new Roundup cases are still being filed, and notably several are positioned for trial, with the earliest set to start in July.
Moll has lined up many of the same expert witnesses who helped win the three Roundup trials held to date. And he plans to rely heavily on the same internal Monsanto documents that provided shocking revelations of corporate misconduct that led juries to award hefty punitive damages to the plaintiffs in each of those trials.
Trial set for July 19
One case with a trial date looming involves a 70-year-old woman named Donnetta Stephens from Yucaipa, California who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 2017 and has suffered from numerous health complications amid multiple rounds of chemotherapy. Stephens was recently granted a trial “preference,” meaning her case has been expedited, after her lawyers informed the court that Stephens is “in a perpetual state of pain,” and losing cognition and memory. The case is set for trial July 19 in San Bernardino County Superior Court in California.
Several other cases have either already been granted preference trial dates, or are seeking trial dates, for elderly people and at least one child suffering from NHL the plaintiffs allege was caused by exposure to Roundup products.
“The litigation is not over. It is going to be a continued headache for Bayer and Monsanto,” said Andrew Kirkendall, whose Texas-based firm is helping represent Stephens and other clients seeking speedy trials.
Kirkendall said his firm has lawsuits moving forward to trial in California, Oregon, Missouri, Arkansas and Massachusetts.
“This has the potential to be the next asbestos litigation,” he said, referring to decades of lawsuits brought over asbestos-related health problems.
Bayer rejection
Bayer bought Monsanto in June 2018 just as the first Roundup cancer trial was getting underway. Juries in each of the cases that went to trial found that Monsanto’s herbicides do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks. Jury awards totaled well over $2 billion, though the judgments have been ordered reduced in the appeals process.
After coming under intense pressure from investors to find a way to cap liability, Bayer announced in June that it had reached a $10 billion settlement to resolve most of more than 100,000 Roundup cancer claims in the United States. Since that time it has been signing deals with law firms around the country, including the firms that have led the litigation since the first suits were filed in 2015. The company is also trying to get court approval for a separate $2 billion plan to try to keep Roundup cancer cases that could be filed in the future from going to trial.
Bayer has been unable to settle with all of the firms with Roundup cancer clients, however. According to multiple plaintiffs’ attorneys, their firms rejected settlement offers because the amounts generally ranged from $10,000 to $50,000 per plaintiff – compensation the attorneys deemed inadequate.
“We said absolutely no,” Moll said.
Another law firm pushing cases forward for trial is the San Diego, California-based Singleton Law Firm, which has roughly 400 Roundup cases pending in Missouri and about 70 in California.
The firm is seeking an expedited trial now for 76-year-old Joseph Mignone, who was diagnosed with NHL in 2019. Mignone completed chemotherapy more than a year ago but also has endured radiation to treat a tumor on his neck, and continues to suffer debilitation, according to the court filing seeking trial preference.
Stories of suffering
There are many stories of suffering within the files of the plaintiffs who are still hoping to get their day in court against Monsanto.
Retired FBI agent and college professor John Schafer began using Roundup in 1985 and used the herbicide multiple times during spring, fall and summer months until 2017, according to court records. He did not wear protective clothing until warned by a farmer friend in 2015 to wear gloves. He was diagnosed with NHL in 2018.
Sixty-three year-old Randall Seidl applied Roundup over 24 years, including regularly spraying the product around his yard in San Antonio, Texas from approximately 2005 to 2010 and then around property in North Carolina until 2014 when he was diagnosed with NHL, according to court records.
Robert Karman applied Roundup products beginning in 1980, generally using a hand-held sprayer to treat weeds on a weekly basis roughly 40 weeks a year, according to court records. Karman was diagnosed with NHL in July 2015 after his primary care doctor discovered a lump in his groin. Karman died in December of that year at the age of 77.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Gerald Singleton said Bayer’s only path to putting the Roundup litigation behind it is to put a clear warning label on its herbicide products, alerting users to the risk of cancer.
“That is the only way this thing is going to be over and done,” he said. Until then, he said, “we’re not going to stop taking cases.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Yann Avril | Credit: Pixavril – stock.adobe.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).
***
European regulators today said they found a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued today by the agency’s safety committee.
Today’s recommendations followed the agency’s review of 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis reported in the EU drug safety database (EudraVigilance) as of March 22. Eighteen of the cases were fatal.
“A plausible explanation for these rare side events is an immune response to the vaccine similar to one seen in patients treated with heparin,” said EMA’s executive director, Emer Cooke, noting that the condition is called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.
Regulators stressed that the benefits of the vaccine, which was shown to be 76% effective at preventing COVID in a large U.S.-based study, still outweigh its risks.
“This vaccine has proven to be highly effective to prevent severe disease and hospitalization,” said Cooke. “And it is saving lives.”
The EMA has commissioned more research to investigate the link between the vaccine and blood clots. Representatives of the agency’s safety committee said during the press briefing the EMA will impose various requirements on AstraZeneca for future research, including laboratory studies be conducted to better understand the effects of the vaccine on the clotting system.
AstraZeneca also will need to look at existing data from closed clinical trials to see if that gives an indication of blood clot risk factors and will need to conduct epidemiological studies to gather data on thrombosis, the EMA said.
The EMA said it is also looking carefully at the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine, as three cases of blood clots associated with low platelets, similar to those reported after AstraZeneca vaccines, have occurred and clinical trials noted, though did not confirm, one instance of thrombosis.
UK regulators also find link, recommend further study
The UK’s vaccine regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), also issued a press release today. The agency concluded the evidence of a link between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and blood clots is strong, but more research is needed.
MHRA is not currently recommending age use restrictions for the vaccine, despite identifying 79 reports of blood clotting cases with low levels of platelets and 19 deaths following the use of the AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.
Eleven of the 19 deaths reported were in those under age 50 and three were under age 30, the MHRA said. All 79 cases occurred after the first dose of AstraZeneca.
The MHRA will issue updated guidance for healthcare professionals on how to minimize risks, as well as further advice on symptoms for vaccine recipients to look out for after vaccination but reiterated that “vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19 and have already saved thousands of lives. Everyone should continue to get their vaccination when asked to do so unless specifically advised otherwise.”
Two senior sources at the MHRA told Channel 4 News that while data was still unclear, there were growing arguments to justify offering younger people under the age of 30 a different vaccine.
Though the MHRA and EMA did not recommend age restrictions for AstraZeneca’s vaccine, Britain’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, which advises UK health departments on immunization, said today “where possible” the vaccine should not be given to adults under 30, The Washington Post reported.
“We are not advising a stop to any vaccination for any individual in any age group,” said Wei Shen Lim, who chairs the committee. “We are advising a preference for one vaccine over another vaccine for a particular age group, really out of the utmost caution rather than because we have any serious safety concerns.”
“This is a course correction, there’s no question about that,” Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s deputy chief medical officer, said during a press briefing. “But it is, in a sense, in medicine quite normal for physicians to alter their preferences for how patients are treated over time.”
On Tuesday, Oxford University paused its trial of more than 200 children aged 6 to 17 as a precautionary measure in response to investigations by the MHRA in the UK and EMA, a university spokesperson said.
The Oxford spokesperson added:
“While there are no safety concerns in the paediatric clinical trial, we await additional information from the MHRA on its review of rare cases of thrombosis/thrombocytopenia that have been reported in adults, before giving any further vaccinations in the trial.”
MHRA’s chief executive, Dr. June Raine, told CNN on Tuesday that the agency was “aware of the decision taken by the University of Oxford to pause dosing in the trial … whilst the MHRA safety review is ongoing.”
WHO yet to weigh in, as more deaths reported in Italy
The WHO currently holds the position that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.
As The Defender reported Tuesday, a senior official from the EMA told Italy’s Il Messaggero newspaper there was a “clear” link between the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine and a rare blood clotting syndrome — but hours later the EMA denied having already established a causal connection between the vaccine and blood clots.
In a statement Tuesday to Agence France-Presse, the EMA said it had “not yet reached a conclusion and the review is currently ongoing.”
On Monday, Italian publication il Giornale reported a 45-year-old lawyer near Messina suffered a brain hemorrhage after receiving the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine. Shortly after receiving his first inoculation, he began to feel sick, suffering from severe headaches, then suddenly deteriorated. He remains in serious condition in ICU.
The news came a day after reports of a 32-year-old teacher in Genoa died from a brain hemorrhage almost immediately following vaccination with AstraZeneca.
South Korea said Wednesday it will temporarily suspend AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine for people under age 60 amid European review, while approving Johnson & Johnson, Reuters reported.
Although AstraZeneca’s vaccine has been authorized for use in the EU, it has not yet received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the U.S., but plans to apply for EUA soon. If approved, AstraZeneca would become the fourth available vaccine in the U.S., joining Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
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).
The report below is an excerpt from Israel National News
***
A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling “the high mortality caused by the vaccine.”
The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”
Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications.
FranceSoir writes that they follow publications, data analyzes, and feedback from various countries on vaccination, and have therefore taken an interest in the Nakim article, asking to interview them in order to understand their analysis and its limitations.
The authors of the article declare they have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.
After a presentation, the authors discussed their data analysis, the validations carried out, limitations, and above all, their conclusions that they compare with data received via a Health Ministry Freedom of Information Act request.
Their findings are:
There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground.
They have three sources of information, besides the emails and adverse event reports they receive through the Internet. These three sources are Israeli news site Ynet, the Israeli Health Ministry database, and the U.S. federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.
In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.
Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.
On February 11, a Ynet article presented data related to vaccination. The authors of the Nakim article claim to have debunked this analysis based on data published by Ynet itself: “We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which spans 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrived at startling figures that attribute significant mortality to the vaccine.”
The authors say “vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period.”
Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, “this is a new Holocaust,” in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
At the moment over 50 countries across the globe have approved use of the “controversial” Sputnik V vaccine… controversial of course not with regards to science or effectiveness, but merely that it’s Russian-produced.
There continues to be huge demand particularly in Latin America, where Brazil is foremost among those getting hit hard, suffering its deadliest month throughout the pandemic in March. But of most “concern” to EU and US officials, however, is that parts of Europe continue to do separate deals to obtain the Sputnik vaccine.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) appears to be dragging its feet in what likely comes down to a political decision (as opposed to a health and scientific decision) – as Bloomberg writes: “EU leaders were told during a recent video conference that it could take three to four months before Sputnik receives EMA approval, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Bloomberg. Some leaders questioned whether the drug would still be needed at that point, the note said.”
The European Commission on Wednesday reportedly informed EU member states that Brussels does not intend to start talks with Russia for procuring Sputnik V, even as controversy continues over AstraZeneca and blood clots, and the ability of Europe to obtain enough jabs for herd immunity to the population.
This has prompted Germany to break step and start its own bilateral negotiations with Russia, as Reutersdetailed Wednesday:
That is why German Health Minister Jens Spahn announced during the virtual meeting that Germany would start preliminary negotiations with Russia on a bilateral agreement to secure the vaccine, the source added.
In the preliminary talks, Germany first wants to determine which quantities Russia can deliver and when, the source said.
But then German officials included the further key caveat that it will only purchase the vaccine once it meets EMA approval – again, which would likely extend the timeline for procurement far enough out to bring into question whether it would be needed by time of the belated EMA approval. Late last month Berlin signaled it would likely pursue talks with Russia even if other EU member countries chose not to.
And within Germany, some regions/states are moving even faster: “Bavaria signed a preliminary agreement to secure as many as 2.5 million doses of Russia’s Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine, some of which would be produced at a facility in the German state,” writes Bloomberg.
#BREAKING Germany's Bavaria region signs provisional agreement to buy doses of Russia's Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine once approved by European regulators: state premier pic.twitter.com/EWyuwGsS46
“The deal with the state-run Russian Direct Investment Fund, which backed Sputnik V’s development and is in charge of its international roll-out, is contingent on the shot gaining European Union or German approval, Bavaria’s health ministry said in an emailed statement,” the report revealed.
Recall that US and in some cases EU officials have linked the Sputnik V vaccine with Russia’s “malign influence” and have further questioned the spread of the vaccine from a country that “has less than desirable values” – as the European Council president once put it.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
According to a report from Bloomberg, the Biden administration is wrapping up its review of alleged Russian actions and could announce measures against Moscow soon.
One unnamed source told Bloomberg the moves could involve sanctions on individuals close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the expulsion of Russian diplomats the US will claim have ties to Russian intelligence.
The actions would be framed as “retaliation” for the hack of the software firm SolarWinds and alleged election interference. Both accusations are entirely unfounded, as the US has failed to present evidence for either claim.
Last month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an assessment that Putin ordered an influence campaign to “denigrate” President Biden during the 2020 election. Again, missing from the assessment was any evidence or an explanation of how US intelligence reached the conclusion.
Another issue that the Biden administration said it was reviewing early on was the claim that Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. This accusation first appeared in The New York Times last June. But since then, just about every US military leader said no intelligence corroborated the story, and the claim has essentially been debunked. The Russian bounty story has quietly dropped from the list of anti-Russian talking points coming from Biden officials.
The Bloomberg report hinted that the action could go beyond sanctions and the expulsion of diplomats. A report from The New York Times last month said the US was preparing cyberattacks against Russia over the SolarWinds hack.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (ID1974/Shutterstock) and President Joe Biden (Stratos Brilakis/shutterstock)
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).
***
The pro-government press in Ukraine has announced that President Volodymyr Zelensky is to go to the Donbass conflict zone tomorrow, April 8. That means that within hours he will arrive in what is at the moment the world’s most dangerous hot spot, fraught as it is with the potential for a confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers. No details have been provided concerning the proposed trip.
This will occur against the backdrop of Ukraine pulling out of the Minsk talks with the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine that were initiated seven years ago. It will also happen when Russia has not had an ambassador in the U.S. since March 21, when Anatoly Antonov was summoned back to Moscow.
It’s not too far-fetched to wonder how the Berlin Crisis or the Cuban Missile Crisis would have culminated if the U.S. and USSR weren’t speaking to each other.
It is inconceivable that Zelensky would have decided on such a gesture – to visit a war zone after withdrawing from one of two key peace talk formats – without not only notifying the U.S. and NATO but having their express approval.
To underscore the above assumption, the Ukrainian press disclosed today that more than one U.S. official has recently discussed Ukraine being brought into NATO as a full member. Being a member would entitle it to call for a consultation with the other members of the military bloc under it’s Article 5 collective military assistance provision. If Ukraine won its case with NATO all thirty members would be obligated to participate in military action on its side.
What has been said lately by American and other NATO member states is not tantamount to Ukraine’s admission to NATO, of course, but is precariously close to suggesting Ukraine may be a de facto Article 5 partner by extension, one degree removed. That it would in effect be under NATO’s military – and nuclear – umbrella.
Yesterday White House spokesman Jen Psaki said, as related in a summary of her statement by Reuters, that
“Ukraine has long aspired to join NATO as a member and that the Biden administration has been discussing that aspiration with the country.” She added: “We are strong supporters of them, we are engaged with them…but that is a decision for NATO to make.”
The operative words are “We are strong supporters of them, we are engaged with them.” That is what is intended to be heard by both Ukraine and Moscow.
Earlier this year the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, passed a draft law amending legislation on the Security Service of Ukraine. Today’s local press quoted U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Kristina Kvien who, after meeting with the deputy leading the reform measure, affirmed that “Reforming the Security Service of Ukraine in line with the Euro-Atlantic principles will become Ukraine’s key step on its path toward NATO.”
The same American envoy who appears to be overseeing Ukrainian lawmakers’ actions, to put it politely, is also telling them which internal policies need to be adjusted to enter the U.S.-dominated military bloc.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis is also quoted in the Ukrainian press as recommending the nation be granted a program that is the final stage to NATO membership, stating: “I’m convinced, NATO could have reiterated its offer on providing a Membership Action Plan to Ukraine, and we have just started coordinating the issue with our colleagues from [the] Baltic States.” In rhetoric that has become prevalent among Western officials in recent days the measure he’s urging would send “a strong signal to Russia that Ukraine is choosing a Transatlantic path, and that this saw feedback from among NATO Allies.”
As the Ukrainian president leaves for the Donbass conflict zone the foreign minister of Poland, Zbigniew Rau, will arrive in Kiev for talks with his Ukrainian counterpart. Interfax-Ukraine says this of their impending meeting:
“The foreign ministries’ heads will also pay attention to the aggravation of the security situation in eastern Ukraine and in the temporarily occupied Crimea, discuss the buildup of Russian troops near the borders of Ukraine, the growth of the intensity of Russian propaganda.”
Poland is at the moment threatening its neighbor Belarus over the treatment of ethnic Polish activists in the latter country. Belarus is the last neutral state on Russia’s entire western border. Since last summer Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has warned of the threat of a NATO-sanctioned invasion of the western part of his country by Poland and Lithuania. The Polish and Ukrainian foreign ministers may well lay the groundwork for simultaneous moves against Eastern Ukraine and Western Belarus..
What the U.S. and NATO client Volodymyr Zelensky says and does in the Donbass will be known in a few hours . One thing is certain: his words and actions will not contribute to deescalating the worsening crisis there.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Joe Biden’s presidency has been welcomed by Western media outlets as signifying a return to using diplomacy to peacefully resolve differences between nations. Yet in the 3 months since his inauguration President Biden has not dialled back from the anti-China rhetoric that was the hallmark of the Trump presidency. In fact, Biden has done quite the opposite and significantly increased American criticism of China for its so-called human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and for its apparent threats to Taiwan.
Central to this Cold War propaganda narrative regarding China are the endlessly repeated claims that China is committing massive human rights violations in Xinjiang. China is allegedly guilty of mass use of forced labour, forced sterilisation of Uygur women and the mass imprisonment of Uygur adults. However, these American claims have seriously ratcheted up with the accusation that China is committing acts of genocide against its Uygur population.
This is a serious stepping up of the US Cold War propaganda offensive against China. This trend is accompanied by the stepping up of economic sanctions by the US and its allies against China and the expansion of US military bases around China. Taken together it is clear that the United States is heading towards a military confrontation with China that threatens the world with nuclear conflict.
Grayzone exposes US regime narrative regarding China
Max Blumenthal and his fellow journalists at the Grayzone, have written numerous articles about the dangers of the US regime change narrative on China which utilises the so called ‘’genocide’’ of the Uygur as a weapon to attack Beijing with. The have taken apart the many claims made by Adrian Zenz who has been a key source for the US government.
In a recent podcast for the Grayzone Blumenthal called out the true intent behind American claims against China. He stated that we have recently passed anniversaries regarding the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the war against Libya in 2011 whose objective was regime change. Now the US narrative is aimed at bringing about the overthrow of the CCP government in China:
“Libya, Iraq these are formally stable states that are now in disarray and make no mistake that is exactly what the United States and its allies like to do to Xinjiang and would like to do to China. That is the point of these humanitarian interventions deceptions which have been deployed and advanced by many of the same people who presided over the assaults in Libya, the proxy war in Syria, the coup in Ukraine, which has Ukraine into a mirror reflection of Russia in the 90s, when Russia saw 3.5 million excess deaths.’’
The mainstream media, corporate politicians across the political spectrum and even sections of the so called alt media all uncritically repeat the US claims that China is committing crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. These are very serious allegations whose provenance warrants examination and scrutiny.
The misnamed Chinese Communist Party (CCP) celebrates its centenary this year. Back in 1921 the Chinese Communist Party was a vibrant democratic organisation which rapidly developed roots amongst the super exploited working-class and amongst sections of the intelligentsia. A century later the CCP has degenerated into a totalitarian monolith that has nothing in common with the tenets of communism on which it was originally founded a century before.
Having said this, it does not mean we should just blithely accept at face value these serious allegations which threaten a significant deterioration in relations between the world’s two superpowers.
US claims against China part of the new Cold War
First of all, we should note the utter hypocrisy of the United States in calling out China for human rights abuses when its own record both past and present involves a huge number of human rights violations committed in dozens of countries since the end of the Second World War. The American historian William Blum noted in the introduction to his seminal book, Killing Hope that an American Holocaust had taken place during the 20th century. Blum noted how, ‘a few million people had died in the American Holocaust and many more millions had been condemned to lives a misery and torture as a result of US interventions extending from China and Greece in the 1940s to Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s’.
Secondly, these American claims of Chinese acts of genocide and crimes against humanity must be set against the backdrop of the intensified economic struggle between Washington and Beijing. They are part of the US fightback against its economic rival whose rapid emergence threatens American hegemony over the global economy.
American claims that China is committing crimes against humanity and acts of genocide in Xinjiang province are uncritically accepted by the Western media and entire political class. Never do they stop to question the veracity of these extremely serious allegations. At no point do they stop and think where is the evidence to substantiate these allegations?
“As Washington advances its new Cold War strategy, it has amplified accusations of genocide and other atrocities against the Chinese government, all focused on Beijing’s policy in Xinjiang. To broaden support for the dubious narrative, the US government has turned to a series of pseudo-academic institutions and faux experts to generate seemingly serious and independent studies.
Any critical probe of the reams of reports on Xinjiang and the hawkish institutions that publish them will quickly reveal a shabby propaganda campaign dressed up as academic inquiry. Western media’s refusal to look beneath the surface of Washington’s information war against China only highlights its central role in the operation.’’
Max Blumenthal has pointed out that there are three strands to this narrative that China is committing crimes against humanity and acts of genocide against the Uyghurs Muslims. Testimonies from Uyghurs exiles together with so-called leaked documents from the Chinese government are two strands of this narrative. However the essential underpinning of these claims are the numerous anti-China narratives contained in so called academic studies.
Claims of China committing genocide
A recent example of this being the 55 page report produced by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. The NewLines Insititute is in its own words is aiming to ‘provide concrete policy advice’ that includes ‘suggestions on countermeasures that U.S. policymakers can engage in to mitigate risk’ when dealing with their geo-political rivals. Does that sound like a neutral academic body that will will impartially weigh up situations without any bias?
A cursory examination of articles on its website reveals how Newlines Institute is yet another Neo-Con think tank, which abound in American academia. Its founder and president is a Dr.Ahmed Alwani who is, ‘a businessman based in northern Virginia with investments in the poultry, real estate, and education/training sectors’. The NewLines website notes that Alwani is motivated by, ‘a desire to help improve the human condition’. He has previously served as a member on the advisory board of that beacon of peace and brotherly love: the U.S. military’s Africa Command.
The foreword to the NewLines report entitled, The Uiygur genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of 1948 Genocide Convention was written by Dr. Azeem Ibrahim Director Special Initiatives Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. Dr. Ibrahim who co-authored this ‘independent’ report is Adjunct Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. Are we supposed to believe in the impartiality of a report which counts among its co-authors someone who works for the US Army War College?
Radio Free Asia another American source for the NewLine genocide report
Another ‘independent’ source that crops up with great regularity in the NewLines genocide report is Radio Free Asia which is funded by the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) whose apparent purpose is to, ‘inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy’. This US government outfit funds Voice of America and Radio Free Europe and various other propaganda outlets that were set up during Cold War 1.0 to oppose the Soviet Union.
Are we supposed to take the genocide report seriously when many of its sources of information lack any kind of credibility? In fact many of its so called sources are mere mouthpieces for American Cold War propaganda.
Investigative reporter Ajit Singh sums up this “new’’ report nicely when observes that it merely ‘regurgitates old, discredited “evidence”.He adds that it, “presents no new material on the condition of Uyghur Muslims in China’’.
Western criticism of China designed to stifle its economic development and fan Cold War 2.0
Under the CCP one-party dictatorship working people across China, not just in Xinjiang, are subject to massive state surveillance state, attacks on trade unions, workers protests and a denial of basic democratic rights.
Having said this, the United States and its allies are using the human rights card to further their regime change narrative regarding China. It reflects an intensification of the acute economic rivalry between Chinese and American capitalism.
The lack of democratic rights facing working people across all provinces of China is no business of American imperialism and its allies. The Chinese people have a long and proud revolutionary history. At some point, just as in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Chinese masses will once again strive to reclaim their revolutionary traditions and fight for the basic democratic rights denied to them since the inception of Mao’s regime in 1949.
American imperialism is steadily losing ground to China on so many different economic fronts and in the realms of technological development. By the end of the 2020s it is estimated that China will have overtaken the US to become the world’s largest economy. History is replete with examples of declining empires that resort to conflict when confronted by a rising state that challenges their hegemonic position.
The current human rights narrative being used by the US to attack China is yet another example of that same historical process. Biden’s much trumped plan for rebuilding US infrastructure is a belated recognition of how far it has fallen behind China in a key economic metric.
Since 2008 American capital has failed to resolve the many structural problems facing its economic system. Instead of attempting to carry out reforms to try and shore up the system American capital has accelerated the parasitic financialization of the US economy.
This has resulted in one of the greatest wealth transfers in history that has led to a massive inflation of paper assets such as stocks and bonds. It has greatly exacerbated the huge wealth gap between the 1% whose wealth has grown tremendously and the bottom 60% which has suffered declining living standards since the 1980s.
This process poses many dangers for the medium to long term stability of American capitalism.
The incessant attacks on China are also part of the ideological crusade designed to divert ordinary Americans attention away from the real source of their problems and put the blame on China. Not surprisingly, the anti-China rhetoric is leading to a rising wave of attacks against Asian-Americans within the US.
The current ideological offensive of the United States utilises the fig leaf of human rights with which to attack China. This will not weaken the CCP regime, quite the opposite. It will strengthen President Xi’s attempts to whip up nationalist feeling as a means of consolidating public support for his regime.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in court on Monday in his trial on corruption, bribery and breach of trust charges, a senior member of his Likud Party said a majority of members of the new Knesset would be vote for him to become president. This election must be held between April 9th and June 9th ahead of the expiry of incumbent Reuvin Rivlin’s term on July 9. A Likud source told The Jerusalem Post that most Knesset members would vote for Netanyahu if he decides to become president.
If elected he would, in theory, have a new seven-year term in office which would put prosecutions on hold as Israel’s basic law prohibits charges against a president and perhaps, give him time to evade the charges altogether, as they say, by hook or by crook. Netanyahu would, however, give up policymaking and accept that his main role would be deciding who would form a government following an election. While this is an important role, a president’s other duties are largely ceremonial and bore Netanyahu who loves wheeling-and-dealing on Israel’s fractured political scene. Although his legal troubles could complicate a Netanyahu election to the presidency because he would enter the presidential race while on trial, he is said to be considering such a bid. The high court of justice might have to decide if he could run. Other scenarios involve plea bargains and pardons.
Without Netanyahu, the paper’s informant argued that the Likud would choose who among its Knesset members would be most likely to form a stable Likud-led coalition with other right-leaning parties which refuse to serve under Netanyahu.
Although he remains popular, like Donald Trump in the US with his “base” of followers, Netanyahu, like Trump, faces an influential anti-Netanyahu constituency. Indeed, thousands of protesters have demonstrated outside both the prime minister’s residence and his personal home for months with the object of forcing the Likud to drop him or him to stand down. His detractors have dubbed him the “crime-minister”.
Now for his trial. The Israeli police began investigating him for corruption in 2016 and began to lay charges in 2019. His trial began in May 2020 in the Jerusalem District Court but the presentation of evidence was postponed until February and then, due to the latest Knesset election, April 2021. Scores of witnesses will, reportedly, be called.
Netanyahu faces indictments over three out of five possible cases. In the first case, he has been charged with receiving gifts worth more than $500,000 over 20 years from a wealthy Israeli businessman and his Australian friend in exchange for favours.
In the second case, Netanyahu and the editor of Yedioth Aronoth are accused of conspiring to limit the circulation of a rival newspaper in exchange for positive coverage of the prime minister and his family.
The third case, again involved Netanyahu’s quest for friemdly media coverage from the popular web portal, Walla!, one of the first in Israel, which is owned by the communications firm Bezeq.
He could spend up to 10 years in prison for bribery and a maximum of three years for fraud and breach of trust.
If Netanyahu is convicted and sentenced, he would be the second Israeli prime minister to go to prison. The first, Ehud Olmert, also of the Likud, was jailed for six years bribery and influence peddling while he served as mayor of Jerusalem and prime minister. His sentence was reduced to 27 months and he gained early release in 2017.
Israeli presidents can also be charged and jailed. Moshe Katsav (in office from 2000-2007) was charged with rape and abuse by staff and imprisoned for six years.
Corruption is widespread among Israeli politicians. Ten ministers, 17 Knesset members, two chief rabbis, half a dozen mayors, and a number of other officials have been convicted and sent to prison. Some public figures have avoided jail.
Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, was convicted in 2019 of appropriating $100,000 in state funds to spend on lavish meals from restaurants while she had a fulltime chef working in her household. Following a plea bargain, she was fined $15,000 and escaped prison. Two years earlier she was ordered to pay $47,000 in damages to a housekeeper who accused her and her husband of bullying and she continues to face similar allegations by another employee. Their son, Yair, has also had scrapes with the law.
Corruption has always dogged Israeli politicians but the Netanyahu saga is a far cry from smaller scandals that enveloped his predecessors. For instance, the scale of the Netanyahus’ abuses is much greater than the 1977 scandal involving then prime minister Yitzak Rabin who withdrew his candidacy ahead of a Knesset election and stepped back from politics after it was revealed that, in violation of Israeli law, he and his wife had not closed accounts in the National Bank of Washington in 1973 when they left the US capital where he was Israel’s ambassador. Although she claimed there had been less than $2,000 in her account, it was found that the there were two accounts with a total of $18,000 when the Rabins departed and about $10,000 when the information was made public. Rabin was forgiven and became prime minister a second time in 1992 until his assassination in November 1995.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
On Tuesday, April 5, the Iranian ship Saviz was attacked off the coast of Djibouti in the Red Sea.
“The day before the incident, an unidentified helicopter scouted Saviz ship for 5 to 10 minutes,” one of the ship’s crew told Noornews.
The source added, “On the day of the incident, more than 4 hours after the attack on the ship, from 10:00 to 11:00 local time, two unidentified speedboats were scouting near the ship.”
Also in this regard, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatizadeh told reporters that the Saviz ship was struck by a blast at around 6 a.m. local time (0300 GMT) on Tuesday, April 5, near the coast of Djibouti, and sustained minor damage.
In accordance with the previous official announcement and in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the non-military Saviz ship was stationed in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden to provide maritime security and to protect Iranian merchant ships against piracy.
The ship has acted as Iran’s logistic station in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and its mission had been announced to the IMO.
The Iranian Press TV website cited a New York Times story published on Wednesday quoting an anonymous US official telling the newspaper that the Tel Aviv regime notified the United States that Israeli forces had attacked an Iranian ship in the Red Sea.
The unnamed US official said Israel called the strike a retaliation, and that the ship had been hit below the waterline.
In a similar incident last month, an Iranian cargo ship was damaged after it was targeted by a terrorist attack en route to Europe in the Mediterranean Sea.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
In Syria’s Greater Idlib, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham continues its attempts at rebranding, all the while keeping up its usual militant activity.
As per the Russian Reconciliation Center, militants in Greater Idlib shelled the surrounding areas 32 times on April 6th.
Another al-Qaeda affiliated militant group in Greater Idlib, Ansar al-Islam, posted photographs of its activities in Idlib province. The footage showed the work of terrorist snipers targeting the Syrian Arab Army. This is more than likely a tool to show that the Damascus government cannot impede their activities, and serves as a recruitment method.
The Russian Aerospace Forces continue responding to all violations by striking militant positions. On April 6th, an air raid was carried out near the settlement of Basankul in Idlib.
In spite of the Damascus Government and Russia’s attempt to deter the militants, the United Nations sent 88 trucks of humanitarian aid to Syria’s Idlib. The aid is supposed to be distributed among the needy people in Idlib and its surrounding areas. It is more likely that it is being used by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups to consolidate their grip on the region.
In addition to countering the activities of the Greater Idlib factions, the Syrian Arab Army, with its Russian support is containing ISIS in the central region.
In the 72 hours leading into April 6th, the Russian Aerospace Forces killed at least 29 ISIS terrorists in their strikes. A large number were heavily wounded. These attacks were centered on the Hama province, and stretched all the way to the border of the Deir Ezzor province.
Still, limited ISIS operations continue. On April 6th, one civilian was killed, several were injured and a large number of citizens were abducted in the town of al-Sa’an in the eastern countryside of the Al-Salamiyah region in Hama.
The terrorists ambushed government forces who were protecting the civilians. In total 19 were abducted, out of them 11 were civilians.
ISIS minefields also remain, and need to be cleared sometime in the future. On April 5th, a civilian was killed and another injured in a blast, at the Bowera site on the Jabal Abu Rajmein road, north of Palmyra.
The United States profits from chaos, wasting no time in smuggling resources away from the local population.
On April 5th, according to Syrian media, US forces smuggled out a convoy of trucks loaded with wheat stolen from the silos of Tal Alou in Yarubiyah in the northeastern countryside of Hasaka.
Additionally, on the very next day, Washington’s troops smuggled out a further convoy of 34 tanks and trucks carrying stolen quantities of oil and wheat also from the Syrian al-Jazeera region into northern Iraq.
Every party involved in Syria is fighting tooth and nail for their own interests and any small opportunity is being exploited, as is clear to see.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Here is the scandal. In 2016 under the Obama administration, Congress with strong bipartisan support passed the 21st Century Cures Act. It required the Food and Drug Administration to use “Real World Evidence,” or RWE, for approval of drugs. During the Trump administration, this statute was not invoked by the White House task force under Dr. Fauci. But it should have been used early in the pandemic.
Starting a year ago, courageous front-line doctors generated RWE because they were curing COVID patients with protocols that kept patients out of hospitals. Real world data showed the effectiveness of cheap generics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to cure and prevent COVID-19. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko used RWE language early on and this February, in light of over 2 million COVID deaths globally, noted: “The problem is that the medical world and governments ignored REAL WORLD EVIDENCE.”
Other physicians and the organizations leading the cause did not invoke RWE, namely America’s Frontline Doctors, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Nor have conservative and liberal media informed the public about the legal mandate to use RWE.
In my recent book, “Pandemic Blunder,” I used RWE to conclude that 70 to 80% of COVID deaths could have – and still can be – prevented by using the cheap and effective protocols.
This, too, was noted: “In a December 2016 article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled ‘Real World Evidence – What Is It and What Can It Tell Us?’ all twelve authors were from the FDA. A big point was that RWE would come from clinical care and home or community settings as opposed to research-intensive or academic environments. … In order to assess patient outcomes and to ensure that patients get treatment that is right for them, real-world data needs to be utilized.” Perfectly applicable for supporting use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin protocols.
Outrageously, despite huge numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, the government did not use RWE to support use of documented protocols for early home/outpatient COVID treatment and prophylactic use.
Just the opposite, in fact. NIH and FDA created blocks to wide use of these protocols. The emphasis was on contagion controls, like masking and shutdowns, and expensive medicines for hospitalized patients and vaccines.
The ubiquitous Fauci in endless media appearances never invoked the 2016 law and RWE. He ignored it. Worse, he often dismissed observational studies using clinical data. But the European Medicines Agency concluded: “Real-world evidence generated by observational studies is fundamental to understanding the benefits and risks of medicines when used in clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”
Joy Pullmann got it exactly right: “What Fauci does is not science. It is public manipulation in the name of science. His entire professional history has not been one of testing observable phenomena and accurately reporting the results. It has been in wearing a lab coat while playing politics.”
To be clear, there is no conflict between following the science and using RWE. Public confidence in the “follow the science” mantra has surely fallen because “experts” and politicians have only followed selected data and ignored a whole lot more.
RWE is so important because formal, expensive randomized clinical trials do not fully account for the entire patient population of a particular disease. FDA said: “RWE can be generated by different study designs or analyses, including but not limited to, randomized trials, including large simple trials, pragmatic trials, and observational studies (prospective and/or retrospective).” All the latter supported use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
“The FDA is approaching the generation of real-world evidence for Covid-19 with a sense of urgency to learn what we can, as soon as we can, from patients who are receiving care right now,” said a senior FDA official in early 2020. But not for early treatment protocols.
The Department of Health and Human Services emphasized that “the Cures Act places focus on the use of real-world data to support regulatory decision-making, including the approval of new indications for existing drugs.” And RWE “is a key priority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).” Another broken promise.
Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had many decades of wide, safe use for a variety of illnesses and under the law deserved approval early in the pandemic for COVID treatment. But it did not happen.
Now, we see pandemic hypocrisy because articles are appearing promoting use of COVID vaccines by invoking RWE.
Days ago, this was a headline: “Real-World Evidence Confirms Efficiency of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines.” The article notes, “A CDC study used real-world evidence to find that both Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines reduced risk of infection 90% two or more weeks after the second dose.”
Every time you see data on COVID deaths remember that most could have been prevented if the government had honored the statutory mandate to use RWE. Following the science legally means using RWE.
Now, some “experts” are calling for more shutdowns, mask mandates and school closing. Congress should hold a hearing and put Fauci and other officials on the spot. How can they justify not obeying the 2016 law? How can they ignore all the RWE for protocols proven to cure COVID patients when given early to them?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, as a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. At the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major health-related studies. He has testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles in journals and on websites, plus op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has been an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. His newest book is “PandemicBlunder.”
As many as 246 Michigan residents fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were later diagnosed with the virus, and three of them died, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services confirmed Monday.
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”
A new law in Israel will allow the government to share a list of names of those who did not get the COVID-19 vaccine, along with other personal identifying information. The list, which will include the names, phone numbers, ID card numbers and addresses.
One year later the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. It’s carefully formulated. While they do not officially deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they recommend RT-PCR “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).
The former British diplomat, secret agent, captivating espionage writer, and presumed Englishman, Le Carré died an Irish citizen, his son confirmed. It’s like being told his fictional hero and the quintessential Englishman George Smiley was actually working for Moscow all along.
The Astra-Zeneca “cheap and easy to store” “workhorse” vaccine causes blood clots in general, and in particular clots in the venous sinuses of the brain, which have killed or wounded a number of people, especially women under 55. The J and J vaccine was associated with blood clots in its clinical trial data presented to FDA.
The planet may be facing a new plastic crisis, similar to the one brought on by bottled water, but this time involving discarded face masks. “Mass masking” continues to be recommended by most public health groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite research showing masks do not significantly reduce the incidence of infection.
The top-down reorganization of the world economy by a technocratic cabal led by the group around the Davos World Economic Forum– the so-called Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030– is no future proposal. It is well into actualization as the world remains in insane lockdown for a virus.
We last communicated with you on December 20, 2020, when you were President-elect. At that time, we alerted you to the dangers inherent in formulating a policy toward Russia built on a foundation of Russia-bashing. While we continue to support the analysis contained in that memorandum, this new memo serves a far more pressing purpose.
Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career.
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).
***
The planet may be facing a new plastic crisis, similar to the one brought on by bottled water, but this time involving discarded face masks. “Mass masking” continues to be recommended by most public health groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite research showing masks do not significantly reduce the incidence of infection.1
As a result, it’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute. Most of these are the disposable variety, made from plastic microfibers.2
Ranging in size from five millimeters (mm) to microscopic lengths, microplastics, which include microfibers, are being ingested by fish, plankton and other marine life, as well as the creatures on land that consume them (including humans3).
More than 300 million tons of plastic are produced globally annually — and that was before mask-wearing became a daily habit. Most of it ends up as waste in the environment, leading researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”4
Why Disposable Masks May Be Even Worse Than Plastic Bottles
The bottled water crisis is now well-known as a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but it’s slated to be outpaced by a new mask crisis. While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,” the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”5
Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.
Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment, as well as being a known asthma trigger.6 Further, the researchers noted:7
“Once in the environment, the mask is subjected to solar radiation and heat, but the degradation of polypropylene is retarded due to its high hydrophobicity, high molecular weight, lacking an active functional group, and continuous chain of repetitive methylene units. These recalcitrant properties lead to the persistence and accumulation in the environment.”
They also stated that when the masks become weathered in the environment, they can generate a large number of microsized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.
Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags.
Further, “Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nanosized plastic fibers (e.g., diameter <1 mm) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.”8 A report by OceansAsia further estimated that 1.56 billion face masks may have entered the world’s oceans in 2020, based on a global production estimate of 52 billion masks manufactured that year, and a loss rate of 3%, which is conservative.
Based on this data, and an average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical mask, the masks would add 4,680 to 6,240 additional metric tons of plastic pollution to the marine environment, which, they note, “will take as long as 450 years to break down, slowly turning into microplastics while negatively impacting marine wildlife and ecosystems.”9
Plastic particles are known to travel great distances, posing immense risks to virtually every part of the globe. Small, weathered pieces of plastic — suggesting they’d been on a long journey — have been found at the top of the Pyrénées mountains in southern France10 and “in the northernmost and easternmost areas of the Greenland and Barents seas.”11
Calling the Greenland and Barents seas area a “dead end” for the plastic debris, researchers hypothesized that the seafloor below would be a catch-all for accumulating plastic debris.12 In separate research, it was also revealed that plastic pollution has reached the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica — an area believed to be mostly free of contamination.13 According to the featured study:14
“When not properly collected and managed, masks can be transported from land into freshwater and marine environments by surface run-off, river flows, oceanic currents, wind, and animals (via entanglement or ingestion). The occurrence of waste masks has been increasingly reported in different environments and social media have shared of wildlife tangled in elastic straps of masks.”
Such plastics also contain contaminants, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic (i.e., causing DNA damage that could lead to cancer), along with dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to additional toxic effects, including reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity.15
Aside from the chemical toxicity, ingestion of microplastics from degraded masks and other plastic waste is also toxic due to the particles themselves as well as the potential that they could carry pathogenic microorganisms.
Another issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.16
Researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University also said scientists, manufacturers and regulators need to assess the inhalation of microplastic and nanoplastic debris shed from masks — both disposable and cloth — noting:17
“… [C]omplaints of throat irritation or discomfort in the respiratory tract by children, the elderly, or other sensitive individuals after wearing these may be alerting signs of excessive amounts of respirable debris inhaled from self-made masks and respirators.”
In the featured study researchers also called on the environmental research community to “move fast to understand and mitigate these risks,” suggesting that reusable cloth masks be promoted in lieu of disposable options and that mask-only trash cans be set up to assist in proper disposal.18However, another option would be to loosen or eliminate mask mandates, which may turn out to cause more harm than good.
Mask Use May Pose a Risk for Advanced Stage Lung Cancer
While it’s well-known that gut microbiota affect your immune system and risk of chronic diseases, it was long thought that lungs were sterile. Now it’s known that microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs.19 Not only that, but researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when these oral commensals are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer.20
Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression.
While the study didn’t look into how mask usage could affect oral commensals in your lungs, they did note, “The lower airway microbiota, whether in health or disease state, are mostly affected by aspiration of oral secretions, and the lower airway microbial products are in constant interaction with the host immune system.”21
It seems highly likely that wearing a mask would accelerate the accumulation of oral microbes in your lungs, thereby raising the question of whether mask usage could be linked to advanced stage lung cancer. The National Institutes of Health even conducted a study22 that confirmed when you wear a mask most of the water vapor you would normally exhale remains in the mask, becomes condensed and is re-inhaled.23
They went so far as to suggest that wearing a moist mask and inhaling the humid air of your own breath was a good thing, because it would hydrate your respiratory tract. But given the finding that inhaling the microbes from your mouth may increase advanced cancer risk, this hardly sounds like a benefit.
Not to mention, the humidity inside the mask will allow pathogenic bacteria to rapidly grow and multiply and, since the mask makes it more difficult to breathe, you’re likely to breathe heavier, thereby risking inhaling the microbes even deeper inside your lungs.
Masks Are Harming Children and Adults
The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans, including children. It’s largely assumed that face masks are “safe” for children to wear for long periods, such as during school, but no risk assessment has been carried out.24 Further, as evidenced by Germany’s first registry recording the experience children are having wearing masks.25
Using data on 25,930 children, 24 health issues were reported that were associated with wearing masks that fell into the categories of physical, psychological and behavioral issues.26 They recorded symptoms that:27
“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”
They also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.28 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”
It’s also known that microplastics exist in human placentas,29 and animal studies show that inhaled plastic particles pass through the placenta and into the heart and brains of fetuses.30 The fetuses exposed to the microplastics also gained less weight in the later part of the pregnancy.31
“We found the plastic nanoparticles everywhere we looked — in the maternal tissues, in the placenta and in the fetal tissues. We found them in the fetal heart, brain, lungs, liver and kidney,” lead research Phoebe Stapleton of Rutgers University told The Guardian.32
Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures and is also a former editor of the medical journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, also conducted an evidence-based scientific analysis on masks, which shows that not only should healthy people not be wearing masks but they could be harmed as a result.33
Meehan suggests that the notion of mask-wearing defies common sense and reason, considering that most of the population is at very low or almost no risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19. He also compiled 17 ways that masks can cause harm:34
Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity
Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities
Adding insult to injury, the first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.35
Considering the lack of evidence for their use, and the potential harms to human health and the environment, it’s no wonder that calls for peaceful civil disobedience against mandatory masking are growing. The U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom has a widget you can use to contact your government representatives to let them know wearing a mask must be a personal choice.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Tuesday (April 6) saw the Pretoria High Court hand down the following order:
That a pharmacist, medical practitioner and any other person registered under the Health Professions Act may sell a medicine that contains ivermectin to a patient on prescription.
“Unregistered ivermectin-containing finished pharmaceutical products remain accessible under the present programme” through authorised suppliers.
A medical practitioner may initiate treatment with ivermectin at the same time as submitting an application for the individual to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra).
The respondents (without admission of any liability) were ordered to pay a total of R1.8 million to the applicants.
Background
As the Covid-19 pandemic swept across the world, indiscriminately infecting and killing helpless victims, with no known cure, there were those who resorted to desperate measures.
Many experimented with ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug mainly used in the treatment of parasites in animals. And whereas the death toll in hospitals mounted, those who used ivermectin on the sly started singing its praises.
The use of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19 was supported by many medical professionals.
But Sahpra stood firm, on January 28 issuing a press release warning of “lack of adequate evidence to support its use”, that its quality could not be guaranteed because of “widespread unregulated use”, and the lack of any clinical trial.
Infections continued, death rates mounted, well-known personalities and loved ones were felled. “Do you know a farmer” became a topic of conversation.
Section 21 programme allowing access
On January 28, Sahpra set up the Ivermectin Controlled Compassionate Use Programme Guideline for access to unregistered ivermectin for human use under Section 21 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act.
Essentially, this provided that medical practitioners could apply for approval for the use of unregistered ivermectin per an individual patient. This application had to be supported by substantive documentation.
Sahpra warned of “unclear evidence of both benefit and harm”, “reports of illicit products entering the South African market”, and that veterinary products were being used.
Sahpra established a tiered mechanism to control access and monitor use, and required stringent reporting.
The authorisation could be granted for the manufacture, importation, wholesaling or distribution of a medicine, and for licensed healthcare facilities to hold bulk stock. Authorisation had to be granted to a registered medical practitioner per named patient, and the “patient outcomes” had to be reported.
A small allowance was made for urgent cases, in that treatment could start at the same time that an application was made, but that authorisation was not guaranteed.
Sahpra did not constrain itself by regulating the number of days by which it had to respond to an application, including an urgent application.
The average time of receiving an ‘authorisation’ from Sahpra is not known.
Treatment for rosacea
A light appeared on the horizon when, on March 16, Sahpra registered a product containing ivermectin for the treatment of rosacea, a human skin condition.
Because the Medicines and Related Substances Act requires that only registered medicines can be mixed together (compounded), this new registration for human use essentially meant that ivermectin could be compounded with other registered medicines, and made accessible in accordance with the act, for the treatment of Covid-19.
But it was necessary to approach the court for an order compelling Sahpra to allow this.
Four different applications were made to court:
AfriForum, Dr George Coetzee, Gideon Samson Gumeda and Geelbooi Motsipa.
The African Christian Democratic Party and Doctors for Life.
‘I can make a difference, and the Doctors and Medical Practitioners Group.
Pharma Valu Irene CC, Marx & Marx CC, JJ Strydom CC, Menlo Park Apteek CC, JJ Strydom Apteek CC, Pharma Valu Newlands CC, and Strydom & Pretrius CC.
The respondents in all applications were Sahpra and Health Minister Zweli Mkhize – with the director-general of the Department of Health and the member of the Executive Council for Health in Gauteng as additional respondents in one of the applications, Sahpra CEO Boitumelo Semete-Makokotla and President Cyril Ramaphosa as respondents in another, and the Department of Health mentioned in one application.
The position of the minister and Sahpra
The minister of health, who is cited as a respondent in all the applications, and the president, who is cited as a respondent in one of the applications, felt compelled to place on record that:
They have carried out their constitutional and statutory duties in protecting the public health against the Covid-19 pandemic.
Sahpra is held accountable and provides the requisite reports.
The minister relies on the “expertise, recommendations and consultations” in regard to medicines of Sahpra and approves the actions and decisions made by Sahpra.
Sahpra is to provide the public with “accurate information regarding the safety, efficacy, and quality of ivermectin” as well as any other treatment or preventative medicine for Covid-19.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Irishman. A plot twist that might have been considered too bizarre for even John Le Carré. But the master of suspense shows, from beyond the grave, how to get the obituary writers rushing to update their paeans. The former British diplomat, secret agent, captivating espionage writer, and presumed Englishman, Le Carré died an Irish citizen, his son confirmed. It’s like being told his fictional hero and the quintessential Englishman George Smiley was actually working for Moscow all along.
Nicholas Cornwell said his father, best known for his Cold War thrillers, became an Irish citizen before his death, aged 89, in December. The reason for the change of heart? One word. Brexit. It infuriated le Carre
. “This is without doubt the greatest catastrophe and the greatest idiocy that Britain has perpetrated since the invasion of Suez,” Le Carré said of Brexit at the time. “Nobody is to blame but the Brits themselves – not the Irish, not the Europeans.”
He thought it was a massive own goal.
“The idea, to me, that at the moment we should imagine we can substitute access to the biggest trade union in the world with access to the American market is terrifying,” he said.
The author of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold was eligible for an Irish passport through his grandmother, Olive Wolfe, who was born in County Cork.
Le Carré was actually born as David Cornwell and worked for the secret services while studying German in Switzerland at the end of the 1940s. Inspired by his MI5 colleague, the novelist John Bingham, he began publishing thrillers under the pseudonym of John le Carré.
His spies did not sip Martinis, frequent casinos nor have beautiful women as companions. They were occupied by office politics, often egotistical, flawed and lonely.
A strange thing is happening. For the first time in more than 840 years, since Henry II landed his forces in eastern Ireland in October 1171, it can be argued that Ireland has more power, or at least access to power, than Britain.
Ireland, like Mexico, found itself in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in history. Too far from god, and intrusive neighbors. We had what is now referred to as soft power, the music, and political influence in Boston, New York and Chicago, as well as Liverpool, Glasgow and many other communities. Britain had real power, diplomatic and military that spanned the globe. But right now in 2021 it seems that Britain is diplomatically speaking adrift, at least compared to Ireland.
The reason? In 1962 former US secretary of state Dean Acheson remarked Britain has lost its empire and is seeking a role. The search continues. If its plight was advertised in a lonely hearts column it would read; Nation, on edge of Europe, seeks companionship and friendship. May lead to something better. All can apply. Sensitive about past, hopeful of the future. Please send response to Whitehall, London.
Brexit means Ireland is part of a bloc of 27 countries that, to put it politely, is bigger and more powerful than Britain. The six-letter word has changed the relationship. Like a couple seeking divorce, the husband, demanding to explore new opportunities and recapture his youth, realizes too late that all the assets are in the wife’s name.
Of course it’s not just Le Carré.
There has been a surge in applications for Irish passports from Britain.
The number of Irish passports issued in Great Britain rocketed in the years following the Brexit referendum.
This was most marked in 2019. That year saw 120,800 passports issued by Ireland’s London embassy, double that of 2016.
Now the focus turns elsewhere. After all, if Le Carré is Irish then who else? There is no indication, just yet, that god is going to deny he is an Englishman.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Tom Clifford is a renowned journalist and geopolitical analyst based in Beijing. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
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).
According to The Detroit News, 246 “breakthrough cases” were reported between Jan. 1 and March 31. All cases occurred in people who tested positive 14 or more days after the last dose in the vaccine series, said Lynn Sutfin, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, in an email.
“Some of these individuals may ultimately be excluded from this list due to continuing to test positive from a recent infection prior to being fully vaccinated,” she said. But these “cases are undergoing further review to determine if they meet other [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] CDC criteria for determination of potential breakthrough, including the absence of a positive antigen or PCR test less than 45 days prior to the post-vaccination positive test.”
Sutfin said these persons were more likely to be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, adding that hospitalization data were available for 117 of the cases, while 129 were incomplete.
Of the 117 with hospitalization data entered, 11 were hospitalized, 103 were not hospitalized and three are reported as unknown. The three people who died were all 65 or older and two “were within three weeks of completion of vaccination,” Sutfin said.
According to Dr. Nick Gilpin, Beaumont’s medical director for infection prevention, eight patients who had been “fully vaccinated” were being treated for COVID at Beaumont Health’s hospitals on Monday.
“While the majority of the population develops full immunity within 14 days of completion of their vaccine series, a small proportion appear to take longer to mount a full antibody response,” Sutfin explained. “The CDC is actively working to better understand the risk characteristics of this group.”
As The Defender reported April 5, scientists have challenged health officials on vaccinating people who’ve already had COVID, arguing the science supporting vaccination of those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, surgeon and patient safety advocate, has written several letters to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins — which would be present in someone who has already been infected with COVID — in an effort to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.
According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.
“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”
J. Patrick Whelan M.D., Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.
As The Defender reported March 31, Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota have all reported breakthrough cases of COVID, and two deaths are under investigation by the Department of Health in Washington.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
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).
***
Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career.
Average COVID-19 age of death 78.6 years. Average annual US age of death historically 78.6 years.
Face mask wearing outdoors is absolute insanity. No study shows any super-spreader event outdoors. The best mask of all is your immune system.
There is no such thing as cold and flu season. There is only low vitamin D season.
Inflammatory (cytokine) storm cannot be controlled without adequate vitamin D levels.
Massive numbers of Americans have low vitamin D levels.
96% of ICU patients are vitamin D deficient
You cannot synthesize vitamin D from sunlight during fall and winter at 35-degrees north.
You living in northern climates you are immune suppressed if you do not supplement with vitamin D during fall and winter.
Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) test their citizens twice a year for vitamin D and fortify 35 foods with vitamin D.
Our population is left vulnerable to any seasonal viral infection without a public health program to promote vitamin D adequacy.
There is not social disparity of care but the fact darker skin pigmentation inhibits sunshine vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
Fauci says he personally takes 8000-9000 units of vitamin D per day but why has this has not become a public health message?
The top three public health messages should be: 1- vitamin D; 2- vitamin D; 3- vitamin D.
By law, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine if there is a proven treatment. That would be Ivermectin.
The government is in bed with a vaccine company; both the federal government and Moderna co-hold patents on their RNA vaccine. The “fox is guarding the henhouse.”
The drug Remdesivir only works during the first 2-3 days of the infection. It does not increase survival. It is like “peeing on a forest fire.”
Four billion doses of Ivermectin have safely taken Ivermectin. Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.
Of the half million COVID-19 deaths in North America, there would be 375,000 less deaths if Ivermectin were used! Public health officials have blood on their hands. 100% of Ivermectin-treated patients don’t get ill. Works for all genetic variants.
The vaccines are an experiment on society.
The vaccine is unproven and long-term safety data is not even being
You can get Ivermectin from doctors online. Myfreedoctor.com.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Since the first COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S., some physicians and scientists have challenged the recommendation by U.S. health agencies that people who have already had COVID and as a result acquired natural immunity still get the vaccine.
Some experts say the science to support vaccinating those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.
In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a report authored by 15 scientists that falsely claimed a Pfizer study proved the vaccine was highly effective or showed “Consistent high efficacy” for people who’d already had coronavirus — “SARS-CoV 2.”
Award-winning scientist and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) called out the CDC when he found that vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who had coronavirus and that getting vaccinated didn’t change their odds of getting reinfected.
The CDC claimed “the COVID vaccine would save your life or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or Moderna trials,” Massie said in an interview with Full Measure.
Massie contacted officials at the CDC about the misinformation. They acknowledged it was false, but instead of correcting it, tried to rephrase their mistake. Massie and other scientists said the new wording still wrongly implies vaccines work in people who previously had COVID.
“And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus,” Massie said.
The CDC recommends people get vaccinated even if they’ve already had COVID, as experts do not know how long “you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID, and it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID again.”
On Feb. 23, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), published a blog post stating that people who’ve had COVID still needed the vaccine, while referencing a study that suggested they didn’t.
Citing a pre-print published on medRxiv, Collins wrote that the immune response to the first vaccine dose in a person who’s already had COVID is equal to, or in some cases better, than the response to the second dose in a person who hasn’t had COVID. He said the “results raise the possibility that one dose might be enough for someone who’s been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and already generated antibodies against the virus.”
Yet, Collins made the case that people who have already had COVID would have a robust antibody response when later exposed to the virus — whether that’s through natural exposure or via the spike protein from a COVID vaccine.
To better understand immune memory of SARS-CoV-2, researchers led by Drs. Daniela Weiskopf, Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from nearly 200 people who had been exposed to COVID and recovered.
The results, published in Science, showed the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. Previous studies showed that natural infection induced a strong response, but this study showed that response lasted, Weiskoph said.
Another study in Nature assessed the lasting immunogenic effect of T-cell reactivity to SARS and SARS-2. Data showed that natural immunity was very robust — and likely more robust than any immunity derived from a vaccine.
Increased risk of vaccine injury in those with previous infection
On March 19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency authorization for a new test to detect COVID infections — one that stands apart from the hundreds already authorized, reported STAT.
Developed by Seattle-based Adaptive Biotechnologies in partnership with Microsoft, the new test, called T-Detect COVID, looks for signals of past infections in the body’s adaptive immune system — specifically, the T cells that help the body remember what its viral enemies look like.
Adaptive’s approach involves mapping antigens to their matching receptors on the surface of T cells, which would help scientists unlock information to help diagnose past COVID infections.
Dr. Dara Udo, urgent and immediate care physician at Westchester Medical Group, received the COVID vaccine a year after having the disease and had a very strong immune response very similar to what she experienced while having COVID.
In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Udo explained that infection from any organism, including COVID, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others and that this underlying activation due to infection or exposure, combined with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response.
Udo thought this might explain the symptoms she had, as well as her frontline colleagues who had high rates of COVID antibodies (known as seroprevalence) prior to becoming vaccinated.
“For high-risk, vulnerable groups, emerging data suggest that seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection is likely higher than tested and reported. Therefore, a natural question arises of whether there may be a smarter way to administer the vaccines in high seroprevalent groups,” Udo wrote.
Udo called for an intentional, well-planned approach to avoid eliciting adverse immune responsesin those who had COVID and subsequently get vaccinated.
Udo suggested a person already “COVID-primed” may be better off with a one-dose rather than a two-dose vaccine, or that the vaccine administered should be dependent on whether the person already had COVID. For example, someone who is “COVID-naive” might do better with a vaccine like Pfizer or Moderna, while the COVID-primed might need a less robust immune response from the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
In order to implement this protocol, rigorous, effective and efficient antibody prescreening tools to identify these individuals would be required, Udo said.
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an accomplished surgeon, patient safety advocate and staunch supporter of the new COVID vaccines, has written several letters to the FDA urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.
According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.
“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”
Colleen Kelley is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and principal investigator for Moderna and Novavax phase 3 vaccine clinical trials in Atlanta. In an interview with Huffington Post, Kelley said there have been reported cases in which those who previously had the virus endured harsher side effects after they received their vaccines.
“Anecdotally, it does appear that people who may have had COVID-19 before their vaccine do tend to have those longer duration of symptoms,” Kelley added. “But we’re still gathering additional scientific data to really support this.”
In a public submission to the FDA,J. Patrick WhelanM.D. Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.
Based on several studies, Whelan said it appeared that the viral spike protein in the SARS-CoV02 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung and kidney.
“Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart,” wrote Whelan. “As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs.”
At the very minimum, Noorchasm said in a letter to FDA officials, “Pfizer and Moderna should “institute clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in any recently convalescent patients, as well as, any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers — and to actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”
On March 19, 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman died after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s experimental COVID vaccine. According to a Facebook post by his step-mother, Goodman knew his family’s difficult history with vaccines but got vaccinated at a pop-up vaccine site at a local Walgreen’s because people were pushing the travel pass.
Goodman felt ill, experienced a headache, woke up with a fever and chills at 1 a.m., went into cardiac arrest at 4 a.m. and was declared dead two hours later. Like many others, Goodman had not been tested to see if he had previously had COVID or was recently infected.
Noorchasm sent a third communication to the FDA warning that deaths like Goodman’s could have been prevented, and that there will be more deaths unless people are screened before being vaccinated. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Noorchashm believes that a #ScreenB4Vaccine campaign could save millions from vaccine injuries.
“We are deploying this defensive weapon [the COVID vaccine] wildly indiscriminately in the midst of a pandemic outbreak, while many are ‘the recently infected.’ It is my professional opinion as an immunologist and physician that this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected,” Noorchasm told The Defender.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
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).
***
The real message that Prince Hamzah, who claims he is wrongly accused of stoking discontent in the kingdom, wanted the world and his country to hear after he had been confined to house arrest was this one: “I am the son of Hussein!”
In appearance, bearing and speech, the prince resembles his late father,King Hussein, whose life was cut short by illness.
He wanted Hamzah to inherit the throne. Hamzah was too young at the time, and his half brother Abdullah, the eldest son of Princess Muna, Hussein’s second wife, acceded to the throne. Abdullah named his half brother crown prince in line with their father’s wishes but soon afterwards stripped him of that title in favour of his own son Hussein.
But Hamzah has never forgotten his father’s bequest. He still behaves as if he is the rightful heir to the throne.
Prince Hamzah is popular in the kingdom. He talks to disaffected Eastern Jordanian tribal leaders who are traditionally loyal to the Hashemites. When Hamzah visited the family of one of the patients who died of Covid-19 in the hospital in al Salt because it ran out of oxygen, he was warmly thanked by relatives. When his half brother the king turns up at the hospital, some in the crowd reminded him that under his rule, the country is drowning.
The video he sent the BBC soon after the visit by Major General Yousef Huneiti carries the same message. Hamzah positions his face in line with the portrait of his father on the wall. Was it just a happy coincidence that the red keffiyeh his late father wore merges with the 41-year-old’s head, so that he appears as the true heir of his father? I don’t think so.
But nor is there any concrete evidence – so far at least – of a specific plot to oust Abdullah or to what extent Hamzah is involved in it. Rather, there is an increasingly marginalised head of state, cut off from his main donors, in bad relations with Israel, in charge of a landlocked country being ravaged by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Regional tensions
The issues on which Abdullah has refused to play ball are stacking up. To his credit, Abdullah did not accept former US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century“, but he paid a price for that. In moving closer to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Abdullah has moved away from the two countries, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which were channelling funds to Jordan.
At one point, Abdullah was fully signed up to the plan to anoint Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian exile living in Abu Dhabi, as Abbas’s successor. No more.
Neither of their crown princes, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, showed any sympathy or comradeship with Jordan, and Abdullah was at pains to show them their normalisation deals with Israel would have dire consequences for Jordan. Mohammed bin Salman, with Israel’s blessing, openly eyed a hostile takeover of the Hashemite’s historic role of guardianship of the holy places in Jerusalem.
The king’s relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have gone from bad to worse.
Image below: Prince Hamza Hussein (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
When Abdullah’s son, Crown Prince Hussein, was supposed to visit and pray at Al Aqsa Mosque, over which Jordan has custodianship, a row broke out between the Jordanian mukhabarat and Shin Bet about how many of his bodyguards could carry arms.
Humiliated, the crown prince cancelled the visit. In retaliation, the helicopter which was supposed to carry Netanyahu to Amman, where he would pick up a private jet sent by Mohammed bin Zayed for a photo-op in Abu Dhabi, was denied permission to cross Jordanian airspace.
In truth, the whole spat was a charade, as Netanyahu may have been under orders to stay at home. His wife Sara was undergoing surgery. After Netanyahu had an extramarital affair, Israel has been flooded with rumours that the prime minister signed a contract with his wife which stipulates that she accompanies him on overnight visits.
In the real world, Jordan is suffering from Israel’s cold shoulder. Netanyahu is prevaricating on a request by Jordan for water. This is the water that Israel pumps out of the river Jordan, and the kingdom under a peace treaty often requests that Israel transfers this water back to Jordan during dry spells. In punishment for the airspace episode, Netanyahu is not doing that, despite being urged by his security chiefs to do so.
The shortage of vaccines in Jordan is another source of tension with Israel. Jordan is being ravaged by the virus. Israel is conducting “vaccine diplomacy”, helping out countries as far afield as Guatemala, but not its nearest neighbour Jordan. Israel’s neglect of Jordan is all of a piece with its burgeoning relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
This is sheer folly from Israel’s own security interests, and if Netanyahu wants to know what will happen to his vulnerable eastern border if Jordan falls apart, his own security chiefs will be only too keen to tell him.
But it is the fashion and follows the logic of everythingJared Kushner, Trump’s son in law, and David Friedman, the former US ambassador, did in concocting Arab normalisation deals with Israel. Ignore the Palestinians, trash talk of their state, and go directly over their heads, and Jordan’s, and head straight for the Aladdin’s cave of cash from Saudi and Emirati sovereign wealth funds.
Saudi links
While no evidence links Prince Hamzah to the alleged coup attempt, it is also significant that Jordan security sources picked out to the foreign media, the role of two of the 20 or so who have been arrested.
They did so because of their links with Saudi Arabia. They were directing the finger of blame to the Gulf when most of the action is taking place inside the kingdom. The two men are Hassan bin Zayed, a member of the royal family, and Bassem Awadallah.
Awadallah was once very close to King Abdullah. Awadallah served as economic secretary to the Jordanian premier from 1992 to 1996. He was appointed head of Jordan’s royal court in 2007, before being sacked from the position less than a year later. When he left Jordan, Awadallah moved to Dubai, setting up a company called Tomouh. Awadallah shuttled between the Emirates and Saudi, where he still acted as Jordan’s special envoy.
Awadallah’s role was terminated in 2018, when the king was persuaded that his envoy was closer to Riyadh than he was to Jordan. Awadallah holds both Saudi and Jordan citizenship.
Awadallah had meanwhile set up a network of prominent businessmen and was working as a consultant for the Saudi crown prince. He became Mohammed bin Salman’s economic adviser and is helping the planning of his futuristic city Neom. He also forged strong ties with bin Zayed and was appointed to the board of directors of the University of Dubai. According to sources inside the Emirati court, Awadallah is more important to MbZ than the exiled Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan.
Some news media outlets called Awadallah one of the masterminds of the privatisation of Aramco. Mastermind is a curious epithet as this has largely failed. But Awadallah appeared alongside his new master bin Salman at the annual Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, the so-called Davos in the Desert, in January.
Arresting Awadallah is the biggest one finger sign Abdullah could have made to both bin Salman and bin Zayed.
But Jordan cannot confront Saudi Arabia openly. If they did, and accused Saudi of sending messages to Hamzah through Awadallah to mount a coup d’etat, it would mean the expulsion of Jordanian workers and businessmen from Saudi which would spell economic ruin for the kingdom.
Within hours of the news of Awadallah’s arrest, a Saudi delegation headed by the foreign minister requested permission to visit Amman. According to an intelligence source of an unnamed Middle Eastern country monitoring these events, which was quoted by the Washington Post, the Saudis requested the release of Awadallah. “The Saudis were saying that they won’t leave the country without him,” the official said. “It would appear that they are worried about what he would say,” the Post reported.
Nor can Jordan confront Israel directly. It was the Israeli media that delved into the past of Roy Shaposhnik, the Israeli living in Europe who offered a private jet to Hamzah, so that his wife and children could leave the country.
Shaposhnik denied he was a member of Mossad, but he worked for Erik Prince, established his own company RS Logistical Solutions which provided services to Prince’s company for training Iraqi soldiers in Jordan. He met Hamzah through mutual contacts and their families became close friends.
These connections explain why Abdullah is suspicious. Hamzah has ambitions, and the Saudis, the Emiratis and Israel all have an agenda to weaken Jordan.
Desperation
Abdullah must feel he is running out of options. He no longer trusts those closest to him. He has been prepared in the past to tack with the prevailing wind, just as long as Jordan got the money. He was quite willing to join the condemnation of Turkey and Qatar when the counter revolution against the Arab Spring was in the ascendance.
As conditions in the kingdom have worsened, there is a political impasse: there are huge unresolved problems with teachers, with the tribes, and vast numbers unemployed – Prince Hamzah who has never abandoned his ambitions is looking increasingly attractive as a possible alternative.
There was possibly no specific coup involving Hamzah. But his popularity was growing and that of the king weakening. If anything, Hamzah’s international profile and his domestic popularity has increased since Saturday. Before, few outside the kingdom knew anything about him. Now, he has been dramatically elevated to leader of the opposition.
Last night a mediation effort hosted by Abdullah’s uncle Prince Hassan was underway. Ironically, the man picked to mend family fences was displaced by Abdullah himself and left the kingdom. Hassan was the crown prince under his brother, late King Hussein, for many decades and considered his successor.
A letter was signed in which Hamzah agreed to stand behind the king.
“In light of the developments of the past two days I place myself in the hands of his Majesty the King. I hereby affirm that I shall remain observant to the covenant of the forefathers and loyal to their legacy, walking their path, sincere to their history and mission and to his Majesty the King, adhering to the constitution of the dear Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I shall always be and aid and support for his Majesty the King and his Crown Prince,” the letter read.
By Tuesday at least, King Abdullah had achieved statements of international and regional support even by those he knew were trying to weaken him, and he also got the verbal backing of Prince Hamzah for his rule and that of his son, the crown prince.
But internally things are less clear. Hamzah’s popularity will, if anything, have increased, and none of the dramatic entrances and exits of the last 48 hours have changed things in the kingdom one iota. Abdullah is still sitting on a pile of domestic discontent.
Above all, it is not the letter that Jordanians will remember but the audio of the meeting between the army chief and Hamzah, which has gone viral overnight.
“Sir, I am a free Jordanian, the son of my father, I have every right to mingle with the sons of my people and country and to serve my country as I promised him and made an oath to him while he was on his death bed. And now you come, sir forgive me, where were you twenty years ago? I was the crown prince in this country by order from my father, may Allah have mercy on him. I made an oath to him that I would continue to serve my country and people so long as I am alive. And now, you, after all the muddling that is taking place, and that is not because of me, and that I have nothing do with, you come to tell me to adhere?” Hamza says.
Abdullah’s troubles are not over.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.
Featured image: Portraits of late King Hussein (M), Prince Hamzah (L) and King Abdullah of Jordan (R) (Illustration by Hossam Sarhan via Middle East Eye)
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
After seeing what some Democrats in Congress wish to adopt by way of taxation of the Super Rich, let me weigh in.
The plan put forth by Senator Warren, Rep. Jayapal and Rep. Boyle is to tax 2% of net worth of $ 50 million to $ one billion per annum, and 3% of net worth over $ one billion per annum.
This does not go far enough, and allows literally millions of millionaires off the hook. Why do I say this? Well, look at the top federal income tax bracket NOW, which is 37%, and compare it to the ones in 1961 and 1981: In 1961 the top bracket was at 91% for single filers earning $200k a year and married filers earning $400k per year.
In 1981 the top bracket was 50% for single filers earning $ 41k a year and 50% for married couples earning $85k a year. Now look at our most recent top tax bracket: 37% for single filers earning $ 518kper year, and married couples earning $622k per year. Do you think that the 12 million millionaire households in our country have it pretty good, while us working stiffs still fork out billions of dollars in taxes?
Sadly, as with most of the so called ‘Progressive Democrat’ plans, it seems that they just cannot stray too far from their corporate masters. I say this not proudly at all. It seems that the very Super Rich they say they want to hold more ‘accountable’ always are able to pull back on the reins. Do you think that Jeff Bezos is going to cry for very long, knowing that he will still be way ahead in the tax game? How would he have felt in 1961, or even in Ronald Reagan’s 1981, having to fork over much more of his wealth?
Here is the ‘Farruggio Plan’ for Economic Fairness and of course Economic Stimulus:
Flat 50% Surtax on ALL Earnings over $1,000,000 per annum- with NO deductions of any kind. Translated: The first $ 1,000,000 is taxed at the same top rate as now, 37%. Accountants can do their duty to their customers as always, but NOT for anything over that first $ million. Think of how much more those 12 million millionaire households will be sending in to Uncle Sam to help the rest of us.
Permanent Payroll Tax Forgiveness Plan- I believe it was Robert Reich, former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary (I won’t hold that against him now) who trumpeted this plan. Simply put, the Payroll Tax (7.65%) on the first $20k of wages is forgiven for the employee AND employer’s contributions. That comes out to around $ 1530 per year for each party. Imagine how that money can come in handy for the worker AND small business employer? (My plan would cap the forgiveness for employer contributions at the first 100 employees of a business.)
Universal Basic Income for All Citizens- The one time stimulus check was all well and good, but… Let’s do this each and every month for? Imagine each of us receiving, let us say, $ 1400 a month, with each child (up to two per family) getting $ 700 per month. All you corporate retail heads out there, like car manufacturers and retail stores, restaurants etc., you want more customers? The UBI will do it, and in spades!! Some folks may use the extra money to save for a house, or go back to school for higher education. The limits to what this could do for working stiffs nationwide are endless!
Cutting this Obscene Military Spending & Overreach- Well, the old standby is still circling around our wallets and moral compass. When half of our federal taxes goes for the (laughable term) discretionary spending for military funding, our economy suffers. Factor that with the approximate 1000 overseas US military bases and you have not only a fiscal nightmare, but a major reason why so many in so many countries (we have bases in around 100 countries) hate us. How many generations of Americans looked upon the Soviet Union with disdain for all their military bases and personnel in what they termed ‘Iron Curtain’ countries? The right wing Reagan administration, in joyous conjunction with the War Economy and Pentagon, used our tax dollars to cause the Soviet Union to continue to match us with their military spending… and they went out of business. Of course, working stiffs here at home suffered by Reagan’s cutting of our safety net and labor gains since the New Deal. Bottom line: ‘Guns and Butter’ just does not work! We need to cut military spending by at least 25% ASAP, close many of those overseas bases, send our personnel home to domestic bases (increasing the economies of those towns nationwide that host the bases) Just for starters.
Let us leave it at that for Part A. More to come… and needed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].
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).
***
A new law in Israel will allow the government to share a list of names of those who did not get the COVID-19 vaccine, along with other personal identifying information. The list, which will include the names, phone numbers, ID card numbers and addresses of the unvaccinated, can be shared with local government officials, including the director general of the education ministry and the welfare ministry for the purpose of encouraging citizens to get the vaccine.12 If a citizen fails to show up for their second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the date of their first dose would also be shared.3
The list reportedly will only be provided to local government officials who request it and advise the Health Ministry about how they will use the information.4 Lawmakers contend that the law would only allow “trustworthy sources” to contact unvaccinated individuals to encourage them to get the vaccine and not for any other purpose.56 The list of the unvaccinated along with their personal information must be deleted within 60 days of its use. When someone on the list is contacted by authorities they will have the right to demand they not to be contacted again and that their information be deleted.7
“Handing Over Such Data Is A Slippery Slope”
The new law passed with a vote of 30-13 after three rounds of votes using a special process that allowed the vote to be conducted much quicker than regular legislation.8Haim Katz of Netanyahu’s Likud party defended the law stating, “I’ve been asked what about people’s privacy: Is privacy more important than life itself?”9
The law faced outspoken opposition. Merav Michaeli, Labor party leader, said that the Prime Minister is, “denying citizens their right to the privacy of their medical information.”10Tamar Zandberg, a Knesset member of the Meretz party, was critical of the legislation warning that it would violate Israeli citizens privacy and that, “Handing over such data is a slippery slope,” and “it could fall into the wrong hands”11
Public Health Physicians Lobbied Against the Legislation
The Israeli Association of Public Health Physicians lobbied against the legislation stating that it would undermine public trust in local governments, authorities and local councils and calling it, “an unprofessional action [that] could possibly cause serious harm.”12 Doctors and physicians had similar concerns about the legislation and argued that it could violate medical privacy and confidentiality.13 The Doctors Association stated that it was a slippery slope and reasoned that if vaccination justified releasing a citizen’s private medical information then it should follow that their weight and smoking status should also be shared for the sake of health.14 The Physicians Association said:
Encouraging vaccination is the order of the day and a national goal, but hasty legislation that could harm individual rights will not contribute significantly to this goal, and may even cause harm The bill would allow health maintenance organizations to pass on the medical information in their possession, which would be an explicit violation of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which enshrines the right to privacy, said the association. Such a law could be legitimate only if it could be proven that its purpose was appropriate and its application proportional.15
Growing Concern About the Rights of the Unvaccinated
According to officials, approximately 10 percent of Israeli citizens over the age of 16 do not plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine.16 A survey of 503 adults conducted by Channel 12 found the number of Israeli adults planning to forgo the vaccine to be as high as 25 percent (margin of error 4.4 percent).17 There is currently no legislation protecting the rights of those who choose not to be vaccinated and guaranteeing that they will not lose their job for exercising their informed consent rights.18 Furthermore, according to a poll conducted by the Rushinek Research Institute, 29 percent of parents do not intend on vaccinating their children ages 6-16, 30 percent are unsure and about 41 percent intend to vaccinate their children.19
Choosing to not vaccinate comes with harsh consequences. On Feb. 21, 2021, Israel officially implemented a “Vaccine Passport” called the green pass that restricts access to everyday activities, such as entry to restaurants, gyms and cultural events, only to the fully vaccinated or to those who have recovered from COVID-19.202122 However, shops, malls, markets, museums and libraries will allow the unvaccinated, as well as the vaccinated, to enter.23
By the end of February, 88.77 out of 100 people had received at least one dose of the vaccine.24 So far, approximately 3.2 million Israeli citizens qualify for the green pass, which includes 2.5 million people who received two shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 700,000 people who have recovered from the viral infection. The green pass can be printed out and carried or be used as a QR code on a smart phone and is valid for six months after the second shot.2526 Health Minister Yuli Edelstein tweeted…
Those who are not vaccinated will be left behind. The coronavirus cabinet has confirmed our stance that only vaccinated and recovering people will enjoy gyms and leisure culture. Go get vaccinated!27
Approximately one-third of the nine million people living in Israel have received two shots of the Pfizer/Biotech vaccine.28 The country plans to vaccinate 6.2 million by the start of April.29According to Johns Hopkins, more than 5,600 people have died of COVID-19 in Israel.30
Officials in the United Kingdom are closely monitoring Israel’s green pass system because they are considering implementing a similar program in the U.K. But, Dave Archard, Chair of the U.K.’s Nuffield Council on Bioethics questioned the scientific validity of program, referring to the fact that it is unknown how protective the COVID vaccines are against infection and transmission of the virus rather than only preventing severe COVID disease.31 He stated:
The whole point of the vaccine certificate is to show that the holder of it, in virtue of having been vaccinated, will not transmit COVID-19 or its variants. At the moment, the evidence is not in.32
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
In recent months, and ramping up in recent weeks especially, attacks by the terrorist groups in the areas near Total’s massive gas project became regular.
Uncontained ISIS now is taking on the Mozambican army and seizes entire towns. It threatens the French giant’s project that is worth $20 billion; and all the projects in the region are collectively worth nearly $60 billion.
Prior to the large-scale attacks, there was little talk of Mozambique’s chaotic north.
NGOs were frequently calling for international assistance to the locals. Reports of beheaded soldiers, women and even children were commonplace.
Most recently, on March 24th, another offensive began by ISIS – it attacked the town of Palma, which is the nearest to the Total project. About 60 people were killed. 7 foreigners were among the victims. Approximately 180 people, including Total’s workers, were trapped in a hotel in Palma. After a three-day siege the people were evacuated.
After a few more days of fighting, ISIS announced that it had captured the town. This was accompanied by gruesome photographs of devastation, and corpses of beheaded men, women and children on the streets.
This is not uncommon for the region, but it has become rather mainstream after the massive gas projects were jeopardized. After all, the insurgency has been happening since 2017, and the United States designated the militants as “terrorist” only on March 11th, 2021.
Total’s project is halted, and when such massive amounts of money are under threat, the “international community” mobilizes itself immediately.
The United States announced that it would sent green berets to help train the Mozambican Army.
The UK claimed it was sending its Special Air Service forces to search for a British man who disappeared in Cabo Delgado.
Portugal is going to deploy soldiers at the beginning of April in Mozambique where they will train local troops.
The Mozambican army and its foreign support will need to exert great effort to expel ISIS and restart Total’s project, but when it comes down to billions, it is likely that nothing is impossible.
At the same time, on the other side of the African continent, China is beginning a massive oil project in Benin.
The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which is extracting a valuable resource in Agadema, Niger, is reportedly planning to build a pipeline through Benin in order to avoid passing through unsecured areas in Nigeria, Chad or Cameroon.
The Lake Chad area is infested by Boko Haram, but also by ISWAP. Both groups are fighting for dominance against each other, and against any local authority in the region.
Whether China’s project would be plagued by the same problems that any other foreign, or local, project needs to deal with will become apparent with time. It is, furthermore, obvious that the “international community” will not come to Beijing’s rescue if the project is endangered.
It is, however, an indisputable fact that the terrorist hotspots that are the Sahel, Lake Chad, as well as Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado go unnoticed until they impede a massive Western project, or another type of investment.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Seven members of Britain’s armed forces won an award for their ‘vital operational’ work supporting the US military after it killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike last year, Declassified has found.
The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, ordered by President Donald Trump in January 2020, brought Iran and the West to the brink of war.
Soleimani was one of Iran’s top commanders, leading the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force on military missions in the Middle East.
It can now be revealed that a secretive team of British troops based in Bahrain, which is 190km from Iran, played a key role in a “period of increased activity and tension that followed the death” of Soleimani.
Their efforts were quietly recognised in November with a commendation from the Royal Air Force (RAF), but the announcement did not mention the Soleimani strike. Instead it simply stated the location of their unit: Muharraq, a US military base in Bahrain.
Little is known about the presence of British troops at Muharraq, and no other details of their award were published until a freedom of information request by Declassified forced further disclosure.
We have obtained a summary of the award citation – the full version remains classified to prevent “a potential enemy wishing to attack the UK” from gaining “sensitive information” on the movement of British troops.
The summary shows UK military commanders regarded the assassination’s aftermath as “arguably the most dynamic and intense situation faced by Naval Forces in recent years”.
Soleimani’s death on 3 January created “a period of increased activity and tension” which saw four members of the RAF and three from the Royal Navy dispatched to Muharraq.
Over the next nine days they provided logistical support to UK and US forces “who were deployed into the central Arabian Gulf”.
The Muharraq team “were tasked to deliver vital operational and high priority related stores and coordinate the transfer of personnel to and from ships at sea”.
As a matter of “urgency”, they secured “load space on a US Sea Dragon helicopter and helped to establish key lines of communications to vital assets.”
The Sea Dragon is a heavy-lift, long-range aircraft.
Stop the War Coalition convener Lindsey German told Declassified:
“The assassination of Qasem Soleimani brought us very near to war with Iran, a war which would have had bloody consequences across the whole region.
“This revelation shows the involvement of British troops in its aftermath – something which has never been divulged publicly here in Britain.”
She added:
“This lack of transparency is typical of the way in which British forces – and by implication the British government – operate in the region, but it also demonstrates the way that the demonisation of and increasing confrontation with Iran depends on these sorts of covert and illegal operations.
“All those who campaign against war in the Middle East must demand a full public explanation of British troops’ involvement.”
World War 3
The US assassination of Iran’s most high-profile military officer caused the phrase “World War 3” to trend on Twitter, such was the concern that Britain, Russia and China could all be drawn into the crisis.
According to The New York Times, the US had “plans to strike a command-and-control ship and conduct a cyber attack to partly disable Iran’s oil and gas sector” if the situation escalated after the assassination.
Trump claimed to have approved a list of 52 targets in Iran, including cultural sites, that he said “WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD”.
Meanwhile Bahrain, which is home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a major base for British minesweepers, could have been among the first set of targets for Iran’s short-range missiles.
Fearing they might be caught in the crossfire, Britain withdrew some of its non-essential troops from Iraq, while boosting its naval presence in the Gulf to protect British-flagged oil tankers – a task which the Muharraq team most likely assisted.
Although Iran did retaliate with a rocket attack on a US military base in Iraq, tensions fell after Tehran tragically shot down a passenger airline it mistook for an incoming missile.
What is Muharraq?
Muharraq is a former British air base dating back to Bahrain’s time as a UK “protectorate” (or colony). It is now run by the US navy.
During the first Gulf War in 1991, British pilots flew from Muharraq to bomb Saddam Hussein’s forces in Iraq.
That conflict, known as Operation Granby, appears to be the last time UK military personnel have earned awards from operations in Muharraq, until the Soleimani strike.
Last May, MPs were told that it costs the taxpayer £270,000 a year to keep British troops at Muharraq – however, that information has since been removed from the Parliament website in an apparent technical glitch.
Police stations near the base are notoriously used for torturing critics of the Bahraini regime, which is one of the most repressive in the region, and a close British ally.
The issue of torture recently generated controversy when British home secretary Priti Patel visited a police facility in Muharraq.
Bahrain is ruled by a dictator, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. He does not tolerate press freedom or dissent, and liquidated the largest opposition party, Al Wefaq.
Ali Alaswad, a senior figure in Al Wefaq, told Declassified that Britain should obtain “the approval of the people” of Bahrain to have military bases in the country.
He expressed concern at the threat to Bahrainis “in the event that the British navy wages an offensive war against any of the [neighbouring] countries through Bahraini lands or from its territorial waters”.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “Qassem Soleimani posed a threat to all our interests and was responsible for a pattern of disruptive, destabilising behaviour in the region.
“Following Qassem Soleimani’s death, we urged all sides to de-escalate, exercise restraint and prevent further conflict.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Phil Miller is staff reporter at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world.
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).
***
Open and wide-scale hostilities appear unavoidable in Eastern Ukraine.
Kiev is on the war path, with the “unwavering” support of the US and NATO.
Over April 5th, and going into April 6th, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) continued their usual activities of deploying more troops to the demarcation line.
Russia is also transferring forces to the border with Ukraine and in the Crimea.
In total, over the last 24 hours 7 separate ceasefire violations were recorded, each including a high number of shots and shells.
Two UAF soldiers were killed.
Near the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), the UAF has several armored personnel carriers deployed at the village of Schstastye.
Still, the LPR said its militia was fully prepared to deal with any Ukrainian provocation, as according to them 60% of Kiev’s military hardware was entirely non-operational.
The Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) reported that its militia had thwarted an attempt by a Ukrainian sabotage group to conduct reconnaissance near the borders of the Republic in the area of the village of Shumy near Horlivka.
Incidents of Ukrainian servicemen being blown up by their own mines continue.
Russia, for its part, is making further deployments, as footage showed that Nona-S self-propelled howitzers were being delivered towards the potential frontline.
It is also deploying the units of the 76th Guards Air Assault Division, commonly known as the Pskov paratroopers.
Ukraine is continually blaming Russia for the concentration of forces, while it keeps shelling both the DPR and LPR.
It is negotiating with its allies, speaking with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and others.
NATO’s military attaché and its advisers are expected to arrive on the front line in Ukraine and provide their military expertise in the potential upcoming hostilities.
The active movement of military transport aircraft between NATO countries and the Ukraine continues.
The United States and its allies continue to saturate the Ukrainian army with military equipment, including UAVs, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank systems, MANPADS and other modern high-precision systems.
Meanwhile, the US carried out a typical diplomatic maneuver when a war may break out.
It said it would hold discussions with Moscow, as that is the precise form of support Kiev is likely to receive in the case that open hostilities take place.
The toolkit includes a willingness to partake in the discussion, and sending Washington’s hopes and prayers.
War between Russia and Ukraine seems to be highly likely.
Many military-political experts claim that the current situation can only be resolved by a military conflict.
Some of them declare a war now is preferable to a war later for Russia.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
It is the 6th of April again and the western establishment’s corporate media intelligence propaganda system has again been cranking out black propaganda that continues to buttress the false narratives about genocide in Central Africa. Under this falsification of consciousness, the victims become the killers and the killers become the victims, and the true role and involvement of the Western powers remains entirely obscured.
“On eve of the 27th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda being observed on Wednesday,” writes one popular journal, echoing the establishment line, “experts are debating the role of media that played a critical role in inciting and prolonging the violence. The massacre that started on April 7, 1994, killed one million people belonging to a mainly Tutsi ethnic community and moderate Hutus in a span of 100 days.”
The establishment narrative excludes the long history of violence perpetrated by the elite Tutsi monarchy; it excludes the deep historiography of elite Tutsi hit-and-run terrorism against the newly independent Rwandan nation, 1959-1970; it excludes the invasion of the sovereign country of Rwanda by Ugandan soldiers in October 1990—soldiers backed by the United States and its allies; it excludes the four years of mass atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by the invading Ugandan soldiers—led by Paul Kagame—against Rwandan Hutus, Tutsis and Twas, from October 1990 to April 1994; and it excludes the definitive proof that Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army orchestrated the double presidential assassinations of 6 April 1994.
Instead we get Hollywood fictions, emotionally potent oversimplifications, racist mythologies and media soundbites cranked out, over and over, to cement the false narrative into the heads of the infotainment consuming western public. Instead we get “experts” regurgitating old stale theories and citing fabricated evidence to perpetuate the deeply seeded and deeply seated mythology. Instead we get the whitewashed “miracle” of Rwanda’s economic recovery—achieved at the expense of over 7 million Rwandan, Ugandan, Burundian and Congolese lives.
Rwanda’s rise to power has been achieved through a perpetual orgy of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, misery and suffering and pure starvation on an unprecedented scale, and it comes through the ongoing rape and plunder of the resources and people of Central Africa. This is what Hotel Rwanda hero Paul Rusesabagina calls the “grinding machine”.[1]
While the world is subjected to the annual onslaught of insufferable propaganda, the latest victim of the Rwandan genocide industry—Paul Rusesabagina of Hotel Rwanda fame—is being quick-shuffled through the corrupt Rwandan court system in a sham “trial” reminiscent of the judicial charade that led to the brutal and botched execution of Nigerian playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. The parallels are unsettling, and the outcome may be equally unconscionable.
Ken Saro-Wiwa was the leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni people, a human rights defender who struggled to free the indigenous peoples of the Niger River Delta from the yoke of slavery and destruction and the great western corporate petroleum genocide. While the truth was obscured by a massive propaganda campaign orchestrated by Shell Oil Company with the complicity of Newsweek, the New York Times and all the rest, Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists suffered on death row until their execution by hanging on 10 November 1995.
Like Ken Saro-Wiwa, Rwanda’s humanitarian freedom fighter Paul Rusesabagina has been framed, faces false charges fabricated by a brutal arrogant pathological military regime, and the complete obliteration of all due process in Rwanda’s caricature of judicial proceedings. As it was with Saro-Wiwa, so it is with Rusesabagina: the world “community” is engaged in hand-wringing, denials, apologetics, mental masturbation, blatant disinformation, and outright lies.
“The nickname for my country is ‘the land of thousands of hills,’” wrote Paul Rusesabagina, in his autobiography, An Ordinary Man, “but this signifies a gross undercount. There are at least half a million hills, maybe more we are the children of the hills, the grassy slopes, the valley roads, the spider patterns of rivers, and the millions of rivulets and crevasses and buckles of earth. In this country, we don’t talk about coming from a particular village, but from a particular hill.”
Paul Rusesabagina was born into a family of nine children, farmers, on the side of a steep hill, in a home made of mud and sticks. The Rwanda of his youth was green and bright, full of cooking fires and sisters murmuring and drying sorghum and corn leaves in the wind and in the warm arms of his mother. But this image of a happy, quiet youth spent in the quaint hills of some far-off place is not one the western world holds in its modern memory of Rwanda. Instead we are confronted by a perpetual pornography of horror.
Paul Rusesabagina can no longer visit his particular hill. He was made famous by the film Hotel Rwanda,[2] a Hollywood story inspired by his actions in the face of inhumanity, but Paul Rusesabagina fled Rwanda on 6 September 1996, after an attempted assassination, and he is today in exile from his own country. Paul Kagame’s agents tracked him in Belgium, where he was awarded citizenship after arriving there as a refugee, and even in the United States, where he toured and spoke. He has been derided and threatened. He also received the Medal of Freedom hung round his neck by then president George W. Bush.
In an 7 April 2007 ceremony held in Rwanda to mark the 13th anniversary of the genocide, President Paul Kagame called him a “swindler” and “gangster” who works with other swindlers and gangsters who support him. The speech has raised fears in Rwanda, and amongst the Rwandan Diaspora around the world. It was not the slander of Paul Rusesabagina that has upset the Rwandan people, but the other things that President Kagame said, and the way that he said them, in Kinyarwanda. In keeping with the general climate of silence and disinformation about the political realities in Rwanda, Paul Kagame’s words went untold by the Western press.
A once-revered citizen living in Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina became one of Paul Kagame’s fiercest critics in exile. On 27 August 2020, Rusesabagina was lured and kidnapped by the Rwandan government, renditioned to Kigali in complete contravention of international laws and treaties. Even Rwanda’s own Penal Code qualifies abduction as a serious and punishable offence:
Article 151: Abduction and unlawful detention of a person:
“Any person who, by violence, deception or threats, abducts or causes to be abducted, unlawfully detains or causes to be detained another person, commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five (5) years and not more than seven (7) years.”
“Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame is a dictator who does not tolerate dissent,” wrote Brian Endless, PhD, Director of African Studies and the African Diaspora at Loyola University Chicago, in a lengthy report detailing the true history and false charges brought by the Rwandan government. Kagame “slanders and intimidates critics of his government, including calling them “terrorists”, who has a long record of imprisoning and even killing those he considers to be critics or political opponents.” [3]
For Paul Kagame and the RPF, the goal of their seizure of power—premised on the aristocratic Tutsi’s historical and deeply inculcated psychological narrative of Tutsi entitlement—has always been to eliminate as many Rwandans inside Rwanda as possible, seize and occupy the long-dreamed of but heavily populated Rwandan hills, and take revenge. Hutus were the primary targets, but ‘interior’ Tutsis were also targeted.
The RPF’s ascension to power in central Africa parallels the rise of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, a complex, ultra-secretive, layered organization comprised of thousands of military and civilian intelligence operatives, assassins, infiltrators, informants and handlers. Under the direct control of Paul Kagame and his top Tutsi commanders, the structure, methods and tactics of the DMI resemble the structures of intelligence and control that obtained during the bloody terror epochs under the last Tutsi kings (mwamis) of the Nyaginya dynasty: Kigeli IV Rwabugiri (reign: 1853-1895) and Yuhi Musinga (reign: 1896-1931). The DMI watches everything and everyone.
Kagame uses the DMI and special ‘technicians’ to instill fear in everyone, modeling his reign of power on the reign of absolute terror that obtained under King Rwabugiri. The system of power and control relies on structures, concepts and systems that originated in the traditional precolonial Nyaginya kingdoms. The Intore, for example—‘the chosen ones’—were elite fighters attached to the king’s household. The RPF has deployed thousands of Intore, chosen from all walks of life—“bus drivers, teachers, nurses, doctors, civil servants, journalists and other professionals”—as infiltrators, spies, informants, murderers and assassins trained at secret camps and diffused throughout Rwanda and its thousand hills.[4] Kagame and the DMI’s network of spies and assassins also proliferate outside Rwanda.[5]
Rwanda is built on a culture of lying and deception—a very sophisticated intellectual and psychological practice known as Ubwenge—inherited from the aristocratic Tutsis and their pre-colonial and colonial traditions.[6] Lying is routine, calculated, without conscience. Paul Kagame is the supreme liar, and the ‘Rwanda genocide’ is the supreme lie.
The greatest difference between Rwabugiri’s reign is that Kagame has adapted modern technologies and perfected the techniques, methods and sophistication of the system of power, intimidation, and control.
For one stark example, the Arusha Peace Accords (1993) legitimized the RPF’s illegal invasion of Rwanda and they gave the RPF a disproportionate share of power. The accords served as a devastating policy instrument used against the Rwandan government of Juvenal Habyarimana to force concessions favorable to the RPF: the accords were a monumental charade that the RPF had no intentions of honoring. The accords also served the duplicitous RPF tactic of ‘fight and talk’ and each diplomatic demarche of this sort allowed the RPF to further infiltrate and consolidate its power.
Under the accords the RPF troops demanded a military presence to protect RPF officials in Kigali: a contingent of 600 RPA soldiers (with over 100 DMI operatives) were stationed at the Centre Nationale de Developpement (CND) parliament in Kigali. Kagame’s DMI operatives and technicians used the CND as a base to terrorize Kigali from August 1993 to April 1994: RPF dissidents have confessed to bombing cafes and buses, assassinating Hutu leaders, fomenting chaos everywhere.
The ‘technicians’ reported to the DMI high command, directly under the control of Paul Kagame. Even before the 100 days of carnage, the DMI was enacting the most horrible, cold-blooded revenge. While ‘interior’ Tutsis were also targeted, the actions against Hutus— described by RPF defectors—constitute genocide on no uncertain terms.
Commanded by Paul Kagame, the Rwandan Patriotic Army—comprised of English speaking Tutsis (many with Ugandan citizenship) who had fought for Yoweri Museveni in the genocidal war in Uganda and funded by powerful Tutsi elites in the diaspora—killed hundreds of thousands of Hutus between 1990 and 1995, and they killed Tutsis by staging attacks so that the blame would fall on the Habyarimana government.
From October 1990 the RPA scorched earth through northern Rwanda, obliterating entire villages. Practicing a bad-faith strategy of “talk and fight,” the RPA displaced over a million Rwandans. Famine, starvation, assassinations, and massacres attended the RPA’s every duplicitous advance. The masses in Rwanda justifiably feared renewed subjugation under the exiled Tutsi guerrilla from Uganda—who they saw depopulating and seizing their beloved Rwandan hills. Meanwhile, the RPA solidified their victor’s narrative—Hutus as killers, Tutsis as victims—through the Western press and human rights nexus.
Hutus suffered most, but “interior” Tutsis— French-speaking Tutsis who stayed behind or returned to Rwanda after the “Hutu revolution” of 1959 and the subsequent Tutsi refugee warrior Inyenzi attacks of the 1960s—were also churned to blood and dust by the RPA grinding machine. The elite Tutsi military’s assassination of Burundi’s Hutu president (1993) and the RPA’s double-presidential assassinations of Rwanda and Burundi’s Hutu presidents on April 6, 1994 sparked the violence of the so-called “100 days of genocide”.
“The thesis of Mr. Kagame’s RPF, considered today as the ‘official’ thesis, claims that the Hutus prepared acts of genocide against the Tutsis.” Cameroonian journalist Charles Onana nailed it. “That genocide would not have been possible, however, without the attack against the airplane. The key question is, therefore, who shot down the airplane?”
“The Bush and Clinton administrations, with their British counterparts, supported Kagame and the RPA because Habyarimana, though originally installed in a CIA-supported coup in 1973, had become a proxy of the French. After Habyarimana’s killing Clinton urged the removal of UN forces so the RPA would win Rwanda’s civil war.” How deeply did the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), USAID, U.S. Special Forces, Canadian Security Intelligence Services, and MI-6 back the RPA juggernaut?
French journalist Charles Onana reported that the UN’s Rwanda Emergency Office, set up in Nairobi (Kenya) in April 1994, was staffed by U.S. Army officers (and others) who acted as the Operational Headquarters for the RPA, listened in on all the Rwandan government’s military (Forces Armées Rwandaises) communications, provided intelligence, and directed RPA field operations.
“Whoever shot down the plane, the killing began within hours, as Kagame and his Tutsi army fought their way toward Kigali to stop the genocide they had helped provoke.” U.S. scholar-diplomat Stephen Weissman wrongly asserts the false narrative where “Kagame and his Tutsi army” stopped the genocide, and the authors of the assassinations are unknown, but he also flags covert operative Roger Winter. “Traveling with them, by his own account, was at least one American—[Kagame’s] friend Roger Winter. Should Congress ever investigate America’s role in the Rwandan holocaust, Mr. Winter would be a star witness.”
Roger Winter was not the only foreign intelligence operative involved in the aristocratic Tutsis’ war to reclaim Rwanda. Israeli Mossad spy-master David Kimche was believed to be in the field with the RPA. Other officials who should be tried in an international war crimes and genocide tribunal include: Herman Jay Cohen, Prudence Bushnell, Richard A. Clarke, Brian Atwood, Andrew Young, Madeleine Albright, and U.S. defense attachés Lt. Col. Thomas P. Odom, Richard Skow, Lt. Col. Richard K. Orth, Lt. Colonel Bud Rassmusen, and the DIA’s Africa spymaster William G. Thom.
*
On April 6, 1994, at 8:22 PM, two MANPADS surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were fired at Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana’s presidential plane as it prepared to land at Kigali International Airport. One missile missed; the second missile hit the plane causing it to explode over the Habyarimana presidential residence. The presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, their aides, Rwanda’s military chief of staff, two Burundian cabinet ministers, and the French crew of Jacques Heraud, Jean-Pierre Minaberry, and Jean-Michel Perrine were killed. The French crew were operating “in official service” to France.
Within hours of the murders the RPA had mobilized a major assault on Kigali, impossible absent substantial a priori planning. Luc Marchal, the Belgian UNAMIR commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), “was astounded how fast RPF forces—between 25,000 and 30,000 troops—moved into position after the plane was shot down.”
The U.S. military heavily backed the RPF tactically and strategically. Key to the operation were “former” Special Operations Forces (Ronco Company) providing military equipment and ferrying RPA troops from Uganda to Rwanda, the Pentagon’s logistical and communications support, and DIA and CIA operatives.
The SAMs used in the double presidential attack came from U.S. military stockpiles seized during the first Iraq war and were reportedly assembled at a warehouse in Kigali rented by a CIA Swiss front company. French anti-terrorist Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere spent several years investigating the shoot-down on behalf of the families of the French flight crew. Bruguiere told Boutros-Boutros Ghali, secretary-general of the UN in 1994, that the CIA was involved in shooting down the plane.
Contrary to Pentagon and U.S. State Department claims that satellite reconnaissance photos of Rwandan (or Zaire) territory were unavailable, the Pentagon provided very clear satellite imagery shot over Rwanda at the height of the “100 days of genocide” to the Department of Homeland Security for its unjust framing and prosecution of Rwandan refugees hunted by the Kagame regime.
What happened in Rwanda from 1990 to 1994 can be counted amongst the Western defense and intelligence apparatus’ most sanguinary achievements: a U.S.-sponsored coup d’etat that dis- placed French interests in Central Africa in favor of North American, British, Belgian, and Israeli interests. These interests revolve around plunder and private profit, and they prevail through de-population, destruction, and terrorism as policy.
In 1990, the RPF created the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) to oversee their military structure. “The DMI is hated and feared by most of the Rwandan population, inside and out- side of Rwanda due to its reputation for cruelty and killing operations,” reads a “Top Secret” UN report documenting RPF terrorism (suppressed by the UN for years). “Most of the massacres attributed to the RPA were committed by the DMI.
Under Jack Nziza, head of special actions at the DMI, operatives infiltrated government-controlled zones wearing Hutu army uniforms and assassinated prominent Hutus and Tutsis, while routinely committing sabotage. On the hills of Rwanda, the RPF massacred Hutus in batches of tens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands, buried them in mass graves, dug up these graves, and burned the bodies to disappear all evidence.
The crimes committed by the RPF are so horrible that the perpetrators only want to forget them: “Injecting syringes of kerosene into ears. Smothering people with plastic bags. Choking with ropes and cords. Impaling women and girls with tools. Using agafuny—the RPF’s war hammer—to crack skulls and spill brain matter out like porridge. Burying people alive. Shooting women and children in the back. Forcing victims to dig their own graves. The methods are intimate, sadistic. They were used before, during and after the genocide, and are still being used on civilians by the Directorate of Military Intelligence.”
In the environment of lies, distortions, and terror, no one can be trusted, informants proliferate, people are perpetually watched, and friends and neighbors are interrogated, arrested, charged with crimes they didn’t commit. Rwandans are forced to confess and recant (depending on the prerogatives of the day), while the highest officials are sometimes assassinated, and people are routinely disappeared. Survivors of atrocities suffer unbearable grief, social isolation, and loss of meaning in life due to their inability to exhume, celebrate, bury, and mourn their dead loved ones, and the suffering is worsened by the political climate of unspeakability that prevents victims from discussing who was killed and who killed them.
Power and control are maintained by instilling terror, and this translates to silencing all dissent, all discussion. The DMI provides a structure that is both hierarchical and overlapping, with checks and balances ensuring total domination and total subservience. Hutu, Tutsi, Twa, anyone and everyone in Rwanda from the poorest peasant to Kagame’s closest military “comrades” are living and dying in a climate of absolute fear and insecurity dictated by a twisted, modernized, more fascistic and sadistic version of the traditional pre-colonial ideology of aristocratic Tutsi supremacy. At the pinnacle of this elite extremist terror space is Paul Kagame.
The RPF war created a huge population of internal refugees and a state of absolute terror across the northern sectors of Rwanda. UN Rapporteur Ndiaye cited 350,000 displaced prior to February 1993, and between 800,000 and one million by August 1993. These desperate internally displaced people fled to and surrounded Kigali.
“In Byumba—where the RPF first invaded Rwanda from Uganda in October 1990—Kagame went to a market and committed so many atrocities,” says Dr. Eliel Ntakirutimana, a Rwandan medical doctor practicing in Laredo, Texas. Philip Gourevitch judged and convicted Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Eliel Ntakirutimana’s father, in his fictitious book even before the pastor had been arrested. “More than a million people fled to Kigali. All their farms had been taken, all their goats killed, they were living on the streets. When these people hear that the RPF is coming to Kigali, what do you think they are going to do? They are going to FIGHT!”
Rwanda was no tragedy in the geopolitical eyes of Western capitalist corporate power; it was a resounding success story celebrating the implementation of the new “humanitarian” intervention and the whitewashing of genocide. Paul Kagame and his elite Tutsi commandos committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide before, during, and after the “100 days of carnage” of 1994, and they continue doing so to this day. They are also responsible for the genocide against Tutsis.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
[1] See: Keith Harmon Snow interview with Paul Rusesabagina: “The Grinding Machine: Terror and Genocide in Rwanda,” Toward Freedom, April 24, 2007.
[3] Brian Endless, PhD, Paul Rusesabagina, the MRCD and the FLN: what s the real story? A report to confront the false charges brought by the Rwandan government,” March 2021.
[4] Judi Rever, In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, Random House Canada, 2018: 122.
[5] See, e.g.: Amy Greenbank, Spies in our Suburbs: Unearthing an Alleged Shadowy Network of Spies and their Efforts to Silence Dissent, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 19, 2019; and Keith Harmon Snow, “The US Sponsored ‘Rwanda Genocide’ and its Aftermath: Psychological Warfare, Embedded Reporters and the Hunting of Refugees,” Global Research, April 12, 2008.
[6] See: Tutsi Prince Antoine Nyetera, Rwandan Culture and Mindset, https://jdloperfectingtheunion.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/rwandan-mindset-and-culture-a-document/; and Gaspard Musabyimana, “The Culture of Lying in Rwanda,” https://jdloperfectingtheunion.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/the-culture-of-lying-in-rwanda/. The latter document was first published in French with the title, “La Culture du Mensonge au Rwanda,” by a Rwandan exiled in France in support of French writer, Pierre Pean, who was sued by Paul Kagame because he wrote a book titled Noires Fureurs, blancs menteurs (2005) in which the author accused Paul Kagame of hatred towards both Hutus and Tutsis. Pierre Pean wrote that Kagame and all Rwandans in general use systematically ‘lying’ and ‘covering up’ or ‘concealment’ as a modus operandi and culture.
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).
***
The Astra-Zeneca “cheap and easy to store” “workhorse” vaccine causes blood clots in general, and in particular clots in the venous sinuses of the brain, which have killed or wounded a number of people, especially women under 55.
The J and J vaccine was associated with blood clots in its clinical trial data presented to FDA. Both vaccines use an adenovirus vector to deliver DS DNA that codes for spike protein, and human cellular machinery produces this protein, for an uncertain period of time in uncertain quantities. So blood clotting may be due to the adenovirus vector, or to the spike protein, or to something entirely different.
The mRNA vaccines use mRNA to code for the spike, using cellular machinery to produce the spike protein. The end result of all 4 vaccines is similar, and again, we do not know for how long the body makes this protein.
If the spike itself induces clotting, which is a reasonable hypothesis scientists have put forth, but is unproven, then all 4 vaccines would be thrombogenic (induce clotting). Dr. Patrick Whelan tried to warn the FDA about this possibility, but was ignored. He wrote:
Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.
Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19? Nuovo et al (in press) have shown that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels.
This is frightening information, providing a strong hint of the spike protein’s potential toxicity.
*
How did 20 countries deal with the clotting issue?
First they halted the vaccinations until they could review all the available data and get their narratives aligned. They then decided the A-Z vaccine did cause clots. But you cannot waste Covid vaccine (unless you are Emergent BioSolutions) so it had to be used. But in whom? In poorer countries of course. But what about the supplies already purchased by western Europe?
The public health leaders came up with a great idea. Restrict it, just for the elderly. If they die, there is almost always a preexisting condition to blame. But apparently that wasn’t enough. So they have started testing this vaccine in children.
A few countries stopped the A-Z vaccine altogether.
Can you imagine what the informed consent says? “We are testing a vaccine known to cause lethal blood clots in children, who almost never get severe Covid–therefore the benefits won’t exceed the risks of the vaccine in this demographic. Your child is at greater risk of dying from the vaccine than the disease.” How many parents would sign? Obviously, there must be lies on the consent form. Here is a legal case for you British barristers.
As I was writing this, the news appeared that the clinical trials of the A-Z vaccine in children were finally paused, just today. Which is 2-3 weeks after the blood clotting issue surfaced.
How well does the Astra-Zeneca vaccine work in the elderly? Only two months ago the leaders of France and Germany told us:
Officials in Germany claim the Astra-Zeneca vaccine is only 8% effective in those over 65. French President Macron has complained to Agence France Press that the A-Z vaccine was only “quasi-ineffective for people over 65.”
So, in order to use up the supply, or perhaps for other purposes, Germany will now use the vaccine only in those over 60, and France will use it only in those over 55 — which are the age groups in whom they claimed it didn’t work.
In case it is not yet clear, this latest flip-flop from Macron and Merkel reveals the truth. The purpose of the vaccines is obviously not to protect us. The vaccines enrich Pharma. The vaccine passports enable much greater control over the citizenry. There may be additional agendas. But this is clearly not about our health.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
April 7th, 2021 by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
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).
***
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
At that time, we alerted you to the dangers inherent in formulating a policy toward Russia built on a foundation of Russia-bashing. While we continue to support the analysis contained in that memorandum, this new memo serves a far more pressing purpose. We wish to draw your attention to the dangerous situation that exists in Ukraine today, where there is growing risk of war unless you take steps to forestall such a conflict.
At this juncture, we call to mind two basic realities that need particular emphasis amid growing tension between Ukraine and Russia.
First, since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty of course would not apply in the case of an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Second, Ukraine’s current military flexing, if allowed to transition into actual military action, could lead to hostilities with Russia.
We think it crucial that your administration immediately seek to remove from the table, so to speak, any “solution” to the current impasse that has a military component. In short, there is, and can never be, a military solution to this problem.
Your interim national security strategy guidance indicated that your administration would “make smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense and the responsible use of our military, while elevating diplomacy as our tool of first resort.” Right now is the perfect time to put these words into action for all to see.
We strongly believe:
1. It must be made clear to Ukrainian President Zelensky that there will be no military assistance from either the US or NATO if he does not restrain Ukrainian hawks itching to give Russia a bloody nose — hawks who may well expect the West to come to Ukraine’s aid in any conflict with Russia. (There must be no repeat of the fiasco of August 2008, when the Republic of Georgia initiated offensive military operations against South Ossetia in the mistaken belief that the US would come to its assistance if Russia responded militarily.)
2. We recommend that you quickly get back in touch with Zelensky and insist that Kiev halt its current military buildup in eastern Ukraine. Russian forces have been lining up at the border ready to react if Zelensky’s loose talk of war becomes more than bravado. Washington should also put on hold all military training activity involving US and NATO troops in the region. This would lessen the chance that Ukraine would misinterpret these training missions as a de facto sign of support for Ukrainian military operations to regain control of either the Donbas or Crimea.
3. It is equally imperative that the U.S. engage in high-level diplomatic talks with Russia to reduce tensions in the region and de-escalate the current rush toward military conflict. Untangling the complex web of issues that currently burden U.S.-Russia relations is a formidable task that will not be accomplished overnight. This would be an opportune time to work toward a joint goal of preventing armed hostilities in Ukraine and wider war.
There is opportunity as well as risk in the current friction over Ukraine. This crisis offers your administration the opportunity to elevate the moral authority of the United States in the eyes of the international community. Leading with diplomacy will greatly enhance the stature of America in the world.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Graham E. Fuller,Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Robert M. Furukawa, Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, USNR (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Pedro Israel Orta, CIA Operations Officer & Analyst; Inspector with IG for the Intelligence Community (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
First published in February 2008.
Remembering the “Rwanda Genocide”, April 7, 1994
***
As George Bush begins his much bally-hooed African safari, he has already begun to heap praise on Rwandan President Kagame as a “model for Africa.” But, recently issued French and Spanish international “war-crimes” warrants and new evidence at the UN Rwanda Tribunal have exposed Kagame as the war-criminal who actually touched-off the 1994 “Rwanda Genocide” by assassinating the previous President and who is benefiting from a decades-long U.S.-sponsored “cover-up” of Pentagon complicity in massacres committed by Kagame’s regime, which even Britain’s Economist has called “the most repressive in Africa.” [1]
Multiple “War Crimes” Warrants Issued for Rwanda ’s Leaders
Just last week, a Spanish Judge issued 40 international warrants for current and former members of Kagame’s government, including senior staff at Rwanda ’s Washington Embassy. The warrants charge Kagame’s clique with war-crimes and crimes against humanity, that may even fit the definition of “genocide.” But, these are not the only international arrest warrants issued for Rwanda’s current leaders.
French Judge Bruguiere (famous for indicting “the Jackal”) has also issued international warrants against nearly a dozen members of Kagame’s inner circle, too. Bruguiere also met with Kofi Annan in late 2006 to personally urge the U.N. Rwanda Tribunal to prosecute Kagame for the assassination of Juvenal Habyarimana, the war-crime that re-ignited the four-year Rwanda War and the massive civilian killings in the war’s final 90-days.
Could it be that no-one in the Bush Administration was aware of these pending charges against their Rwandan hosts….or is it that they just don’t care? In either case, the French and Spanish international arrest warrants have pierced the wall of US/UK/Rwandan propaganda about who bears responsible for the massive tragedy that unfolded in Rwanda …but the “official story” has actually been unraveling for some time (although largely un-reported in the U.S. media).
Chief UN Prosecutor del Ponte in 2003: “Rwanda ’s Leaders Guilty of War Crimes”
In the summer of 2003, Chief Prosecutor for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR), Carla del Ponte, publicly announced that she would soon begin prosecuting members of Kagame’s Government for the same kinds of crimes charged in the French and Spanish warrants. But, nearly 5 years later not one case has been filed against one member of Kagame’s government, nor against Kagame himself.
The del Ponte announced prosecutions did not go forward because she was replaced, within 90-days of her announcement, by Abubacar Jallow, a US/UK-approved Prosecutor who pledged not to prosecute on Kagame’s side….no matter what the del Ponte and the European judges’ findings! Prosecutor del Ponte’s long-time press-aide, Florence Hartmann, published a book in Paris in September 2007, that explains exactly how del Ponte was replaced.
Chief UN Prosecutor del Ponte was called to Washington just after her 2003 announcement and threatened with removal from office by Bush’ “war-crimes ambassador”, Pierre Prosper, because of the political quid pro quo between Washington and the Kagame regime that is spelled out in detail in the book. (Ironically, Prosper was a former ICTR prosecutor under del Ponte, and must have had access to the same information motivated her announcement). When she refused to ignore her UN-mandate, to prosecute all crimes committed during the 1994 Rwanda War, she was sacked by the U.S. and U.K. [2]
But this is not the first time that crimes of Kagame have been “covered-up” at the ICTR. According to sworn affidavits placed in the ICTR record in early 2006, more than 10 years ago, ICTR Lead Investigative Prosecutor, well-respected Australian QC Michael Hourigan, recommended that Kagame, himself, be prosecuted for the assassination of Habyarimana. But, in 1997, then-Chief UN Prosecutor Louise Arbour of Canada ordered him to drop the Kagame investigation; to forget it ever happened; and, to burn his notes! Hourigan resigned rather than comply and copies of his original notes are now part of the ICTR public record for all to see. [3]
The “Rwanda Genocide” Cover-up on Clinton ’s Watch
The Hourigan affidavit makes clear that the “Rwanda Genocide”– Cover-up has been going on for at least a decade…but the reasons for the cover-up did not become clear until late 2007, when a senior Clinton Administration diplomat, Brian Atwood, was confronted with UN documents describing a 1994 “cover-up” meeting with the Rwandan Foreign Minister in Kigali and the UN’s Kofi Annan. According to the UN documents, U.S.-sponsored human rights reports by investigator, Robert Gersony, had documented massive military-style executions of civilians by Kagame’s troops, during and after the final 90-days of the four-year Rwanda War. [4]
The former Rwandan Foreign Minister at the meeting, Jean Marie Ndagiyimana, testified at the ICTR that, rather than participate in the proposed “cover-up,” he resigned and went into exile where he remains today. His ICTR testimony confirmed that Clinton’s USAID Chief for Africa, Brian Atwood, and the chief of the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations Kofi Annan, were both in his office in late October 1994 urging him to assist in the “cover-up” the war-crimes committed by Kagame’s forces. [5]
The “Inconvenient Truth” Behind the Cover-up: Pentagon Complicity in the 1994 Rwanda War
The damning “Gersony Report” included first-hand evidence of tens of thousands of civilians being massacred by Kagame’s troops in eastern Rwanda, later confirmed by similar reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The U.N. Document (also in the ICTR record) says that Annan told the Foreign Minister that public knowledge of the Report would be “embarrassing to the UN” and the U.S. Former Clinton-diplomat, Brian Atwood, not only confirmed he was at the meeting, but explained that he had engaged Gersony, and that Gersony’s findings of war-crimes being committed by Kagame were “…an inconvenient truth” for both the United States and the UN.
According to Atwood, unknown to the State Department, “the Pentagon had been supporting Kagame since before the 1990 invasion, when he was the head of Military Intelligence for the Museveni government of Uganda.” The “Gersony Report” tied the Pentagon to the crimes of Kagame’s invading, Pentagon-trained and funded forces. More UN documents in the ICTR record reveal that the State Department was negotiating for a peaceful settlement of the war at the same time the Pentagon was supporting Kagame’s invasion. The Clinton Administration to enlisted Atwood and Kofi Annan in keeping evidence of Kagame’s crimes from ever seeing the light of day, to prevent Pentagon involvement in the “Rwandan Genocide” from ever coming to light. [6]
The existence of a separate Pentagon foreign policy on Rwanda also tallies with the ICTR testimony of former Ambassador Robert Flaten, who testified that he seriously doubted that Habyarimana’s supporters planned to kill civilians on a massive scale because the CIA and other intelligence agencies would have reported it when he was in Rwanda from 1990 to late 93. [7] He said that his requests for Pentagon-DIA spy satellite photographs showing the progress of the war in the countryside were turned down because of “clouds over Rwanda,” during his entire 3-plus years in Rwanda. [8] He also noted that support from Uganda for the 1990 Kagame invasion coincided with increased Ugandan military funding by the U.S./U.K. Flaten also testified that he personally warned Kagame that he would be responsible for massacres like just happened in Burundi, if Kagame broke the cease-fire and re-started that war.
In short, the evidence that now is in the public record shows that during the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, the Pentagon could have stopped the carnage with a phone call….and the State Department apparently did not know enough about the Pentagon’s close ties to Kagame to ask them to do so, at least until USAID’s Atwood was informed of Pentagon reaction to the “Gersony Report,” in the summer of 1994.
Other de-classified State Department documents show that it was the invading Kagame forces that were the aggressors, and were blocking the State Departments efforts to implement the Arusha Accords, peace agreement. [9] The UN’s General Dallaire has testified that Kagame would not agree to a ceasefire to use troops to stop the massacres because “he was winning the war.” [10] And, now we know what Dallaire may not have known, until later…Kagame was winning with the Pentagon’s help.
The Great “Rwanda Genocide” Cover-up Continues under Bush
The “Rwanda Genocide” – Cover-up of Pentagon complicity in Kagame’s crimes is almost complete, as the U.S. cuts Rwanda Tribunal funding to shut it down by the end of 2008. Carla del Ponte’s replacement, Abubacar Jallow, will be conveniently unable to carry out the prosecutions that del Ponte urged in 2003, or those initiated by Judge Bruguiere in 2006, or Judge Ag____, just last week.
However, the international warrants are still in effect, the del Ponte book and Hourigan’s affidavit have begun to unravel the whole sordid manipulation… .but, unless the “Rwanda Genocide” Cover-up makes it onto Page One in Europe and North America, it may be too late for the ICTR detainees….who are being held responsible for the crimes of the Kagame regime, a bit like the UN holding the Japanese responsible for Hiroshima and the Germans for the fire-bombing of Dresden.
With U.S. and U.K. support, Kagame’s government is actively campaigning to have all ICTR matters transferred to Rwanda and has issued 40,000 warrants for Kagame’s Hutu and Tutsi opponents in the worldwide Rwandan diaspora. (A movement that includes such as figures Paul Rusesabagina, the real hero of the Hotel Rwanda).
Correcting the Historical Record and Ending the Cover-up
But, I have to disclose my own bias because, under the laws of Rwanda, I too am a criminal “negationist” for writing this essay and President Kagame has personally denounced me as a “genocidaire” for my work as an ICTR defense lawyer. My former investigator is seeking asylum in Europe and the ICTR Prosecutor who replaced Carla del Ponte is now prosecuting defense investigator for asking too many questions in Rwanda, but denounced Judge Bruguiere’s request for the UN to prosecute Kagame and Spanish Judge Abreau, as well.
An ICTR defense lawyer, like me, has to hope that, despite all that is now known about the manipulations of the ICTR by the U.S. and U.K. for their own political purposes, the ICTR Judges will not be influenced by the sacking of del Ponte and that they will carefully evaluate the evidence in my client’s case….but it is hard to be too optimistic.
At least my conscience is clear, now that the Great “Rwanda Genocide”— Cover-up has been exposed. But, I wonder if the Judges, Prosecutors, other UN-ICTR officials (who now know about the manipulation of their best efforts) will be able to say the same, if they allow the ICTR “Rwanda Genocide”- Cover-up to continue?
During the week’s festivities in Rwanda, the Presidents Bush and Kagame are sure to find much in common, as would Tony Blair, who has recently signed-on as an “unpaid”-advisor to Kagame. All three stand accused of war crimes, and are mutually benefiting from the US/UK/Rwandan “cover-up” of their own complicity in the “Rwandan Genocide” tragedy….that should put all three in the dock at the UN-ICTR.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Prof. Peter Erlinder, Wm. Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul , MN 55105 (651-290-6384) peter.erlinder@ wmitchell. edu . Past- President of the National Lawyers Guild and is Lead Defence Counsel for former Major Aloys Ntabakuze in the Military 1 Trial at the ICTR, the central case in the Tribunal. All of the documents and testimony referenced above are in the court record at the ICTR, except for the interview of Ambassador Brian Atwood, which occurred in December 2007 at his office at the University of Minnesota , Humphrey Institute.
Notes
[1] The Economist , April, 2004
[2] Hartmann, Paix et chatiment: les guerres del la politique (2007 Flammarion, Paris)
[3] See Hourigan Affidavit and related documents in Miltary 1 record at the ICTR.
[4] See, UN documents in the Military 1 trial record at the ICTR.
[5] See ICTR Testimony of Ndagiyimana, November 2006, and related documents
[6] Interview with Dean Brian Atwood, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota , December 22, 2007.
[7] See Flaten ICTR testimony, July 2006.
[8] Interview with Robert Flaten in Arusha TZ, July 2006.
[9] See, April 1, 1994 Cable from U.S. Embassy in Kigali to Kampala Uganda in the ICTR Military 1 Trial Record.
[10] See ICTR Testimony of Gen. Romeo Dallaire and associated documents, January 2006.
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).
In the hundreds of media articles on the 1994 Rwanda genocide, there is barely a mention of Britain being a permanent member of the UN security council and in any way responsible for what happened. I recounted Britain’s role in my previous book, The Great Deception, so I will not repeat everything here. Since then, however, another book, by Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist, confirms the quite terrible British, and US, role.
After the killings began in early April 1994, the UN security council, instead of beefing up it’s peace mission in the country and giving it a stronger mandate to intervene, decided to reduce the troop presence from 2,500 to 270. This decision sent a green light to those who had planned the genocide that the UN would not intervene. A small UN military force arrived merely to rescue expats, and then left. Belgium’s senior army officer in the UN peace mission believed that if this force had not been pulled out, the killing could have been stopped. Canadian general Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN force in Rwanda, later said that this evacuation showed “inexcusable apathy by the sovereign states that made up the UN, that is completely beyond comprehension and moral acceptability”.
It was Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Sir David Hannay, who proposed that the UN pull out its force; the US agreed. According to Melvern, it was left to the Nigerian ambassador, Ibrhaim Gambari, to point out that tens of thousands of civilians were dying at the time. Gambari also pleaded with the security council to reinforce the UN presence. But the US objected and Britain agreed, suggesting only to leave behind a token force, which became the 270 personnel.
On the security council at the time sat – by chance – Rwanda, as one of the ten non-permanent members. So British and US indifference and their policy of reducing the UN force, as expressed in the security council, was reported back to those directing the genocide in Rwanda. Melvern notes that “confident of no significant international opposition, it was decided to push ahead with further ‘pacification’ in the south” of the country. This led to tens of thousands more murders.
Romeo Dallaire, who had pleaded for reinforcements, complained that:
“My force was standing knee deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of dying children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a goat, or a chicken, or a songbird, as all the people were dead, their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs”.
By May, with certainly tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands already dead, there was another UN proposal – to despatch 5,500 troops to help stop the massacres. This deployment was delayed by pressure mainly from the US ambassador, but with strong support from Britain. Dallaire believes that if these troops had been speadily deployed, tens of thousands more lives could have been saved. But the US and the British argued that before these troops went in, there needed to be a ceasefire in Rwanda, a quite insane suggestion given that one side was massacring innocent civilians. The US also ensured that this plan was watered down so that troops would have no mandate to use force to end the massacres.
Britain and the US also refused to provide the military airlift capability for the African states that were offering troops for this force. The RAF, for example, had plenty of transport aircraft that could have been deployed. Eventually, with delays continuing and thousands being killed by the day, Britain offered a measly 50 trucks. Lynda Chalker, then minister for overseas development, visited Dallaire in Rwanda in July. He gave her his list of requirements at the same time as noting that “I was up to my knees in bodies by then”. The 50 trucks had still not yet materialised. But later, on BBC2’s Newsnight, Chalker blamed Dallaire’s lack of resources on “the UN” which “ought to get its procurement right”.
Britain also went out of its way to ensure that the UN did not use the word “genocide” to describe the slaughter. Accepting that genocide was occurring would have obliged states to “prevent and punish” those guilty under the terms of the Geneva convention. In late April 1994, Britain, along with the US and China, secured a security council resolution that rejected the use of the term “genocide”. This resolution was drafted by the British.
The Czech republic’s ambassador to the UN, Karel Kovanda, confronted the security council about the fact of genocide at this time. He said that talking about withdrawing peacekeepers and getting a ceasefire was “rather like wanting Hitler to reach a ceasefire with the Jews”. There were objections to his comments, Kovanda said, and British and US diplomats quietly told him that on no account was he to use such inflammatory language outside the security council.
A July 1994 resolution spoke of “possible acts of genocide” and other security council documents used similarly restrained language. A year after the slaughters, the British Foreign Office sent a letter to an international enquiry saying that it still did not accept the term genocide. It said that it saw a discussion about whether the massacres constituted genocide as “sterile”.
Linda Melvern was told by UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali that during the genocide he had individual private meetings with the British and US ambassadors (the US ambassador was Madeleine Albright, who went on to become Clinton’s secretary of state). Boutros-Ghali urged both of them to help stop the killing but said their reaction was: “Come on, Boutros, relax… Don’t put us in a difficult position…the mood is not for intervention, you will obtain nothing…we will not move”.
Let me summarise the British government’s contribution to the genocide in Rwanda. Britain used its diplomatic weight to severely reduce a UN force that, according to military officers on the ground, could have prevented the killings. It then helped ensure the delay of other plans for intervention, which sent a direct green light to the murderers in Rwanda to continue. Britain also refused to provide the capability for other states to intervene, while blaming the lack of such capability on the UN. Throughout, Britain helped ensure that the UN did not use the word “genocide” so the UN would not act, using diplomatic pressure on others to ensure this did not happen. British officials went out of their way to promote these policies and rebuffed personal pleas to help stop the killings from the UN Secretary General and the commander of the UN force.
All this information is publicly available. We do not need to look over the Atlantic to think of trials of those who have acquiesced in genocide. There is a long list of British policy makers who are to some degree responsible – Prime Minister John Major, Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, Overseas Development Minister Lynda Chalker and UN ambassador Sir David Hannay foremost among them. But these people are being protected by the silence of the media and academia as well as the extreme lack of accountability in the political system.
Melvern notes that, especially in the early stages of the genocide, the press insisted on reporting events as “chaos and anarchy”, not a systematic campaign well planned in advance by Hutu extremists. In her view, “the media’s failure to report that genocide was taking place, and thereby generate public pressure for something to be done to stop it, contributed to international indifference and inaction, and possibly to the crime itself”.
There was only one press article I could find that went into any detail on Britain’s role on the security council. It noted that Britain’s ambassador at the UN was still dealing regularly with the ambassador of the government engaged in state-sponsored genocide.
Neither did the mother of parliaments attempt to address the British role in genocide – either at the time, or since. A debate in the House of Commons did not take place until nearly two months after the slaughter began. According to Melvern, “the Labour party waited until May before putting pressure on the government to act, and then only because Oxfam telephoned the office of David Clark, shadow secretary of state for defence”.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
We have been bringing you independent news and analysis for over 19 years. Our intention is to continue to relentlessly promote independent voices that speak out on issues too often neglected by the corporate media. There are no two ways about it: to deliver on this intention, we need your help.
Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis we provide, free of charge, on a daily basis? Do you think this resource should be maintained and preserved as a research tool for future generations? Bringing you 24/7 updates from all over the globe has real costs associated with it. Please give what you can to help us meet these costs! Click below to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research. With your help we can meet our monthly running costs…
As predicted last year, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S. As reported by Ron Paul in his Liberty Report,1,2 which streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration is “seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system.
From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington’s hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America’s design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)
After weeks of denying the violence carried out by US-backed opposition groups in Myanmar, US-funded propaganda outlets like “Myanmar Now” are finally admitting and making excuses for the opposition fighting government security forces with war weapons.
Moving back and forth between personal eyewitness testimonies and a broader objective contextualization of the Syrian conflict, “Voices from Syria” debunks disinformation about Syria with primary personal accounts, evidence, documentation, common sense, and sheer reason.
Children’s mask wearing (as well as for senior adults) causes chronic headaches and fatigue, because blood and brain receive insufficient oxygen which may lead to lasting damage, including memory loss. Children suffer psychological traumas. Depression and suicide rates increase exponentially.
For the overwhelming majority of people, COVID-19 is a religion. On faith, they blindly accept that SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. On faith they believe that COVID-19 PCR, antigen and antibody tests are accurate.
On March 24th, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.
Those in positions of power have long recognized that conditions of fear and panic furnish exploitable opportunities to restructure society. COVID-19 is certainly a textbook example of this observation, illustrating that well-tuned fear campaigns can persuade many people to abandon essential medical and individual freedoms.
Despite consistently denying it, the UK government has planned for the rollout of vaccine passports all along, prompting charges that the “Covid passes are shrouded in government cover ups, lies and shady contracts.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an assortment of high-profile figures and policy makers are pushing for unregulated gene-editing technologies, the rollout of bio-synthetic food created in laboratories, the expanded use of patented seeds and the roll back of subsidies and support for farmers in places like India.
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).
***
Starting on 7 April 1994, in less than three months, nearly one million Rwandans – the exact figure has not yet been determined – were exterminated because they were (or supposed to be) Tutsis. Tens of thousands of moderate Hutus were also slaughtered. This was indeed a genocide, that is, the deliberate destruction of an entire community through mass murder in the aim of preventing their biological and social reproduction.
In this context, it is crucial to investigate the role played by international financial institutions. Everything we know leads us to believe that the policies imposed by these institutions, the main financial backers of General Juvénal Habyarimana’s dictatorial regime accelerated the process resulting in the genocide. In general, the negative impact of these policies is not taken into consideration to explain the tragic unfolding of the Rwandan crisis. Only a few authors highlight the responsibilities of the Bretton Woods institutions [1], which have rejected any kind of responsibility.
At the beginning of the 1980s, when the debt crisis exploded in the Third World, Rwanda (like its neighbour Burundi) had very little debt. Whereas in other parts of the world, the World Bank and IMF were abandoning their go-go loan policy and preaching abstinence, they adopted a very different attitude with respect to Rwanda to which they granted major loans. Between 1976 and 1994, there was a twenty-fold increase in Rwanda’s external debt. In 1976, it amounted to $49 million, while it was nearly $1 billion in 1994, increasing especially rapidly as of 1982. Its principal creditors were the IFIs or International Financial Institutions — the World Bank, the IMF, and similar institutions, and the WB and the IMF played the most active role in this debt process. In 1995, IFIs held 84% of Rwanda’s external debt.
The dictatorship in place since 1973 guaranteed that there would be no progressive structural changes in the country. That explains why it was actively supported by Western powers such as Belgium, France, and Switzerland. In addition, it could be a rampart against the countries in the region that were still mulling over thoughts of independence and progressive change (for instance, neighbouring Tanzania where there was the progressive President Julius Nyerere, one of the African leaders in the Non-Aligned Movement).
Image on the right: The massacre at Nyarabuye took place in the grounds of a Catholic Church and school. Hundreds of Tutsis, including many children, were slaughtered at close range, Rwanda, 1994.
Throughout the 1980s and up until 1994, Rwanda received many loans, but the dictator Habyarimana embezzled much of them. The loans granted were supposed to be used to better integrate Rwanda’s economy into the world economy by developing its capacities to export coffee, tea, and tin (its three main export products), which was detrimental to the crops cultivated there to satisfy local needs. This model worked until the middle of the 1980s, when the price of tin, then that of coffee, and finally tea, collapsed. Rwanda, for which coffee was the main source of hard currency, was hit hard by the breaking up of the coffee cartel at the beginning of the 1990s by the United States.
Using international loans to prepare for the genocide
Only a few weeks before the Patriotic Front of Rwanda launched its offensive in October 1990, the government of Rwanda signed an agreement with the IMF and the WB in Washington to implementstructural adjustment measures.
When they were implemented in November 1990, the Rwandan currency dropped by 67%. By way of compensation, the IMF granted strong currency loans for quick disbursement so that the country could keep importing goods. The funds were used to artificially improve the balance of payments. The prices of imported goods skyrocketed: for instance, the price of petrol went up by 79%. Selling imported goods on the domestic market made it possible for the government to pay the army’s wages, and the number of recruits increased in staggering proportions. The structural adjustment measures included a decrease in public spending, wages were frozen, and there were massive layoffs in the civil service, but part of the savings were used for the army.
Whereas the prices of imported goods increased, the price at which producers could sell coffee was frozen, as imposed by the IMF. As a result, hundreds of thousands of small coffee producers went bankrupt[2], and together with the most deprived layers of city dwellers they became a permanent supply of soldiers for Interahamwe and army recruiters.
The following measures were among the ones the WB and IMF imposed in Rwanda: an increase in consumption taxes and a decrease in corporate taxes, an increase in direct taxes on low-income families through a reduction of fiscal advantages for large families, and restrictions on credit facilities to farmers.
To account for its use of loans from the IMF/WB, Rwanda was allowed to submit old invoices for imported goods. This practice made it possible for the government to pay for the massive purchase of weapons intended for the genocide. Military expenses increased three-fold between 1990 and 1992 [3]. Over this period of time, the WB and the IMF sent out several missions of experts, who highlighted the positive consequences of the austerity policies enforced by Habyarimana, yet threatened to discontinue payments if military expenses increased further.
The Rwandan government then used various ploys to conceal military expenses: Lorries bought for the army were accounted for in the budget of the transport ministry, a significant portion of the petrol used in the army or militia vehicles was part of the budget for the ministry of health. The WB and the IMF eventually stopped providing financial support in early 1993, but they did not expose the existence of bank accounts the Rwandan government had in foreign banks on which there were substantial amounts of money still available to buy more weapons. It can be said that they failed in their duty to control the use of the funds loaned. They should have stopped their loans in early 1992 when they learned the money was being used to buy weapons. They should have warned the UN at once. As they went on supplying support until 1993, they helped a government that was preparing a genocide. As early as 1991, human rights organisations had tried to draw international attention to the massacres that paved the way for the genocide. The World Bank and the IMF systematically supported a dictatorial regime, with the help of the US, France, and Belgium.
Exacerbated social contradictions
For the genocidal project to be achieved, more than just a government was needed to devise it and acquire the necessary tools; the people also had to be impoverished and driven to a level of desperation at which they were ready to do anything. 90% of the population in Rwanda was living in the countryside, and 20% of farm families owned an acre or less. From 1982 to 1994, most of the farming population fell into poverty, while a few others at the other end of the social spectrum were accumulating a huge amount of wealth. Professor Jef Maton states that in 1982 the richest 10% of the population made 20% of rural income; in 1992 they had grabbed 41%, in 1993 45%, and in early 1994 51% [4]. The disastrous social consequences of the IMF and WB enforced policies combined with the plummeting price of coffee (itself a consequence of policies applied by the Bretton Woods institutions, and the US doing away with the cartel of coffee producers at that time) played a key role in the Rwanda crisis. Habyarimana’s regime exploited the widespread social discontent to carry out the genocide.
The genocide’s financiers
Betwen 1990 and 1994, Rwanda’s main arms suppliers were France, Belgium, South Africa, Egypt and China. China also provided 500,000 machetes. Egypt – whose joint minister of Foreign Affairs, responsible for relations with the African continent, was none other than Boutros Boutros-Ghali – granted Rwanda a 6 million-dollarinterest-free loan in 1991 to purchase arms for its infantry divisions. When the genocide got under way, France and the British firm Mil-Tec provided arms to the rampaging army via the Goma airport across the border in Zaire – violating the 11 May 1994 UN embargo on arms sales to Rwanda (Toussaint, 1996b). Once the Rwandan capital, Kigali, had been overrun by the opposition FPR, a certain number of the key leaders of the genocide were received by the French president. Rwandan leaders-in-exile set up the head office of the Banque Nationale du Rwanda in Goma, with the help of the French army. Until August 1994, the Banque disbursed funds to repay debts for previous arms purchases and to buy new arms. Private banks (Belgolaise, Générale de Banque, BNP, Dresdner Bank, among others) accepted payment orders from those responsible for the genocide and repaid those who financed the genocide.
Rwanda after the genocide
After the fall of the dictatorship in July 1994, the World Bank and the IMF demanded that the new Rwandan government limit the number of public-sector employees to 50% of the number agreed upon before the genocide. The new government complied.
Initial financial assistance provided by the USA and Belgium in late 1994 went towards repaying the Habyarimana regime’s debt arrears with the World Bank. Financial aid from the West has been barely trickling into the country since then, despite the urgent need to rebuild the country, and provide for the more than 800,000 refugees on its soil since November 1996.
According to David Woodward’s report for Oxfam, agricultural production did recover somewhat in 1996. However, it was 38% lower than usual first harvests and 28% lower than usual second harvests. Industry was taking longer to recover: only 54 out of 88 industrial concerns in operation before April 1994 had resumed activity; most were operating well below previous levels. At the end of 1995, the total value of industrial production was 47% of its 1990 levels.
A 20% wage increase in the public sector in January 1996 was the first such rise since 1981; official estimates, however, are that 80% of public-sector workers live below the poverty line. It comes as no surprise that Rwandans prefer to work in NGOs as drivers and cooks rather than in the public sector. These poverty statistics are not peculiar to the public sector: in 1996, the World Bank estimated that 85 to 95% of Rwandans lived below the threshold of absolute poverty.
It should be noted that there has been a significant increase in the number of households run by women: from 21.7% before the genocide to 29.3% now, with peaks of 40% in some districts. Their situation is particularly disturbing in view of the profound discrimination against women in such matters as inheritance, access to credit and property rights. Even before the genocide, 35% of women heads of households earned less than 5,000 Rwandan francs (17 dollars) per month; the corresponding figure for men was 22%.
In spite of a high rate of adoption of orphans (from the genocide and AIDS deaths), there are between 95,000 and 150,000 children without families.
In the education system, only 65% of children are enrolled in primary schools; and no more than 8% in secondary schools (Woodward, 1996).
In 1994, Rwanda’s foreign debt had reached nearly one billion dollars, the totality of which had been contracted by the Habyarimana regime. Five years later, the debt had increased by about 30% and Rwanda repaid 31 million dollars (figures for 1999).
The debt contracted before 1994 fits the definition of “odious debt” perfectly: it follows that the new regime should have been totally exonerated from paying it off. The multilateral and bilateral creditors knew very well who they were dealing with when they lent money to Habyarimana’s regime. After the change of regime, there was not the slightest justification for transferring their claims onto the new Rwanda. Nevertheless, it was done quite shamelessly.
The new Rwandan government that came into power in 1994 tried to persuade the WB and the IMF to renounce their loans. The two institutions refused, threatening to cut off funding if Kigali persisted. They put pressure on Kigali to keep quiet about the aid they had provided to the Habyarimana regime, in exchange for new loans and a promise of future debt cancellation as part of the initiative in favour of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), launched in 1996.
One can only deplore that the government should have accepted such blackmail. The consequences are pernicious: continued structural adjustment, with its disastrous social and economic consequences, and an increase in foreign debt. In complying, the government of Kigali has gained “good pupil” status in the eyes of the IMF, the WB and the Paris Club. Worse still, the Rwandan regime has become the accomplice of the USA and Great Britain whose policy is to weaken the Democratic Republic of Congo, by taking part, as of August 1998, in the military occupation of its neighbour, the DRC, and by plundering its natural resources.
***
Interview with Eric Toussaint, spokesperson and co-founder of the international network of the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM). Interview by Benjamin Lemoine
Debt audits: an abortive precedent – the examples of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo
What were the first testing grounds of the CADTM method for countering illegitimate debt?
That should be put in the context of the convergence between the CADTM and various movements active in France and elsewhere. The CADTM was very much involved, for example, in solidarity with the neo-Zapatista movement, which appeared publicly on 1 January, 1994 in Chiapas (Mexico), and we travelled to Mexico several times. The CADTM also participated as a co-organiser of the big mobilisation of October 1994 in Spain against the meeting the World Bank and the IMF held to celebrate their half-century of existence. That action was part of the worldwide “Fifty years, it’s enough” campaign. As for the contacts in France, I mentioned the LCR, the“Ca suffat comme ci”campaign of 1989, and the “Other Voices of the Planet” collective, created in 1996 to organise the counter-G7; to those we need to add AITEC [5]and the CEDETIM [6], led by Gus Massiah [7]. There is also the Survie (Survival) movement, led at that time by François-Xavier Verschave [8], which struggled against France’s domination of Africa and well understood the importance of the issue of debt. Survie had close ties with the CADTM, in part because Survie, like the CADTM, was very active in denouncing the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and “Operation Turquoise,” organized by Mitterrand. In 1995, a delegation from the CADTM went to Rwanda and an international CADTM assembly was held in Brussels with the question of the genocide and the responsibilities of creditors at the core of the program. And, starting in 1996, the CADTM launched the audit of Rwanda’s debt with, at that time, the new regime in Kigali headed by Paul Kagamé still in power. Kagamé wanted to achieve clarity about the debt, and a team of two people who worked closely with the CADTM was set up. Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian, a university professor in Ottawa who often wrote forLe Monde diplomatique, and Pierre Galand, then Secretary of Oxfam in Belgium, went to Kigali and conducted the investigation in close liaison with the CADTM. I talked extensively with them and wrote an article entitled “The Financiers of the Genocide,” which attracted a certain amount of attention [9].
Did that inspire the CADTM’s methodology regarding debt audits?
Yes, even if the experience ended up being frustrating. Not many people know that one of the missions of Operation Turquoise was to get hold of all the documentation of Rwanda’scentral bank in Kigali and transfer it all in a container to Goma in the DRC, to prevent the new authorities from getting access to written evidence revealing how strong France’s support for the genocidal regime of Juvénal Habyarimana had been. When Laurent-Désiré Kabila launched his offensive against Mobutu in 1996 from eastern Congo, Kagamé was able to get that container and bring it back to Kigali, and opened the archives, which Michel Chossudovsky and Pierre Galand worked on [10].
In other words, they found the “black box”…
Absolutely, and the French banks’ involvement in financing General Habyarimana’s weapons purchases was clear. Egypt and China were also implicated because they supplied a lot of the machetes, but the French provided the more sophisticated equipment to the genocidal Rwandan army. So originally – and this is an element that reappears in our later experiences – internationalist movements made contact with a head of State, Paul Kagamé, who wanted transparency and who made documentation that usually remains secret available to the experts. Kagamé, with that resource in hand, threatened the USA, France, the World Bank, and the IMF with publicizing the financing of the genocide. Washington and Paris, along with the World Bank and the IMF, all said, in essence: “Don’t spill the beans! In exchange for your silence, we’ll reduce Rwanda’s debt by opening a maximum line of credit at the World Bank and the IMF. We’ll reduce the amount of the repayment, and we’ll pre-finance it with new loans.” And Kagamé played along. It was a very frustrating experience, not only in terms of energy and ethics, but also because of the precedent it would have set. Because before the Habyarimana regime, the level of Rwanda’s debt was very low; the entire debt repayment being demanded of Rwanda was debt contracted by a despotic regime, and so was a typical example of the doctrine of odious debt, somewhat like the debt the DRC faced.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, after the overthrow of the dictator Mobutu in 1996-1997, Pierre Galand and I worked in collaboration with the new authorities in Kinshasa (Pierre Galand was the one who maintained the actual contacts) and above all with the social movements. Several Congolese members and sympathisers of the CADTM who had spent 20 years in exile in Belgium had returned to their country after Mobutu’s fall and held posts in Kinshasa [11]. We also had long-standing contact with Jean-Baptiste Sondji, a Congolese former Maoist militant who had become Minister of Health in the Kabila government.
In these cases, what support or alliances do you look for?
Personally I made an outright priority of relations with social movements (trade unions, small farmers’ organisations, student organizations, etc.) I didn’t have a great deal of trust in the new DRC government, except to some degree Jean Baptiste Sondji as an individual. The issue was to challenge the repayment of the debt that was being demanded of the DRC by regimes and institutions that had supported Mobutu and enabled him to remain in power for over 30 years. Laurent-Désiré Kabila had set up anOffice des biens mal acquis(“Office of illicitly acquired property”) and there was a clear link between personal enrichment related to corruption and the country’s indebtedness. And in fact in that also turned out to be a disappointment, because Kabila negotiated a deal with the Swiss bankers at a time when there was the possibility that the DRC could get the Swiss courts to force Swiss bankers who were complicit in Mobutu’s misappropriations to return the money he’d deposited with them. But scandalously, Kabila agreed to a secret transaction with the Swiss bankers and abandoned the legal action that was under way.
I went to Kinshasa during the summer of 2000 to work with the Congolese social movements and NGOs on the issue of the odious debt the DRC was being required to repay. My bookYour Money Or Your Life was very successful in the academic community and among the Congolese Left [12]. In Belgium, the former colonial power, the CADTM had developed a strong campaign for cancellation of the DRC’s odious debt and freezing of the Mobutu clan’s assets in Belgium [13]. We had helped author a brochure common to all NGOs and North/South solidarity organisations active in Belgium demanding cancellation of the DRC’s debts [14]. Along with these activities conducted by the CADTM, organisations in the DRC became members of the international CADTM network (in Kinshasa, the Bakongo area, Lubumbashi and Mbuji-Mayi).The lesson to be learned from these attempts to denounce odious debt in Rwanda and in the DRC is that the governments can’t be trusted. Absolute priority has to be given to working with the grass-roots citizens’ organisations, with the social movements and with individuals who are determined not to give up until clarity is achieved and action is taken by the governments.
Translated by Snake Arbusto, Suchandra De Sarkar and Vicki Briault.
***
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Eric Toussaintis a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Debt System (Haymarket books, Chicago, 2019), Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc. See his bibliography. He co-authored World debt figures 2015 with Pierre Gottiniaux, Daniel Munevar and Antonio Sanabria (2015); and with Damien Millet Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He was the scientific coordinator of the Greek Truth Commission on Public Debt from April 2015 to November 2015.
Notes
[1] Chossudovsky, Michel et al. 1995. « Rwanda, Somalie, ex Yougoslavie : conflits armés, génocide économique et responsabilités des institutions de Bretton Woods » (Rwanda, Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia: armed conflicts, economic genocide, and the responsability of Bretton Woods institutions); Chossudovsky, Michel and Galand, Pierre, « Le Génocide de 1994, L’usage de la dette extérieure du Rwanda (1990-1994). La responsabilité des bailleurs de fonds » (The Genocide of 1994. The use of Rwanda’s external debt (1990-1994). The responsability of financial institutions), Ottawa and Brussels, 1996. See also: Duterme, Renaud Rwanda : une histoire volée (Rwanda: a stolen history), Co-edition Tribord and CADTM, 2013 http://cadtm.org/Rwanda-une-histoire-volee-Dette-et
[2] Maton, Jef. 1994. Développement économique et social au Rwanda entre 1980 et 1993. Le dixième décile en face de l’apocalypse. (Economic and Social Development in Rwanda between 1980 and 1999.)
[3] Nduhungirehe, Marie-Chantal. 1995. Les Programmes d’ajustement structurel. Spécificité et application au cas du Rwanda.(Structural Adjustment Programmes: Specificities and Application to the Case of Rwanda.)
[9] http://www.cadtm.org/Rwanda-the-financiers-of-the Article published in 1997: Eric Toussaint, “Rwanda: the Financiers of the Genocide”, 5 p., in Politique, La Revue, Paris, April 1997 (French version).
[10] See Chossudovsky, Michel and Galand, Pierre, The Use of Rwanda’s External Debt (1990-1994). The Responsibility of Donors and Creditors. Preliminary Report. Ottawa and Brussels, November 1996. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403E.html (English version of French original) See also: Chossudovsky, Michel et al. 1995. “Rwanda, Somalie, ex Yougoslavie : conflits armés, génocide économique et responsabilités des institutions de Bretton Woods” (“Rwanda, Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia: armed conflicts, economic genocide and responsibilities of the Bretton Woods institutions”), 12 p., in Banque, FMI, OMC : ça suffit !, CADTM, Brussels, 1995, 182 p. (in French) and Chossudovsky, Michel, “IMF-World Bank policies and the Rwandan holocaust” http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/033.html
[11] These included Genero Ollela of the Lumumbist FLNC, who upon his return to Kinshasa held a position at the Office des biens mal acquis (OBMA). A year later he was put in prison for completely unjust reasons and the CADTM worked toward his release.
[14] CNCD-OPERATION 11.11.11 (Centre national de coopération au développement), Pour une annulation des créances belges sur le République Démocratique du Congo (Toward Cancellation of Belgian-held debt claims over the Democratic Republic of Congo), Brussels, 2002, 34 p.
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).
***
As predicted last year, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S. As reported by Ron Paul in his Liberty Report,1,2 which streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration is “seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system, where Americans who cannot (or will not) prove to the government they have been jabbed with the experimental vaccine will be legally treated as second-class citizens.”
Paul warns that this system “will quickly morph into a copy of China’s ‘social credit’ system, where undesirable behaviors are severely punished.” I’ve been saying the same thing for many months now, and there’s every reason to suspect that this is indeed where we’re headed.
Indeed, listen to Ilana Rachel Daniel’s emotional plea from Jerusalem, Israel, where a “Green Pass” is now required if you want to enter any number of public venues and participate in society.
Daniel, who emigrated from the U.S. to Israel 25 years ago, is a health adviser, activist and information officer for a new political human rights party called Rappeh.
The COVID-19 data simply don’t support the rollout of this kind of draconian measure, as the virus is clearly in decline and has become endemic in most parts of the world. In the absence of a serious, truly massively lethal threat (which COVID-19 isn’t), having to show vaccine papers in order to travel and enter certain social venues is clearly more about imposing top-down government control than actually safeguarding public health.
We’re Looking at the End of Human Liberty in the West
Mandatory vaccine passports will be massively discriminating, and are quite frankly senseless, considering the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines” don’t work like vaccines. They’re designed to lessen symptoms when the inoculated person gets infected, but they do not actually prevent them from getting infected in the first place, and they don’t prevent the spread of the virus.
As such, vaccine passports are nothing but loyalty cards, proving you’ve submitted to being a lab rat for an experimental injection and nothing more, because in reality, vaccinated individuals are no safer than unvaccinated ones. It’s a truly mindboggling ruse, and unless enough people are able to see it for what it is, the world will rather literally be turned into a prison planet.
As noted by former Clinton adviser and author Naomi Wolf (whom I hope to interview in the near future), mandatory COVID-19 passports would spell the “end of human liberty in the West.” In a March 28, 2021, interview with Fox News’ Steve Hilton, she said:3,4
“‘Vaccine passport’ sounds like a fine thing if you don’t understand what those platforms can do. I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data.
Once this rolls out, you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency. Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans.
Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. You credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included.
This has already happened in Israel, and six months later, we’re hearing from activists that it’s a two-tiered society and that basically, activists are ostracized and surveilled continually. It is the end of civil society, and they are trying to roll it out around the world.
It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”
Largest Medical Experiment in the History of the World
As noted by Donald Rucker, who led the Trump Administration’s health IT office, the individual tracking that goes along with the vaccine passport will also help officials to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term safety of the vaccines. He told The Washington Post:5
“The tracking of vaccinations is not just simply for vaccine passports. The tracking of vaccinations is a broader issue of ‘we’re giving a novel biologic agent to the entire country,’ more or less.”
In other words, health officials know full well that this mass vaccination campaign is a roll of the dice. It’s the largest medical experiment in the history of the world, and vaccine certificates will allow them to track all of the millions of test subjects. This alone should be cause enough to end all discussions about vaccine mandates, yet the experimental nature of these injections is being completely ignored.
Again, by shaming people who have concerns about participating in a medical experiment and threatening to bar them from society, government officials are proving that this is not for the greater good. It’s not about public health. It’s about creating loyal subjects — people who are literally willing to sacrifice their life and the life of their children at the request of the government, no questions asked.
Vaccinations Are the New ‘Purity Test’
Wolf also points out the horrific history of IBM, which developed a similar but less sophisticated system of punch cards that allowed Nazi Germany to create a two-tier society and ultimately facilitated the rounding up of Jews for extermination. I will be publishing an entire article about this in a couple of days.
Suffice it to say, some of the most gruesome parts of history are now repeating right before our eyes, and we must not turn away from this ugly truth. Doing so may turn out to be far more lethal than COVID-19 ever was.
The short video above features a 93-year-old Holocaust survivor who compares mask wearing to, as a Jew, having to wear a yellow star to mark their societal status. However, back then, everyone understood what was happening, she says.
At no point were they lied to and told that wearing the star was for their own good, which is what’s happening now. So, in that respect, the current situation is far more insidious. She says the “hypocrisy in the public narrative,” which claims that we need to wear masks to protect the old, “is absolutely unbearable.” “I would love to die in a state [of] freedom,” she says, “than live like this.”
She adds that at her age, her life expectancy is short, and she would gladly exchange her death for the life and happiness of the next generations. She wants the younger generations to have the freedom “to live their lives, as I have lived mine.” “To see people defile their children with masks is something totally unbearable to me,” she says. Vaccine credentials, in my view, are even more comparable to the Jewish yellow star, but in reverse.
Not having the certificate will be the yellow star of our day, which will allow business owners, government officials and just about anyone else, to treat you like a second-class citizen and deny you access to everything from education, work and travel, to recreation, social engagements and daily commerce — all under the false guise of you being a biological threat to all those who have been vaccinated.
According to the public narrative, vaccine certificates are a key aspect of getting life back to normal, but the reality is the complete converse, as they will usher in a markedly different society that is anything but normal.
Florida Bucks the Trend
As a resident of Florida, I must applaud Gov. Ron DeSantis who announced March 29, 2021,6 he will issue an executive order forbidding local governments and businesses from requiring vaccine certificates. He’s further calling on the state legislature to create a measure that will allow him to sign it into law.
“It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society,” he said.
States and countries that do decide on such a requirement are also bound to face the problem of black market vaccination certificates, which have already started emerging.7,8
As reported by the Daily Beast,9,10 a number of health care workers have been caught bragging about forging vaccination cards on their social media channels. Apparently, they have not yet realized the public nature of the internet, but that’s beside the point.
In Florida, a man working at a web design company was fired after posting a TikTok video advertising fake vaccine cards,11 and in Israel, where the two-tier society is already forming, a man was recently arrested for making and selling forged COVID-19 vaccination certificates, which are now required for entry into restaurants, bars, clubs, hotels, swimming pools and other public venues throughout the country.12
Around the world, people are also being arrested for administering fake vaccines13,14,15,16,17 and selling bogus COVID-19 tests.18,19
Eugenics and Hygiene Obsessions
While it’s often considered bad policy to compare anything to the Nazi regime, the comparisons are growing more readily identifiable by the day, which makes them hard to avoid.
Aside from the parallels that can be drawn between mask wearing and/or vaccine “papers” and the Jewish yellow star, there’s the Nazi’s four-step process for dehumanizing the Jews,20 — prejudice, scapegoating, discrimination and persecution — a process that indoctrinated the German people into agreeing with, or at least going along with the plan to commit genocide.
In present day, the public narrative is not only building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, but is also using healthy people as scapegoats from the very beginning, blaming the spread of the virus on asymptomatically infected people.
With the rollout of vaccine certificates, we are stepping firmly into discrimination territory. The last step will entail persecution of non-vaccinated individuals. This in and of itself also harkens back to the Nazi regime, which was obsessed with “health guidelines” that eventually led to the mass-purging of “unclean” Jews. As reported by Gina Florio in a December 2020 Evie Magazine article:21
“When Hitler first came to power in Nazi Germany, he kicked off a series of public health schemes. He started by setting up health screenings all over the country, sending vans around to every neighborhood to conduct tuberculosis testing, etc.
Next up was factory cleanliness — he launched a robust campaign encouraging factories to completely revamp their space, thoroughly clean every corner … After the factories, the next mission was cleaning up the asylums …
What started as seemingly innocent or well-meaning public health campaigns quickly spiraled into an extermination of races and groups of people who were considered dirty or disgusting. In short, the beginning of Hitler’s reign was a constant expansion of who was contaminated and who was impure …
We’re seeing an obsession with covering our faces all the time so we don’t spread disease or deadly germs; most public places we walk into won’t even allow us to enter without slathering our hands in hand sanitizer; and people act terrified of someone who isn’t wearing a mask.
Nobody can say with a straight face that this is normal behavior … We’re even seeing people advocate for some kind of tracking device to show that a person is vaccinated or ‘clean’ enough to enter a venue … Let’s hope we can all learn the lessons from the past and we don’t witness history repeat itself.”
History Is Repeating Itself
Indeed, everyone calling for vaccine certificates — which became part of the public narrative early on in the pandemic — is guilty of following in the well-worn footsteps of this infamous dictator, repeating the very same patterns that were universally condemned after the fall of the Third Reich.
Highlighting them all would be too great a task for one article, so two glaring examples will have to suffice. In December 2020, Andrew Yang, an entrepreneurial attorney with political ambitions, tweeted the following:22
“Is there a way for someone to easily show that they have been vaccinated — like a bar code they can download to their phone? There ought to be … Tough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling.”
Signaling what, if not your “unclean” biohazard state? In his March 2021 Tweet, law professor, political commentator and former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Harry Litman, was more direct about the ill intent behind vaccine certificates, saying:23
“Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down.”
Comments like these demonstrate that vaccine passports are about creating justification for segregation, discrimination and elimination of certain groups of people, in this case, people who don’t want to be part of the experimental vaccine program.
The justification is that they’re too “unclean,” too “unsafe” to freely participate in public society and must therefore be identified and shut out. In reality, it’s really about identifying the noncompliant.
During the Nazi reign, those slated for segregation, discrimination and elimination were identified by their affiliation with Judaism (there’s controversy as to whether Jewishness is an issue of race, ethnicity, religion, national identity or familial bonds, which you can learn more about on JewInTheCity.com,24 but all were relevant criteria in the Nazi’s hunt for Jews).
Today, the global elimination strategy foregoes such identities, and focuses instead on identifying who will go along with the program and who will be a noncompliant troublemaker.
In short, vaccine passports are a device to identify who the loyal subjects of the unelected elite are, and who aren’t. Those unwilling to enter the new world of technocratic rule without a fuss are the ones that need to be eliminated, and willingness to be a test subject for an unproven experimental treatment is the litmus test. It’s really not more complicated than that.
Are You Ready To Be an Outcast?
This is essentially the conclusion drawn by Mike Whitney as well, detailed in a recent article25posted on The Unz Review. I would encourage you to read the entire article as it succinctly summarizes the reasons behind the current censorship. I’ve reached out to Whitney and hope to be able to interview him about this in the near future.
In his article, he points out that behavioral psychologists have been employed by the government to promote the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and maximize vaccine uptake. They also have a “rapid response team” in place to attack the opinions of those who question the “official narrative.”
Mike also highlights a National Institutes of Health report26 titled, “COVID-19 Vaccination Communication: Applying Behavioral and Social Science to Address Vaccine Hesitancy and Foster Vaccine Confidence,” which lays out the intent to turn vaccine refusers into social outcasts as a tool to coerce compliance.
“This is very scary stuff,” Whitney writes.27“Agents of the state now identify critics of the COVID vaccine as their mortal enemies. How did we get here? And how did we get to the point where the government is targeting people who don’t agree with them? This is way beyond Orwell. We have entered some creepy alternate universe …
If behavioral psychologists helped to shape the government’s strategy on mass vaccination, then in what other policies were they involved? Were these the ‘professionals’ who conjured up the pandemic restrictions?
Were the masks, the social distancing and the lockdowns all promoted by ‘experts’ as a way to undermine normal human relations and inflict the maximum psychological pain on the American people?
Was the intention to create a weak and submissive population that would willingly accept the dismantling of democratic institutions, the dramatic restructuring of the economy, and the imposition of a new political order? These questions need to be answered …
Vaccination looks to be the defining issue of the next few years at least. And those who resist the edicts of the state will increasingly find themselves on the outside; outcasts in their own country.”
Will You Obey?
As detailed in “Will You Obey the Criminal Authoritarians?” the 1962 Milgram Experiment (embedded above for your convenience), tested the limits of human obedience to authority, proving most people will simply follow orders, even when those orders go against their own sound judgment. They’ll commit atrocious acts of violence against others simply because they were told it’s OK by an authority figure.
We’ve already seen examples of this during the past year’s mask mandates. Suddenly, people felt empowered to verbally harass, pepper spray and physically attack others simply for not wearing a mask. Families were kicked off planes because their toddlers wouldn’t wear a mask. People were even shot for the grievous “crime” of not wearing a mask.
If those things were allowed to happen over mask wearing, one can only imagine what will be tolerated, if not encouraged, when vaccine certificates take full effect. The most obvious answer is to take a firm stand against devolution into inhumanity, regardless of whether you think COVID-19 vaccinations are a good idea or not. The question is, will you? In many ways, the months and years ahead will test the ethics and humanity of every single one of us.
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.
The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.
In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.
Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is highly concerned by a Statistics Canada publication on hate crimes in Canada which referenced claims from a non-rigorous “audit” on antisemitism by the lobby group B’nai Brith Canada. CJPME is concerned that the inclusion of B’nai Brith’s claims in a Statistics Canada publication not only gives undeserved credibility to a flawed methodology, but also inadvertently perpetuates the false notion that protesting Israel’s human rights abuses is equivalent to hate crimes and antisemitic violence.
In its publication “Police-reported hate crime, 2019,” Statistics Canada showed that according to police-reported metrics, hate crimes targeting the Jewish population decreased by 20% in 2019, albeit remaining at an unacceptably high level. However, Statistic Canada contradicted its own conclusion by comparing it with B’nai Brith Canada’s “Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents” for 2019, noting their finding of “a record number of anti-Semitic incidents for the fourth consecutive year.”
CJPME notes that it is highly unusual for Statistics Canada to highlight studies or claims from non-statistical, non-governmental organizations. In fact, B’nai Brith’s “audit” notes up front that it “focuses on antisemitic incidents that both meet, and fall short of, the Criminal Code definition of a hate crime,” thus making its conclusions incomparable with Statistics Canada data. Moreover, although Statistics Canada made it clear that B’nai Brith’s conclusions differed from its own, it did not explain the discrepancy but instead presented B’nai Brith’s conclusions as a potentially credible alternative.
The apparent endorsement by Statistics Canada of B’nai Brith’s “audit” is troubling due to its methodology, which purposefully conflates horrific incidents of antisemitism and white supremacist violence alongside legitimate political expression about Israel and its violations of human rights. Some of the “incidents” in B’nai Brith’s 2019 audit include a “Boycott Israeli Apartheid” sticker positioned next to Israeli products in grocery stores; a politician expressing concern about a Palestinian lawmaker held indefinitely under Israeli administrative detention; federal funding for a “Muslim Voting Guide” which presented a boycott of Israel in a positive light; and a pro-Palestinian protest against a York University event promoting the Israeli Defense Forces. B’nai Brith’s failure to distinguish between cases like these and incidents involving swastikas or racist slurs, for example, makes its conclusions about overall numbers and trends highly suspect.
CJPME notes that prominent Canadian researchers on antisemitism have pointed out the flaws with B’nai Brith’s methodology. In a recent study, Robert Brym (University of Toronto) and Rhonda Lenton (York University) outline a number of reasons to “temper the alarm generated by the B’nai Brith Canada data,” including that they “lump together under the rubric of antisemitism actions that are clearly antisemitic with various types of action that are critical of Israel.” The study further points to survey-based research from eleven Western countries showing a “comparatively low” degree of correlation between those who hold antisemitic views and those who hold anti-Israel attitudes, providing further evidence why these dimensions should not be conflated. For reasons such as these, CJPME believes that B’nai Brith’s audit should not be listed next to rigorous government-produced data on the Statistics Canada Website, and has reached out asking for a correction. CJPME also argues that B’nai Brith’s audit should be treated with significant skepticism, and not given undue credence by reputable government agencies like Statistics Canada.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Joe Biden lo aveva annunciato nel suo programma elettorale: «Mentre il presidente Trump ha abbandonato alleati e partner, e abdicato alla leadership americana, come presidente farò immediatamente passi per rinnovare le alleanze degli Stati uniti, e far sì che l’America, ancora una volta, guidi il mondo» (il manifesto, 10 novembre 2020). Promessa mantenuta. La portaerei Dwight D. Eisenhower e il suo gruppo di battaglia, composto da 5 unità lanciamissili, hanno «attaccato dal Mediterraneo Orientale postazioni dello Stato Islamico in Siria e Iraq» poiché questo «ha rivendicato un attacco a Palma in Mozambico». Lo comunica ufficialmente la US Navy il 31 marzo, senza spiegare come l’Isis, sconfitto in Siria e altrove soprattutto in seguito all’intervento russo, ricompaia ora minaccioso con sospetta puntualità.
Dopo aver lanciato l’attacco dal Mediterraneo Orientale – area delle Forze navali del Comando Europeo degli Stati uniti, con quartier generale a Napoli-Capodichino – la portaerei Eisenhower ha attraversato il 2 aprile l’appena riaperto Canale di Suez, entrando nell’area del Comando Centrale Usa che comprende il Golfo Persico. Qui si è unita alla portaerei francese Charles de Gaulle che, su richiesta di Washington, ha assunto il 31 marzo il comando della Task Force 50 del Comando Centrale Usa, schierata non contro l’Isis ma in realtà contro l’Iran. Il fatto che Washington abbia chiesto a Parigi di guidare con la sua nave ammiraglia una forza navale Usa rientra nella politica della presidenza Biden, che mantiene comunque il controllo della catena di comando poiché la Task Force 50 dipende dal Comando Centrale Usa.
Lo conferma l’esercitazione Warfighter che, pianificata dall’Esercito Usa, viene effettuata dal 6 al 15 aprile da divisioni statunitensi, francesi e britanniche a Fort Hood e Fort Bliss in Texas, a Fort Bragg in North Carolina, e a Grafenwoehr in Germania. In questa esercitazione, brigate francesi e britanniche operano all’interno di una divisione Usa, mentre brigate Usa operano all’interno di divisioni francesi e britanniche, sempre però secondo il piano Usa. La Warfighter integra la grande esercitazione in corso Defender-Europe 21, che l’Esercito Usa in Europa e Africa effettua fino a giugno insieme ad alleati e partner europei e africani, per dimostrare «la capacità degli Stati uniti di essere partner strategico nei Balcani e nel Mar Nero, nel Caucaso, in Ucraina e Africa».
Partecipa alla Defender-Europe 21 il V Corpo dell’Esercito Usa che, appena riattivato a Fort Knox nel Kentuky, ha costituito il proprio quartier generale avanzato a Poznan in Polonia, da dove comanda le operazioni contro la Russia. Il 31 marzo, su richiesta statunitense, il generale polacco Adam Joks è stato nominato vice-comandante del V Corpo dell’Esercito Usa. «È la prima volta- comunica l’Ambasciata Usa a Varsavia – che un generale polacco entra nella struttura di comando militare degli Stati uniti». In altre parole, il generale Adam Joks continua a far parte dell’esercito polacco ma, quale vice-comandante del V Corpo Usa, dipende ora direttamente dalla catena di comando che fa capo al Presidente degli Stati uniti.
Rientrano nella stessa politica le nuove Brigate di assistenza delle forze di sicurezza, unità speciali dell’Esercito Usa che «organizzano, addestrano, equipaggiano e consigliano forze di sicurezza straniere». Sono impegnate «a sostegno di una legittima autorità di governo» in Medioriente, Asia, Africa, America Latina ed Europa, attualmente nel quadro della Defender-Europe. Esse sono un efficace strumento per lanciare, con la copertura dell’«assistenza», operazioni militari di fatto sotto comando Usa.
Ciò spiega perché, dopo una relativa tregua, il capo di stato maggiore ucraino, Ruslan Khomchak, ha dichiarato il 1° aprile che l’esercito di Kiev «si sta preparando per l’offensiva nell’Ucraina orientale», ossia contro la popolazione russa del Donbass, usando anche «forze di difesa territoriale» (come il reggimento neonazista Azov), e che in tale operazione «è prevista la partecipazione di alleati Nato».
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).
***
Observers are in a passionate debate over what’s really driving the latest Donbass destabilization, with the most prominent hypotheses being either domestic Ukrainian politics or the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions, but the argument can also compellingly be made that the concept of so-called “vaccine nationalism” is playing a largely under-discussed role in events.
The Two Main Hypotheses
Donbass is on the brink of major destabilization once again, yet observers are in disagreement over what’s really driving the latest events. Some believe that domestic Ukrainian politics are to blame and that Kiev’s ruling party aims to provoke a regional crisis in order to distract from its plummeting popularity. Evidence in support of this hypothesis includes the government’s recent witchhunt against opposition figures and its draconian banning of many Russian-language media outlets in the country.
President Zelensky also promulgated a decree late last month which practically declares war on Russia and explicitly threatens Crimea. The other theory about the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions is backed up by the its ominous statement of support for Ukraine as well as Washington’s preexisting motives for destabilizing Moscow’s western periphery, which prompted Russia to promise its own ominously support for its passport holders in the country. Both theories have a lot of truth to them, but they’re missing a crucial component which could complete the strategic picture.
“Vaccine Diplomacy”
That’s the concept of so-called “vaccine nationalism”, which refers to countries’ efforts to promote their COVID-19 vaccines abroad while also sometimes simultaneously thwarting their competitors’ selfsame attempts. In the current context, Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” of exporting Sputnik V across the world to save lives, restore the economy, and also for the supplementary purpose of expanding its multipolar influence is on the brink of a globally game-changing success after Politico reported over the weekend that “More EU Countries Eye Separate Deals With Russia For Sputnik Vaccine”.
It’s against this strategic context that the latest destabilization in Donbass is unfolding. Each side blames one another for provoking it, but an objective assessment of the situation very strongly suggests that neither Russia nor the Russian-friendly rebels of Eastern Ukraine are responsible. After all, they’ve been trying to peacefully implement the Minsk Accords for the past few years, but it’s US-backed Kiev which has obstinately refused to make any tangible progress in this direction, both for domestic nationalist reasons and those related to American regional geostrategic ambitions as was earlier argued. Ukraine is also being crushed by the COVID-19 pandemic but isn’t being provided any real help from its American “ally”, which is why some in the country have looked eastward to Russia for much-needed relief. This inspired me to write about how “Sputnik V Is The Antidote To, Not Russia’s Weapon Of, Hybrid War In Ukraine” at the beginning of the year even though it’s extremely unlikely nowadays that Kiev will agree to cooperate with Moscow in this respect.
The US’ Strategic Failures
Not only has the US failed in its grand strategic goal of “isolating” Russia over the past seven years as seen by Moscow’s successful “balancing” act all across Eurasia that was commenced in response, but it’s also proven itself unable to convince Berlin to sabotage Nord Stream II by incorporating it into the ongoing German Hybrid War on Russia. The Central European country, to its credit, continues to pragmatically engage with Russia on several issues of significance, including Nord Stream II and most recently exploring the possibility of purchasing Sputnik V, though its silence in the face of the latest Donbass destabilization worryingly risks being interpreted as a carthe blanche by Kiev. Nevertheless, the silver lining is that Germany hasn’t condemned Russia for the recent escalations there like others have, and this observation greatly concerns the US. Considering the speed with which Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” is attracting new partners Europe, it can’t be ruled out that the US wants to provoke a crisis in Eastern Ukraine so as to make Russian-EU Sputnik V cooperation politically impossible.
Towards A Russian-EU Rapprochement?
This shouldn’t sound all that surprising to the reader if they take the time to reflect on the insight that was just shared. “Vaccine diplomacy” is the quickest way to enter into strategic partnerships with other states or comprehensively reinforce those that already exist. Russia’s European interests in this respect rest with its desire to gently influence those countries to reduce and then ultimately lift the US-led sanctions regime that was imposed after Crimea’s reunification in 2014. Moscow would also like the European countries to show more consideration for its legitimate security interests by not rolling out the red carpet for NATO’s US-led unprecedented expansion along Russia’s western periphery. These two US-led developments in recent years – sanctions and military expansion – caused a crisis in Russian-EU relations, one for which Brussels bears partial responsibility because it willingly went along with it in response to Washington’s pressure. It didn’t have to do that, and its obsequiousness to American strategic demands made everything much worse.
Russia’s Soft Power Plans
Perhaps the most immediate strategic importance of Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” is that it could win countless hearts and minds in Europe and therefore create a favorable grassroots social environment for facilitating those governments’ eventual lifting of their anti-Russian sanctions and their gradual rolling back of NATO’s US-led military expansion in the region. After all, it might soon be the case that Sputnik V is responsible for saving an untold number of lives in the continent in parallel with facilitating the bloc’s economic reopening, both of which would greatly improve the lives of the EU’s hundreds of millions of citizens. It might be very difficult for those governments to justify their decision to continue “punishing” Russia through economic and military means after Moscow saved them from the worst of WorldWarC‘s ravages, which scares the US to no end since it rightly assumes that this might lead to the irreversible decline of its hegemonic influence there. It thus logically follows that the US has an urgent interest in provoking a crisis to make this scenario politically impossible.
Concluding Thoughts
Putting everything together, it can compellingly be argued that while domestic Ukrainian politics and the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions play very important roles in driving the recent destabilization in Donbass, any discussion of these developments is incomplete without incorporating the influence of “vaccine nationalism”. The US will do whatever it can to prevent Russian-EU Sputnik V cooperation since it fears that this would greatly reduce its hegemonic influence over the continent. Provoking a crisis in Ukraine, which was already boiling for a long time already even before last year’s COVID-19 outbreak, could help advance this agenda by making it politically impossible for the EU to purchase Russia’s vaccines. It would be very challenging for any country to go forward with such plans in the face of unprecedented American pressure to “reconsider” following what they’d be told was so-called “Russian aggression in Ukraine” even though Moscow wouldn’t be responsible for sparking any potential conflict. That could in turn prolong America’s fading hegemony over the EU.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
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.
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).
***
Saudi Arabia is showing genuine concern that Marib could be lost to Ansar Allah, and it is doing all but impossible to defend it.
On April 3rd, media reported that Riyadh had deployed US-made MIM-104 Patriot air-defense systems to Marib, in an attempt to avoid the most negative scenario.
Since 2015, the Houthis (as Ansar Allah are known) have launched 115 ballistic missiles and 140 rockets at Ma’rib city.
The effectiveness of the Patriot defense batteries is questionable, as they failed to protect any of Aramco’s facilities back in 2019.
Also, on April 3rd, the Saudi-led coalition announced that it had thwarted an attack attempt by the Houthis with a booby-trapped boat.
The water-borne Improvised Explosive Device was destroyed off the coast of the town of al-Salif in western Yemen. Saudi-led coalition warships have been targeted repeatedly by such devices throughout the 6 years of the war. G_2(A)
The warships are predominantly used to shell al-Hudaydah, as well as other Houthi positions near the coast.
Saudi Arabia, furthermore, continues its heavy airstrike activity, with at least 17 carried out on April 3rd.
Despite that, the Houthis captured the al-Ahkum area in Hayfan district, southern Yemen. Heavy clashes are continuing in the area near Marib, in the Madghal district.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Russia continues its activities in support of the Damascus government, targeting ISIS terrorists in the central region, as well as the militants in Greater Idlib.
In Central Syria, the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out about 70 airstrikes on ISIS terrorists. At least 15 terrorists were killed in the recent wave of raids.
On April 4th, Russian forces lost their Orlan-10 drone in Greater Idlib, a few kilometers away from the Turkish border. It reportedly crashed as a result of a technical failure. The wreckage was recovered by the militants. In March, Russia lost a Forpost drone, and previously it lost another Orlan-10 drone back in February.
In Northern Syria, the fighting between Turkey, the factions it supports and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces is continuing.
On April 4th, a Turkish combat drone targeted a quarry controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in al-Hasakah. A bulldozer was destroyed.
The SDF are currently being targeted both by Ankara, and by ISIS terrorists due to their activities against the interests of both.
There seems to be a lull in heavy hostilities in Syria, but this is more than likely a calm before the coming storm.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
***
Background
The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights is a postgraduate joint center located in Geneva, Switzerland. The faculty includes professors from both founding institutions and guest professors from major universities. – The Geneva Academy is affiliated with the University of Geneva.
Dr. Nils Melzer has been the Swiss Human Rights Chair (HR Chair) at the Geneva Academy since March 2016. As HR Chair he develops and promotes the Geneva Academy expertise in HR via policy work, cutting-edge research, expert meetings, the development of partnerships and teaching. Since November 2016, Nils Melzer has also been the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
*
Dear Dr. Melzer,
As UN special Rapporteur on Torture, your mandate comprises three main activities:
1) transmitting urgent appeals to States with regard to individuals reported to be at risk of torture, as well as communications on past alleged cases of torture;
2) undertaking fact-finding country visits; and
3) submitting annual reports on activities, the mandate and methods of work to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.
Dr. Melzer, your first mandate as Special Rapporteur on Torture is appealing urgently on States and Nations with regard to individuals that are at risk of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is the case with children, being forced to wearing masks, including in class, physical distancing, as well home schooling, out of touch with their friends and colleagues, but forced to be repeatedly covid tested in schools with the hurtful RT-PCT test (RT-PCT = reverse transcription of the polymerase chain reaction). A case in point – though not exclusive – is Switzerland, where cantonal authorities are compelling schools to periodically test children from as young as Kindergarten to pre-college level.
Children’s mask wearing (as well as for senior adults) causes chronic headaches and fatigue, because blood and brain receive insufficient oxygen which may lead to lasting damage, including memory loss. Children suffer psychological traumas. Depression and suicide rates increase exponentially.
At the same time, children are increasingly being coerced via teachers and community authorities to be vaccinated against Covid-19, even though the mRNA-type “vaccines” almost the only so-called vaccines available in Europe and the US, are not officially considered as “vaccines” by CDC, but “experimental gene therapies,” i.e. primarily the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnsons and Johnson and a number of other GAVI-supported COVAX injections, or so-called vaccines.
Dr. Melzer, this is an Urgent Appeal – to save Human Rights for children around the world from cruel and inhuman covid measures applied to them, including to adolescents and young adults, measures that have nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with health protection but everything with oppression towards long-term slavery, and yes, a systematic and massive-style depopulation.
You recently said correctly and wisely “Sadly, today, torture remains a very real part of situations of conflict and violence”. What many of the 193 UN member governments are forcing their children to go through is a form of torture, especially considering their potential – and likely – long-term effects – see again the report of Doctors for Covid Ethics.
You added, that you won’t be able to:
“save the world single-handedly as a Special Rapporteur, ….. that there are hundreds of stakeholders – organizations, NGO’s, UN agencies and individual experts – who have been working on torture issues for decades. [However], a Special Rapporteur’s independence means I can pick up issues that have remained under the radar of the international community, bring them to the table and try to drive cooperation.”
Dear Dr. Melzer, what I described before as cruel and inhuman acts against children, akin to torture, is one of those issues you mentioned. Therefore, my quest today – my Appeal to you, as Human Rights Representative – is to please pick up the issue of Covid-based Human Rights abuses on the world population, but particularly on children.
What the absurd covid measures do to the world is a crime, but what they are doing to children is beyond a crime; it is totally immoral, destructive for our powerless children, and for the future of these children, as well as for society as a whole, as children are our societies’ future. And worse of all, these measures have nothing to do with health protection – but absolutely nothing. They are sheer tyranny to control.
Children behind masks, social distancing, locked-down, remote schooling — deprived from meeting, talking and playing with their peers, friends, instead scaring them into losing their personalities, their self-assurance and self-esteem – results not only in a physical health problem, but also a psychological health issue which over time has untold, uncountable collateral damage, including total submissiveness for today’s children.
Our children are vulnerable – they are our future.
They need their Human Rights defended.
Dear Dr. Melzer – please speak up for them, at the UN, at UNICEF, in front of the 193 UN member governments, which follow all more or less the same insane covid narrative, the same covid Human Rights abuse – and especially the same Human Rights abuse on children.
Thank you.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
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).
***
Carrying all of the attributes of a globalized unconventional war to affect “regime-change”, the war on Syria has polarized the regional and international landscape perhaps more than any other conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc three decades ago. A good part of that polarization still revolves around the “meaning” of a decade of ongoing death, destruction, displacement, and despair in Syria today.
The narratives of the Syrian War couldn’t have been so diametrically opposed, with an anti-Syrian axis trying to impose, through its omnipotent presence, a self-serving version of events. Only this concoction of international and regional villains has had a historically proven record of occupation, interventionism, covert operations, and reactionary proclivities. Therefore, its charade of humanitarianism and liberal rhetoric goes not only against its quintessential grain, but against the very facts on the ground, namely: 1) their active support of terrorist, takfiri, and secessionist groups in Syria, be they local or imported from outside Syria, 2) their imposition of a criminal blockade on Syrians in those parts of the country which are not controlled by terrorist, takfiri, or secessionist mobs, that is, on most of Syria, 3) their pillage and plunder of natural resources in occupied parts of Syria, and 4) their launching of military strikes against the Syrian Arab Army and/or its allies, that is, against the only bulwark standing between terrorist, takfiri, and secessionist hordes on one hand, and Syria on the other.
Image on the right: Dr. Ibrahim Alloush (Source: Mark Taliano)
Moving back and forth between personal eyewitness testimonies and a broader objective contextualization of the Syrian conflict, “Voices from Syria” debunks disinformation about Syria with primary personal accounts, evidence, documentation, common sense, and sheer reason.
While deconstructing the fallacies shrouding the Syria War with lies and innuendos, “Voices from Syria” tells the story of a gruesome case-study of a Fourth Generation Warfare in progress, its mind games, and overlapping theaters of mayhem. As such, Mark Taliano proceeds agilely to link this particular case-study with two important catalysts without which it cannot possibly be understood: 1) global strategies to subjugate independent states to an overarching matrix of hegemony, i.e., imperialism, 2) the dark forces lurking in the deep recesses of that matrix, i.e., international financial capital, and its links to its facades, and its regional and local proxies, be they state or non-state actors.
So in the end, “Voices from Syria” becomes a case-study of the use of local and foreign terrorists, foreign-financed NGO’s, massive disinformation campaigns, and regional allies in conducting asymmetrical warfare to subdue and tear an independent state asunder, in conjunction with standard tools from the imperialist toolkit like occupation and selective military strikes by the US government and NATO allies.
In terms of literary style, “Voices from Syria” is both personal enough to convey the suffering of the Syrians living through the calamities of the war on their country in their own voices, and general enough to tie that suffering into the wars on Iraq and Libya and the occupation of Palestine, that is, into imperialist designs for the region as a whole.
In the process, Mark Taliano emerges as an unconventional leftist, who uses his analytical tools to explore the topology of real contradictions on the ground, and to pick his side accordingly. The point, after all, is to be anti-imperialist, if one is to be progressive at all. Alas, this is precisely the point too often missed by the liberal leftists who end up storefront preachers for imperialism.
Especially in the 21st Century, pro-imperialists sometimes adopt leftist jargon, and those actually bearing the full brunt of the resistance against imperialist hegemony may sometimes seem too far removed from anything progressive by the standards of Western leftists. Not being able to discern which stances are effectively anti-imperialist and which are not has been the downfall of too many a leftist. Mark Taliano is one of the select few who do NOT make that mistake. He is able to stay open to the nuances of the local culture without preconceived Euro-centric 19th Century notions. This enabled him to see the alignment of forces on the ground as they actually are. Reading reality rigorously is what it is all about. In this case, “Voices from Syria” presents the reality of the war on Syria better than anything one can find in the mainstream.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
The pdf version of the Second Edition will shortly be available for purchase online at Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
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).
***
Crimea
Crimea held a referendum on March 16, 2014 and 89% of the Crimean citizens voted in favour of integration into the Russian federation, a referendum which started the provocations of the European Union (EU) against Russia. The Crimean peninsula is located on the northern coast of the Black Sea and has strong historical, economic, military and cultural ties with Russia. Crimea’s strategic importance for Russia is well known to the EU. A bridge between east and west so to speak. Crimea always was part of Russia, until Sovjet leader Nikita Khrushchev (Ukrainian) decided to give it away as a sort of present to Ukraine. In 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR. The majority of the citizens of Crimea are etnic Russians and also, Sevastopol, the capital of Crimea is a strategically important port and naval base throughout history. The city has been a home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Since 2014, the EU is trying to use the minority Tatar community of Crimea to be part of the hybrid war, or trying to provoke a color revolution in Crimea. In 1944, at the end of WWII the ethnic Tatar population was expelled from parts of Crimea, because many members of its community collaborated with the German NAZI‘s. But the last twenty-five years, they gradually returned to Crimea, a reconciliation process has been conducted, the Western media and governments don‘t mention this in their news outlets, just saying that the Tatars were expelled, without giving a proper reason, or the historical context behind it.
Ukraine
Ukraine is the most important conflict and the main motif in provoking a conflict. In 2014 the EU and US conducted a color revolution, which has been called in the so-called history books of the EU, the Maidan (square) uprising. The color-revolution was partly funded by George Soros, who is the biggest sponsor of the EU and carried out by Victoria Nuland (US), Senator John McCain (+) of the US, Hans van Baalen (Dutch EU) and Guy Verhofstad (Belgium ex-prime minister EU). Unfortunately, a successful coup, whereas the Ukranian people didn‘t benefit from until now. Ukraine plunged in a bloody civil war, the eastern regions of Lughansk and Donetsk didn‘t want to bow for the Kiev (EU) regime and declared their autonomous status.
Decree to re-take Crimea
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on March 24, 2021 signed a document that you will not read about in the Western mainstream media. The decree that he signed makes it clear that Ukraine intends to re-take Crimea. Of course, Russia will never hand over Crimea because it‘s legally (since the 2014 referendum) Russian territory and so Ukraine can only take the peninsula by force, with the help of NATO. This decree is, in effect, a declaration of war against Russia. Zelensky would never have signed such a document or decree without the approval of the Biden government and EU. The Russian Federation is taking the current situation very seriously, while Western media and governments speak of “Russian aggression“. What most people in the West don’t know is that fighting has already broken out in eastern-Ukraine. The ceasefire that has been in effect since July 2020 has already been violated hundreds of times, in the past week. According to various news outlets Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that any attempts to start a new military conflict in Ukraine’s east could end up destroying Ukraine.
Ukraine’s military announced that it will hold joint military drills with NATO and British troops, the so-called Cossack Mace 2021 exercise. The exercise will involve more than 1,000 military personnel from at least five NATO member states. Furthermore, In 2021, Ukraine will host the Ukrainian-US exercises Rapid Trident 2021 and Sea Breeze 2021, the Ukrainian-British drills Cossack Mace 2021 and Warrior Watcher 2021, the Ukrainian-Romanian exercises Riverine 2021, and the Ukrainian-Polish drills Three Swords 2021 and Silver Sabre 2021. A real provocation and threat to the Russian Federation, although it‘s called exercise, all part of the hybrid war waged upon Russia.
Belarus
In June 2020, the EU in collaboration with the US and the deep state (Soros) was trying to conduct a color revolution in Belarus. Belarus is known as the last dictatorship in Europe, according to the Western and especially Dutch media. The tiny country of the Netherlands is playing a crucial role in the EU and the British (Atlantic Council) intelligence service. The Dutch embassy in Minsk initiated two programs: the Human Rights Fund and the Netherlands Fund for Regional Partnership called Matra (NFRP – MATRA). In principle, the Dutch Embassy was giving grants up to a maximum of € 50.000. The goal was to indoctrinate the youth, by organizing classes to force upon them the Western style doctrine of Human Rights, LGBTI and so on. Besides the Netherlands, it was funded by George Soros, who is known as “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England” because of his short sale of US $10 billion worth of pounds sterling, which made him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis. He is trying to manipulate the world through his Open Society Foundation.
Why a Color Revolution in Belarus? Not, of course, to bring democracy. Belarus is strategically the only obstacle for NATO and the EU. Belarus borders Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and of course Russia. This will give NATO and the EU the possibility to come “closer“ to Russia and be able to station NATO troops along its borders. The attempted coup d‘etat failed, because of the bad pick of a new so-called opposition member Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a schoolteacher without knowledge of politics or ruling a country, which is exactly the purpose of the West – install a puppet regime and control the country. The goal was to mobilise youth, blind them with a lot of promises, so-called freedom and better life, then send them, as learned at the Dutch embassy and NGO‘s classes, on the street to confront the government of Lukashenko. This failed, the numbers were not high enough and Russia stood behind Belarus, a country which has more in common like history and culture with Russia than the EU.
Conclusion
Until now we could speak, as from 2007, when President Putin held his famous Munich speech, warning that Russia is on the road to become a part of the multipolar world, Russia indeed has become part of the multipolar world. The hybrid war intensified in 2014, the hybrid warfare on Russia from Western countries (EU-NATO-US) has a long history. But since the COVID-19 pandemic, which is used as a political tool in Western EU countries, the hybrid war can easily turn into a real conventional war, with the threat of using nuclear arms. Coming weeks or days are crucial for the peace and stability for the world. Let‘s hope the West will use it‘s common sense of not plunging into a conventional war, which will be destructive for mankind.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
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).
***
Hamas has been a strongly maligned actor within the western mainstream media. The concise and well written “Engaging the World” by Daud Abdullah presents a clear picture of Hamas’ attempts to act as an international state actor while at the same time continuing its role as a liberation movement against Israeli occupation. It is a very honest work, describing Hamas’ success in presenting a critical pragmatic formulation of its actions for other state actors, at the same time indicating where it has not succeeded, through its own relative political weakness in relation to considerable outside influences.
Starting positions
Above all it is not a polemical work attacking Israel or highlighting the history of Israel transgressions but limits itself strictly to what is indicated in the title. It examines foreign policy, Hamas’ attempts, successful and otherwise, to present its position to other countries. Yes, it does indicate its obvious position as considering “Israel in Palestine as a manifestation of European colonialism, acknowledging that the Zionist enterprise in Palestine could never have succeeded without western political and military support.”
Abdullah goes on to indicate that Hamas is “not attempting to establish a religious state or theocracy….it is seeking a civil state with an Islamic framework of reference through which the executive can be held accountable to the people.” Having identified those two large encompassing positions, the book proceeds to examine how Hamas has attempted to be both idealistic and realistic at the same time, a rational actor in its attempts to pursue its relationships with outside political entities.
Much of that is regional as Hamas “sought to avoid involvement in disputes between competing regional alliances” a not easy task when Arab countries tend to have strong internal conflicts and disputes (e.g. Iraq invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia against Yemen, Qatar et al). Hamas reaches much farther abroad than its neighbours, engaging with the rest of the world.
Oslo
One position they do not accept – an internal one – is that of the PLO and its armed wing Fatah, considered to have been co opted through the Oslo process and and subsequent manipulation by the western community in its actions as being the enforcement police acting for the Israelis. The second chapter, “Rejecting the call to Oslo” outlines Hamas initiative to “situate the movement within the framework of international law….to enhance the international legitimacy of the movement…allowing it to reserve the right to accept or reject proposals or resolutions that did not uphold the rights of the Palestinian people.”
One of the more intriguing incidents is presented in chapter 3, “Opportunities from Marj az Zuhur” something I was vaguely familiar with but obviously had not recognized its importance before reading this section. This history indicates how significant the PLO – Hamas split was, how the Arab League operated with double standards, how for Israel it was “ill conceived and destined to fail,” but for Hamas it was a turning point that “evoked the solidarity of people across religious and political divides.”
2006 and Gaza
A brief examination of “Relations with the USA” leads directly into another highly significant chapter and a major turning point, “The 2006 elections and the trial of democracy”. It was this sequence of events which “highlighted all the posturing and pretence involved in the U.S. portrayal of itself as a champion of democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
Abdullah recognizes that for “failing to see and avoid the trap that was set for them…both organizations [Hamas and the PLO] are responsible.” However at the same time, Hamas’ position was strengthened “because its political leaders were seen as competent, open, untarnished by corruption and unwilling to compromise their ideals.” Since then, Israel has militarily attacked the Gaza enclave three times against all standards of humanitarian and war law.
Beyond…
The rest of the record examines Hamas’ relationships with the European Union, the global south, Russia, and China, all a mixture of successes and resistance. It ends with an interesting account of Hamas’ interactions with the government of Syria and other Syrian leaders during the protests and civil war in Syria. Syria had been one of the strongest supporters of Hamas but the difficult situation in Syria proved too difficult for Hamas to negotiate its way through. It was viewed as “an internal problem” that hopefully “no foreign powers would have an excuse to interfere in their internal affairs.”
Contentions
Perhaps, as with most historical accounts, current events do not fit well within most people’s perspectives. There are two points, both intersecting with the U.S. and its allies, that fit within this possibly ‘too close for a good view’ perspective. First is the apparent view that Syria’s problems were internal – yes, they were, but they were also seriously aggravated by U.S. interference along with its regional allies, notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and of course Israel. It is noted that “A bloody civil war ensued.” And again, yes it did, but highly influenced, highly interfered with by the just mentioned adversaries to the Assad government.
The second item I have difficulty with is the argument that “Although the right to armed struggle is upheld in UN Resolutions 2955 and 3034 of December 1972, the stronger trend in contemporary relations is for disputes to be resolved peacefully.” The counterpoint to this is a simple examination of U.S. foreign policy, its use of extremist forces to do much of their work, to use both covert and overt actions to influence and overthrow a wide variety of non-obliging governments, and the current use of economic sanctions to strangle the economy of whatever country they deem offensive to their privileges.
Conclusion
Neither of these two points refutes the overall position of Hamas – it means that perhaps in another few years, these events may take on a different meaning. In the closing Abdullah acknowledges that internal weaknesses need to be addressed, and “Ultimately, the greatest losses from the rift have accrued neither to Hamas nor Fatah but to the Palestinian national project.”
For the future, Abdullah recognizes that Hamas may have to face “realities on the ground” that may affect their favoured policy of non-alignment on the international scene. He recognizes that “Palestine…no longer seems to be a central issue for many regional governments,” while at the same time “Palestine remains one of the great moral and political issues of our time; it unites people everywhere.”
He sees that the “international community moves towards a multipolar world”, an indicator that both my contention about U.S. foreign policy and the need for a political realignment “contributing to the formation of new global alliances,” have actually been recognized and acknowledged.
A necessary read
“Engaging the World: The Making of Hamas’s Foreing Policy” deserves to be read by anyone interested in foreign affairs, in particular the MiddleEast (which admittedly affects most of the world). It should serve as a guide for any academic programs that contends to be about international affairs, foreign policy, or any other formulation of geopolitical interests. At the same time it is readily accessible to any other interested reader and while some background information on the overall history of the region is helpful, “Engaging the World” can also stand alone as an introduction to events in the Middle East.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
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).
***
On March 24th, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.
The declaration that Ukraine would take back Crimea from Russia also followed, and was perhaps instigated by, President Biden’s inflammatory and foolish statement that “Crimea is Ukraine.”
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a chief architect of the US-backed coup against Ukraine in 2014, continued egging on the Ukrainians, promising full US support for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine. Many Americans wonder why they are not even half as concerned about the territorial integrity of the United States!
Not to be outdone, at the beginning of this month US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin – who previously served on the board of missile-maker Raytheon – called his counterpart in Ukraine and promised “unwavering US support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.” As the US considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, this is clearly a clear green light for Kiev to take military action.
Washington is also sending in weapons. Some 300 tons of new weapons have arrived in the past weeks and more is on the way.
As could be expected, Moscow has responded to Zelensky’s decree and to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Kiev and Washington by re-positioning troops and other military assets closer to its border with Ukraine. Does anyone doubt that if the US were in the same situation – for example, if China installed a hostile and aggressive government in Mexico – the Pentagon might move troops in a similar manner?
But according to the media branch of the US military-industrial-Congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more “Russian aggression.”
The unhinged US “experts” behind the 2014 coup against the elected Ukrainian president are back in power and they are determined to finish the job – even if it means World War III! The explicit US backing of Ukraine’s military ambitions in the region are a blank check to Kiev.
But it is a check that Kiev would be wise to avoid cashing. Back in 1956 the US government pumped endless propaganda into Hungary promising military backing for an uprising against its Soviet occupiers. When the Hungarians, believing Washington’s lies, did rise up they found themselves all alone and facing Soviet retaliation.
Despite the cruel US propaganda, at least Eisenhower was wise enough to realize that no one would benefit from a nuclear war over Budapest.
Why is it any of our business whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or part of Russia? Why is it any of our business if the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine prefer being aligned with Russia?
Why, for that matter, are unproven allegations of Russian meddling in our elections a violation of the “rules-based international order” but an actual US-backed coup against an elected Ukrainian government is not?
We are seeing foreign policy made by Raytheon and the other US military contractors, through cut-outs in government like Austin and others. Feckless US foreign policy “experts” believe their own propaganda about Russia and are on the verge of taking us to war over it.
It seems as if Americans are sleepwalking through this dangerous minefield. Let us hope they soon wake up before we’re all blown up.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
